JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
- Translator
- ZAIHON, Inc. (日本財務翻訳株式会社), Tokyo
- Salary: ¥6.0M / Year Negotiable
-
- Assistant Language Teacher (ALT) in Kanto region
- RCS (RCSコーポレーション), Kanto
- Salary: ¥180,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month includes performance bonus
-
- Assistant Language Teacher - TOKYO - late-March start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥230,000 ~ ¥255,000 / Month
0
tigermoth
'on the but' should be on the bus of course. Although I was on by butt on the bus.
Posted in: 2 million Americans lose jobless benefits as holiday season arrives
0
tigermoth
While I do not doubt that many are jobless and the whole unemployment thing a horrible mess, I also wonder what percent cannot find jobs, and what percent will not take the jobs that are available. And this has much to do with our society and the undeniable fact that Americans (myself very much included) are somewhat spoiled and entitled in this day and age. What I'm getting at is - what is the actual jobless rate due to people not being able to find a job, as compared to the jobless rate where people simply will not take the jobs that are available because they involve undesirable work and low pay? I'm not saying this from a right-wing 'those people are just too lazy to work' attitude, but rather what I've experienced myself, and have witnessed through friends and observation.
I was unemployed about eight years ago for a stretch because the start-up company I worked for couldn't make it. My unemployment benefits were higher than many jobs I found, so it prolonged my unemployment. I have a good friend who has been unemployed for almost a year. He was a drug rep (no, not a drug dealer - well, the legal kind anyway) with a 60K salary. He lost his job because of the economy but refuses to take anything less, or at least substantially less than what he was making - which excludes him from just about anything in the area where he lives. I can't tell you how many times on the but or the train I've heard people say - they're hiring at McDonald's or some place equally as horrible, but then quickly ad 'but I wouldn't do that!'.
During the great depression we had the formerly comfortable quite literally selling apples or pencils on the street corner, and lots of folks tramped off to CCC camps to work for little more than three hot meals a day. Fast-forward to today where we hire cheap immigrant labor to do the jobs most of us do not wish to do. I see a fair amount of job openings posted in the city in which I live - just not jobs that pay tremendously well. How many people are unemployed simply because they will not take lower paying jobs or are 'holding out' for something in their chosen profession?
To topic, the hold-outs then use up benefit monies that could be used by those who truly cannot find jobs. And yes, I realize people pay into the system for unemployment insurance to receive such benefits - but my friend the drug rep had job offers in retail sales and driving delivery trucks that he refused. He could be working and getting by. I just wonder how many others are in similar situations. The unemployment rate is high, but is it made worse by American entitlement?
Posted in: 2 million Americans lose jobless benefits as holiday season arrives
0
tigermoth
Yes - Bush isn't running in 2012
Posted in: Bush memoir sells 220,000 copies on first day
0
tigermoth
which they in fact - are not; wish this bloody thing had an edit function.
Posted in: Bush memoir sells 220,000 copies on first day
0
tigermoth
Admittedly I don't think GB ever professed to be a Rhodes Scholar, but contrary to your comment I think it takes a wise man to know when perhaps it's best to lay low and keep quiet. Quite often it is those who know when to shut up that prove much more intelligent and insightful than those that never will.
As far as intelligence testing goes, I think that's highly overrated. Some of the smartest people I know might not score so high on an IQ test, but have a sense about them that transcends 'book learning'. Conversely, some of the dumbest people I know have several papers hanging on their walls claiming them to be nothing short of brilliant - which they in fact are. A nuclear physicist might be 'smarter' than a mountain man, but which one will survive a month alone in the woods? Sorry, perhaps a bit too metaphysical, but you get my point.
Posted in: Bush memoir sells 220,000 copies on first day
0
tigermoth
Mr.Dog are you seriously asking this question? It all seems innocent enough; 'we're at war with the terrorists, we must give up some of our civil/basic human/decency rights to "protect us". Shrug a shoulder and don't give it a thought. Until the stakes go up, and up, and up - and pretty soon you are living in a police state. Oh, it's to 'protect you brother' so no worries. There is some truth to the old 'first they came for my neighbor....(Google it if you haven't heard it before). The 'State' is famous for taking away liberties of the citizenry 'for their protection'. Usually you never get those freedoms back, and it only gets worse. Yes, it's only being searched to get on an airplane - but what's next? And for what?
A group of third world murderers get 'lucky' and kill a bunch of Americans, so now we sh*t-can the constitution and our civil rights so that the government can keep us safe. Right. Never heard that one before. I'd rather keep my freedoms and risk being blown to smithereens thank you. Although as one poster stated, if the cavity searches could be done by hot females....
Posted in: Scanners and pat-downs upset airline passengers in U.S.
0
tigermoth
I think it's an erroneous assumption to conclude that President Obama's low approval rating (and recent rebuke in the last round of elections) is solely due to his inability to bring the country out of the economic mess it currently finds itself. It's all part and partial, but there are other dynamics. I should think that the whole tea party thing exemplified this to a large degree.
Most thinking Americans (and despite what many of you who lean to the left and presume a natural predilection for genius seem to think, many on the right do think, and do so quite brilliantly) realize that there is no magic wand to cure what ails us. But these same thinking Americans are equally puzzled how spending huge amounts in a so-called 'stimulus package' which appears to have stimulated nothing in the realm of what was projected or hoped may not be the approach that is best for America. Neither is ramming through legislation with closed-door politics that is designed to press home a personal agenda that is also not in the way of thinking of many Americans. In short, it's not only how you get to an end, or even how quickly you get to that end - but how you accomplish this end result in the process. While you see that as obstructing policies that you, your party and your candidate favor, I think it's quite refreshing to see that the American people can still be roused to put paid to what they see as bad politics in a direction unintended for this democracy to go. Yes we need to move forward, but the American people don't seem to agree that the current administration has the right plan to get us there.
To point - so the moderators don't delete this - a President's approval rating with the American people can be measured by the character of the man as well as his policies and how he enacts them. Personally I don't think the sitting President has shown the type of character I wish the leader of this country to have. And yes, obviously they didn't see this in Bush either, but there is a stark difference between the man who believes the country is his agenda, and the one who believes his agenda should mold the nation.
Posted in: Bush is back, and eager to help history judge him
0
tigermoth
That exists?
15 year old Aberlour as we speak. Again, great to read your thoughts.
Thank you Madverts. Politics with honour - I think it existed for a few days anyway. Went the way of the Dodo and honest, real newspaper reporters.
Posted in: GOP investigators take aim at health care overhaul
0
tigermoth
This is a stupid, cyclic argument. There is certain infrastructure that is necessary, and I don't mind my taxes going for that. Trouble is they go for a lot of other crap that is ill thought out and just moronic - such as your health care bill. Paying to be protected by the armed forces or having a street to drive on is entirely different than paying for joe blow who doesn't wish to participate in my capitalistic society to lay on his back-side and get free health care. Sorry this offends you.
Without meaning or trying to sound xenophobic at all, how do you know this if you don't live here? I live in NY and our taxes are the second highest I believe behind California. But NY and Houston are (assuming your talking about NYC) larger cities and different animals from a tax perspective than living in many other places in the country. I'll give it to you in Canada that your health care system seems to function a bit better than the European model, but you do pay high taxes and wait a bit longer to be seen by doctors - from what I've read. I lived in upstate NY for a stretch and all the Canadians from Montreal come to the US to buy things for that simple reason.
Posted in: GOP investigators take aim at health care overhaul
0
tigermoth
Ah Madversts I miss the days of a cordial bond of honour made with a firm handshake and perhaps sealed with a drink of good faith. You'd be surprised what a good single malt like Laphroaig can do (and if you haven't tried this do). Were there too many days of politics with honour?
Posted in: GOP investigators take aim at health care overhaul
0
tigermoth
Ah, and therein lies a part of the problem. I have good insurance, so I don't need the provisions of the bill. BUT I have to pay for the provisions in the bill. And likely I have to pay in a multi-faceted way. Most of the democratic elected officials who voted for this legislation likely would have no ideas the ways in which we will pay, as it was shown that most didn't read the bill.
The obvious way is taxes. These won't really kick in until the tenants of the bill get going in a few years. But there will be higher taxes to help pay for this bill.
The second way is increased rates. Can anyone say for certain that my rates will not increase eventually based upon the passage of this bill? I do find it odd that in the past six years I've had this plan it has gone up on average $5 per pay period each year; this one is slated for a $47 increase per pay period. Perhaps no relation, but who can say?
The third is quality of care. You folks like to tout the European models. Fair enough, but I have a lot of friends in Britain and all I hear are horror stories about the tremendous waits for care. Now we can walk into any ER or 'fast track' type of situation and be seen almost immediately. Not so in the European model from what I understand. Yes, our doctors have been highly paid and as a lucrative position, the best and brightest are attracted into the ranks. With a more 'socialized' model this doesn't seem to be the case. Suddenly our 'cutting edge' technology and expertise becomes, well, dulled. One of my closest friends in London just took her mother-in-law to Italy for a surgery she need to save her life; couldn't get it in time in England. Brought her grandson to the States for treatment as the best doctors are here. Hmmm. Interesting that.
So for the good coverage I have, I can pay more, pay more taxes and have crappier medical care. I don't like this, and you wonder why?
But - as a good liberal - you say, you are helping your fellow man who is less fortunate than you! How can you not wish to? What kind of monster are you? Well, I'm a practical monster, a capitalist (wasn't this the system behind our freedoms?)and call me stingy for thinking as such, but more interested in my kids eating and going to school rather than someone else I don't know. In fairness, I doubt that they would put their hard-earned money in my or my child's pocket.
Liberals, and particularly far leaning liberals with a socialist bent (which is very many of you - and it amuses me greatly to hear the howls of protest due to your fear of being labeled as such - c'mon, fess up and don't be ashamed) see the world through their particular brand of rose coloured glasses. The have-nots are all decent, hard working people who just cannot get ahead or get a break, mainly because 'the man' ('evil Republican', white man, rich man, corporate mogul, military imperialist - insert your villain of choice) will not let them do so. They need help and we must save them. There is an old expression about 'the Lord helps those who help themselves' but let's not cloud the issue with an even slightly religious quip. But truly, how many of these people are the 'have nots' from personal choice rather than any ill-doings by the evil 'man', or those who find themselves in such positions due to very poor choices? How many of these 50 million - a number that I too think must be a great exaggeration, but for the sake of argument, let's say it's 50 million then - don't have insurance from personal choice? I can think of few legal jobs that don't offer access to at least some type of reduced cost health coverage. Is it that they cannot afford it, or is it that they cannot afford cartons of smokes and cases of poorly brewed beer that I see flying out of the local convenience stores, purchased by these 'have nots'? Despite what people try to imply, you succumb to addiction, it is not forced upon you. True, once it's there it will not let go. But the initial choice is your own.
So what am I getting at? Do some studies. Tell me how many people don't have health care coverage because they are working hard but just cannot afford to do it. Contrast this with those who won't work, jump on the disability, medicaid, medicare bandwagon, those who just won't pay the price for coverage, etc. etc. I'm not a rich man. I work my arse off for what's in my wallet - which isn't much. I don't take fancy vacations, have expensive cars, and couldn't afford cigarettes even if I chose to be so afflicted. And I'm the average American who you are trying to sell this to. Now you want to take money from my pocket to pay for other folks to have something that I myself pay bi-monthly for. You ram this legislation down my throat without so much as an opening dance, handshake or good shot of whiskey. And you wonder why some want to repeal such legislation. You tell me why I should want this? Telling me it's my social responsibility sounds like so much self-righteous rubbish to me.
Posted in: GOP investigators take aim at health care overhaul
0
tigermoth
Should have said 'Clinton couldn't keep it in his trousers'.
Posted in: Bush is back, and eager to help history judge him
0
tigermoth
Taka
Sorry Taka - Dr. Seuss gives me less of a headache than what you wrote there. They yanked my other comment for as usual inexplicable reasons so I cannot even recall what I said. Quite obviously you think GB a liar. Fair enough - so is every other politician/president; seems to be in their nature. Trust me, your boy is no less of one.
Again I say - so what? Grant was a drunk, Likely so were several others. Clinton could keep it in his trousers. They're human as are we all. I don't think it is necessarily certain characteristics that make a person 'electable'. Sometimes it's personality or the lack thereof of the opposition. Al Gore had no personality, so GB beat him (I know, questionably some will say). But he one a second term didn't he - if all you liberals were so sure he's the anti-christ and he was so horrible, how come you couldn't get enough of you out to vote him out? You got enough folks to vote Obama in, despite his being a Junior Senator with absolutely no experience for the job. Again, there was no one worthwhile running against him. American politics has too often involved voting for the perceived less of two evils.
What does that have to do with anything? Half the family was tragically killed, so give him the benefit of the doubt? You can do better than that lame excuse. How about taking into consideration that Joe Sr. was a defeatist with alleged nazi sympathies while ambassador in Britain before we entered the war. I know - off topic; just answering a comment.
Worst President ever? My nod will still go to carter, but the current one has a few years to go, so who knows?
Posted in: Bush is back, and eager to help history judge him
0
tigermoth
I love how some jump on the fact that he liked to drink in his youth. Many of you on here would not hesitate to go out this weekend and get loaded with friends. It's what non-prudish adult (and sometimes not so adult) people do, particularly in our western culture. The President is supposed to be an elected representative of the people, not an angel. Few of us haven't done the same thing or something similar. You all forgave Teddy K for killing a woman in his car while drunk. He was practically up for Sainthood when he offed it, but oooh the evil George Bush drank in his youth which shows his low moral standing. Hypocrisy knows no bounds, does it?
Posted in: Bush is back, and eager to help history judge him
0
tigermoth
Perhaps a thing called class and responsibility prevent him from doing so. But don't worry, the American people will blame much on Obama before his time is done - who will continue to blame it all on Bush.
Hmmm. Something that idiot Carter should subscribe to.
The past has shown that no matter how badly a former President is seen at the time of his administration, time has a way of changing things. Dick Nixon was essentially a crook, despite is denials, but I recall when he died there was talk of what a great President and man he really was (yes, his foreign policy was awesome). JFK wasn't president long enough to do much; the Soviets almost had missiles in our backyard, and the Bay of Pigs fiasco - but he's seen as a god since he took a bullet. Carter was/is the worst we've had, but he builds a few homes for the needy and the Libs still think he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. I think George will be fine.
Posted in: Bush is back, and eager to help history judge him
0
tigermoth
Agree - I have no problems with her, and seems to be doing a fine job.
Posted in: Obama, GOP talk compromise, conflict
0
tigermoth
It's blind hate, imperiousness in the 'we know more than you; you're stupid' way they see themselves and the self-righteousness that their way is the only true and correct way. The erroneous belief they try to push that the only time America is ever successful is when a Democrat is in charge. And damn you to the nether regions if you don't agree whole-heartedly with them. They speak for the people. Well, guess what - I think you were just shown that in fact you do not speak for the people. Of course, you would - and have - labeled those people stupid for not believing exactly as you wish them to. Hmmm, doesn't sound very 'democratic' does it?
Posted in: Obama, GOP talk compromise, conflict
0
tigermoth
Yabits you don't like to really read and comprehend before you reply, do you? You're talking political pundits, I was talking joe average that replies on here. No sh*t - every President is loathed by some, and the target of the opposing party(s) but I'm talking rabid, frothing hatred, the likes I haven't seen until you liberal lot started going off about Bush and Cheney being the anti-Christ and his minion. If you're denying this then you truly don't read these posts, do you?
Actually I think the hatred towards Hillary was partly because she couldn't see that her hubbie was a cheating lout because her political ambition glasses wouldn't allow her to and that kind of clouded ambition was just ugly. But then again, she wasn't president was she? And I was talking presidents, again if you had just read...
Posted in: Obama, GOP talk compromise, conflict
0
tigermoth
Klein2 - you can't seriously be asking that question can you? How many years now, and how many times have all the lefties that post on JT spouted out the most vile, bordering on manic hatred of Bush? You mention the name and it sends them into furious fits of mouth frothing laments that make Chuck Manson's madness seem calm by comparison. I've been on discussions that had absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with a subject even slightly related to the former Prez, and someone will inevitably say 'well George Bush and the Republicans..blah blah'. He's been blamed for everything from the sun rising in the east to the ocean having salt. Without knowing the man other than hating his policies most of you deemed his administration nothing short of the horsemen of the Apocalypse riding down riding down Pennsylvania Avenue. Most believe him so evil that if he rode up in a limo with Hitler and Satan you would all say 'see, I told you so'. So you wonder at how a President can be 'hated'.
In actuality it should be the policies, not the man (for the most part). It can be both. To many (quite obviously by the recent election results) President Obama's policies and direction are not what the American people want. This angers folks. Personally I'm old school enough to think that if a person is our President they should be respected as such - even if we display contempt of policy. But that went out the window with GB. The left hates him with a furor that is undeniable, so should it be so unusual that those on the right might feel equal contempt for policy rammed down our throats that suits the liberal agenda, but no necessarily the American agenda? Loaded statement that will get you all going - but point made.
Posted in: Obama, GOP talk compromise, conflict
0
tigermoth
Um - if you'll read other than the last five posts you might notice my comment stated that idiocy is bi-partisan. But the comment was in reply to another that had addressed the frequent use of 'idiot, racist tea baggers' and other charming terminology used by angry liberals on here to describe the right. According to these posters anyone not agreeing with the left spectrum must by nature be a knuckle dragging racist who regularly beats their spouse, have huge gun collections and velvet Jesus painting on the walls of their mobile homes.
Posted in: Republicans, heading for big gains, ready agenda