Xeno23 comments

Let's consider the word "clever": typically dictionaries define it with other words like: adroit, skillful, mentally quick or nimble, resourceful, exhibiting ingenuity and inventiveness. Is this what we're talking about? Because none of that requires University education. Discussing Nietzsche or Schopenhauer isn't clever, in and of itself, and when was the last time you heard someone describe a Nobel laureate as clever?

Good poker players, that's cleverness; wringing cash out of internet rubes - yeah, that's pretty clever. But do you equate cleverness with what a respected physician, scientist, or top legal mind does? Not so much, because what they do is far more profound. A dog balancing a crisp on its nose; that's clever.

One would hope that in the course of earning a University degree, one also hones and harnesses innate or acquired cleverness in balance with knowledge and expertise to result in intelligence, but it don't always work out that way.

They're certainly changing it, but for better or worse it's too early to tell. Let's not forget it took traditional news media hundreds of years to evolve into what many of us think of as "Golden Age" journalism, and that only happened in the 20th century. This whole alternative news thing is just in its infancy.

Talk about what, exactly? Sharing? Like that's going to happen. China wants them, Japan "has" them - what is there to talk about? The only "sincere talk" China wants to hear is Japan relinquishing the claim; the only talk Japan wants to hear is China doing the same.

This is so obviously a ploy at false rationality it's ludicrous; eye-rolling. Which isn't to say the two sides shouldn't talk, nor that both sides aren't guilty of bad faith statements, but is there really a snowball's chance in h*ll either side would budge from its position? Who wants to bet on that horse?

Too bad there isn't an internationally neutral mechanism for settling this rationally... oh wait, there is: the World Court. But no, neither side would agree to settle the matter in a legal contest, because there's no upside for either of them; they might both lose.

Let's not forget this happened in the halls of Congress, not at the public ballot box. Not a single US voter was going to mark a "yes" or a "no" for these proposals. We can't know what would've happened had they been given the opportunity to do so.

For this issue, US American representative democracy worked as it typically does when there's an imbalance in the mobilization of representative forces. In this case, the anti-control representatives mobilized better than the pro-control faction; that's all.

There's always a lot of talk about monied vested interests and overweening lobbies, but mobilizing those resources is part of the political process in the USA; those who can't do it aren't being politically effective - period.

This particular contest is done with, but the overall struggle isn't; however one feels about the issue. If 90% of US voters are really in favor of additional legislation, this will come out when they actually have a chance to vote. If we see a voter reaction toward more gun control, then we can say the US public favors it - if we do not see it, then despite factional noise-making, the proof will be in the ballot box.

When I was a kid, an old bomb was discovered at a constructions site a few kilometers from my school; they didn't even shut down for the day. It was announced over the PA system though, and they requested we stay on campus until they got word it was made safe. Back then, it used to happen a few times a year.

Of course it's gonna get huge first day / early viewing - people wanna see what's next, but the question is if it'll have massive follow-up views and sustain first blush popularity - will it drive sales and pump his celeb status?

He's actually tried something somewhat different, and only time will tell if it works for him: depiction of bad boy outright, childish rudeness. Is this a parody / criticism of male treatment of women? Hard to say. The lyrics include "... mother father gentleman" which could be a variant of Samuel L Jackson's favorite oath.

Sheesh, I've already spent way too much time on this. On to more important things, like Mister Donut changing its recipes...

Poor grammar doesn't help anyone. Most people tend to speak too quickly and slur their words together; it's common in any spoken language.

I've found speaking grammatically, but slightly slower with proper enunciation, and pausing at natural break points in sentences provides better results.

For example: "Yesterday - we went - to the park". It's almost like inserting commas. Parisian French speak in clips of three words; it's distinctive to Paris - or was some time ago; maybe not anymore.

I even do this when initially speaking Japanese to a Japanese person who doesn't know I can do so - until they adjust their expectation; then I go all pera-pera on them.

Does Japan have its own military base(s) on Okinawa, or do they just use US base facilities? A very cursory search of the Internet didn't reveal this to me, so just wondering where the PAC-3s will be deployed.

As expat kids, my buddies and I would always get asked these kinds of questions when we went out and around Tokyo; a gang of foreign kids was always a draw - especially when they found out we could all speak Japanese.

Very quickly we learned to provide goofy answers, e.g., to the common question: kimitachi nanijin? We'd respond: Ninjin. What we found funny is most Japanese querents didn't expect foreigners to have a sense of humor, much less be able to pun in Japanese.

One such encounter with a roving TV crew led some of us to become regulars on an NHK kids' show for learning English. We worked in the TV studio and got paid; very cool for 10 year olds.

Is it just the media focus, or are more insane violent rampages happening all across the world, e.g., the door-to-door murderer in Serbia and the daycare shooter in Quebec just this last week? Remember the Chengpeng school stabbings last December? Is humanity wigging out; are the fringes starting to unravel?

I seem to recall a dystopian SciFi story about a brain wrecking virus causing people to suddenly snap and go on a violence spree, and while that was fantasy, sociologists are now exploring the idea of a form of social virus that can infect / motivate actions subconsciously. In the past, law enforcement often called this "copycat syndrome", but what if it's becoming increasingly involuntary in more than a few?

I actually hope it's just media attention - deserved as it may be, because if it's more than that, the prospects are frightening...

@SuperLib In an earlier post (3/20/13: http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/obamas-gun-control-plans-weaken-in-senate#comment_1529030) I said this: "There must be a non-partisan, well funded, independent and properly vetted, nation-wide academic and scientific focus on violence in the USA run by a collaborative, interdisciplinary body comprising universities, law enforcement, national, regional, local government, and regular citizens. And it must be one people can trust, believe, and accept.

To date, there simply isn't a widely trusted, incontrovertibly good understanding or scoping of the problem. Until that's acquired, Americans won't have any idea if a given set of proposals has a chance for success, because they don't really know what they're trying to fix. I expect that if offered a real possibility of success, most Americans would assent to trying it out."

So, the first thing to do is understand the problem, properly. I suspect, but I'm just guessing, that more empowerment must be granted to mental health care professionals to provide information consistent with the ethical codes of their profession, and care for those afflicted. This is challenging, but we're supposed to be smart, so it should be feasible.

In parallel, funding needs to be pumped into the existing NCIS infrastructure, so it can run, and be run more effectively. Additionally, States need to be incentivized to participate more fully. This is a technical and budgetary issue; it need not implement any further legislation.

We need to ask the FBI, the ATF, and Law Enforcement what they want; not dictate to them from some political pulpit. They are the on-the-street experts, and I suspect they have a pretty good idea what needs to be done.

Used to work for VMware, Inc., producer of virtualization software, and by far the largest percentage of product sold to Japan was intended to support the WinXP and WinNT installed base. If I recall correctly, Japan was the biggest remaining market with such high use of those Operating Systems. Given that, these OS platforms still seem to be deeply embedded in Japanese industry and business - kinda makes you wonder...

Turned off all my TV four years ago; no inspiration to go back. Like the article says: Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Internet; missing nothing I care about.

Philosophically irked by my Lifetime TiVo & ReplayTV memberships, but whatever. Gave away all my PVRs; using WiFi connected PS3 and a Mac Mini hooked up to my 42" LED TV. Occasionally watch stuff on an iPad or my home PCs; never on a phone.

Fact is though, I completely forgot you can get free TV via antenna; may look into that just for the technical giggles.

Good. This, along with the recent cancellation of the Minuteman 3 ICBM test shows there are still some grown ups in the mix. If an NK test launch enters Japanese territory, I'm guessing the USA would defer to Japan to intercept, where feasible, but would provide plenty of intel and support.

I wonder though, if an NK test missile enters / crosses Japanese territory, and the trajectory indicates a splashdown in international waters safely distant from any land, would Japan still attempt to intercept? Given this, perhaps the USA would recommend not?

The degree of "stunts" surrounding the politics of guns in the USA applies to all parties involved; everyone is pulling stunts. What is a stunt? Most definitions include: a feat exhibiting unusual skill, strength, or daring, and something done to attract attention or publicity. It also means to arrest development. Stunts are legitimate tactics in politics, pretty much SOP; almost required. Without a bag of stunts readily at hand, you're not much of a politician.

Much is made in these discussions of Republicans merely opposing Obama, and their opposition is undeniable, but let's not forget that each and everyone of them is a complex human being, like you and me; they can hew to their party line and exercise their conscience. To condemn them, or other opponents, as purely villainous is simplistic.

A lot of noise is also made here over intimidation by the gun lobby, but if we think about it critically, the primary supporters of gun "rights" in Congress are conservative, or conservative leaning moderates; do they really need to be intimidated? Even in the opposing faction, is it really likely that strong leaders, like Feinstein or Biden, are actually intimidated? There can be no doubt that the gun lobby does everything it can to achieve its agenda, but investing them with overweening power isn't particularly rational.

Anyway, all this ballyhoo is fully in keeping with the dynamics of political and legislative processes in the USA; it will play out according to the way US Americans typically get these kinds of things done: noisily, dramatically, and incrementally.

Here's something of interest: a 15,000 respondent survey of active US police officers on gun control: http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/ The take-away is that these officers don't think the commonly and recently proposed gun "control" measures will have any significant effect on gun crime / violence.

All 48 of them? What is she, a ninja?

This is long, so sorry for that, but it's a perspective few are exploring.

Despite all the ballyhoo and rhetoric about these measures being "landmark" "breakthroughs" the fact is that they are not gun control measures. Gun control means controlling guns, and that's not going to happen with these proposals.

The background check measure adds bureaucratic process to the purchase of guns; it doesn't impact the availability of guns; it won't impact the manufacture of guns; it won't even flag someone if they do not have a prohibitive record. Gun show and private party transfers will be more of a headache, but gun sellers & buyers will get over that quickly.

Look at California, it has had these measures in place, including hi-cap magazine bans, for nearly 20 years, and yet CA is consistently among the highest ranking states for gun purchases every year - even at gun shows and between private parties.

Manufacturers flood CA with guns, and Californians buy them up like hotcakes, despite minor blips like a 10 day waiting period and only 1 hand gun purchase per 30 days - the currently proposed national measures don't even go that far. Gun purchase laws by state: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/interactives/gunlaws/

The vast majority of gun massacres in the USA are perpetrated with legally acquired firearms (nearly 80%, Mother Jones http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map), and this is unlikely to change much due the very nature of who commits these horrors.

Despite a notable record of success and wider application than is generally credited, the current NCIS background check is significantly flawed, including missing records, poor data source compliance, and compromised enforcement (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/06/23/4982/badly-flawed-background-check-system-fails-contain-firearms-sales).

The primary reason for this is over-taxed resources; the system is already too big to be managed as precisely as is necessary. Without addressing infrastructure, these measures will only exacerbate the problem of NCIS gaps and failures. AFAIK, no one has publicly discussed the infrastructure improvement efforts needed. As an IT pro working in HW & SW development & deployment for 20 years, I suspect the challenge is huge beyond most people's expectation.

As I said in the beginning, these proposals are not gun control measures. Real gun control measures would look like:

Regulating & reducing the availability / manufacture of guns; Regulating & reducing the number of existing guns and their use; Stiffer penalties for violation of the above, especially for non-criminals. None of this is going to fly in the USA.

My general opinion about new legislation is that if a proposed law, about anything, does not promise significant or even reasonable impact, it should be redone or dropped; we already have too many laws that do little, or nothing.

What these measure really indicate are failures of critical thinking, imagination, and will. They are political theater.

Does anyone know if there's a reference work on this subject, i.e., a dictionary? Maybe a reference web site would be easier to maintain, since I suspect this changes rapidly...

@OssanAmerica "full of beans" in the Midwest US can have either meaning based on context; full of energy or full of s***. My family et al in Wisconsin and Minnesota used it for both depending. "You're sure full of beans this morning" as you said is about perkiness, but "Aw, yer full of beans, that ain't so..." is otherwise.

@lucabrasi, I stand corrected. Looked it up, and you're right. Anyway, even I rarely use it, preferring slacks, trousers, jeans, etc.

Does anyone know how much land is being considered?

2022 is so far away... it'd be in the second term of the next POTUS, or the first term of the third from the current one - that's like, hardly saying anything...

Hm. Cool gizmo, but the vast majority of golfers I know wouldn't be helped in the least if they had precise range information; it's not like given that data, they could select the right club and hit that mark - only having lacked the absolute distance.

If, as a golfer, you can't look at a link, or a lay, and figure out which club to use next, you need more help than a range finder.

In the USA, these types of devices are used almost exclusively by shooters / hunters, because precise range information is immediately usable by them, and knowing it makes a huge difference in hitting a target.

No "Pantsu"? If a Japanese woman were to ask where are the "pantsu" in a English speaking store; she'd not be directed to the expected place. Nor, for that matter, would an American seeking pants at a Japanese department store. Perhaps a too delicate example...

A limited attack may be in the offing, like the artillery shelling in 2010, but most agree a major attack would risk suicide.

We all presume the DPRK leadership knows that, but what if they're so deluded at this point they think: what the heck, Gotterdammerung! It's happened before plenty of times elsewhere.

What's worrying about the current situation, given everyone is getting so itchy, is that even a limited action by the DPRK could trigger a response that propels us all down a very ugly road.

The best way, with no other qualifiers or conditions, is to go live in another country where they speak a different language, and raise the child there.

Interestingly, another news site has an article about gay marriage / civil union issues substantially dropping off campaigning platforms and losing steam as a political topic in the USA.

Why? Recent polling seems to show nearly 60% of respondents are okay with it, compared to just five years ago when it was less than 40% - kind of a big deal.

Surprisingly, there have been recent mass demonstrations in France against gay marriage legalization, so... Europe has a way to go on deciding this issue as well, it seems.

Whether we, on this forum, trade rational or irrational arguments back and forth or not, is irrelevant - we're not deciding Okinawa's fate in this issue. This game is being played out by the US military, by proxy of the US government, and Tokyo; unfortunately, Okinawans are a marginal player. The problem is they have virtually no leverage; they have a stake in the game, but almost no chips and the cards in their hands aren't any good.

Going back and forth about relocation hasn't changed the fact that the bases remain in situ, and this is a win for the US military and Tokyo. Despite an annoyance factor, I suspect they don't fundamentally care if the issue is drawn out for years to come.

Putting aside all the strategic arguments, maintaining bases is a bureaucratic and budgetary win for the US military. They may not get the budget they want, but they will get a budget, and that sustains the status quo, and that's a win. Foreign bases are an operational headache, but it's a headache the US military is used to, and fairly good at; having the need to sustain an operation is an operational win. Let's not forget too, that Tokyo pays the US for its presence. Folks, that's revenue; nobody in their right mind messes with revenue.

What Okinawa needs to do is change the game, not try to win the current game; they can't. Okinawa needs to find a lever that will make Tokyo and the US military / Government start taking them seriously. I have no idea what that lever might be, but I'm sure a lot of people smarter than me can figure one out. Popular dissent could be a component, but so far the necessary scale hasn't materialized; essentially, Tokyo and the US has been able to ignore it.

Until Okinawa can wield a big enough stick, Tokyo and the US military / US Government will continue to run roughshod over them - smiling apologetically all the while...

Dog & cat pet population... not counting fish, hamsters, bunny rabbits, etc.

Nonsense. The dog & cat population in the USA alone is figured, by the ASPCA, to be over 150 million, while projected numbers of children 0 -17 for 2013 in the USA, from childstats.gov, is expected to be ~ 77 million. Another false authority just making stuff up...

Napster? Really? No one remembers Napster?

This is very important; the "Inverse Ninja Law" must be preserved, so 200 trainees seems about right for confronting one hero ninja. And per the law of "Conservation of Ninjutsu" about 200 mooks should produce one elite, evil ninja for a hero ninja to face.

But seriously, I know a couple people who've taken it up, and it's like any martial art; the ultimate result is physical conditioning, grace, dexterity, and "owning" your body, with the added benefits of confidence and a capacity for self-defense. I think Aikido is better, but whatever works for you...

I'm probably the only one on the planet, but I really liked the Hollywood Godzilla movie - with the qualification that I deny it was a Godzilla movie. It had an ginormous lizard produced by radiation, which ran amok in a big city - after that all resemblance to Godzilla is done.

I contend a Hollywood treatment of Godzilla isn't even proper thing to do. Yeah, they wanna make a buck; okay, whatever, but Godzilla belongs to Japan for so many reasons it's just wrong, in my mind, for it to come from anywhere else. Oh sure, I'll watch it, and this is an interesting cast, so I expect it to be entertaining at least, but there's no way it's gonna really be Godzilla.