This boy had no chance to get an education, start a job, marry a nice woman, and have children, all because his parent was ignorant enough to believe in spirits, ghosts, possibly gods (or a single god), etc.
I can only wish apologies were enough to bring back the dead…
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
An article was recently published explaining how Japanese need to be more alert overseas, and not—for example—fall asleep on trains.
However I don’t think this was their fault, and robberies are usually not done with guns, but usually with knifes if anything. Generally you can feel safe if you are just able to get some distance away from the attacker. Even with guns, fewer robbers are willing to shoot-to-kill than to just do harm. Luckily her attackers were in the majority of the minority.
It’s unfortunate that a happy trip to such a nice place had to turn into such a disaster.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
When the wife gives a baby, she needs to take time off from her job and breast-feed it. When I talk about balance I don’t see any point in which I am unreasonable. When she needs to make sacrifices for the baby I will need to sacrifice my time at home. If not, then I need to make more use of my time at home.
My only point is it needs to balance out.
And no matter how many dishes you're willing to wash and dry, your efforts are never going to equal a single childbirth. :-)
Sure, if dish-washing was meant as a form of currency.
But it’s just like I said.
I’m not expecting her to make as much as me, since it is really the thought that counts.
Likewise, I know how long she has to endure 9 months of pregnancy followed by a painful birthing process.
All I am saying is that both sides have their unique hardships, and both sides should try to make those hardships roughly equal, even though sometimes equality only means “gestures”. If she can’t earn as much as I do, fine, as long as she tries.
When she is pregnant and I can’t take any of her burden, I hope she feels the same way about breakfast in bed etc. It’s a gesture. It shows I am trying to help within my limited capacity.
This is how it should always be. We obviously cannot share the birthing process, so we do what we can. What we can do is to show each other we are always there for each other always.
I reiterate: A house-wife who does not play piano cannot teach piano to the child. She can use the father’s money to buy a teacher. A house-wife who is not a programmer cannot teach her child how to program. She can only use others’ money to make it happen.
I know exactly what valuable things I learned from my mother. Respect for women being one of them. She’s not a house-wife, she’s an owner of her own sign shop and soon graduating at the top of her class in nursing. I’m sure I would be proud of her anyway, but it’s not possible to be more proud of her for being just a housewife than for being a business owner and nurse.
However, as far as my growth is concerned, while she helped me learn chess at the age of 5, which later lead to my 1st-place trophy, it was ultimately the money that allowed me to learn piano, programming, etc.
I’m just saying that having a stay-at-home mother is of no virtue over a part-time home mother. A mother is important. A father is probably important (though I don’t know mine very well). It’s just that the idea that sending a child to a babysitter or daycare will ruin the child because the child must absolutely be with its mother during its young ages is absolutely ludicrous.
I hope you can understand that I am trying to say that without diminishing the value of the mother’s presence in the child’s life. There are of course tons of things a mother has to offer. I am just saying she doesn’t have to be there all day every day to offer those things. I already mentioned the gentle touch of my mother at night. She was there on weekends too. She was there on my 4th Christmas Eve in which I climbed out of bed, walked down the hall, saw her taping up presents that were meant to be from Santa, and watching her turn her head to bark at me, “What are you doing out of bed??” I replied that I was sick and she was the one who helped me barf into the toilet.
Mothers will have plenty of chances to be mothers. They don’t need to be housewives to do it.
It’s just about balance.
2 ( +3 / -1 )
I personally just feel it should be balanced. My previous reply was to ControlFreak who states judgmental concepts as impossibilities—that any man who does not want a stay-at-home wife does not want kids or a home, and just wants to be a playboy.
Let me be clear that I aimed to provide proof that this is simply ridiculous (cleo, Google “L. Spiro” for all you need to know about me), but my views only express how I would feel in my own typical relationship.
No matter what the case, I expect things to be balanced. Since I am the type who is willing to help with the dishes and clean up after my own messes, I would expect that my wife show a simple gesture and provide help with the income, even if it is not as much as I make. It’s the thought that counts. Lower salaries and career opportunities are no excuse to an understanding man who does not expect any more than the gesture itself.
If the man, however, does decide to just work all day and come home, eat, sleep, and repeat, then of course it is fair for the woman not to work.
That may be fine for some households, but let me tell you from experience that it wasn’t my mother who taught me piano, nor did she teach me computer programming. Nor Japanese. She did however teach me chess when I was 5, with did aid in my later 1st place in nationals. After spending time with the babysitter or at school for a day, her touch at night was all I needed to learn what I needed to learn from her: Compassion, respect, responsibility, etc. And the fact that she still had time to teach me chess shows that even working mothers still get to spend time with their kids.
However, I am a pianist on TV because we had a piano. I am a computer programmer because I had my own computer. Because she married into wealth later on (since then she divorced and didn’t take a penny from him; it was never about the money).
In other words, a kid needs money more than he or she needs the mother to be there all the time. Sad fact of life: Money gives children advantages. Even if my mother played piano well enough to teach me, she would still need to have enough money to buy a piano.
When you have 2 people, one of whom is making money and the other spending it, you have a losing situation. When you have 2 people, both of whom are making money and using their own shares, you and your children will win.
In the end, I am not judging either party in a house-wife situation. Mainly, it’s about balance. But if the man is only making enough for them to “get by” then they both need to adjust the balance, and that means an effort on both of their parts.
3 ( +4 / -1 )
And I just cannot believe that only 1/5 of men would like to have a wife at home. What are the 4/5ths thinking? No kids? No house? Playboy life in an overpriced one room apartment with Mac for dinner until they die (young)?
Would you like to know what I am thinking?1: My last girlfriend (almost 3 years ago), who still remains close and a potential marriage partner, was making $200,000 per year, and was the “bread-winner” at the time. She also had a 4-year-old adorable daughter.
Firstly, I didn’t quit my jobs (yes, plural) just because she made enough for a very comfortable lifestyle. Why is it that I could have been the one who quit my jobs and been a house-husband yet I would be shunned or considered weird.
This is meant to bring to light that you bat an eye when the roles are reversed but you think it is just fine if it is the female who is home with the child while the male works. The child needs to be breast-fed for a while, but this is obviously not about women who want to be temporary housewives but those who want to be “professional” housewives.2: A wife at home is required to have a house and/or kid?
Excuse me but I was born into poverty to a single mother 18 years of age. We always had a house, and apparently she had a kid too, and no college education on top of it. Are you serious? She had to drop me off somewhere to make ends meet, but without her being at home neither a home nor kids are possible? We were so poor that at one point she sold our vacuum cleaner for some amount below $10 to bide time.3: What is wrong with being sent to a babysitter or daycare? Prior to preschool (and yes I remember those days very well) I spent my time with a babysitter (whose name I forgot but I remember where she lives, and the first time we wrote the alphabet with crayons and I had to wait on her to release the red crayon so I could color my “A” red (because most with synesthesia know that is the correct color for “A”)) until mother or my step-father got home.
After 4, I would return from school to my mother’s workplace, though that didn’t mean she actually spent time with me. I was off playing until she got off work. It would be the same in a daycare center.
Which goes into #4…4: And how did I turn out? After dropping out of high school, I’ve lived in 4 countries, Japan being the last. I live in my favorite country doing both of my favorite jobs: Video-game programming and acting in Japanese media. I work in R&D on games such as Final Fantasy and not only do I appear weekly on Japanese TV I occasionally play piano on NHK’s ららら♪クラシック. Somehow along the way, despite my terrible childhood in which neither parent was around, I found time to teach myself piano. And programming. And thanks to a bit of luck (and practice) I took 1st place in the 1997 American national chess championships. Indeed, despite working a full-time job my mother was able to teach me the game when I was 5. I guess working mothers really do get to spend time with their kids!
So who are you say what is right for every household and who are you to judge every man who thinks his wife should be working instead of staying at home? Sorry, I guess you are only judging the 80% who did not necessarily agree with you, some of whom may not have any decision at all.
To be quite frank, here is how it is. My single 18-year-old mother worked her ass off, and continued to do so after remarriage, while I had to stay in the care of a babysitter or school. So it’s obviously not necessary to have a stay-at-home mother for a child to be successful.
And because of that, I learned from a very young age to appreciate women. I never agreed with gender roles. As a result, I am perfectly willing and happy to help around the house. Clean up my own messes, help with dishes, share the load 50/50. On top of working 2 jobs! Sure there are roles that lean towards genders. She can decorate the place and sew my clothes. I can handle the electrical wiring needed for all of our electronics and handle her PC issues (and she has a lot). It’s even and balanced.
If I am going to do half of the house work, she should at least show an effort in bringing in some of the money. It doesn’t need to be a lot; it’s the effort that counts. And I want her to enjoy her work as much as I do mine so that neither of us builds stress. I’d be fully willing to tide her over until she got that kind of stress-free job. Honestly, it is not about how much money she is bringing in but the gesture that counts.
No, I am not a playboy.
My last girlfriend agreed with me that we should both keep working and combine our money to provide a better lifestyle for us but also for her daughter. Perhaps that is what the non-20% of males were thinking? Because how could I have learned to play piano if I did not have a piano? How would I learn to program if I did not have a PC (or TI-81 calculator, etc.)? If my mother did work continue to work even after she married another man who was also working, we would not have been able to afford these things.
If you think a kid is hopeless without a mother, you are in for a very rude awakening. A kid needs resources to learn and grow on top of anything else. A mother’s tender touch at night is all the mother needs to do. I speak from experience.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
The American will either keep its obligation to defend Japan or not.
“The” America has made it clear that they will uphold the requirements of the treaty. And speaking as someone from America, you should have more faith. I did not leave Japan during the 3-11 earthquakes as many foreigners did, and I won’t leave after “the big one” hits in a few years. I will always stick with Japan and my fate will be that of the Japanese. I would even join the Japanese military and defend it against China personally if it comes to that.
Right now, Japan is America’s #1 friend. Do not underestimate us.
9 ( +10 / -1 )
It is impossible that no owner before 1895, even Antarctica was explored at that time, how come these islets left ?
Here is the underlying problem. Virtually no islands were unexplored and unclaimed at the time. But no global system for global claims to land existed in the 19th century, so for every nation to hold onto its perceived belongings it was required that all of those belongings be registered in the 20th century. The registry holds that Japan owned the islands prior to World War II, and maps that have escaped Chinese destruction have confirmed this. Hence America followed the rules and returned the islands to the owner that had registered them: Japan.
Again, China is constantly questioning who registered the islands, but the global community already knows the situation and we all know the legal status of the islands. If China was of a less morally questionable status the world may be willing to lend an ear, but the facts are the China has done nothing but take provocative measures and even use blackmail to try to get the islands, and this only started suddenly when the islands were revealed to have possible valuable resources. Before that was revealed, China was quite content to let things be. It’s really no wonder why no one can trust China at their word…
16 ( +19 / -3 )
“Rather, we hope the United States will play a positive role in safeguarding peace, stability and development in the Asia-Pacific” region, he said.
Staying out of it is the best way to play a positive role in the situation.
Wang said he spoke to U.S. officials about setting up a “reasonable threshold” for the resumption of long-stalled talks on ending North Korea’s nuclear program.
Blackmail is a sign of underhandedness, described perfectly by the very rare Japanese word “さもしい ”. You may have underhanded coworkers, but you keep trade relations with them and otherwise try not to mind their presence for the sake of overall peace. But you can never trust or befriend such a person.
I don’t think China understands America’s core principals if it thinks it can shift blame, downplay its aggression, and use blackmail to get what it wants.
12 ( +15 / -3 )
He knew what he was doing and he did it with the intent to kill. It didn’t kill her but it cost her the tips of her toes, a handicap she has to endure for the rest of her life.
His sentence should be, “Jailed until the tips of her toes grow back.”
4 ( +5 / -1 )
I really appreciated your post until the last line. Why the need to bring China into this story?
You are right. I apologize.
I like China. I just wish they could get along with Japan as well as America does with Japan. I hope someday to see China send such a gesture to the Yasukuni Shrine or similar. I guess it didn’t come out right, but that is what I meant.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
I almost broke down in tears today as I read this at the office. I hate thinking about such a precious little girl who had done nothing wrong in life at all at the time of her bombing, but sentenced to death anyway.
But I am glad she was recognized, monumented, and celebrated in stories that travel the world. Every one of her paper cranes is precious and having one sent to Pearl Harbor is the ultimate showcase of 2 nations having in the past done each other immeasurable harm to each other, but reconciling into best friends afterwards.
China could learn a lot from this.
1 ( +5 / -4 )
An American company sends a Thai model to a Japanese show. Interesting. By the way that is a billboard of the tablet, not the tablet itself. It may not be representative of the actual tablet size. Most Windows tablets are sized similarly to iPads.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
and this guy is furious! I am not furious, nor did I feel a need to retaliate. I stated that for her personal safety around strangers in general she should not draw attention to herself with such strange behavior.
And I for one am only carrying on a civilized discussion about it—I tend to get right to the point so it might come off as harsh or angry in writing, but it’s not.
And again, my feeling of shame for what she did to me is justified. After all the times I have gone out of my way to help not only women but strangers in the first place. I saved a drunkard from falling in front of a train because everyone else was too afraid to follow him, though it was obvious he was too close to the tracks for the way he was wobbling. And in one moment, she subjugated me, associated me with common scum, and took all my efforts towards doing good in the world, stomped on them, spit on them, shot them, and left them to rot.
Men can be victims too, and I certainly was the victim there. Her paranoia is no reason for me to be made to feel so ashamed.
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Really? You can see how, if a woman gets a bad vibe from a stranger in an elevator and makes a small adjustment in her journey And you think she's the nutter
Firstly, I got on before her. If she didn’t like the vibe should could have pretended to check her mailbox instead of getting on with me.
Secondly, if I ever even gave off bad vibes in the first place I wouldn’t do very well in the industry. I literally catch insects in my room and carefully set them free outside. I literally “wouldn’t harm a fly.” If she got bad vibes off me then yes she really is a nutter.
Things are not one-sided here. Women have definitely been more aggressive towards me than I ever have towards them, although no full assault has taken place ever.
When a woman treats me like the way she did (skipping her floor just so I wouldn’t know which it is), I have the right feel subjugated—she is looking at me as if I am some kind of monster, and when I pride myself on being gentle to all creatures and making humans laugh and smile, I have the right to wonder what I did wrong and to take that offensively.
Not because I am a nutter. Because I am human.
As a normal person, I got offended, but I just got off and went to my room. A weird person might watch the elevator to see on which floor it stopped just to spite her. A weirder person might start hanging out on that floor. And of course the level of weird eventually leads to someone who would assault her.
But with all the times I have ridden in elevators, that is the only one I remember in detail. As was mentioned, it’s better for your safety not to draw attention, and drawing attention is exactly what she did.
As I said before, gentlemen have the right to be offended, because it is a slap in the face after all their efforts to treat women so well. But towards nutters, it just draws attention and increases your own risk. Just because I can imagine that there are people out there who would convert that offense into outrage and rape does not make me the nutter.
-2 ( +3 / -5 )
But at the same time we can’t help but feel a little bit sorry for any innocent men who, going about their day and just managing to catch the elevator before the doors close, suddenly see the woman in the corner start jabbing at the buttons and race out as quickly as possible. Not only would it leave them confused
Not just confused, pissed off. I am on Japanese TV every week and in 2 movies this year. I am obviously not a threat to anyone, as even the slightest fault on my behalf could be damaging to my career, which is of course secondary to the fact that I simply don’t want to do anything to anyone but good. I thrive on happy faces. If I didn’t enjoy entertaining people, I would not be in the entertainment industry.
One day I went into the elevator of my own place with a woman I did not know.
I hit my floor and she hit nothing, leaving me to believe she was on the same floor as mine.
Then I was the only one to get off. I was extremely offended and angry. Since mine is almost the top floor, I know that she let the elevator pass her floor just to prevent me from knowing on which floor she lived. I didn’t care in the first place, but the fact that she would go so far out of her way to protect that information made me feel like a freak. I stood there, gave the typical courteous bow they give at night, and stood in front of her (not staring at her from behind with glass etc.) while wearing a suit and tie (just came home from an acting job), but somehow I am a weird guy to whom it is “dangerous” to give the location of your living quarters?
Not confused. Pissed off and offended. When I devote my life to entertaining people and specifically making them laugh, how dare someone treat me like a common villain?
I have not seen her since and I hope I never do.
While I would never take any violent action towards anyone, I can see how this might really piss off and offend others who might be more violent, and ultimately this may just cause more women to get hurt. And of course there are still the poor men who have to deal with landing on every floor etc. for no reason as the article mentions.
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
People keep trying to justify the (lack of) police action taken here, but consider if next time you are the one in trouble.
When it’s your life on the line, where do you turn if not to the police?
This woman did exactly what anyone would and should do, and the police let her down at the cost of her existence.
Today I saw 3 officers at a Koban instead of 2, and all 3 were just standing around. A Koban needs at most 2, so wouldn’t that 3rd guy be better off stationed at her place while the “verification of a real stalking case” took place instead of standing around aimlessly outside a Koban? There is just no excuse for this, period.
2 ( +6 / -4 )
We have no idea what will happen if the nuclear fuel rod pool collapses on the Fukushima nuclear plant, which will cause an uncontrollable spread of radiation.
So on the one hand we have environmental problems “if this” or “if that” (using nuclear). On the other hand we have environmental problems “if…” (using coal or fossil fuels). If nothing. They are guaranteed.
It’s a bit hard to argue this. One hand has environmental problems only under certain conditions, while the other has environmental problems no matter what.
If we eliminate the potential hazards from nuclear reactors then there is not a single benefit to be gained from fossil fuels/coal. The way to proceed forward is fairly obvious, and it’s not to run away from the problem, it’s to learn from it.
And Miller was exactly correct when he stated that the main reason this ever got out of hand in the first place was because of the Japanese way of doing things. The hierarchical structure in Japan has its high points, but it gets in the way under these circumstances.
To be blunt, there are things we (the world) could do better when handling nuclear technology, but there are things Japan could do better when trying to contain nuclear fall-out. There are multiple lessons to be learned from multiple parties.
But if we assume that these lessons will actually be learned (which it is clear they are) then we can safely assume that future technology will provide green energy at no risk.
We will never reach such a point if conservatives are trying to hold everyone back. In scenario #1, after 1,000 years, we’ve made a few mistakes and contaminated a few parts of the world, but finally we have fully green energy and no threat of further contamination. 90% of the world is clean. In scenario #2, conservatives have won out, and we reverted to coal and fossil fuels. After 1,000 years, the earth is basically dead from 1,000 years of non-stop pollution.
Again, fairly obvious.
-3 ( +2 / -5 )
Don't be stupid. Abe's plan is not worth ruining the world with yet another nuclear accident.
That’s…an awkward take on the situation.
Chernobyl was far worse, but the “world” seems to be in good condition anyway. There are 437 nuclear reactors online right now. In the last 58 years, 3 (three) have created major incidences and only 1 (one) has created an incident about which the world cares (Fukushima, due to its potential release into the ocean, even though levels will have been saturated enough as to not be lethal). Chernobyl and 3-Mile Island were entirely contained, which is what we would easily expect of any other future accident.
1 out of 437 reactors broke, and only because of an earthquake that was the 5th largest in the history of earthquakes’ recordings? And the result is that a little bit of radiation—though small enough that the fish can still be eaten—will be fed into the ocean?
-3 ( +3 / -6 )
I am neither anti- nor pro- nuclear.
I don’t care either way, as I am also unable to weigh the immediate consequences easily visible through major events vs. the slow consequences of fossil fuels.
There is no propaganda. No one can measure which is better in the long-run, but pro-nuclear people never seem to chime in.
I think both sides are ridiculous until one side can prove the other wrong.
-1 ( +5 / -6 )
First-off, as Miller stated, U. S. A. has no stance on the islands, does not egg on Japan, and has told both sides to use diplomacy.
China knows fully well that U. S. A. has a contractual agreement to protect Japan, so it’s entirely up to them whether or not U. S. A. becomes a 3rd party. Not too tough to figure that out, China!
14 ( +15 / -2 )
What kind of spoiled brat has never heard of it ? I'm a very optimistic girl. but I always keep a few banknotes or 500 yen coins -depending on distance.
I don’t think the fact that I have never had a knife held to my throat or a gun to my head qualifies me as a spoiled brat, and if it does, what a sad state of human-kind.
I started at the age of 11 and the true reason is I "lost" my wallet just before I started.
Then the facts are that you have never been robbed and just lost your own wallet in order to decide to start harboring money in false locations. So people who have not been robbed and can keep track of their own wallets are spoiled brats, I guess.
Sorry but it sounds as though losing your own wallet as a form of making you put 2,000円 in your shoe is a fairly rare occurrence, especially when you live in one of the top-8 safest countries (http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/travel/8+of+the+worlds+safest+countries+to+visit-273960.html) and the 6th least-dangerous (by rate of homicide) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate) country.
And at the end of the day, let’s face it. Putting money in your shoes is not a normal thing to do. It happens only under 4 conditions:1: You’ve lost your wallet, as you have done. 2: You’ve been robbed in the past and been forced to think of such a contingency plan in fear of a re-occurrence. 3: You are crazy enough to believe you will be robbed, which can only happen if you assume it will become true thanks to your own dealings with shady people, and at the same time including #4- 4: You’ve not been robbed, but by some miracle you are smarter than everyone else so you just so happened to figure out what everyone else who has been robbed has been missing, but not only that, you do it every single day of your life, keeping the world’s dirtiest, smelliest, most rotten horrible 2,000円 in your shoe all day every day through sweat and cold and record temperatures.
We know that #1 and #2 do not apply in this case.4 is stupid. The only way it is not stupid is if you are intelligent enough to guess on which day (or just week) you will be robbed, but anyone with that level of intelligence would have gone to the nearest Koban or otherwise somehow contacted authorities.
Not walked 11 days and 1,300-1,400 kilometers while the culprit used the same time to completely get away.
We’ve clearly established that this person is a total idiot and a nutcase (for not calling his mother to let her relax) on top of it. He is in no possible way capable of pulling off #4 by itself, except by literally keeping the world’s most disgusting money in his shoe at all times, which in itself could almost be believable if he only did that.
But no. It’s just as you said. You can hide money in many places, but the shoe is the last place you would think to use due to to exactly that. You yourself said you have not thought about using your shoe, and for obvious reasons. You’ve just proved his guilt.
If he was like you, he would alter his clothing in advance to hide the money without soaking it in disgusting sweat. He is not like you. He has never been robbed. But he knew he was getting into shady business. He was smart enough at least to realize he would be robbed if things did not go down well, but since he didn’t have as much time to think and prepare, his shoe was the only idea he had. Besides, it would just be 1 day, so not so bad right?
Anything you keep in your shoes is no longer usable. You would never select your shoe if you think you will actually need to access that money. You’d hardly even want to touch it yourself after only 3 days, let alone hand it off to someone else. In this heat it would be so soaking wet you would’t even be able to put it into a vending machine and get clean change.
Keeping money is his shoe was obviously not a long-term contingency plan—he obviously only did it for this event.
The guilt is clear. I hope he is thoroughly investigated, they find out about whatever he was doing wrong, and they prosecute him.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
If visits continued, the editorial said, the world would reconsider whether “a country which has been paying high tribute to brutal war criminals for years is qualified to host such an event that advocates peace and harmony”.
So China officially admits it thinks it’s the world now?
6 ( +6 / -0 )
This is nonsense and he deserves only suspicion, not praise.
Exhibit A: At average walking speed it would have taken more than 11 days if he never stopped to rest or sleep. In order to account for the sleep he needed he would have had to have been running for most of every day. In the middle of a record hot summer. With no vending machines for multiples days in a row in some cases. And no food at all, because water is more important.
Exhibit B: He kept 2,000円 in his shoe. He expected that whatever the true reason for his travel could go wrong, and it was not a card game.
Exhibit C: Traveling 1,400 kilometers for a card game.
Exhibit D: His only excuse is that he didn’t want to make a fuss. But letting his mother worry to death, causing so much stress that literally years were taken off her life, is okay? That’s not a “fuss”?
Sorry but Exhibit B is the killer. Who has ever heard of anyone ever keeping extra money in his or her shoe without expecting that it would be needed? The fact that the money was there in the first place is almost as good as hard evidence that he was up to no good in the first place. That is the real reason he didn’t want to make a fuss at the expense of so much stress for his mother.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
Just to let you know, China, the islands are not yours and never were. Your biggest claim to them is that they are part of your continental shelf. Guess what. Hawaii belongs to America. Get over it.
China has the audacity to question why Japan is not angry at America for the bombs even while Japan and Russia are reaching agreements on their own disputed islands? Sorry but if actions speak louder than words, how does China intend to prove it is not the provocative party here? Why do we hear about China sending ships into territories and not Japan sending ships in territories? Apparently the entire world views these incursions as China going into a place where it does not belong.
Sadly that is the only reason war has not broken out. If China thinks it has the world’s blessing it will absolutely take islands by force. The world needs to teach China a lesson that clearly states that China is not the world, and the country that controls an island is the country that owns it, and no one else, for any reason.
If a country thinks it has legal rights to an island because of something 500 years ago, it should have done something to retain control or accept loss of control.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
Since the incidents are part of the same report, I seriously started off thinking, “How could they both get killed in Saitama and then again in Kanagawa?” But sad story anyway, especially for the guy who was just trying to deliver the news to everyone. Warning to anyone getting the idea to make a joke about him ending up in the news: Very bad taste. Let it go. This is a man who could choose to live off his pension but chose to work anyway. Much respect. And the 52-year-old was so close to retirement after all is many years of hard work. Tragic.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
This is not brilliant and she likely was acting alone. The same thing just happened earlier this year and was in the news. She just read about it and tried to do the exact same thing. She just forgot that everyone else read about it too… The only impressive part was her pretending to be a boy on the phone. I wonder about her voice…
1 ( +1 / -0 )
Apparently, the brain keeps on working for up to 30 seconds after blood flow stops
That much is obvious. First, if cells could not live any amount of time without new oxygen, you would die between heartbeats. You’ve all skipped heartbeats before without dying, meaning not only can you survive longer than a heartbeat with no resupply of oxygen, but there is obviously some safety period as well during which you can survive beyond that. Otherwise if we skipped 2 beats we would just drop dead for no reason.
That never happens. I skipped 4 beats (literally) just last week and only got very slightly dizzy (but not enough for my coworkers to notice).
18-century Dr. Gabriel Beaurieux from France studied beheaded people under the same understanding and got limited responses from heads that had just been removed. His findings have been disputed but there is no possible foundation for such a dispute. Blood carrying oxygen continues to move due to momentum for a short time, then starts to move again due to gravity. For a short grace period, some—but not all—cells are getting a resupply of oxygen. In addition to that there is a second grace period during which cells don’t need a resupply.
This is all logic, and can easily add up to 30 seconds. That doesn’t mean you are responsive during that 30 seconds. In any case where your heart stops, things get fuzzy over about 3-to-8 seconds and after that you are unconscious but not dead. Observers, however, never see your transition from sleep to death, and assume death came earlier than it did.
The rest of the article is new, in that we never knew the brain could en-heighten its activity after a drop in the blood flow.
It will take time, but hopefully this research will debunk sightings of heaven etc. near death. I myself have drowned for over 3 minutes and indeed I saw a light, among other things. There is no reason to say that explains an afterlife or heaven. Firstly, as clear as the images were, they were clear under a state of mind that had been deprived of oxygen and fuzzy in other areas of critical thinking. I could no do basic math, for example.
I am speaking from experience, so I won’t buy into the claims of people who have “been there”. I have as well, and there is nothing there but was is explained in this article. The rest is just a person attaching meaning to physics based on religion. A person who has never been taught about religion will see the same thing, but without all the attachments to heaven etc.
Hopefully this will, in conjunction with the fact that man now understands how to create from-scratch 3 of the 4 RNA rhizomes that lead to “life from nothing” and can do so in lab conditions, help promote a healthier religion-free planet where people seek answers based on testable facts.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
I am not proud of how America has behaved in Japan, with accidents and outlandish behavior causing a lot of dissatisfaction among Japanese, especially in Okinawa. Firstly I want to say that those are an extreme minority. They just make the headlines.
While I agree on principal in regards to Japan’s constitutional reform, It’s a bit difficult to trust them at this moment. And I mean “at this moment”. In general Japan can be trusted but with the engagement over the Senkaku Islands (the correct and only name for them—there is no such thing as Daiyou or whatever (I always just skip the part where it says, “Which the Chinese call…”), and there never will be) and frustrations with South Korea, along with threats from North Korea, it would be hard to predict a Japanese military.
I cherish the unorthodox way of Japanese culture but if that gets applied to military, wars will get started.
For now, it’s best that America protects Japan without letting Japan have its own army. But yes, it would be better still if America would do so without causing so much crime. 20 years ago America’s army was just fine. Why did it suddenly change?
It’s a disgrace about to be put right, but for now the important part is that America will absolutely protect Japan from any attack from any nation, including China. And there is a 0% chance China will end up controlling the Senkaku Islands.
-4 ( +0 / -4 )
If the department store security guard is so suspicious, maybe he should be investigated too.
Anyway I just don’t get the craze with up-skirt shots. Who cares what is under there? People who do really need to be taken in, so glad he got caught.
0 ( +0 / -0 )