I don't know why, but I have the feeling that this was supported by mainland china.
I mean, Ma Ying-jeou who is the face of this even was known and their party voted out of office because they started to be in bed with the communist party of China, and knowing that the communist party wants to basically invade Taiwan...
13 ( +19 / -6 )
Have you ever thought about where those payments are made and where the money ends up?
On the hands of the dynastic families of the old guard zaibatsu.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
The primary assertion about DST, as it names says, is that it will makes savings.
The problem is, there are scientific literature on the matter, and the higher the latitude the less it works, and in places like Japan, it will actually mean an economic loss, since only subtropical places show any kind of economical benefit from DST, and most of Japan will fall outside of this zone, not to mention that usage of air conditioner rises with DST.
DST has little to no benefits, and has a lot of drawbacks, which is why I cannot support at all DST, simply put, is an unnecessary effort that becomes a nuisance more than anything else.
-9 ( +4 / -13 )
Abenomics is not perfect but still far better than DP's crazy austerity.
They are completely different beasts. Abenomics is trying to "ignite" the economic engine of Japan, while austerity was trying to fix the crazy expending and public debt.
Like it or not, payments on interests are going to just get bigger and bigger, and they are one of the reasons why taxes are going up, and it is a big reason for the economy not moving.
I would say that austerity is a less popular idea, because it means cuts and having to endure the "correction" phase, but in the most part it does the job.
Maybe you need to find a better job? I have had wage increases and bonus increases every year for the past three years.
Individual experiences may not apply to the vast majority of the economy.
It also depends on the industry you work, how well connected your company is, and how black or white it is.
Most of my friends (all Japanese, by the way) have never had a single wage increase since they were employed (Many of them have been working for 10 years or so).
Basically all those complaining bitterly about good economic news are those at the bottom working in unskilled jobs.
Not really, no. I'm actually thinking of leaving Japan because of how underpaid I am for what I do (Computer Vision R&D).
Not to mention that I've never had a single wage increase. All the "increases" I've had are because I changed jobs to a better paid one, but staying on the same job in this industry in Japan is carrier suicide.
A person's life is always in their own hands. This includes non-Japanese low wage earners who complain bitterly about life here, yet for some bizarre reason stay and swallow it
I'm starting to see this devolving into more of personal attacks. We are talking about the economy as a whole, not on particular cases, so stop going back to attack people calling them "low-skilled" as an insult.
I'm sorry to say this, but in a growing economy even low-skilled workers have salary rises.
Ah, so you're an English teacher with no other skills moaning that they haven't gotten a sweet, unlimited contract for teaching English. If your skills aren't increasing, why should you get more money?! An English teacher with a PhD is not better than an English teacher without a PhD.
Most English teachers in Japan don't even have a BA. In fact most native English teachers in Japan don't even have a brain.
I'm going to be honest. I also dislike English teachers in Japan, but this is just pure salt.
More great economic news! The anti-Japan crew is having another miserable day haha. Loss after loss, day after day
I truly wish you were right...
Just a few days ago I was talking with the CEO and CTO of my company about the economy in Japan, and they both agree that the future is kind of blink.
Unless you are a well connected company, chances are, regulations and taxes are going to kill your business.
9 ( +9 / -0 )
So we are finally back to the point prior to the recession created by the consumption tax hike of the 2014.
Now let's see how much times it takes to get back from next year's recession created by the new consumption tax hike.
5 ( +16 / -11 )
Why are you moving the discussion goalposts Luis? The issue discussed was contamination as a result of the explosion , not casualties.
I wasn't even aware that "contamination" was the goalpost. I thought we were talking about people's fear of nuclear power and radiation, and I was just showing how nuclear power isn't as dangerous as, for example, a gas plant even in the case of a catastrophic accident.
Also, not sure if you are aware, but when a gas plant explodes it also contaminates its environment, and many of the gases released just go to contribute their part to climate change... so yeah.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Yes, and the policies have done that. Under the current governor, the Japanese economy has experienced its second longest growth streak in the postwar era, corporate profits hit record highs and there is basically zero joblessness. What's your point?
GDP is stagnant, Wages are stagnant, Poverty is on the rise...
But yeah, sure, joblessness is down, mostly because the working population is also down, but sure, that doesn't matter.
What? Rich investors on the stock markets are making money, well, I think that's all that matters in an economy.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Well obviously most people don’t agree with you Luis.
Most people also do not understand nor they care to understand particle physics, so I'm not surprised.
The anti-nuclear lobby provides an easy to digest answer for the public ignorance in these subjects, and as such it is obviously popular.
I've said it before, but the main flaw of Nuclear power is the fact that it is easy to fear but difficult to actually understand.
Also a lot of “facts” and “science” through history has turned out to be lies and deliberate misleading of the public by scientists and the government using falsified “data” to support “facts” that later killed many thousands of people. THIS is actual history!
There is a slim but considerable difference between been an skeptic to been a conspiracy theorist.
People from the Flat Earth society use exactly that same logic to justify their ideas.
You are one of the few who believes what the government says and believes the data that they present. I have good reason to not believe everything the LDP says.
As I've said, it's not a blind faith of what the government says. Anyone can measure radiation by themselves, and anyone who understands how radiation works can reach the conclusion that in this instance the government isn't lying.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
The BOJ always say that their policies make everything better, and the economy stronger, and that everything is very well planed and there will be always good results.
30 years latter, even thou reality shows nothing like those promises, BOJ continues to do the same promises.
4 ( +5 / -1 )
Then there is the issue of your safety at Chernobyl – where the waters are murkier. Local tour companies insist that, after 30 years, the site is safe to visit. By contrast, Ukrainian officials have suggested that Pripyat will not be inhabitable for another 20,000 years. The crews which maintain the concrete sarcophagus that keeps the exploded reactor in check work strictly monitored five-hour days over the course of a month, then take 15 days off.
> Luis are you sure everyone else is wrong?
Science is not about what most people say, or what the government says, but what is the reality of the matter.
For example, I said "Chernobyl", the main city, not "Pripyat", the city created basically just to accommodate workers of the power plant.
There are actually people living in Chernobyl today.
Pripyat is a different story, but saying that the place won't be inhabitable for 20,000 years is ridiculous. Basically that is equivalent to the point when basically every single radioisotope from the disaster will disappear, but that is not at all equivalent to what should make a place inhabitable.
However that does not change the fact that the explosion that blew up the building resulted in radioactive particles being released in to the open and the resulting contamination of Fukushima and neighboring prefectures. Comparing it to a gas plant explosion is way off, you know that.
Actually no, I don't know that. In gas plant explosions a lot of people actually die.
There have been gas plant explosions that have basically erased a whole village of the face of the planet, not to mention that even in minor gas plant explosions, causalities are common.
In this case... no one died from this accident. And that is the hard truth. No one died, and there has not been any proven related deaths from the radiation released by the plant.
Immeasureable Tragedy struck and the failings of the govt / nuclear industry pre & post, impacted tremendously and they must accept a large dose of blame. Educating the population by open divulgence and discussion and dedicated committment to offer BIG help to Fukushima citizens would enhance their future prospects considerably.
I'm not saying there is no blame in what the government or Tepco did, and I'm not trying to justify any kind of negligence, but I would say that these kind of actions are rampant on almost every other industry, but no one cares in those instances.
In the instance of the nuclear industry, the anti-nuclear lobby has successfully fueled this almost conspiracy theory about the government "hiding the truth" about the nuclear disaster, and that the nuclear disaster is somehow "way worse" than what the government wants to admit, which is complete non-sense, and that's what I'm saying that even if that is not your intention, sadly because of this topic, it gets used in that way very easily, so we most be very careful with our words in this topic so that they do not get taken out of context.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
You seem to have a very positive view of radiation. You almost present radiation as something that you can bathe in and it won’t be harmful to you.
I dislike this false dichotomy in which if I don't share your irrational fear of radiation, it must mean that I'm in love with radiation or something along those lines.
My view on radiation is nothing more than what I learned while studying particle physics.
"Radiation", for instance, is not a single item, but a catagory of a range of elements, each with a specific half-life. Strontium-90, for instance, is 28.9 years. Caesium-137 has a half-life of about 30.17 years. Uranium-235 has a half-life of 703.8 million years.
Radiation actually is not a category of elements, those would be "Radioactive elements". Radiation simply refers to the transmission of energy from waves or particles.
In this case, the type of Radiation released by Radioactive elements is particle radiation, which divides in alpha radiation (Helium-4 at high speed), beta radiation (electrons at high speed), Neutron radiation, and electromagnetic radiation in the form of gamma radiation (photons at high speed).
Radiation can be measured by the rate of decay, which is the rate radiation is released. The lower is the half-life, the higher is the radiation, and the higher is the half-life, the lower is the radiation.
Let me put it this way, Uranium-235 is a magnitudes of time less radioactive than one of the most common radioisotopes that were released by this accident, Iodine-131, which has a half-life of 8 days.
This makes it very radioactive, but also means that it disappears very quickly. Another of these highly radioactive isotopes is Tellurium-129m, with a half-life of 6 days.
Strontium-90 and Caesium-137 are way less radioactive than these 2 radioisotopes, and Uranium-235 is WAY less radioactive, even if that seems counter intuitive because it is used by reactors, but in fact in makes sense, because since it is a highly stable radioisotope, it is easier to use in reactors.
We should go and walk around and grow stuff and eat it and take our children there to live and......
oh wait, I can’t...its all barricaded up and theres hazard signs and the area won’t be decomissioned as a nuclear meltdown poisoned zone for 100 years....
Do you see the problem here?
First, where are you referring to?
If you are referring to the core of the reactor, then maybe, but if you are referring to the towns near the reactor... not really.
No one in power has ever said that those places will be non accessible for "100 years", that's just crazy.
For the love of the world, even Chernobyl is accessible nowadays.
But what experts on this field have said about these zones is, the have criticized the Japanese Government for their over reaction to the radiation, and their so called "No-go zones", since many of the places with these forced evacuation statuses have relatively safe levels of radiation equivalent to levels of radiation seen in nature in other places of the world.
Not to mention, that people are so irrationally afraid of radiation, that even people far away from those zones did "voluntary evacuations" with nothing to back them up, but irrational fear.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
The government lied about Fukushima and the Nuclear Plant and the radiation and the disaster MANY times in the past.
I hear this argument A LOT, and I have yet to found one specific instance in which the government actually lied about Fukushima or the Nuclear Plant.
As I said before, most of what I've seen is people assuming that the "government must be lying" because of some statement about radiation they do not understand.
The other instance in which I've seen people saying that the government lied about Fukushima is when basically there is a correction on something. Mostly this happened early when people weren't even able to approach the reactors because of the tsunami, and for the most part they had to do estimations about things, which after a while turned out not to be true.
Saying that they didn't believe there was any meltdown, but then it turned out there actually was is not lying about it, since either statement was just based on speculation.
Human beings are scared of radiation and nuclear hazards and are also scared of lying governments.
As I've been saying all this time, it is true that people are scared of radiation, but as I've pointed out, for the most part those worries only exist because they do not understand how actually radiation works, and because of this they tend to agree more with anti-nuclear activist which spread actual lies and misinformation about radiation and nuclear hazards than the government.
Fear is the problem here.
Cool...good to know the images of Dai ichi reactor exploding i saw on TV back im March 2011 were just rumors.
Those weren't "nuclear explosions", they were explosions from hydrogen that started to accumulate in the building as a product of an uncontrolled reaction in the reactor.
This is the kind of fear tactic used by the anti-nuclear lobby, trying to insinuate that "if there is an explosion in a nuclear plant, it means everything is messed up, and is just like a nuclear bomb", which it isn't.
Obviously having an explosion on a power station isn't a good thing, but I don't see people making an scandal when a gas plant explodes.
In fact, its almost like people see it as "obvious" for a gas plant to explode, and do not read too much into it.
but that's what you get when you cross Govt Inc with Nuclear Inc - a stain that's hard to remove. That and people's own selfishness.
When you make an argument like this, it really sound like you are trying to justify irrationality and awful behavior.
The idea that "Nuclear Inc" is bad and evil is almost implied in your response, which sucks horribly, because this kind of irrational hate and fear of nuclear power is what kind of fuels the fearful and hateful responses to the people of Fukushima.
-7 ( +1 / -8 )
I've been saying it all the time there is an article that has something to do with the Fukushima Daiichi disaster, which constant, but irrational fears towards radiation only hurt others.
The idea that even after the products are able to pass the extremely strict Japanese limit on radiation on food, people hold still some kind of fear about the idea of eating that food, means they do not only not understand the science behind radiation and that they don't want to learn about it, but they don't really want to accept proven facts.
Amazing that the EU and the US set acceptable radiation levels at 10 times higher than those in Japan.
That's because the acceptable radiation levels by the EU and the US are still safe. The Japanese standard is extremely strict in this instance, which makes more unreliable that people still fear some kind of radiation from that food.
Farmers, fishermen move on Fucashima is not the place to produce food.
Why? It is a rich place with a hundred years history of agriculture. Unless you believe that there is some magical force or evil force which cannot be measured by any human means makes it impossible, hard science seems to prove that any fear of radiation is incorrect.
however the fact remains whatever levels are set, the EU and US have not had a nuclear disaster on the scale of Daiichi with 3 reactor meltdowns in an agriculture producing region. Simple as that.
Once again, unless the disaster by itself tainted with some evil forces the land, we can always measure the radiation of the food produced there, and we can see that there is no problem with it.
Magic. So were did all the radiation go?
Most of the radiation disappeared, not by magic, but because of the half life of the main radioactive particles from the disaster. Radiation from radioactive materials, by definition, are getting less and less radioactive with time. Each time a radioactive atom decays and creates radiation, it decays into a more stable particle, meaning, a non radioactive product. The more radioactive an atom is, the lower is its half life, and the fastest it disappears.
The most radioactive particles have already completely disappeared, and only remain particles with mid to low radioactivity, which have a very long half-life.
Yeah with all the faulty geigercounters around Fukushima the other day and Japan's wonderful data falsification record I don't blame anyone. Perhaps if it would go through a 3rd party "foreign" test center people would be more inclined to believe and buy their products?
Geiger counters are not a magic instrument that just some people have access to. There are cheap and easy to use Geiger counter you yourself can buy. If you don't believe those people, test it yourself.
But food from Fukushima and try to measure the radiation with you own Geiger counter.
Maybe if the Japanese government was straightforward, transparent and honest with the population from the beginning, people wouldn't have so many doubts now!
From what I've seen, it is more a case of "I don't understand what this means, so they are probably hiding something".
For example, I remember the time when the government put an alert on drinking water, saying that even thou it was OK to drink, that it should be avoided as drinking water for babies, unless there is absolutely no other water source available.
The warning was actually extremely reasonable, and in fact was extremely cautious, because even at those levels, even if you give your baby nothing but that tap water to drink, there is a 99.9% nothing bad will happen, but people said that the government was "hiding the truth", and that if babies could not drink it, why adults can? and things like that.
The reasons become clear if you understand the science behind it, but people just went with the easy choice of never trusting what the authorities say because they are unable to understand the reasons.
They mix the vegetables and rice to get it under the 100 becquerels, it already have been reported years ago.... do these people think customers forget?
Even if that was true (which I don't), it changes nothing. It's not like "the rice has more than 100 becquerels by itself", because IT IS IMPOSIBLE. You cannot "water down" radiation, that's not how radiation works.
A regular smoker DOES NOT have to worry about radiation from Fukushima, trust me. That amount of radiation won't significantly decrease your survival chances...
Not to mention that the Tobacco this person is smoking has way more radiation than food from Fukushima.
It might be safer to buy Fukishima products actually as they are at least checked...
The idea that only products from Fukushima get tested from radiation is false. Products from ALL OVER THE COUNTRY get the same tests.
I have not however heard about any agricultural produce from within a 100km radius of Chernobyl being pushed onto either domestic back then USSR or international market, have you?
From the WHO about farming and safety in Chernobyl:
Remediation made “clean food” production possible in many areas but led to higher costs in the form of fertilizers, additives and special cultivation processes. Even where farming is safe, the stigma associated with Chernobyl caused marketing problems and led to falling revenues, declining production and the closure of some facilities. Combined with disruptions due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, recession, and new market mechanisms, the region’s economy suffered, resulting in lower living standards, unemployment and increased poverty. All agricultural areas, whether affected by radiation or not, proved vulnerable.[...]
Currently and for the long term, radiocaesium, present in milk, meat and some plant foods, remains the most significant concern for internal human exposure, but, with the exception of a few areas, concentrations fall within safe levels.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
Then you know a hell of a lot more than the people who actually did the investigation! Only 3 parts were found, and there is nothing concrete to support any theory.
The report is for the most part technical, and it tries to answer the question of what happened using hard science.
The thing is, since there isn't enough information to make a deliberation like that, they don't.
But the idea that the responsible was the pilot, and that it was deliberate is the most accepted theory in the aviation industry.
The facts are:The plane was in route, but then took a turn exactly in the same place where another airway collided, and the plane started to move on that new airway. At almost the same time that there was the change in airway, the plane lost primary communication with air control, and stopped to broadcast it's primary position, making it "invisible" in commercial radar, but still visible in military radar, but since the plane was a commercial air plane using a common airway, the military probably overlooked this. The plane continued to broadcast hourly status requests from Inmarsat until about the time the plane was supposed to run out of fuel. Because of the communications from Inmarsat, and triangulation on the location of these communications, it is believed that the plane had to go down around the Southern Indian Ocean. In 2016, a leaked American document stated that a route on the pilot's home flight simulator closely matching the projected flight over the Indian Ocean was found during the FBI analysis of the hard drive of the computer used for the flight simulator.
So yeah, we cannot 100% conclude that it was intentional, or that the pilot was responsible... but there is very strong evidence that shows this as the most plausible cause.
5 ( +5 / -0 )
Some people are clearly pushing for same-sex unions to be recognized as the equivalent of marriages. However, nature and reason inform us that marriages are the long-term unions of a complementary pair, a man and a woman.
How can "nature and reason" inform you about marriage? Marriage isn't something from nature, it is a social contract we humans have created, it is a human fabrication.
Also, long-term nor being a "complementary pair" is a requirement for marriage right now. Also, do you have the number of "nature and reason"?, because I kind of what to be able to speak for them in that so confident way.
This pairing is the beginning of a family that may later produce children. So...marriage begins a family.
It seems you don't understand how human reproduction works, but marriage is actually not a requirement to reproduce, not if you marry means people will magically have children, so no, marriage and "child-making" are 2 different concepts.
Families are the building blocks of society. Families and marriage are, therefore, logically prior to society.
That's one of the most broken pieces of logic I've ever seen.
Family is PART of society. Family, nor marriage can be "prior" to society, because, if you have living persons living together, they are already forming a society.
Families are nothing more than groups inside a society, and in fact what constitutes a Family depends completely from society to society, and from point of history.
Governments did not create marriage through arbitrary laws but simply created laws to protect that which already existed, marriage.
The reason why governments started to issue marriage licenses is a little bit more complex.
The government has used the way it issues marriage licenses, and the benefits for it as a way to do social engineering. That's why you get benefits from marriage that you cannot get being single, because the government wants you to marry.
Governments have historically also restricted marriage between people of different ethnicities and people of different social status. Restricting what marriage is, in the way the governments do, means they are not just protecting what already exists, but try to define things, even if this definition goes against what already exist.
Not because the government doesn't recognize same-sex people as being married, these people will magically stop living together and stop being a family. The government not recognizing it is just that, the government trying to ignore or negate these people.
Hence, governments cannot ultimately redefine marriage.
As I already said, even thou they cannot in reality do it, in what constitutes the legal definition, it has been done before, and it continues to this day. The government defines marriage as whatever they want. There isn't some magical force stopping them from doing it
They can only damage them by interfering with them.
The only way the government can damage families is by ignoring them, pretending they do not exist, and denying them the same right as every other family.
You cannot take axe to the root of civilization, marriage and the family, without their being negative consequences.
Yes, because we have seen the fall of civilization for the government recognizing already existent couples. Just look at all those first world, highest hdi, highest income, highest GDP countries which have already recognized reality.
Obviously, places who don't do it, like most of the African continent, and the middle east are way better off, and have better societies.
0 ( +3 / -3 )
The fact that you need to label yourself as an LGBT activist in a country that has no laws against anyone being LGBT is confusing.
If you consider not having the same rights under the law as the law not being against LGBT people, then probably you never ever complain about any policy position of the government, unless they are literally making a law to kill you.
Why not just get on with life?
I do get on with life, believe it or not. Having a life and living my life doesn't mean I cannot or I'm unable to work for causes I think are good and just.
Also, it's also a little bit ironic, because you are defending the anti-gay activists. For some reason, they do not need to get on with their life, according to your standard.
This politician made a mistake with her comment because she is a politician. But the comment itself makes sense to me.
That is some sophistry right there.
According to her, she didn't make any mistake, and if you agree with her, then why would you say that "she made a mistake"?, Because right now she is getting criticized about their opinions?, because, I don't know if you are aware, but almost everyone here is also going against you.
But this sentiment makes no sense. If you really believe she is "telling the truth", then why do you see it as a "mistake" and not a "heroic effort to say the truth" or something like that?
I made no discriminatory remarks.
Never say you did, but what I will say is that you have a victim complex.
I just want hetrosexual people to wake up and realise that we are also entitled to have our hetrosexual opinions respected. *
Sorry to tell you about this, but it is not a "homosexual" vs "heterosexual" issue, since actually most of the people fighting for LGBT rights are heterosexual themselves.
What you meant to say is "anti-gay" people, because that is what you are. Your opinion is basically that LGBT people are less valuable members of society just because of their sexual orientation or gender identity, which is actually a form of discrimination.
You can have whatever opinion you want, but no one is entitled to have their "opinions respected". You gain the respect of others by making good arguments, but since the anti-gay movement is moved by nothing more than prejudice, ignorance and hate, unless you have those same kind of opinions, it's very difficult to get the respect you want.
If you want to be respected, stop saying or doing things that most people do not think are worth of respect.
The LGBT community have their same rights and protections in place.
No, they don't. LGBT people are unable to get married, are unable to have their partner recognized as family, which remove many rights and benefits, from taxes, visitation rights, visa, housing, loans...
Hell, you're even allowed to buy yourself babies now which I still can't get my head round.
Wow! Is there a baby shop somewhere? Because last time I checked there isn't, so maybe that is new.
The last thing I knew about this is that same-sex joint adoption in japan is actually not recognized, and the only such case in Japan of that was of a single couple, and they had to get approval by the city, which actually makes a background check before you can adopt a child as a foster parent.
Equal rights gone mad.
How can "equal rights" go mad? Rights are either equal or they are not.
If you think that equal rights can go mad, then maybe you do not believe in the concept of equal rights, which once again, is a form of discrimination.
3 ( +5 / -2 )
As one of the very few sensible posters posted earlier, ask yourself how you got here in the first place. Yep, it was down to male + female whichever liberal way you want to look at it. None of us got here down to male + male or female + female. Which makes this politicians point a little more relevant.
How does that makes it "relevant"?
No one is saying that a gay couple can give birth to a baby just by having sex like heterosexual couples do.
Every one knows how babies are made.
She isn't saying something along the lines of not using tax money to pay for same sex couples anticonceptives, because it makes no sense, or that we should not teach in school that 2 members of a sexual dimorphised species of the same sex can produce offspring, because it is faulty biology.
She is saying that tax payers shouldn't be put in the hands of LGBT people IN GENERAL because they are "non-productive members of society", justifying this concept as people who can produce offspring = productive member of society, which she doesn't even try to justify, and as commonly happen, ignores that heterosexual couples have the freedom to choose to not have children, and they still have the same benefits.
Ask yourself, when have you put the "social worth" of another human being in the number of offspring they biologically produce?
3 ( +5 / -2 )
The truth of the matter is, supporters of the whole gay thing want us to respect freedom of opinion and freedom of sexuality. But if anyone dares to stand up with a different opinion then the whole freedom of opinion and freedom of sexuality protest goes out the window.
Actually, most gay activists are not asking so much you to "respect freedom of opinion" and "freedom of sexuality", since we already have that.
We have freedom to express our opinions, and since there are no sodomy laws in Japan, no one is really asking for "freedom of sexuality". What LGBT activists for most of the part ask is to end discrimination, specially at the government level.
To give LGBT people the SAME RIGHTS that any other person has, and to not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Freedom of expression doesn't mean that if you say something, no one else will ever make a protests for what you said, to the contrary, freedom of expression is a double edge sword, you are free to say any dumb thing you want, and we are free to protest you for saying those things.
It seems almost like you think that someone criticizing your opinion is against freedom of expression, which is ridiculous, and actually wanting people to "shut up" whenever people makes a protest against anti-gay people is against freedom of expression.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
The news itself of what this crazy lawmaker said isn't really what disturbs me the most, because in my experience as an gay rights activist in japan, the main 2 arguments that anti-gay people always use to justify that the government discriminates against LGBT people are:
It is not normalThey don't have children
Not to mention that she had said almost the same things verbatim a few years back, so yeah, the main difference this time around is that now she is an actual member of the diet, and she is still saying these kind of things.
But as I said, this isn't what disturbs me, what really disturbs me is where the conversation has been moving.
Both sides are trying to make their own interpretation of whatever 生産性 (productive) means, and what she meant, even thou the LDP has been basically making the same claims of people who do not marry and have children as a "burden to society" for a while now.
And no one is really talking about rights of LGBT people, because right now they have near to none. The so called "partnership system" is mostly a symbolic thing, which provides no legal rights to whoever gets registered, and even to this day the better way to get any kind of legal protection or right for couples is by adopting their partner, which is messed up, but people do it.
But what disturbs me the most, is that no one is trying to debunk her claim that gay people can just become straight and that basically being gay is a "phase of high school", and this disturbs me the most, because even in the LGBT community in Japan, a lot of people have very low self esteem and think that their being gay is because there is something wrong with them.
She has also said that the fact that LGBT people have a higher suicide rate does not justify teachers actually teaching about sexuality because "they do not have time to do that", basically saying that LGBT children killing themselves is a non-issue at all.
0 ( +4 / -4 )
From my point of view, the worst problem of Japan is the non-functioning Judiciary .
The Judiciary in Japan does have independency from other branches of the government, but the culture inside the Judiciary is such that they almost always side with the central government on any problem, and instead of trying to interpret the law from an unbiased objective way, at times it almost seems that they are just trying to interpret the law so that they can justify the actions of the central government.
And in the rare cases where they agree that the central government is in the wrong, they do nothing more than "warn" the government to "fix the problem", and those warnings are almost always ignored.
A non functioning Judiciary means that the central government has no requirement to abide by any law, and allows for example, the creation of unconstitutional regulations meant to help some well connected business and persons, and there is no real recourse to fight against these abuses.
The non-functioning Judiciary, from my point of view, is the main reason why Japan takes so long to implement any real change to the laws.
1 ( +3 / -2 )
blame the cronies who have ignored advice and input from experts for generations
What experts? Input from "experts" doesn't change how math works.
Nuclear is still way ahead in energy production than any renewable source, and renewable sources still face many problems which cannot actually be solved (Like the paradox of solar, where the pick production is inverse to pick consumption).
There is a reason why in Japan basically had to up its use of fossil fuels after the government started to shut down nuclear plants: because it was the only actual way to replace that level of energy production.
I'm all for renewable energy, but I'm not blind to see the reality of the situation here.
Nuclear is still the best way to produce energy, buy sadly, because of the anti-nuclear lobby, we are still using fossil fuels.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Would you take your kids to live in a place that was extremely dubious?
> Give them food to eat that was grown in a place that was extremely dubious?
The claim that it is inhabitable is what is extremely dubious, since the radiation measured in those regions is comparable with natural radiation in many part of the world, not to mention that medically speaking, the risk of some problem from that level of radiation is extremely low.
So yeah, I would like there and grow my food there, since all of the radioactive fallout which is chemically similar to iodine, and present the main source of problems from nuclear disasters (According to the Chernobyl report) has disappeared many years ago, since it has a very short half-life.
You cannot deny that Japan sits on the Ring of Fire, where so-called 'out of scale' natural disasters occur on a regular basis. Just in the time I've been here, we've had the 1983 Sea of Japan earthquake, mag. 7.8 and causing a 10m tsunami: the 1995 Great Hanshin earthquake, mag. 7.3 that wreaked havoc in and around Kobe: the 2003 Hokkaido earthquake, mag. 8.3: and of course the big one, mag. 9.1 in 2011. In the past hundred years there have been some 38 quakes with a magnitude of 7 or higher, of which at least 10 had a magnitude of 8 or higher.
Well, this one was had a magnitude of 9.1, and if you understand ANYTHING about how the Moment magnitude scale works, you would know that it is a logarithmic scale, which means that an earthquake of 9.1 compared to one of 8.1 has 32 times the energy, and also that this earthquake was the 4th biggest ever recorded earthquake.
So no, it's not the same having a lot of 8.3 or 7.8 earthquakes to this one, not by a long shot.
The tsunami took out the cooling systems, though the emergency system was operable for a while. The plant was in ruins after the reactors exploded.
Here you show you actually do not know what happened. After the tsunami, most of the plant was underwater, and a lot of the heavy equipment and structures near the coast were wiped out.
The place was already in ruins before the accident.
They would still be producing ever-growing amounts of spent fuel needing processing and storage measured in the tens of thousands of years.
Actually storage of nuclear waste is extremely easy, and doesn't take that much space, specially when compared with waste of any other power plant.
I haven't seen the cost of that on my electricity bill. If my grandkids don't see it, their grandkids will.
Probably because you live in a place that wasn't so reliant on nuclear plants.
Here in Hokkaido, the prices went to the roof, but since it isn't you, maybe you don't care.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
The actual damage the accident actually did contaminated a large part of northern Japan and made the area for tens of kilometres around the plant uninhabitable until long after the life spans of the residents. Families were uprooted and livelihoods destroyed. At one point even the Tokyo water supply was contaminated. Even now, tons of irradiated water are accumulating in leaking tanks around the plant and the scientists have no idea what to do with it.
Yes, there was and still radioactive contamination, but the idea that those places are inhabitable is extremely dubious.
Many of the places that the Japanese government put under the No-go zone had less radiation levels than those around it which had higher levels, not to mention, and this is the most important part, most of the places with higher than normal radiation for the zone do not place any real danger for people to continue to live in those places.
This is the part were the overreaction with no scientific basis comes from. Basically the Japanese government doesn't care that much on evaluating a potential relative low damage of letting people live in places with higher than normal radiation levels to a the high damage that the evacuations themselves have created.
Not only that, this kind of overreaction also made that people who weren't even on the declared "no-go zone" evacuated voluntarily because of a wrong perception on what the actual dangers of radiation are.
Let me put it more bluntly. Anti nuclear power propaganda leads to more damage to the victims of nuclear disasters because of the panic they create with their misinformation.
The difference is that the one is just that, a natural disaster, while the 'accident' was a man-made disaster waiting to happen.
Man-made disaster waiting to happen? Well, aren't cars, planes, gas plants, ovens and other potentially dangerous places and items that are man-made also disaster waiting to happen?
I mean, how many people die in accidents from any of the things I said on a yearly basis.
And not because there is the potential for harm we have banned any of those things. It has everything to do with a real assessment of the risks against the benefits.
And excuse me, even if you take into account the negligence of TEPCO, you cannot deny that this accident was brought by a natural disaster of out of scale, and that in any other circumstance (specially if you do know and understand what went wrong with the power station) this accident would not had happened.
It wasn't just that the power station lost power to cool down their reactors, it was that basically there was no way to get the help they needed in time, and that the plant itself was in ruins after the tsunami making any work on the plant extremely difficult. In fact, the only people who died in the power plant were those who drowned from the tsunami.
if the plants are properly decommissioned at the end of their designated working life instead of being kept on line for twice as long as intended, then nuclear power is not cost-effective*
This is just a lie. One of the main reasons why there are so many old plants doing "overwork" until this day is because after Chernobyl and all the anti-nuclear propaganda became mainstream, constructing a new modern plant has become extremely difficult.
So, instead of replacing old plants with new ones, the old ones are kept running until there is some way to replace that source of power.
If the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi power station were new models, which have passive cooling systems, there wouldn't have been any disaster.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
Emergency evacuation of sick and elderly likely led to many early deaths, as did the stress of living in temporary housing and shelters. (But they didn't die as a direct result of radiation, so that's OK?)
> Over 150,000 people were forced to evacuate and leave behind pets and livestock, many of which starved to death. (But they didn't die as a direct result of radiation, so that's OK?)
> The financial cost of (trying to) contain the radiation leaking from the plant, decontamination of the surrounding area, etc., runs into the trillions of yen, paid for by the taxpayer. Not to mention the incalculable financial damage to the agriculture, fisheries and tourism industries of Fukushima and surrounding areas.
> But no one actually got zapped directly by the radiation, so everything's OK.
So, the overreaction with no scientific basis at all by the Japanese government is equal to the actual damage of what the accident actually did?
Also, and everyone seems to forget this when talking about the Fukushima daiichi accident, there was one of the most powerful earthquakes and tsunamis in recorded history, which killed thousands.
So, if a tsunami kills thousands and many more die because of evacuation, that's ok, but if some were forced by the government to evacuate because of an accident, cause in most part by the same tsunami, then that's so evil that we must ban all nuclear power from the face of the planet?
-1 ( +2 / -3 )
Arguably the most dangerous substance in the world
According to who?
Polonium-210 and Mercury are way more toxic and dangerous.
Isotopes of Plutonium used by the Nuclear power industry have a very high half life, which makes them like uranium by themselves not too dangerous.
People who know almost nothing about nuclear physics think that somehow they can asses the danger of radioactive substances because of fear of the unknown.
Can't eat it, can only be buried and left for several generations to deal with. Or send it to another country let them deal with it. And of course make bombs.
Actually, just like uranium, plutonium is a natural element found in nature. Your back yard may have plutonium in it, and you are not the wiser.
The safety and future are totally disregarded in place of current investments. How many nuclear disasters will it take for Japan to realize that, nuclear power is not safe or cheap?
Any other industry in the energy sector has had way more disasters, and have way more people dying from those disasters. Just as the Chernobyl report showed, the main problem of nuclear disasters is the mental health of people who get scared way too much about the consequences of radiation without really understanding them.
This Fukushima incident was quite enough to show how dangerous and hazardous those plants are, equivanet to 6,000 atomic bombs(!!!).
What standard are you using to say this?
As far as I know, there was no explosion that whipped out cities and killed thousands of people. In fact, NO ONE DIED from this accident.
Anti nuclear people will always try to compare nuclear power to nuclear bombs just to scare people who know no better.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
Smokers are already voluntarily destroying their lives. Both my parents destroyed their lives long before they were old enough to receive a pension. They were good, law-abiding people, and if cigs had been illegal they may well have lived long enough to see their grandkids grow up.
Or maybe they would have died while in jail for possession.
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
The level of poverty in Japan is lower than the United States according to the latest OECD figures from 2015. Japan stands at 16.1% and the US is at 16.8.
Barely, and the trend points to a reversal soon enough. With these kind of numbers, talking about how Japan has "less poverty", while "technically true", since its basically the same level, doesn't look too good, even more when you know how poverty in the US is.
would you acknowledge that Japan would probably have a lower level of childhood poverty than many western countries in your ideal libertarian world?
First, the poverty rate in general isn't affected that much by child poverty, specially when you have a big working poor population.
Second, there ARE child benefits in Japan, which is higher than many of those in many European Unions, that have a lower child poverty rate.
Nice try to make a correlation that would prove your preconceptions, but in the first place, I'm not a hard-core anarcho-capitalist, or some hardline libertarian, I'm simply skeptical of the supposed benefits of what governments do, specially when you take into account the unintended consequences of their actions, and how trying to revert any of those policies, even if they are causing more harm than good, can be nearly imposible.
Let me put it this way, if there is a proven program that does show having a good "return on investment", and doesn't really have negative unintended consequences, I'm not against it... problem is, most times it just doesn't work like that.
The weak yen policy is first and foremost a stealth subsidy to the export sector in my opinion. It's what every exporting nation tries to do.
Let me put it this way, even if that was the case, it make no economic sense.
Japan is a export economy... but it is also a very strong import economy, which means that if you have a weak currency, it will cost you way more to import things, erasing any "benefit" you might have had with the exports.
Not to mention that, you don't require to have a week currency to sell cheap, you only need a cheap price to sell cheap. When there is inflation (meaning, when the currency is loosing value) prices go up, so if exports maintain the same prices, that is equivalent to just lowering them when there is no inflation.
but imagine how much further they would have risen if TEPCO had been declared bankrupt and its assets were sold off
I actually think it would have been better. Maybe for the first year of something like that it would have been way higher, but after no so long prices would have actually gone lower than they are today.
The way the Japanese government responded to this crisis has been terrible, and not being able to even remove the "no-entry zones" even when radiation is low enough for people to be able to live without problems, shows just how ill-advised their whole policy has been.
I'm curious how you conclude that people are abandoning cars at an alarming rate when domestic auto sales have been increasing year on year since 2015?
You do know that the increase is mainly in the "Used car" sector, right?
And as I said, a lot of people get rid of their car when they have to do the shaken... and then some of them buy a used car, because it is cheaper than doing the shaken.
Not to say that 3 years out of the last decades going slightly up, against the trend says nothing on the state of the industry.
But is it bad in every type of economy, in every industry, in every instance, over every time horizon? Surely not. If it were, it would be the one rule in this world without any exceptions.
That's really not an argument. You are basically saying that since "there are no absolutes in this world, surely not ALL protectionism can possibly be wrong".
Thing is, on a small scale, it may not seem like that, but on a bigger scale, when you take all the variables into account, it kind of is.
Because, like it or not, if protectionism is contrary to what the market wants, then it's bad for the economy.
And if you have a protectionist policy that aligns with what the market wants... then is useless, because people were going to buy local either way, but even here you screw some consumers who want an alternative, or are not part of the local trend.
Currently, Mexico's main comparative advantage with the US is an abundance of human labour willing to work for lower wages (and perhaps looser environmental regulation?) but that will be irrelevant with the rise of 100% automation.
And I don't see a problem with that. I don't care which country has an "advantage" on an specific sector, because I don't believe that it matters.
In a truly global economy, it shouldn't matter these kind of things, because in a global economy it is not so much countries competing with each other, but people. Problem is that we are actually in a transition period, which is why things like free trade disrupt some of the local trade, and is seen as a bad thing for those who are affected by it.
But the alternative makes no sense. Implementing protectionist ideas is just going to let you maintain your status quo for a while, but in the end, unless you want to be an isolationist, the barrieres are going to have to go down.
In the short term, yes, people are going to see negative effects, and it can be really hard and really easy to oppose if you are in the receiving side. But in the long term, free trade has been proven to be the best policy for everyone.
I guess I can only recommend that you have a closer look at the literature because these studies are very carefully constructed to control for the variables you mention, and they do not show what you are claiming.
I don't think you understand where I'm coming from.
I'm not saying that the IQ test is 100% useless, I'm saying that it is very flawed, and that a lot of people give it way too much credit.
If you have an IQ test on subjects with roughly the same economic status, and the same social situation, then it may help you to discover some people who have higher intelligence in some aspects, like memory, mathematical ability and pattern recognition, which at the same time may be an indicator of general intelligence.
But when you compare between test with subjects with very different backgrounds, the test starts to make less and less sense, and even less sense if you make comparisons between different types of tests.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Ok, I'm going to ignore that you were trying to equate tobacco and marijuana as the same thing, then somehow jumped to opioids, and respond to your comment:
> They should be.
What is they and they should be what?
Opioids should be legal for recreational use?... ok, if you believe that, even thou opioids do way more harm than Tabaco, why are you against Tabaco again?
-1 ( +0 / -1 )
I didn't realise Bernie Sanders was posting on JT, or was in any way interested in/knowledgable about Japanese smoking laws.
And the opposite is also true. Many people who think smokers are stupid and need to be regulated think the same about potheads.
Yes, and there are also people who believe that neither one should be regulated. Sadly most people fell in either of the 2 categories I mentioned earlier.
It likely means a lot of people aren't going to start doing it in the first place. And if the sale of cigarettes is made illegal, far fewer people are going start/continue smoking than if they can pick up a pack at any supermarket.
And those who do will be treated like criminals, have their lives destroyed, and probably will create a new black market for Tabaco.
Sounds like an excellent solution.
-2 ( +0 / -2 )
Do you think it's legitimate for people to worry about the pace and scale of industrial decline in their country?
I don't know what you mean by "legitimate", but like it or not people do worry about it, and I don't think that if you worry about it, then you are a bigot.
What I do think is that, a lot of these worries are unfounded, and most people do not have an education basic economics, so many of their worries are actually a result of ignorance, which gets exacerbated by politicians like Trump making their ethnic nationalistic talking points, which make people wonder if they are right.
*Is poverty lower in Japan than in the United States? Is child poverty lower in Japan than in the United States? Is income inequality lower in Japan than the United States? The answer to all three questions is a resounding yes, and that is what we are comparing here.*
Sadly thou, you are incorrect.
Poverty rate is increasing at an alarming rate of 1.3% in Japan, since 1985. The poverty rate increase average is 1.0% annually for all other OECD member nations. The OECD report places Japan just below U.S.A., which has a 17.3% poverty measure, statistics indicate that U.S.A. has been cutting down on poverty, by a 0.7% decrease since 1985.
As I explained earlier, income inequality doesn't really answer the question of the economic health of a country, especially if your country has a lot of billionaires and millionaires, which will increase the Gini ratio regardless of the rest of the population.
You seem to be wrong on this. The US scores higher on every criteria of the 'open markets' portion of the index. Are you talking about the IEF from the Heritage Foundation or are you looking at a different one?
You are right, I confused the IEF with other of the many index there are. The IEF actually mixes free trade and regulations in the same category, and regulations are way worse in Japan, and these get qualified as "Nontariff barriers" even thou Japanese companies have to overcome the same barriers.
Japanese Tariffs are one of the lowest of the world (with Hong Kong having the absolute lowest, by not having any tariffs), and as I said, automobiles are tariff free in Japan.
Japan's industrial policy goes far beyond tariffs and includes things like a weak yen which benefits auto exporters, to the TEPCO bailouts to ensure cheap energy, to massive investment in state owned infrastructure like the ro-ro ports that serve the car companies
The weak yen is actually a policy based on the Keynes economic model, which is also followed by the US, which believes that deflation creates a week economy, and that inflation is necessary for a strong economy.
And even thou the Bank of Japan has tried its best for decades to devaluate the yen, they really haven't had much success, and the inflation rate of Japan is still way off the desired and magical 2%.
The TEPCO bailouts haven't been good at all to ensure "cheap energy", since energy prices actually went up, and people from the TEPCO region, have to pay an extra free.
In fact, the policies of the Japanese government have done nothing but to inflate the costs of energy in Japan, and now they have to import more a more gas just to keep the country alive, since they shot down most nuclear reactors.
There is a lot of cronyism in Japan, I don't deny that, but that is different to protectionist policies, since, once again, even the local market has to overcome this cronyism barrier to be able to compete.
Also, if the shaken is not a stealth subsidy to the domestic auto industry, what is it?
I don't get your logic for this, because one of the main reasons people are just abandoning cars in Japan at an alarming rate is because of the high taxes and obligations of just owning a car.
If the idea was to help the auto industry, it seems to me like they are shooting themselves in the foot, since a lot of people just get rid of their car instead of paying the shaken.
Governments around the world invest in infrastructure and education as part of their industrial policy. But if you oppose this on ideological grounds as a libertarian, I'm not sure I can convince you otherwise.
A lot of people get screwed when you pass protectionist policies, which is what we were talking about.
Starting with consumers, which you yourself seem to not only accept as a causality of protectionist policies, but you think it is ok, even thou if you count the number of people who are loosing money against those who are keeping their non-competitive job, you see a net loss to the economy.
Not to mention that because of protectionist policies, people who work in protected industries, since they do not have to compete, they can be as ineffective as they want, and provide a bad service or product, and people will still buy, because there's literally is no alternative.
Also, the fact that people have to spend more in this single industry just to help people to not have to compete in a global market, it means that that money will not be expended somewhere else in the economy.
Protectionist policies basically stagnate the economic development of the country.
You'd create the 1 or 2 robot overseer jobs and you'd save resources on transport costs. Why would it be a waste of time and resources if the comparative advantage of large scale overseas production has now completely disappeared?
Apparently you have no clue how macroeconomics work.
Not all countries consume at the same rate, don't consume the same things, and they don't do it at the same time.
Basically each country would have to make an initial investment on many billions of dollars of factories, and expend billions of dollars in maintenance, but the actual return on investment may not make sense depending on the region, because, as I said, not everyone consumes at the same rate.
So, for example, a small country may not be able to justify the cost of building a gigantic soda factory, but they would be able to just import the soda at a fraction of the cost of what would cost them to build and maintain the factory.
So, in the end, if that was the global policy, a lot of factories wouldn't get constructed, and the availability of goods would vary a lot from country to country, making the world a worst place to live.
It's certainly not a utopia, but it does have one of the highest living standards in the world.
True, but many countries have a higher living standard than Japan, and most of those countries have wide ranging free trade policies. And Japan also does. In fact, as I said, Japan for the most part is pro free trade.
If IQ is so flawed, why does it correlate so highly with life outcomes?
Because the correlation you see there is actually the inverse. People with good outcomes tend to score higher in the IQ tests, not the other way around.
By simply having a better education system, the IQ test improves, which shows how the IQ test have little to do with some sort of inherent intelligence.
1 ( +1 / -0 )