Japan Today

Triumvere comments

Posted in: 200,000 join blasphemy protest against Christian governor in Indonesian capital See in context

"Why do I smell the CIA?"

To be fair, one gets the impression that "conspiracy" is an odor you are smelling constantly, and without regard to the circumstances. I imagine that you are even correct on occasion (something something stopped clocks something twice a day...) .

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump risks China rift with Taiwan call See in context

Hahahaha. Awesome. Reckless and probably uninformed? Perhaps, but awesome all the same. Trump probably has leaders across the globe soiling themselves (or at least suffering from severe indigestion) - the man is utterly unpredictable. Well, lets hope that he's savvy enough to exploit any opportunities that result.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: 'Game of Thrones' star Maisie Williams: Stop going to dolphin shows See in context

Remember, she is still a human and as such can be empathetic towards the harsh treatment of dolphins. Good for her.

...and I just agreed with Bass4funk; strange days, indeed.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: In 2nd day of anti-Trump protests, civil rights a top concern See in context

Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and a high-profile Trump supporter, called the demonstrators “a bunch of spoiled cry-babies” in an interview with Fox News.

Oh, fabulous. Here's a meme I don't need.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Trump wins White House; Clinton concedes defeat See in context

Well. Congratulations to Donald Trump and his supporters. I can't say I'm particularly pleased with the result, but it is what it is; like it or not, Trump speaks - at least in part - for roughly half of the nation. Like many Trump detractors, I never really believed he had a chance at victory. There is a lot I could say here... I continue to have serious reservations about Trump's competence and his agenda. Instead, of Mr. Trump and his supporters I will make one simple request: You've proven me wrong. Now do me one better: prove me wrong again and actually go and "make America great again" like you promised. Just remember, we - the other 50% - are still here, and we are Americans, too.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: FBI clears Clinton after new email review See in context

What a farce.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Posted in: FBI review involves thousands of newly discovered Clinton emails See in context

It was not immediately clear exactly how many emails have been recovered or what significance, if any, they might have.

Sigh. An unknown number of emails with unknown contents... is there any classified info here? Who knows?! Have any laws been broken? No idea!

And yet, with absolutely no idea if there is anything incriminating here at all, the FBI sees fit to break its policy on not commenting on ongoing investigations by announcing that - a week before the election - that that, well, they are investigating something which may or may not turn out to be absolutely nothing at all. (We won't find out until after the election!)


This is, of course, the biggest scandal since Watergate - bigger, even - because we all have such great sense of proportionality. But, hey, this is Crooked Hillary we are talking about here, so she must be guilty of something.... right? I'm sure that smoking gun is just around the corner.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Posted in: More than half of British women sexually harassed at work: survey See in context


I ask you to cite a law, and you give me a website. If you had actually read the text of the law in question (the Equality Act 2010), you would have found the following relevant caveat:

(4)In deciding whether conduct has the effect referred to in subsection (1)(b), each of the following must be taken into account— (a)the perception of B; (b)the other circumstances of the case; (c)whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect.

What does this mean? It means that it isn't entirely up to the perceptions of the alleged victim, as you have claimed. The court also takes in to consideration the nature of the conduct and he circumstances surrounding said conduct.

Do yourself a favor and read the damn thing for yourself: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: More than half of British women sexually harassed at work: survey See in context

Oh, FFS. The ignorance in this thread is shocking.

What does the law say?

Good question. Too bad your next line is utter rubbish:

If she "feels" uncomfortable, the man has committed harrassment.

Nonsense. There is not a single sexual harassment law in the world that defines harassment this way. I defy you to site one.

Harrassment is judged solely on the woman's subjective interpretation of the events.

Again, utter rubbish. Where did you get this impression? Did you just make it up? Because it comes off as a parody version of actual sexual harassment laws and policies.

Sexual harassment is usually defined in one of three ways: 1) Repeated, unwanted sexual advances - where you don't take no for an answer 2) Quid pro quo - aka, "sleep with me if you want that promotion"; and 3) Hostile Working Environment - where your repeated inappropriate behavior makes working with you unbearable

Taken literally, there is no court of law anywhere which would find sexual harassment in the scenario "Hey, would you like to go on a date" scenario you posted. In order for there to be sexual harassment the male co-worker would either have repeatedly have asked her out despite a refusal, engages in inappropriate behavior such as unwanted touching, obscene language, or threats, or the power dynamic/work environment would have to be such that she couldn't refuse without fear of retaliation. You don't stipulate any of those things, so no, not harassment.

Look. As you get older, it becomes harder and harder to meet people outside of work. I sympathize. On the other hand, work is a place for work, and professional conduct is the rule. Ladies are coming to work largely because they, like everybody else, need to earn a living. They are not there to provide you with a captive audience for your sexual or romantic advances. Relationships with coworkers are often a bad idea, totally irrespective of sexual harassment, simply because if the relationship sours you've suddenly put yourself and your coworkers in a very awkward situation. Still, workplace romances do happen, and that's OK. Just don't behave like you are at a club or a bar - you know, places where people actually go to find partners and getting hit on is more permissible. If you want to behave that way, you have the option of going to an actual bar or club - they exist, or you can explore the world of online dating. Just don't bring it to work, where people have no choice but to suffer your presence.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Posted in: Firestorm as Trump says gun-rights backers can stop Clinton See in context

Holy crap.

We're at a point you can't say anything. He obviously was joking.

Oh, so it was just an assassination joke. Hilarious. You do know that this sort of thing usually ends with the secret service paying a visit yo your house, right? I guess that's not necessary as Trump already has his own personal detail already.

What happened to "personal responsibility"? I thought the Republicans were big on that. Yet here we are, pretending that the Republican nominee's words don't carry any sort of weight. Unfit for high office, indeed.

11 ( +12 / -1 )

Posted in: More than half of British women sexually harassed at work: survey See in context

OK so are you saying if two guys "pursue" a woman exactly the same way, if she likes one, its OK, but if she doesn't like the other its harassment??

Yes. And the key distinction is that in one case she tells you to stop. Unless, of course, you've made the situation such that she can't refuse due to fear of retaliation, like if you are her supervisor and have power over her or where there is otherwise created a hostile working environment, in which case you shouldn't be hitting on her at all.

Look, it doesn't take a genius to figure out some pretty basic, common sense rules. Don't hit on people in inappropriate settings (LIKE AT WORK WHEN YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING) - keep it professional. Don't hit on people you have power over. Don't hit on customers. Don't hit on people who have rejected or otherwise responded unenthusiastically to previous advances.

Is that too hard to understand?

9 ( +12 / -3 )

Posted in: GOP frustrations with Trump mount as allies weigh options See in context


Holy crap, dude, calm down!

You seem to be implying that because the woman mispronounced, misspelled, or otherwise misused a word that she is stupid. Regardless of her level of intelligence - which I make no comment on - that seems pretty uncharitable.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: GOP frustrations with Trump mount as allies weigh options See in context

Using Khan as bait to tempt and agitate Trump was thoughtless, calculating and racist as well as playing the race card, that's racism in itself and liberals are masters of the race card.

Thoughtless and calculating, at the same time no less. "Calculating" I will grant you, but I'm at a loss to understand the assertion that allowing the man to speak was "racist"; is that because he isn't white? Is giving a platform to non-whites considered "playing the race card" now? I imagine this is the reasoning given that - as with Obama and the recent police shootings - the current trend seems to be accuse anyone attempting to address preexisting racial issues "racist" agitators themselves. Better to sweep it all under the rug, eh? Got to maintain that status quo - I mean, it was all working so well for everyone, wasn't it?

12 ( +12 / -0 )

Posted in: GOP frustrations with Trump mount as allies weigh options See in context

It sounds like you are for one party rule with no opposition?

I can't speak for Zurcronium, but I as a proponent of the two party system I am also eager to see the current GOP destroyed. For the two party system to work, there needs to be two functional parties - the Republican party, however, has been severely dysfunctional for a very long time. Reagan's Big Tent has long since collapsed and the former occupants remain at each other's throats. Fiscal Conservatives, Big Business, Evangelicals and Theocons, Neocons, Libertarians, Tea Party insurgents - none of these groups are working together, and party "leaders" have been completely ineffectual in providing anything resembling leadership or direction. Instead, we have paralysis. The only thing keeping the GOP together is gerrymandered congressional districts and a (ridiculously exaggerated) shared hatred of Obama (a.k.a the "worst president ever"); the result has been an untenable level of obstruction which has made governing at the federal level increasingly impossible. So, the current GOP has to die; it's the only way that the party can be reborn - hopeful as functioning party with actual vision and direction - a party that actually stands for something rather than merely against everyone else. The establishment is a insurmountable impediment to that rebirth, so it has to go. In that sense, Trump is doing the party a big favor. However, Trump, and the cancerous, rage-fueled opposition he represents cannot be allowed to win either. There is no direction there, no vision - only reactionary bile: the dying last gasp of an aging, largely white and male (and often bigoted) class slowly losing its grip on power. Fortunately, I don't believe Trump can win, and it is my hope that he takes down the last decaying, culture-war entrenched remnants of the old GOP with him.

I consider myself to be a libertarian and an independent. I hold liberal views on some issues, conservative views on others. However, find myself increasingly forced to vote Democratic because the Republican party is utterly incapable of offering a viable, serious alternative. I, and voters like me, have been poorly served by the current GOP. I suspect the more conservative voters they profess to represent feel the same. (If it were otherwise, Trump would not be the current Republican nominee). A new Republican party is possible: the right has natural allies in the conservative black, latino, and asian populations, if it would only shed the mantel of the "party of racism." Libertarians and fiscal conservatives are here too, if only the paleocon "culture warriors" would put down their swords (or more-likely fall on them). Am I being too idealistic? Perhaps... but what I am sure of is that none of this is even possible until the old GOP dies. So, let it die, I say. We will all be better off for it.

13 ( +13 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama to head to Dallas as shooting rocks U.S. race relations See in context

@Texas A&M

Ooh. You posted it again. Still not sure why you think the video is somehow favors the police... Are we pretending now that the fact Sterling was armed was somehow under-reported (despite the fact that it's been mentioned by every media outlet from the start)? Is the shooting supposed to be justified because Sterling had a gun in his pocket? Because he wasn't licensed to carry? (That didn't help Castile much, did it?) Kinda hard to threaten an officer with a gun that never leaves your pocket until the police take it off your bullet-riddled corpse, eh?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Obama to head to Dallas as shooting rocks U.S. race relations See in context

It is his fault for not unifying blacks and whites for becoming ones.

Ah, yes, Obama the Messiah. Why didn't he just end racism? Should have issued one of those executive orders...

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Obama to head to Dallas as shooting rocks U.S. race relations See in context

Don't blame the policemen for doing their jobs.

And what job is that, exactly? Protect and serve? Or shooting black folks?

Look, the point regarding Sterling is that we don't have nearly enough info make the call yet, but yet not only are you willing to make that call on the side of the officers, but you are eager to disparage those who have done the same on the side of Sterling. Describing such a position as "hypocritical" seems almost charitable.

As a felon, Sterling may not have been legally entitled to carry a firearm, but that doesn't necessarily mean it, sitting in his pocket, was an immediate threat to police. "Resisting arrest" is an utterly meaningless term which is constantly trotted out in the wake of police abuse of force, along with "he was reaching for the gun" - how many unarmed civilians have been killed because they were "reaching for a gun" which afterwards turned out to be a wallet?

You need to dial things back a bit and wait for the appropriate investigations to take their course. But don't pretend that these videos don't look bad for the police, and certainly don't pretend that there aren't racial problems with the way our law enforcement conducts itself. Even if both the Minnesota and Louisiana turn out to be justified, that doesn't change the fact that blacks are disproportionately victimized by law enforcement and the justice system.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: Obama to head to Dallas as shooting rocks U.S. race relations See in context

Adding to the tragedy, it appears that he Dallas police force is actually one police force that has had great success in reducing overuse of force by officers via a focus on de-escalation training.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Posted in: Trump praises late Iraqi leader Saddam as terrorist killer See in context

“They didn’t read ‘em the rights, they didn’t talk. They were a terrorist, it was over.”

I love how people are so eager to skip over the "identify who is an actual terrorist" step and go directly to meting out (capital) punishment. What's the selection criteria, exactly? Wears headscarf? Speaks Arabic? Has been to a mosque before?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: Behind the support for Brexit and Trump: Economic resentment See in context


Precisely how out of whack UK had become. Still didn't help people and all that? Disgraceful.

I'm afraid I didn't parse that one properly. What were you trying to say?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Behind the support for Brexit and Trump: Economic resentment See in context

The banks that will leave were never going to support or help the rest of the country anyway

Except, you know, though paying taxes. Financial services was, what 12% of GDP? Oops.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Behind the support for Brexit and Trump: Economic resentment See in context


Never been big on musicals, so I've never actually sat down an watched that one. Maybe I should; that was positively bone-chilling.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: Pope to Armenians: Never forget the genocide, but reconcile See in context

Of course its terribly hard to have a reconciliation when one side won't even admit the event in question actually happened... sound familiar at all?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Cameron holding Brexit vote to blackmail Europe: Putin See in context

Ah yes, its Russia vs. well... pretty much everyone else.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: Goldfishing See in context

Great picture!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: Campaign to remove judge in Stanford rape case gains steam See in context

But we should be blaming the liberal-influenced 9th Circuit Courts

Are you totally incapable of putting down the Culture War hatchet for even a moment? WTF does this have to do with the Ninth Circuit? Persky is a Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge, and has nothing to do with the federal court system.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Actress Ryoko Shinohara smolders in new lingerie ad for Triumph See in context

"Smolders" Uh.... Okay... each to their own.

Well, there's no accounting for (your) taste...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Missing Hokkaido boy found alive in SDF hut in forest after 6 days See in context

Well, somebody sure learned a lesson, didn't they?

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Posted in: Man gets 4 1/2 years in prison for house fire in which 4 of his children died See in context

One year per kid.... this is not justice.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. joins with S Korea, Japan in bid to deter North Korea See in context

Begging your pardon, Watanabe-san; perhaps I did not explain myself with sufficient clarity.

1) North Korea will not nuke the U.S. Don't get me wrong, North Korea would love to be able to strike the U.S., but it doesn't currently have the capability. Now, clearly you have more faith in North Korean ballistic missile technology than I do, but that shouldn't be of much comfort to you. You see, what it does have, are medium range ballistic missiles of the sort which, once perfected, should be able to hit most potential targets in Japan:


In fact, North Korea just fired off one of these today. Furthermore, while I'm pretty sure that North Korea would only actually use a nuke if it were truly desperate, I'm also sure that if they ever decided to hit the US, they'd simultaneously take the opportunity to hit Japan. More on that momentarily. For now, lets just say if they can hit us, they can - and will - hit you as well.

2) North Korea will not nuke South Korea The North's greatest goal, aside from preservation of the Kim regime, is reunification with S. Korea under DPRK rule. Given that context, I'm pretty sure that nuking S. Korea is the last thing N. Korea would want to do. The legacy of nuclear weaponry is so toxic that it would severely undermine any attempt to legitimize DPRK rule over the peninsula. Besides, N. Korea doesn't need to nuke S. Korea - they already have enough conventional artillery trained on Seoul to level the entire city. Dropping a nuke on the place would be counter-productive over-kill.

3) North Korea will nuke Japan The reason I found your post so (literally laugh-out-loud) humorous, was your erroneous assumption that Japan was somehow not "involved" in the current conflict, and that anything Obama said or did could possibly effect that (un)involvement. As NZ2011 correctly states, N. Korea views Japan as "a lap dog of the evil imperialist Americans"; however, the full truth is actually worse than that. The legitimacy of the entire Kim dynasty is founded on hating Japan; Kim Il-sung's (much exaggerated) exploits as a anti-Japanese guerrilla fighter are the literal cornerstone of the Great Leader's legend, which is used to justify Kim family absolute rule. But it gets even worse: collective hatred of Japan is one of the things N. Korea is relying on to help unite the bitterly Koreas under DPRK rule. North Korean children are taught daily in school to hate you and your country, Watanabe-san, and that hatred plays a key role in North Korea's past, present, and imagined glorious future. You could scrap the entire U.S./Japan alliance and kick every U.S. serviceman off the archipelago, and it wouldn't change a damned thing.

So the joke is that you are already involved - involved so far over your head that you apparently cannot see it.

TL;DR: You are absolutely right, Watanabe-san: S.Korea is too close and the U.S. too far. But Japan? Just right, I'm afraid.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Recent Comments


Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.