Newsman comments

Many thanks, Blair Herron; well-informed as usual ...

Maher and I know some people in common. The forthrightness to the point of abrasivness is not simply a face he puts forth for public consumption!

How is this photo and cutline news? How is displaying this photo any different from corporate promotion? Shouldn't this have a border around it with the word "advertisement" written on the border? If anyone can explain to me the news value of running this photo -- and bear in mind that you should think carefully about the words "news value" -- I would be delighted to hear your thoughts.

Ah, but don't those silly outsiders understand that it's only through these interlocking cross-shareholdings that companies can rack up serious amounts of debt without being challenged in the slightest. Once you show that the emperor has no clothes -- that companies have been cooking the books while institutional shareholders looked the other way -- you will start the unraveling of Japan's financial legerdemain. And then where will it stop? Not before it reaches all the way to the government -- the selfsame government that has spent oodles of money, and paid for it with bonds that financial institutions were, um, "encouraged" to buy.

And when they go down, they will all go down together.

Basically, this means nothing. Do they expect people to believe the government keeps a separate savings account in which they deposit the extra five percent, and that withdrawals will only be made to pay off pensioners? All of the money goes into the same hopper and is doled out as they best see fit. If the consumption tax goes up five percent, but MPs then increase pork barrel spending five percent, how in the world is anything "stabilized", let alone improved?

You never sausage a thing!

Well, we've heard what the endoscope has revealed -- but what does the Edanoscope reveal? Probably "Everything's great!"

I asked a group of Japanese to guess my blood type. It was about evenly divided among the four groups. And you just know that, had I told them what it was (I didn't) that everyone would have said, "Yeah, I THOUGHT so!"

If Tokyo University commits to this change, you can bet your mochi that a lot of other schools will follow suit, both at the tertiary level (competitors) and the secondary level on down (the feeder schools.) My guess is that it will happen, unlike some of the other "plans" that get bandied about and are never acted upon. Kyushu University is already offering master's degree courses in English; no reason why Todai can't do the same.

Japanese people may be reluctant to directly voice their opinions, but they are awfully good at voting with their feet.

War goals? War goals? Is there war in Iran right now? I didn't think there was, but maybe I missed it ...

Sanctions can hurt the country that applies them as much as the country to which they are applied. The Obama Administration, however, seems to be quite skillful at orchestrating diplomatic (as opposed to military) pressure. Between Iran's hyperinflation, the assassination of nuclear scientists, and now the oil squeeze, Iran's government is feeling the pressure on multiple fronts without having an obvious target upon which to vent its frustration.

Smart move on Japan's part ... somebody's learning the nuances of how to quietly solve diplomatic headaches.

Another lawsuit to liven up the proceedings. I'm sure the shareholders are enjoying the spectacle of a company flailing in all directions. Circular firing squad: Ready, aim, fire!

Cleo, when I was 18 I had all the confidence in the world in my judgment, but looking back now there are many things I said and did I wish I could take back. My feeling is, let's cut the young mother some slack here. Obviously, she has been praised by millions of people who have never met and will never meet her, and one would have to be a robot not to let some of that go to one's head. If she has let loose with a few regrettable words, let it pass -- she didn't start this whole affair. Whatever ill-chosen words she has uttered, her actions are unimpeachable, I believe.

I have the feeling this plan will go the same way as the plan to give away 10,000 air tickets to foreigners. Odds are the ministry floated this plan into the media just to make it look like they're doing something.

Reminds me of JFK's response to Bertrand Russell's criticism of his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis: "I think your attention might well be directed to the burglars rather than to those who caught the burglars."

The only person I might be inclined to criticize in this instance -- apart from the two intruders -- is the person in charge of training the 911 dispatcher. There should be instruction covering every situation, and apparently the dispatcher did not have a list of do's and don'ts handy with which to guide Ms. McKinley. For everyone else -- and that includes the 911 dispatcher herself, the late-arriving police, and above all Ms. McKinley -- I think they did The Best They Could Under the Circumstances. Had Mr. Martin not decided to plan to break into the home of a recently widowed mother with an infant child (going so far as to take the time to recruit an accomplice and choosing to bring along a weapon), none of this would have happened. The loss of life is regrettable, but the fault lies with Mr. Martin, in my opinion.

Two more comments: 1) For the people who have suggested to she should have shot to injure, not kill: Do you even know what a shotgun is? The reason that it is the weapon of choice for many is that you just have to aim it in the general direction and it will be extremely effective. (That is also why it is a terrible offensive weapon; over distance its effectiveness diminishes very quickly.) 2) Yes, police response times can be unavoidably long in the sticks. Do you remember Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, which detailed the pitiful number of Oregon State Troopers available statewide at any given time? If someone lives in a city or township, there will be officers available within that jurisdiction, but if someone lives in an unincorporated area it falls to either the county or state to respond. Counties may have just one dispatch point, and the state may not even have a dispatch point in every county. And many counties take much more than 25 minutes to drive across. If you think the time was too long, what would you say is an acceptable wait time? One minute? Should police boxes be built within one minute of every residence?

"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine."

However belated it may be, justice only comes when brave individuals defy the accepted order of things ...

"A time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance."

Hopefully he'll be able to give the police some leads as to the whereabouts of the other two!

Good for them!

I'm with smithinjapan on this one. Doesn't matter whether you announce it as a "certainty" or a "possibility" -- once you let the cat out of the bag, all of the mice sit up and take notice. I have a friend who, due to family constraints, isn't exactly loaded -- but he is internet savvy and was keen to document his experience here (which was one of the requirements for receiving the tickets, after all.) Of course, he knew it was a lottery to get the tickets, so he wasn't exactly pinning his hopes on getting a ticket, but when I told him it's all called off, I swear I could hear him scratching his head through Facebook.

Guess they forgot the Japanese proverb, "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and confirm it," (or something to that effect.)

Meanwhile, my friends in the hotel industry continue to just barely survive the cutbacks. Guess hotel workers are lower on the totem pole than whalers ...

@voiceofokinawa: Thanks for the info on the convention. I did read the entire document. My take on it is that, as the signatories to the convention are nation-states, it is up to the Japanese national government to lodge a protest if it felt private property was illegally confiscated by the Americans. The fact that it has not, together with what seem to me the more relevant sections of SOFA, indicates that that would be uphill sledding to successfully argue the convention was valid in this instance.

Look, at least the Americans have been fairly forthright about saying what they want. It is the Japanese national government that has been unable to speak with a clear voice on the matter. If Japan said -- unequivocally -- that the U.S. had to leave, the Americans would have no choice but to go, as they did in the Philippines. Or if they told the people of Okinawa, "Too bad, but you're just going to have to suck it up," a lot of people in Okinawa, while no doubt unhappy, would begin to accept the situation. But the DPJ has yet to say, one way or another, "This is how it's going to be." On this matter, probably you and I would be in complete agreement that the people of Okinawa have been ill-served by the national government. The government (or maybe I should just say "Hatoyama") tried to please the Okinawans while continuing the benefits of its American partnership, and it failed spectacularly. The aftereffects of that debacle are still ongoing, as we saw on Tuesday.

By the way, I am still struck by the notion -- as reported in the story -- that Okinawa Gov. Nakaima can, by denying the construction permit, sabotage the nation's defense plans. Wow.

I am quite aware that Camp Schwab sits next to Henoko Bay. What I was referring to was the change in the plan from building the offshore runway in deeper water to building it closer to the camp, thus (arguably) lessening the environmental impact.

As for history, I am equally aware of the tragedies bound up in the expansion of the American nation. I do not, however, think those events influence American foreign policy-making today. It would be like me trying to argue that Japan's 8th-century policy toward the Emishi influences how the national government treats Okinawa today. I would sincerely hope that the protesters who blocked the delivery of this government report do not believe they are the 21st-century successors to America's native peoples. This issue is strictly about where to build an airfield and that is all; it is not about the annihilation of a people.

@ voiceofokinawa:

Insist? If only I actually were in a position of authority to insist ... but I'm not. Besides, I'm far too mild to do so. I just like to point things out.

I don't think practice is ever "mere". There is a reason professionals practice, whether you're a firefighter or a paramedic. Or a Marine. Would to God the professionals at Fukushima Daiichi had practiced more thoroughly. Many of them did a splendid job on the fly, but if their superiors had taken their own practice more seriously, there would not have been the bureaucratic delays that worsened the problem.

As far as how much land should be assigned to military bases in Okinawa, I have no idea whether 18% is the appropriate figure, or 17% or 19%, or 25% or 10%. They're just numbers. What matters is being able to negotiate a figure that is most easily acceptable to both parties.

I think the U.S. did try to negotiate in good faith. In 1996 the Japanese government wanted to lessen the impact of the American military presence for Okinawan residents. (Futenma, of course, is right in Ginowan City.) So they came up with a plan to build an offshore runway in Henoko Bay. Then people said, no, you can't do that because of the environmental impact. So then in 2005 the U.S. said, fine, we'll build it adjacent to the current Camp Schwab. Then people said, no, we don't want you here at all.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that, sometimes, the place where people live is also coveted by outsiders for reasons that have nothing to do with the local residents. Nobody in Gettysburg wanted a battle to come to their little town, but it was their misfortune to live where a great many important roads intersected, and where two opposing armies found each other. Tibetans have been steamrolled by the PRC because China can't allow an unfriendly power to control the Himalayas. And the U.S. is in Okinawa for its own geopolitical reasons. You may not be happy with those reasons, but the U.S. does try to respond to local concerns, and on balance the U.S. has far and away a much better record of dealing with the local people than China could ever claim in Tibet.

Let's look at some hard truths for a moment. You may not be happy with my answers, but even if they are cold they are nevertheless logical.

The U.S. maintains several ironclad commitments in the Pacific region, not just with Japan. South Korea and Taiwan also have defense agreements with the U.S., and for political reasons the U.S. has no military presence in Taiwan. Go look at a globe: The place most convenient to these three East Asian allies is Okinawa. The Philippines, another U.S. ally, is also marginally closer to Okinawa than it is to Guam.

Keeping the majority of U.S. forces in Okinawa means keeping more Japanese people safe overall. China is improving its first-strike capability, should a political decision be made to retake Taiwan by force. That force could be equally aimed at U.S. forces. Spread U.S. forces more equitably around Japan and you increase the overall number of Japanese casualties, should a first strike against U.S. forces in Japan take place. Please note that I am NOT saying Okinawan lives are less valuable than other Japanese lives. I am simply saying more lives overall are spared with the current arrangement.

The U.S. has decided that is in its own interest to provide a counterweight to Chinese power in East Asia. Other nations in the region, including not only the forementioned countries but also Vietnam, Singapore, Myanmar, Indonesia, and even Australia, are to varying degrees happy with an American presence in the region.

Frankly, what Japan will to do from now on is still anyone's guess. The government is still hedging its bets, trying to have things both ways, courting China while still pledging a strong relationship with the U.S. My personal opinion is that, caught between three superpowers (U.S., Russia, and China), Japan's independence is best preserved by allying itself with the nation that is geographically farthest from it. Others may disagree. Regardless, it is obvious that the DPJ has not settled on a cohesive foreign policy; the viewpoints of its members range from China hawks like Maehara and supporters of the existing U.S.-Japan framework like Kan, to China doves like Hatoyama and Okada. (And I will repeat my belief that, if your family has substantial business interests in China like Okada's does, you should not be allowed anywhere near the foreign ministry portfolio.)

Now where does this leave the people of Okinawa? In an awful position on such a beautiful island. Were I a young Okinawan, I probably would be mad, too. But I thought people should take a moment to think exactly why things are the way they are. They have not happened just because the U.S. thought it would be fun to put bases on the other side of the world. Of course the U.S. does things in its own interest. So does Japan, and every other country. It's up to the Japanese to decide if the benefits of the U.S. presence outweighs the costs.

The story has now been updated, and contains more information, since I first posted.

This story (as of this writing) has left out an important fact: Exactly who is compiling this report? "Government report" could be anyone or any agency. The nuclear regulators? The prime minister's office? The environmental agency? Mr. Tanaka who cleans the men's rooms at the Diet?

What? Three months and you're still here, Mr. Noda? Don't you realize that the consumers -- whoops, I meant voters -- of this country have already gotten bored with you? You came to power when the first Christmas decorations started appearing. Now they're coming down and you'd better be packed away with them. New soft drinks have come and gone at the convenience stores during your premiership, the seasons have passed from hot to cold, and we're bored with the notion of "Prime Minister Noda". Aren't there any other interesting choices on the shelf? Hurry up -- we can't wait -- we don't what to do with ourselves because we can't go on if there's nothing new in our lives ...