The reason these classic rock groups and albums are still popular today is because they're more attractive to young, middle-aged, and old than most of the new music today. Not saying that all new music is bad...there are some interesting acts but just not that many of them. The music is alright but has no staying power and after a few years, forgettable....much like many of today's films as well. As for live performances nowadays.......I go to concerts to listen to and see musicians play music not to watch a bunch of dancers or terrible live bands.
3 ( +3 / -0 )
TokyoJoeToday 06:21 pm JST
Exactly, anyone that sends their kids to juku instead of letting them enjoy their childhood is part of this problem.
Totally agree. The Juku system in Japan is essentially a scam supported by the ministry of education, high schools, and universities. There are cram schools all over the world but one usually only needs to go for a couple of months before an exam not for 3 - 4 years like in Japan. A lot of time it's peer pressure, 'Everyone is going so I have to too'. Many of the 'tutors' who work there are students who just recently passed the test and entered university. Perhaps that's why you have to go for 3 - 4 years; because the quality of advice and support is so poor, it takes that much time to learn how to pass entrance examinations. These tutors and the people who own and run Juku's are not educators.
The other question is why aren't high schools providing enough or the proper instruction to help students pass the exams? Why do so many have to rely on Juku's? Why is there so little commonality between what they teach in high schools and what's asked on university entrance examinations?
Then you have companies with their strange hiring practices based on one's 'personality' and not on one's major or specialization. I guess because Japanese companies want to 'mold' recruits into Nomura or SMBC people which takes upwards of 10yrs or more, so what they studied at university is irrelevant. If that's the case, why bother going to university aside from name and brand image.
Is this education?
15 ( +18 / -3 )
RecklessToday 05:33 pm JST
'There was serious negligence involved but the responsibility rests on the on-set specialists hired to do exactly that.'
I agree, on the other hand as you may have read, there were complaints of safety lapses in advance of this accident, and the executive in charge may have some liability based on knowing the risk and not taking appropriate actions.
I guess that'll come out during the investigation. If there is, then executive management may bear some legal and possible criminal responsibility. I understand that Baldwin was one of the producers as well as an actor. As an actor, he can't be held responsible. As a one of the producers, it depends. I recall the Brandon Lee incident on set. The actor who fired the gun wasn't held in any way responsible. How could he? In no way are actors required to check if a gun on set has blank or live rounds. No live rounds should ever be around in the first place.
0 ( +1 / -1 )
This happened on a movie set not on a firing range or private target practice where live rounds are used and expected. No actor or producer checks all firearms before firing because it's a movie set where live rounds are never expected or present. Most actors wouldn't even be able to identify a blank round from a live round. No producer or actor checks all safety issues on set and for stunts themselves. You hire specialists to do that. There was serious negligence involved but the responsibility rests on the on-set specialists hired to do exactly that.
0 ( +2 / -2 )
Not a big loss. The JET program is essentially a failure and only continues because Japan just keeps doing the same thing for fear of change. It's had very little impact on actually improving English among students in the countryside because foreign teachers are part slaves, part performers under the control of Japanese teachers who are still in charge of their English programs and are the 'head English' teachers. JET is a bad joke because the Japanese teachers refuse to give up control even though most can't speak or even hate English.
1 ( +6 / -5 )
TokyoLivingToday 11:06 am JST
How unfortunate for the workers, I hope everyone can recover and also the tiger.. Many accidents in sanctuaries and zoos with big cats are due to overconfidence and poor handling..
Zoos in Japan are generally pretty horrible for the animals.
Go to third world zoos..
A lot of them are really horrible, Japan zoos are not bad, no drama here..
So you're saying it's not a big deal because conditions in third world developing countries are worse.....you're comparing Japan, the 3rd largest economy in the world, to third world countries as proof that zoo conditions in Japan aren't that bad. That's an incredibly weak argument to justify terrible conditions in Japanese zoos. They should be held to a much higher standard than those of third world countries. And yes, the zoos in Japan are some of the worst I've ever seen.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
The notion that once a animal tastes humans flesh or blood, it will crave it from that point on is a myth. There is no scientific evidence to support it.
It depends on the nature of the attack and specific behaviors. If it stalked, attacked and tried to feed on a human then wildlife authorities may decide to put it down based on its aggressive behavior not based on it having tasted human flesh or blood.
If an animal attacks to protect its young, if it was startled, if its mating season, etc., then in most cases, the animal will not be put down.
Tigers are naturally aggressive and territorial.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
If you're the boss, director, producer, teacher, etc., you're in a position of power. Some of those under you may not be able to say no for fear of losing jobs, opportunities, introductions, referrals, good grades. It's not as if Franco 'fell in love' with one and overstepped professional boundaries. There were several and it shows a pattern of behavior; using his position of power on those under him for sex. Just because it was supposedly consensual doesn't make it right nor does it diminish Franco's actions.
-1 ( +1 / -2 )
SpeedToday 08:53 am JST
Keep your woke opinions to yourself.
I dont think brothels are necessarily a bad thing. And I find the red light district of Yoshiwara along with many of the Japanese cities and towns to be fascinating. Many which existed until recently and some still do in a much smaller and discrete capacity.
I don't look at paying for sex to be "wrong."
Prostitution is the reason why there's sexual trafficking and slavery. Nobody wants to be a prostitute. It's because they're desperate, dealing with addiction, or have mental health issues. There's often a miserable, sad story. There's abuse and violence dealing with customers and pimps.
The image of the independent sex trade worker who does it safely and freely is an exaggeration.
It's funny how some call it the Oldest Profession when in most cases historically they were slaves or prisoners. Euphemisms are used to justify its existence by the 'Johns'.
-1 ( +4 / -5 )
There are a few very good to great movies this year but the vast majority are simply not that good to plain bad. There's been a general lack of creativity in Hollywood for quite some time hence why we get these sequels and remakes that nobody really asked for. Then there's the poor quality of writing with nonsensical and banal scripts. Then add all the lame comic book movies that most have grown sick of and it's easy to see why so few films leave a lasting positive impression.
6 ( +7 / -1 )
Not a fan of Royals but I admire that the men in the British Royal Family have a tradition of military service. Their standard of living and income is primarily from taxpayers so doing military service seems appropriate. It's nice to see society elites willing to sacrifice their lives in service to their country. More so considering that the vast majority of the military in most countries are low income youth. The wealthy and privileged more often than not push for wars politically but rarely actually fight wars or ask or expect their children to do so.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Private company that after decades of commercial success somehow can't find funds to manage their museum now. And sadly some will make a 'donation'. Reminds me of 'volunteer activities' at some primary and high schools: go cleanup the inside of the nearest train station.
3 ( +5 / -2 )
Kazuaki ShimazakiToday 05:01 pm JST
*@MilesTeg**Today 03:46 pm JST*
human rights issue
We can take the banner of human rights too. From a human rights perspective, it is deplorable for a person to be at risk of arrest because of a determination made by a country she's neither a citizen or a resident of. That also has higher priority than where the kid belongs to.
Now you're claiming it's a sovereignty/jurisdiction issue
Are you kidding me? On 11:05 am JST today, on my first post on this thread. I said:
I express my disgust. I don't care how sympathetic you are to this "Fichot". This is a violation of Japanese sovereignty. Here's why:
*Sovereignty had always been my first point. The rattle over "child abductions" have been going on for a decade, which actually makes it old. France's action crosses a line which makes it the most important & interesting point.*
And I would like to think if the situation was reversed - Japan demanding that France hand over one of its citizens for an action committed in France that would have been non-criminal in France (double-criminality principle), I'll frown.
I think the real racists and nationalists are the ones that instantly leap for "You are only saying this because Victim is A" rather than considering the affair on its merits.
What merit are you talking about? What merit should I consider? The only merit you're referring to is her being a Japanese citizen. That's it. So if that's your only dubious merit, then nationalistic sounds completely right.
The moment Japan signed on as a signatory on the Hague Convention, it is required to include the below as domestic law.
Japan is a signatory to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stipulates parties shall “respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.”
Further, the UN and other legal entities clearly state:
"It is a basic principle of international law that a State party to an international treaty must ensure that its own domestic law and practice are consistent with what is required by the treaty."
So she broke the law in Japan by refusing to allow her husband visitation rights and the Japanese government failed to set a legal hearing to determine if her claim that the husband is abusive is true or not. Japan's unwillingness to act on an illegal activity and refusal to have a legal hearing is what precipitated France issuing a warrant for her. If Japan had acted based on both domestic and international law, France wouldn't have issued a warrant, the situation would most likely have been resolved.
France isn't to blame. Japan's refusal to respect their own laws as well as international laws is to blame. Therefore claiming it's an issue of sovereignty/jurisdiction is false and also nationalistic in nature.
11 ( +15 / -4 )
Kazuaki ShimazakiToday 03:29 pm JST
*@MilesTeg**Today 01:47 pm JST*
Her abducting children from her spouse in of itself should be a crime in Japan and the now the French government has determined her actions under French law is a crime.
And here, we have a problem with jurisdiction and sovereignty. The wife, whether you like it or not, is Japanese and lives in Japan. For France to insist on arresting her is no different from the Chinese sending out a warrant because they have "determined" that your actions have "violated" Chinese law (even though you took them on non-Chinese soil). If you tolerate this, you are saying the Chinese may control your actions through threats of arresting you. Are you cool with that or not?
“respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.”
I don't see anything about criminalization or allowing other nations criminal jurisdiction on your soil.
You seem to be thinking of this as a matter of family law. I don't. The moment France took this action, I see this as a matter of the very basics of international law. Of sovereignty, self-determination and jurisdictional issues. Which are frankly, a lot more important to me or even you than a family dispute.
You're clearly biased in this case because you're Japanese. Hence why this is is a sovereignty/jurisdiction issue for you and not a family and human rights issue which is really comes down to. I'm not Japanese nor French. The fact is, if Japanese respected their own laws and their commitment to the Hague Convention and held a legal hearing to determine the truth, then it would've never come to this, The abduction occurred in Japan not in France. Japan signed the Convention thus are required by their own law to give a fair legal hearing. It's Japan that is causing the situation by not following their legal requirements.
First you implied he was guilty of abuse by siding with the wife when there was no evidence. Another example of a bias. Now you're claiming it's a sovereignty/jurisdiction issue when Japan never respected their legal and international commitments. The only reason you're up in arms about this is because France has issued a warrant for a Japanese citizen. Pure nationalism and nothing to do with the crux of the situation from a social, human rights, or legal perspective.*
8 ( +12 / -4 )
Kazuaki ShimazakiToday 12:32 pm JST
*@MilesTeg**Today 11:29 am JST*
Custodial rights have to determined based on legal process not just one person's word over another's and in the case of a broken-up couple, there often are strong emotions involved that make people exaggerate and flat out lie.
I agree that Fischot has not been stripped of his custodial rights via legal process - if that were the case, there won't even be a tort! The problem is ... neither has his wife! And Japanese law purports that where you have custodial rights and where you have not infringed on the freedom of your children, to abduct them is not a crime.
This point of substantive law precedes any thoughts of procedure.
Your comparison to China is utterly irrelevant.
I drag China in this to remind everyone of the dangers of allowing another State to criminalize the actions of your own citizens, and the impropriety of a State claiming this right.
Her abducting children from her spouse in of itself should be a crime in Japan and the now the French government has determined her actions under French law is a crime. You're praising a clear deficiency along with the lack of joint custody in Japanese law which in its own way is criminalizing the husband based on an unsubstantiated accusation and bemoaning France's decision to issue a criminal warrant.
Yet the point isn't about which country's law prevails with complicated extradition and other international issues. The father is entitled to a legal hearing in Japan to determine if he has visitation rights not custody as well as to determine if the wife's accusations that he's abusive is true or a lie. You either agree that he's entitled to such legal handling in Japan under Japanese law or he isn't. The rest of what you wrote is just making a simple situation needlessly convoluted.
Under Japanese Law: Japan is a signatory to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stipulates parties shall “respect the right of the child who is separated from one or both parents to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis, except if it is contrary to the child’s best interests.”
Maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents. Is that what he's asking for? Not joint custody which doesn't exist in Japan. According to her accusation that he's abusive, it would be contrary to the children's best interests. Well then, the Japanese courts should have a hearing and determine if that's the case or not.
3 ( +6 / -3 )
Kazuaki ShimazakiToday 12:05 pm JST
I'm not so certain Japan was all that thrilled with signing that convention, but OK, they signed.
*The name of the treaty is the **Hague Convention on the Civil **Aspects of International Child Abduction. Do you notice the word "criminal" is not in there?*
The father has been 'accused' of criminal activity with no proof, not convicted so the term criminal here is not relevant. I certainly hope that you're not a real lawyer.
7 ( +11 / -4 )
Kazuaki ShimazakiToday 12:01 pm JST
You are not the only one with this basic point so I'll dispose of it here. This is a "Standard of Proof" question. If we accept that letting the kid get abused is the worst possible outcome, given the reality that abuse does not always leave convenient visible marks, and that we are not imposing any State-enforced coercions (much less criminal convictions) on this character ... what kind of Standard of Proof do you demand before someone is permitted to take private Self-Defense actions concerning their child. Do you want to personally sign up to a statement saying that woman and child must bear abuse until a court agrees they have indeed been abused?
Heck, maybe you are a woman. Do you pledge to sit there and take abuse just so avoid any chance of a male's oh-so-precious custodial rights being infringed?
You're avoiding the issue and just plain deflecting. The point is there should be due legal process to determine if there was abuse or not and 'part' of that process involves standard/burden of proof. You either agree there should be legal process or there shouldn't, The rest of what you wrote is just plain gibberish.
16 ( +18 / -2 )
Kazuaki ShimazakiToday 11:05 am JST
I express my disgust. I don't care how sympathetic you are to this "Fichot". This is a violation of Japanese sovereignty. Here's why:
In Japanese law, the wife's act may be a tort, but not a crime, because the crime of youth kidnapping is assessed to have the child's freedom and custodial rights as its protected interests. If the kids don't show interest in the dad (as is likely), there is no infringement on their freedom, and the wife is exercising her custodial rights. This is France violating Japanese sovereignty over its own citizens by imposing its own values, and is not very different from for example China seeking to apply "protective jurisdiction" on national security crimes ("He said something") on foreign soil.
Custodial rights have to determined based on legal process not just one person's word over another's and in the case of a broken-up couple, there often are strong emotions involved that make people exaggerate and flat out lie. If you believe in the legal process then each case should be brought to court and a decision made by a professional, impartial source such as a judge. These fathers have been asking for legal process and Japan won't even hear the case because the mother is 'Japanese' and the father a foreigner. Depending on the age of the children, what they want may not be relevant. Certainly important when the mother lives with the children and can influence how the children feel about their father. Your comparison to China is utterly irrelevant.
Second, the measure cannot be defended as defending shared custody, because the proposed solution of arresting (and presumably convicting) the wife would have the result of leaving Fichot with single custody of the children.
Not true. There are alternatives. It's possible for the wife's family to maintain custody.
Third, I don't think the peanut gallery knows Fichot enough to override the wife's assertion that he is unsafe. Should Fichot get access to his kids and it turns out he's an abuser, how many of you are willing to accept accessory liability?
Do you know the wife enough to believe her unsubstantiated accusation? Why assume she's right and he's wrong when you know as much about their actual relationship as we do....basically nothing, The wife's accusation really means zilch unless it can be proven in court. Accessory liability is a joke in this case.
20 ( +23 / -3 )
ChibakunToday 07:33 am JST
Did he get a job?
Did you read the article?
He and other parents aren't asking for custody. They're asking to just be able to see their children. It's called visitation rights. Having a job or not is irrelevant.
15 ( +19 / -4 )
If the show was still running, this would be the subject of a new episode with Homer and Bart going to China to investigate, getting arrested and interrogated, escaping with the help of Jackie Chan, finding the missing episode and broadcasting it illegally all over China via Bart's iPhone with extra Itchy & Scratchy tidbits then meeting the ghost of Mao. Man...I miss the Simpsons.
4 ( +4 / -0 )
William77Today 06:31 pm JST
And again as proved before total lockdowns won’t contain the spread of the variants around the world.
I agree in locking travels from certain danger areas in the world but a total lockdown and ban every foreign is xenophobic and ineffective.
we live in Sakoku 2.0.
Raw BeerToday 07:04 pm JS
Scared? I'm not at all scared of this mild virus. But I am concerned about the response it might generate... though I admit I miss the empty trains...
So the best is no action. Governments don't need to do anything. Just let the virus run it's course and whoever dies, dies......this is usually followed by a banal cliche like 'people die'. Not surprisingly that those who feel this way also feel that vaccinations, masks, and distancing aren't necessary.
According to the CDC, the highest mortality rate from the flu in the last decade in the US was 52,000 in 2017. COVID-19 has killed more than 730,000 in the US. Yet some still think that governments and people are overreacting and refuse to take precautions to protect themselves and more importantly, others.*
0 ( +5 / -5 )
The atmosphere in Japanese offices is so tense and morose combined with strict hierarchies that you never really get to know your colleagues. You work with someone for over 20yrs yet you still have to address him as Watanabe-san. Relationships and communication are too formal and stiff. If Japanese offices were more relaxed and laid back you wouldn't need to go out drinking so often with your colleagues.
5 ( +7 / -2 )
And the yield on these Japanese government bonds? Probably around 0.08% for 10yrs maturation.....what an absolutely terrible investment. It's a joke.
Yes other governments do the same thing but their bonds offer significantly better ROI.
2 ( +2 / -0 )
All you need to know about the state of music in Japan. And they wonder why none of them become popular in Western countries.
-1 ( +5 / -6 )
More than often some Japanese tell me that there is little to no poverty in Japan, abuse, rape & sexual assaults so there's no point in funding programs because it would an inefficient use of tax payers money. Yet all these social and criminal issues affect children. They are often the common denominator. Not focusing on children means you're not focusing on the future.
1 ( +4 / -3 )
Jodorowsky's failed project is only good for memorabilia. He wanted to make a 12hrs movie back then with Salvadore Dali, Mick Jagger, and Orson Wells. Even with HR Giger and Chris Foss doing visuals, it would've been a fiasco.
Some of my favorite movies have been directed by Lynch but there's a reason why he doesn't want to be associated with Dune. Paul Atreides makes it rain at the end LOL!....., Harkonnens in hazmat suits, weirding way turned into a sonic weapon, terrible inner monologues, pugs, vampiric Baron with pustules, etc, etc.
The Syfy channel had 2 miniseries in the 90's that were more faithful to the novels but lacked the budget. Though the costumes and SFX were terrible, it's not bad if you think of it as a theatre production.
Many say Dune is unadaptable to the big screen. It took a Dune fanatic like Denis Villeneuve who is a great director and who knows how to do sci-fi to give us the best adaptation so far. Only covering the first half of the book in part 1 made Dune fans let out a sigh of relief.
0 ( +0 / -0 )
ZaphodToday 02:58 pm JST
What is acceptable in in Qatar is determined by Qatar law, which is Sharia based
OK, "they". I suggest none of them bothered to read up on Shariah law.
At the time, Qatar's Prime Minister Khalid bin Khalifa bin Abdulaziz Al Thani tweeted an apology saying: "We regret the unacceptable treatment of the female passengers... What took place does not reflect Qatar's laws or values." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59288177
The PM himself stated this practice is not part of Qatar's laws. So there was no point in them reading-up on Shariah Law. You clearly didn't bother to read-up on the story from better news sources.
4 ( +6 / -2 )
Well if these incidents continue to increase, maybe undercover train cops could help. Actually, uniformed cops may be an even better deterrent to also help remind people of manners: seats are for people not your bag, please put your shoes back on, your smartphone is in that person's face, stop spreading your legs, turn down your music, keep your elbows in, stop leaning back so far, stop smashing your keyboard and type softly, please blow your nose....
0 ( +0 / -0 )
Pretty much everything is derivative in some way. One could argue that all of these shows and mangas took from a Dangerous Game and Lord of the Flies.
What matters is execution (no pun intended), writing, direction, dialogue, and acting. Squid Game excels in these areas where others didn't do as good a job. Some of them (As God Wills, Alice in Borderland) are YA (Young Adult) are about teenagers and you can't expect much in the acting department compared to older, more experienced actors.
2 ( +4 / -2 )
Pouring boiling water on cats...........
He doesn't do this because there are too many feral cats which creates problems. He obviously does it because he enjoys seeing them suffer. I can't even imagine what those poor cats go through. This is guy is a threat to society,
5 ( +6 / -1 )