IvyAlexander comments

With modern DNA testing, which accurately confirms or denies paternity, these laws have become completely outmoded.

I did not know these sorts of laws still existed. I came across what must be one of the earliest of this type of law in Western Civilization class. Ancient Rome had such a law: a woman could not remarry until ten months after a divorce. This was waved in the case of the first Roman Emperor, Caesar Augustus, who married his third wife Livia when she was six months pregnant by her first husband, because the men involved agreed on the paternity of the child. Such gentleman's agreements are no longer necessary. We have the science.

@ JWithers

No language is ever complete, that is why we do not presently speak the English of Chaucer or Shakespeare. And as tinawatanabe explains, English is full of borrowed words. That's why spelling texts that teach the classical roots of English words work so well. Such programs look deeply into words and explain why English has so many strange spellings.So your point about cultural origins is a good one.

However, you are probably not going to like the real story behind the origin of the word Sunday, which is derived from Latin dies solis meaning day of the sun. As you may know the Romans named the days of the week after the gods and Sol was an agricultural god of the Etruscans, with whom the Romans were closely aligned. In fact, Christmas is celebrated on the same day as Sol's feast, Sol Invictus.

@bass4fluff

Same old rhetoric you people always spout: so spare me your talking points. Have you no shame? There is no equivalency between semi automatic weapons and knives, ropes, bottles or bats. Of course there is. You can use these items to kill. Deal with reality.

Really! You can kill as many people with a rope in five minutes as you can with a semi automatic weapon?

bass (May I call you bass?) -- You failed to answer the question. How do these people get guns? Could it possibly be because they are just so available? Be specific -- don't answer with some Charlton Heston talking point about "truth." By the way do you have any views about this that are your own? Or do you just go the National Rifle Association's web site to get your views?

You do realize you are being duped into spending your hard earned dollars on guns by the fire arms manufacturing sector for whom the NRA is a shill?

@ Bass Funk

Actually, you are wrong on all points, with all due respect. The problems are not the guns. The problem lies with the individuals. If you look at the crime stats of people that perpetrate crimes using other weapons, you would be just as amazed. So should we band knives, ropes, bottles and bats? It's the crazy people that get their hands on these things. It's NOT on my head, I have nothing to do with these idiots that do these crimes.

Same old rhetoric you people always spout: so spare me your talking points. Have you no shame? There is no equivalency between semi automatic weapons and knives, ropes, bottles or bats.

The problems are not the guns. The problem lies with the individuals....It's the crazy people that get their hands on these things.

Do you hear yourself? I wonder why it is so easy for "crazy people" ( your words not mine) to get their hands on guns? You sound like some Medieval theologian debating how many angels dance on the head of pin?

It's really sad to see the way the comments section of Japan Today has been co opted by the extreme right wing of the United States. As usual, their talking points on gun violence are so canned and predictable I wrote down what I thought would appear in the comments section before reading it, and, by gosh, I was right. It was all the there, the same old nonsense, that obstructs constructive gun control legislation in the United States.

Every mass shooting death in the U.S. is on the heads of these gun apologist obstructionist.

You have no idea what you are talking about. President Obama's administration has deported over two million people -- more than President Bush deported in his entire term. The people who are being given temporary permission to stay until the law is updated, were brought here by their parents or other close relatives as children. They know no other country. Or perhaps you are complaining about the children from Central America currently entering the country. In either case, you're lack of compassion is breathtaking and I feel sorry for you.

Thank you. This story is so moving; what a wonderful gesture. It is comforting to know that somewhere in the world people understand and appreciate Jack Kennedy's legacy.

Stand proud, Yamamoto. Sometimes it's necessary to break the rules.

If the Emperor doesn't know; he should. He stands for the land of Japan, which is seriously endangered by the situation at Fukushima.

A word from the Emperor, though such a thing is unheard of, might bring some urgency to this issue.

The reason that the cast appears to be far beyond their teenage years is because the characters are all grown up. It does not make sense for this story to take place in a U.S. high school. Virtually everyone in the States attends public schools or is homeschooled, and whatever private establishments that exist are not known for having scholarship programs.

This is an absolutely ridiculous statement. There are a great many exclusive private high schools in the United States that offer scholarships.

I would have preferred the Japanese version, instead of the same old stuff with same old point of view and attitudes.

Abandoning infants at hospitals is legal in every state in the United States under safe haven laws. As with the Hatch, which starts a new family registry for each child, these laws require the parents to relinquish their parental rights. Not surprisingly the reasons people give for their actions are as poignant and petty as they are in Japan. These laws were enacted in the U.S. for the very same reasons described in this article - large numbers of abandoned infants who died as a result. Thus this is not peculiar to Japan.

This story is poorly reported and utterly heartless. It takes a single family's situation and claims it is representative of large population of over one and half million people who are solitary and unemployed . It is written in a mean spirited and highly biased manner that makes unsubstantiated assumptions about this population. Worst of all, the writer seeks expert input from a singe psychiatrist whose specialty is schizophrenia, a condition unrelated to SNEP (even the acronym is cruel).

In the family's case they all live together which rules out the condition of being solitary. Further the father states that the health of his sons has deteriorated. It would seem that this would call for further investigation as to why. Perhaps they are incapacitated by a real illness. And if they are members of this large population of people who are so severely ridiculed here simply for being solitary and unemployed, they deserve help and compassion. Perhaps it is time for the condition to be studied by sociologists and psychologist.

One last thing, I am appalled by the comments. It is deplorable when people use the suffering of others to make themselves look good. Shame on you!

I'm so pleased to read about this award as I am an admirer of Hayao Kawai. I've managed to find three of his many books in English, and I thoroughly enjoyed them. I have to say I came away thinking what a wonderful man. I would like to meet him.

Though I am a Murakami reader, and noticed the Jungian influence, until this article, I did not know he had a connection to Doctor Kawai. I hope Japan Today will follow up on this story and print details of this seminar including the text of his Murakami's speech.

One comment; the seminar's name carries a male bias. So perhaps Jungian women need their own gathering more appropriately called, "Observe spirit, write spirit."

"'My characters almost always think about the bigger question of 'Where do I come from? Why am I here? Where am I going?" she (Meyer) said. "In other (people's) novels, most characters never think about what's beyond their own experience."'

No offense, but please tell me, Stephanie Meyer did not say this patently ridiculous statement. First, the truth of it would require her to have read every novel ever written. Second, in order to say it she cannot have read much of the literature she plans to bring to the screen. Third, it is one of the most egotistical comments I have ever read.