A couple of random fact checks that have been bothering me

A catastrophic deletion?

http://www.pref.tottori.lg.jp/92990.htm

Third hit on Google for the full ordinance title, but Wikipedia doesn’t link to it, so that proves that page doesn’t exist.

Just a third believe in blood types, or is it two-thirds? Which is at least better than 78% believing in creationism or "intelligent design".

Finally, a prediction I got wrong – Ishihara has teamed up with Hashimoto. On tonight’s Newscaster, they mentioned that they’d swept the TPP and VAT differences under the carpet and made Ishihara leader of Japan Restoration Party :roll: , but they failed to mention the difference in nuclear power stances. I have now officially gone off the JRP.

Leave a comment ?

200 Comments.

  1. Yes, but what’s your point? What do you intend to do about it? What do you intend people here to do about it? Surely you could agree to answer these simple questions?

    ReplyReply
  2. “Police officers, who request the ARC, WHEN EXECUTING THEIR POLICE DUTIES, in THAT case: ARC must be shown.

    Police officers, who request the ARC, WHEN ACTING OUTSIDE THEIR POLICE DUTIES, in THIS case: ARC doesn’t need to be shown.”

    The problem is, at no point have you defined (or shown regulations that define) what police duties actually are. You’ve said that police can do X and can’t do Y, but you’ve never actually defined their duties, which would help clarify what activities are inside and outside said duties.

    ReplyReply
  3. @ “Bob”

    “Which means the ARC law required suspicion. Yes? “

    NO

    Stop conflating the Performance of Duties regulations concerning 職務質問 with the laws concerning carrying and presenting ID (ARC or Zairyu). You are making the same stupid, basic mistake He Who Shall Not Be Named and his bastard stepchildren make.

    Asking a foreigner to present ID is not 職務質問. This should be patently obvious from the fact that the very law you keep harping on about in your obsession with “is the cop asking in the performance of his duties” (hint: is he on the clock? If the answer is “yes”, then he is asking in the performance of his duties. Full stop.) lists a whole raft of other officials who can demand to see a foreigner’s ID and to whom the foreigner must present his ID on demand.

    If the officer starts asking other questions NOT directly related to the foreigner’s ID, that IS 職務質問 and the foreigner is NOT obligated to answer. IMHO. But I’m not a lawyer – if this particular point bothers you so much, go ask a lawyer. If you search around a bit, you can probably manage to get your questions answered for free. Lots of cities have a day a month or so where lawyers come in and offer legal advice on a range of topics for free. Some places even offer free translation services on the day for those who need them. Check into it.

    ReplyReply
  4. @6810 Thank you for your kind, rational, reply.

    I simply think that people should know the law,
    and have a little pocket copy of the law handy,
    so that IF a “suspicion-less stop” were to occur,
    the victim of the suspicion-less can politely decline.

    http://japologism.com/a-couple-of-random-fact-checks-that-have-been-bothering-me/122/comment-page-2#comment-1997

    It’s kind of hard to decline if you don’t know the law.
    And it’s kind of hard to decline if you can’t remember the law.
    So having a little pocket script, is a good idea, IMO.

    And if we are going to have a little pocket script,
    which encourages the police officer to stop this
    illegal suspicion-less stop, than I think I should
    come here, where critical minds reside, to see if
    there are any Japanese/Law errors in the script.

    So far, most folks have basically been talking about
    “moral errors” on the part of people who wish to decline
    suspicion-less stops. Let’s simply focus on the law.

    @Sublight Thank you for your kind, rational, reply.

    I have repeatedly cited the Law that define Police Duties:

    http://japologism.com/a-couple-of-random-fact-checks-that-have-been-bothering-me/122/comment-page-2#comment-1997

    警察官職務執行法 第二条 警察官は、異常な挙動その
    他周囲の事情から合理的に判断して何らかの犯罪を犯し、
    若しくは犯そうとしていると疑うに足りる相当な理由の
    ある者又は既に行われた犯罪について、若しくは犯罪が
    行われようとしていることについて知って いると認めら
    れる者を停止させて質問することができる。
    http://www.houko.com/00/01/S23/136.HTM

    Police Duties Law states Police Officers are only able to stop a person in three cases:
    #1 If the Police Officer makes a reasonable judgment that a crime is being committed.
    #2 If the Police Officer has enough reason to suspect that a person will commit a crime.
    #3 If the person has acknowledged that he knows about a crime that will be committed.

    @Level3

    OK, I will bend a little about my translation of #3.

    Since you are so concerned about the rare “crime witness” case,
    OK, I think maybe #3 should be correctly translated as:

    #3 If the police officer feels that the person knows about a crime that has been committed.

    (The problem with that translation though, is the
    Japanese sentence says “will be” not “has been”.)

    *

    OK folks, let’s start fresh, and let’s simply discuss the law.

    I think the question of whether we SHOULD decline suspicion-less stops is controversial, so let’s not keep debating that.

    I think the question of what the Law states we can do (decline suspicion-less stops) is non-controversial, we just need to agree on the wording.

    Again, my goal here is a summary of the Japanese Laws
    which allow anyone (Japanese & Non-Japanese alike)
    to politely, confidently, decline illegal stops.

    ReplyReply
  5. @No-Way-da

    You wrote “if the officer is on the clock, whatever he does is in the performance of his duties.”

    Sorry, the law of Japan disagrees with you, read again:

    警察官職務執行法 第二条 警察官は、異常な挙動その
    他周囲の事情から合理的に判断して何らかの犯罪を犯し、
    若しくは犯そうとしていると疑うに足りる相当な理由の
    ある者又は既に行われた犯罪について、若しくは犯罪が
    行われようとしていることについて知って いると認めら
    れる者を停止させて質問することができる。

    Those are the 3 Police Duties legally defined.

    And this is why, right at the beginning, when stopped,
    the first question to ask the police officer is:

    1.”警察官職務執行法2条1項の任意の職務質問であることですか?”
    1. “Keisatsukan shokumu shikkouhou ni jou i kou no nin’i no shukumu shitsumon de aru koto desu ka?”

    ReplyReply
  6. And can we please stop talking about Debito?

    I learned this information from a Tōdai Law Graduate:

    俺職務質問頻繁にうけるけど冷静に法律論だせば全然くらいついてこないよ。
    つねに冷静にすること。以下の手順を試してみな。
    1.警察官職務執行法2条1項の任意の職務質問であることを確認
    2.警察手帳規則5条に基づいて警察手帳を呈示させる
    3.職務質問は任意だから、もう行ってもいいか聞く。
    ここまでくると警察官のほうがびびるよ。あくまでも冷静に対応。
    逆上すると逆効果。たいてい3までくると「いいよ」で解放される。
    もししつこく聞いてきたら、
    「任意なのにしつこいです。これ以上しつこい
    なら警察法第79条に基づいて公安委員会に苦情を申し立てます」
    と決め台詞をいう。これでOK

    もし持ち物検査させろとか身体検査させろっていわれたら、
    憲法35条と刑事訴訟法に基づいて令状見せてっていってごらん。
    ぐうの音もでないから、これらのことを断ったからといって
    公務執行妨害では絶対に絶対に逮捕できないから大丈夫。あくまでも
    冷静に対応すべし。

    (僕は東京大学理科一類から工学部大学院を卒業後、司法書士、税理士を取得
    現在は一橋大学法科大学院に在学。警察官はみな人の税金で卒配されたのに
    警察官職務執行法も、警察手帳規則も理解してない。)

    ReplyReply
  7. Joe Jones, where are you?

    The summary directly above, written by
    “東京大学理科一類から工学部大学院を卒業後、司法書士、税理士を取得
    現在は一橋大学法科大学院に在学。”

    Agree with your thorough understanding of the law?

    ReplyReply
  8. Bob, have you ever tried, y’know, chilling out?

    If this is the biggest windmill that you have to tilt against then you probably have it better than you realise. Why not ask out that cute chick at the combini, go on a date, see where that leads you? At the very least it’ll get you off the PC and out of the house.

    ReplyReply
  9. @ “Bob”

    You’re doing it again. Being asked to present your ARC or Zairyu card is not 職務質問. I don’t give a rat’s ass what quotes from friends at Todai about 職務質問 you can pull out – except as those quotes address how to handle it is a cop stops you for the purpose of same.

    You brought up the point about a cop asking for ARC/Zairyu “in the performance of his duties” or “not in the performance of his duties” and whether one did, or did not, have to present their ARC/Zairyu. If a cop (or immigration official or city hall employee or ANY OTHER PUBLIC OFFICIAL, as designated by the MoJ) is on duty, and they ask for your ARC/Zairyu card, then they are doing so in the performance of their duties.

    The End.

    ReplyReply
  10. Someone shined the Joe-signal into the sky and a cold wind blew through the alley as he appeared to say:

    I can’t definitively say whether an ARC check is a 職務質問, but I did hear something similar to that from a police officer once.

    Not too long ago I was sitting in the departures area at Narita Airport when a group of cops came up to check my [extremely Caucasian] family’s passports. While my family members decided to comply, I decided to get a bit uppity and said, in effect, “Why do you need to see our passports? Everyone has their ID checked when they come into the terminal. Isn’t this a waste of time?”

    The cop said “Do you know what shokumu-shitsumon means?” I nodded. He said “This is just shokumu-shitsumon. Technically speaking, it’s totally voluntary.” I told the cop that I live in Tokyo and that I was seeing my family off, so I didn’t have a passport with me. He said “aah, wakarimashita” and left me alone.

    (I learned from a friend later that new cops often get sent to NRT with a mission to randomly card foreign-looking people, the purpose being to train them in basic English communication and in dealing with foreigners. You will only encounter them if you go to NRT alone or with an entirely foreign-looking group; they avoid people who appear to be together with Japanese people, I assume because that would defeat the purpose of what they are doing.)

    Anyway, IMO, if you want to play lawyer, keep the discussion at that kind of simple level. Don’t try to cite statutes or threaten to involve the koan-iinkai (they are actually a pretty useless organization for most purposes and only serve as a theoretical check on police power).

    ReplyReply
  11. @No-Way-Bob

    Normally Walking Individual: “Is this Shokkumu Shitsumon?”

    Illegally Stopping Officer: “Yes, it is.”

    Normally Walking Individual: “Then it’s voluntary.”

    The End.

    ReplyReply
  12. @Joe Jones

    Thanks for replying so quickly! Appreciate it.

    Due to your job, when it comes to Japanese Laws, you’re the most knowledgeable person who frequents this site.

    So here we have a trustable person, Joe Jones, explaining to the Japologism.com readers, that a police officer admitted that suspicion-less I.D. requests are VOLUNTARY.

    ReplyReply
  13. @No-Way-Da

    The Police Duties are defined and limited to 3 cases.

    How many times does this need to be pasted for you?

    If you want to paste the CITY HALL duties, go for it.
    City hall, immigration, coast guard, they all have duties.
    THEIR respective Duties are defined be THEIR Duties Laws.

    The Police Duties Law says that you need reasonable suspicion of a crime to stop anyone.

    Does Police Duties Law protect JUST Japanese nationals?

    Nope:

    Regardless of nationality, these Police Laws protect ALL INDIVIDUALS (警察法第百六十二号).

    警察法第百六十二号によりますと、この法律は我が国の全「個人」にあてはまります、国籍は関係ありません。職務質問は任意だから、行く権利ありますので、もう行ってもいいですか?

    ReplyReply
  14. @Joe Jones

    “keep the discussion at that kind of simple level.”

    I beg you, please, seriously, from the bottom of my heart,
    please write what YOUR ideal simple sentences would look like?

    If you’re afraid that this could be construed as legal-advice,
    you can post it as a story about what someone-who-isn’t-you suggests.

    What sentences does that “friend” of yours think,
    should be spoken (calmly, at a level volume and tone)
    to avoid being pressured into doing something
    that is totally voluntary (I.D., bag, all that.)

    ReplyReply
  15. @Bob, who wrote:

    “I learned this information from a Tōdai Law Graduate:

    俺職務質問頻繁にうけるけど冷静に法律論だせば全然くらいついてこないよ。
    つねに冷静にすること。以下の手順を試してみな。
    1.警察官職務執行法2条1項の任意の職務質問であることを確認
    2.警察手帳規則5条に基づいて警察手帳を呈示させる
    3.職務質問は任意だから、もう行ってもいいか聞く。
    etc

    As far as I can Google, you learned that from some guy with the alias ドウテイズ総帥 on 2ch. Does he claim to be a Todai law grad, or did he paraphrase from some other source, and could you link to it?
    Are they talking about gaijin and zairyu cards, or Japanese citizens?

    ReplyReply
  16. “Those are the 3 Police Duties legally defined.”

    And now to deflate your argument.

    “the”?

    Are you seriously claiming those are the only 3 police duties?
    A cop doing anything not in those 3 lines is breaking the law?

    :lol:

    ReplyReply
  17. Ichiban Shibori

    @Bob

    You said:

    “OK, I will bend a little about my translation of #3.
    OK, I think maybe #3 should be correctly translated as:

    #3 If the police officer feels that the person knows about a crime that has been committed.

    (The problem with that translation though, is the
    Japanese sentence says “will be” not “has been”.)”

    With regards to this section:

    警察官職務執行法 第二条 警察官は、異常な挙動その
    他周囲の事情から合理的に判断して何らかの犯罪を犯し、
    若しくは犯そうとしていると疑うに足りる相当な理由の
    ある者又は既に行われた犯罪について、若しくは犯罪が
    行われようとしていることについて知って いると認めら
    れる者を停止させて質問することができる。

    I think you are breaking it down wrongly. I don’t see three separate things here.

    I read that there are two classes of people whom the police can stop and question.

    First class is persons who are committing or will (are about to/trying to) commit a crime; and the second class is persons who can be recognized as having knowledge of a crime that has already occurred or will occurr.

    又は and 若しくは both mean “or” and I think the 又は is the main division and the 若しくはs are nested “or”s. Thus 犯し and 犯そうとしている run neatly in parallel for the first class; and for the second class the についてs are also parallel.

    Only way the sentence makes sense to me. I could be wrong of course. 

    ReplyReply
  18. @ “The Verbose Village Idiot”

    *Sigh* Still don’t won’t get it, do will you? One can lead a horse to water… can we drown the sumbitch now?

    This is where you are going wrong:

    外国人 登録法 第十三条 第二項 外国人は、入国審査官、入国警備官(入管法に定める入国警備官をいう)、警察官、海上保安官その他法務省例で定める国又は地方公共団体の職員がその職務の執行に当たり登録証明書の掲示を求めた場合には、これを掲示しなければならない。

    THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH “POLICE EXECUTION OF DUTIES LAW ARTICLE 2”.

    NOTHING. NADA. ZIP.

    Demanding a foreigner produce their foreigner registration is a completely separate issue from 職務質問. Got it? Doubt it. But I honestly don’t care anymore, I won’t waste any more time on this or you. I can’t cure stupid.

    ReplyReply
  19. @Everyone

    If Joe Jones & the police officer are both telling the truth,
    then many people here have been TOTALLY INCORRECT
    about I.D. checks for Non-Japanese being “Non-Voluntary.”

    * Joe Jones wrote that a police officer in Japan told him
    that even for people who appear to be NJ like Joe Jones,
    I.D. checks in Japan are still voluntary. It is VOLUNTARY:
    according to that police officer, according to Joe Jones.

    In addition to Joe Jones, here are 2 more reports of this:

    * Aly Rustom wrote that a police officer in Japan told him
    that even for people who appear to be NJ like Aly Rustom,
    I.D. checks in Japan are still voluntary. It is VOLUNTARY:
    according to that police officer, according to Aly Rustom.

    Citation: to read that report, Google the following quotation:
    “Ok. You can go. I asked to see your ID, and you refused.
    I can’t make you show it to me. You are free to go.”

    * Ariel wrote that a police officer in Japan told her
    that even for people who appear to be NJ like Ariel,
    I.D. checks in Japan are still voluntary. It is VOLUNTARY:
    according to that police officer, according to Ariel.

    Citation: to read that report, Google the following quotation:
    “I point-blank asked them (in polite but firm Japanese) if I was
    required to show them my card. They responded vaguely, but
    eventually said that it was voluntary.”

    That’s 3 clear accounts of police officers in Japan
    admitting that even for people who appear to be NJ
    I.D. checks in Japan are still voluntary. Just as I said.

    Where are the accounts of police officers in Japan
    arresting NJ who declined to show I.D.? Link Please!

    ReplyReply
  20. Bear with me, just 2 more posts and I’m done here:

    After you realize that suspicion-less I.D. checks are
    voluntary, the next step is to realize a shocking truth:

    All suspicion-less stops in the first place are ILLEGAL.
    This applies for all individuals 個人 in Japan. Nice & Fair!

    The police officers above admitted the VOLUNTARY part,
    that is what people in the know call a “limited hang-over.”

    A “limited hang-out” is a damage-control tactic used by
    individuals and groups (police, CIA, etc.) that basically
    involves pleading guilty to jaywalking in the hopes that
    the judge won’t notice that you are also a mass murderer.

    In this case, the officers admitted (only after sufficient
    prodding from NJ decliners like Joe Jones, Aly, Ariel)
    that all suspicion-less I.D. requests are VOLUNTARY…

    … what the officers did NOT admit is the following fact:
    ALL suspicion-less stops in the first place are ILLEGAL.
    So the judges in this case (Joe, Aly, and Ariel) walked
    away thinking, “I got them to admit it was voluntary,
    I didn’t give in to their demand to show my ARC card”
    but these 3 never realized that the stop in the first place
    was a patently illegal crime committed by police officers.

    The Law which makes all suspicion-less stops ILLEGAL is:
    “警察官職務執行法 第二条 警察官は、異常な挙動その
    他周囲の事情から合理的に判断して何らかの犯罪を犯し、
    若しくは犯そうとしていると疑うに足りる相当な理由の
    ある者又は既に行われた犯罪について、若しくは犯罪が
    行われようとしていることについて知って いると認めら
    れる者を停止させて質問することができる。”

    The Clause which makes even NJ suspicion-less stops ILLEGAL is:
    “職務の執行に当たり場合。”

    Without that clause, NJ suspicion-less stops would be legal.
    Without that clause, the poster “No-Way-Da” would be right.

    WITH that clause (thank you Japan) NJ can only be stopped
    on the street and forced to show their cards when seen
    doing something that gives reasonable suspicion of a crime.

    The 職務の執行 is limited and defined by the 務執行法.
    There is nothing in the 務執行法 that says anything like,
    “Reasonable Suspicion is NOT needed when it comes to NJ.”

    To the contrary, these Police Laws protect ALL INDIVIDUALS:
    As posted before: 警察法第百六十二号によりますと、
    この法律は我が国の全「個人」にあてはまります。 Wow.

    職務の執行 protects ALL individuals in Japan (yay)
    from suspicion-less stops. Even the old ARC Law
    made certain to include that nice limiting qualification.

    I was hoping you guys might be able to find a law
    that says, “Even when not doing the 職務の執行,
    the police are allowed to stop people who look NJ.”

    If you had, I would have had to studied the law you cited.
    So far, no one here has cited any law which I don’t know.

    ARC Law has the undeniable 職務の執行 limiter.
    務執行 Law has the “Reasonable suspicion” limiter.

    The ARC topic is finished in my opinion, thanks to 職務の執行 limiter.
    If you have a Zairyuu post to make, feel free to cite the Zairyuu Law.

    ReplyReply
  21. OK, we’ve reached my final post here on the subject:

    Let’s say the police stop you, your 1st question is “Is this a Shokumu stop?”
    If the police officer says yes, your next question is “What crime suspected?”
    If the police officer says “Local crime in general, knives in Akihabara, whatever”
    NOW you have proof that the officer is breaking the 警察官職務執行法 第二条

    So, if you have a police officer who admits on film that you personally are not
    yet suspected of having committed a specific crime, what will you do next?

    This is NOT the “Non-Shokumu” scenario that NoWayDa tried to divert to.
    This is NOT the “crime witnessed” scenario that Level3 tried to divert to.
    This is a “Shokumu Stop WITHOUT reasonable suspicion you committed a crime.”

    (If you are NOT suspected of having committed a specific crime, the stop is ILLEGAL.)

    So, if you have this ILLEGAL police act on film, what are you going to do about it?

    I think the answer is, you’re going to do nothing.

    With a few exceptions here, you’re going to agree
    to the illegal stop, you’re going to agree to a
    warrant-less bag-search warrant-less body-search
    and probably even go down to to Koban if asked nicely,
    and probably even pee in a cup if asked nicely.

    You don’t care that the Constitution of Japan says
    evidence of a crime must be put before a judge for a warrant,
    and you don’t care that reasonable suspicion of a crime
    must be had BEFORE the police can stop you in the first place.

    You guys don’t really care about law-breaking police officers.

    You’re just playing around, making jokes, debating endlessly.

    I wanted Laws & Translations, you guys gave mere anecdotes.

    Oh well, I guess I merely wasted a few hours of my time.

    I’ll complete the “Law Summary Card” by myself. Thank you anyway!

    ReplyReply
  22. OK, let me interject with a question: even if you accept arbitrary checks of non-suspicious people’s alien cards, how does a police officer determine that someone is foreign? Don’t say “by looking at them”!

    I’d contend that being asked what your nationality is is not a question that you’re obliged to answer. I say this because I’ve refused to answer it myself when a bicycle-checker tries to use the minute or two between when he radios in my bicycle registration and when the reply comes back, and the officer never pressed the issue. (My rebuttal wasn’t a belligerent ‘I refuse to speak to you based on Statute A, Paragraph B’, but more like ‘Hold on a minute; talking to you like this is voluntary, isn’t it? When the answer [about whose bicycle this is] comes back on the radio, and it’s the name I gave you, I’m leaving.”

    In fact, if being asked for the alien card is what bothers you the most about interactions with police — and my sympathies are fully with you if that’s the case — may I suggest doing all of your daily errands by bicycle instead of walking? If the cop’s motivation is to be seen questioning people, an alien card check is as good as a bicycle check, and a bicycle check is less intrusive! He’ll go for the bicycle first, and you can limit him to that. (You did register your bicycle, didn’t you?) :cool:

    ReplyReply
  23. I am not interested in wasting a lot of time on this debate, but I will say that I haven’t seen a conclusive argument that either Bob or No-way-da is correct, and I get the impression that beat cops keep the police law more omnipresent in their mind than the immigration law.

    However, this piece by Tucker Max is highly recommended reading for dealing with police anywhere — obviously written from an American perspective, but I think 90% of it applies to Japan too: http://www.itsuptoyou.net/how-to-deal-with-cops-and-get-out-of-crimes/

    ReplyReply
  24. @””Bob””, who wrote:

    “Oh well, I guess I merely wasted a few hours of my time.”

    That’s what happens when you go into a debate convinced your unique viewpoint – with the clever (but fundamentally completely wrong) idea that one is oh-so-proud of – is absolutely right.

    Your problem is you should be “wasting” not hours, but hundreds of hours getting your legal Japanese (and English, it seems) up to a level where you don’t have to cut and paste stuff from 2ch and pretend you are the only one who really understands it, because you know how to use rikaichan.

    ReplyReply
  25. @Level3: It’s also funny watching Free Range Men on the Sovereign Land go up against judges. They get smacked down every single time but they’re never convinced that if they just get their magic words right, next time, next time the judge will have to let them go!

    ReplyReply
  26. By the way, are visibly foreign women carded alot by omawarisan or stopped on their charinkos? Kinda curious since this discussion seems 99% concerned with the travails of wwg (western white guys).

    ReplyReply
  27. @Andrew in Ezo:
    A while back I did a poll on F*ckedGaijin about police stops, and a few of the female regulars said that they’d been stopped on occasion. One, from Russia, had been stopped several times, including once while sailing in Osaka harbor. She commented that she mainly got angry at herself for these checks because she always forgot to carry her ID.

    ReplyReply
  28. There’s something magically wistful and romantic about being carded whilst sailing in Osaka harbor.

    I wonder if it was at night with the twinkling city lights dancing on the surface of the glistening water.

    ReplyReply
  29. Oh dear… :facepalm:

    “never similar concerns for NJ privacy” versus and since we are quoting Communist Party sites, this.

    ReplyReply
  30. @Ken Y-N: Incidentally…

    Oh, and my Japan Times JBC column has been postponed a week due to a major scoop this week that will fill the Community Page…


    Scoop?

    Japan Times??

    Community Page??? :shock:

    ReplyReply
  31. @iago:

    Probably him outing more enemies, or the hints that have been popping up that someone is doing interviews to finally give his full version of events of his time in the gulag.

    Or both.

    With the odd silence over the past 3-4 weeks from Japan Probe and others.. coincidence?

    ReplyReply
  32. The “scoop” is probably this:

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fl20121204zg.html

    (a good interesting read, btw)

    Anyway, that article is way over the usual word length for a Community column, and includes photos, so it probably took too much space in the print edition to leave room for JBC.

    ReplyReply
  33. @havill:

    The US military performs experiments on enlisted folk without informing them, film at 11.

    Get a couple of drinks into an ex-enlisted guy, and you’ll hear stories about the time he and his buddies were given mysterious shots and told not to worry about it. Or the time they played games with irradiated food on that DDG back when. Or the side-effects from the vaccine that they told us would protect against Anthrax.

    Enlisted guys have always been guinea pigs, and we always will be. And we have always known it. That’s what happens when we sign the contract; we belong to Uncle Sugar and he’ll do with us as he will. We traded our individual rights in exchange for a job, an education, and hopefully a future.

    Don’t like it? Don’t enlist. Came down with cancer because some eggheads were allowed to mess with your food/water/air supply? Better re-read your enlistment contract, bucko.

    It ain’t right, it ain’t fair, but that’s the way it is and you’re not going to change it by raging against the machine. Um, same thing can be said about the impotent protests of the entitled white guys here, actually …

    ReplyReply
  34. Sorry, completely derailing the conversation, but what… the…. phuq…..

    http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/rc20121209a2.html :shock:

    ReplyReply
  35. @Steve:

    “you’re not going to change it by raging against the machine”

    Not exactly. Different tactics. Veterans advocacy groups do rational things like talk to Congressmen to change laws and regs, raise money and volunteer for veterans (volunteering meaning actually helping them in person). This can be somewhat effective. Though it won’t change the basic facts you point out. Being a guinea pig/training case for some fresh PA in the on-base hospital taught me a lesson in the “value” of free government-provided medical care that so many Americans are so eager to get. :facepalm:

    Anyway, it’s far different from engaging in counter-productive eco-terrorism and bragging to your friends on the Internet.

    Funny how often the fundraising ends up being entirely for use by themselves. Rather than buy out the dolphin hunters or something that would actually solve the “problem”. That would mean giving the money to other people! Besides, if they solved the problem, they’d have nothing to do, no way to get on TV, and no way to raise money for more luxury speedboats, among other things…

    Think some of them just might have some motive to do whatever they can to make the “problem” worse?

    ReplyReply
  36. @Level3: I like the way you think. Slaughtering cute animals in order to be paid by activist groups to stop slaughtering cute animals sounds like a pretty lucrative business.

    I’m in.

    ReplyReply
  37. @Sixth Sense: Holy cow! :facepalm: They print anything in the Japan Times letters page. :roll:

    ReplyReply
  38. @Ken Y-N: And talking of printing anything, have you seen the teaser for this month’s JBC?

    ReplyReply
  39. I’m really looking forward to his next column.

    I hope he says something really silly and then we can all band together and bash him.

    ReplyReply
  40. @iago:

    I imagine a puppy and kitten pie might be quite tasty. We threaten to do it, they threaten to stop us. We both raise money from chumps on either side and get rich. :wink:

    But there already are plenty of places that eat cute dogs. Dogs are smart enough to do tricks way more impressive than a dolphin. Yet eating dog has been deemed OK.

    So it’s not the cute factor, nor the smart factor…

    ReplyReply
  41. @Ken Y-N: Personally, I like it.

    ReplyReply
  42. @iLikedolphins: Hey, that’s a good idea! Maybe I should start a web site for that?

    (Oh, and get back to work the lot of you!)

    ReplyReply
  43. @Ken Y-N:

    With Japan’s swing to the political right these days (to be confirmed with this month’s Lower House election), there is ever more pressure to fall in line and praise Japan.

    There’s so much confusion and weirdness in this one sentence alone. It promises to be pretty bad.

    ReplyReply
  44. @Level3:

    Don’t mind me … I’m just bitter. A non-trivial number of my buddies are gorked out to one degree or another with GWS. Most of us believe that it’s due to the bugspray and the crap that went into the air from torching the wells, but those of us who are less trusting suspect that there was a little bonus experimental special sauce in the anthrax vaccine.

    It’s annoying to see these (for lack of a better term) “news stories” pop up now and then that try to whip up rage against the eeeeeevil gubmint treating servicemen like petri dishes. Some egghead gets a nifty idea for a serum that imparts immunity to bullets, do they really think it’s going to be tested only on rabbits? Easier to do it to a bunch of guys marking time out at Camp Swampy, because a) the PETA won’t be protesting and b) it’s actually legal due to the needs-of-the-service clause.

    Anyone that thinks otherwise is either hopelessly naive or felony stupid, and no amount of lobbying is going to change the basic nature of government agencies: evil, secretive, and amoral.

    Might win a public concession, but nothing is going to ever fundamentally change. That goes for *all* governments and government agencies — US, Japanese, every single one.

    That’s where Dave’s disciples lose connection with reality. They think that shining light on government hijinks will have a real lasting impact on their personal quality of life … and they’re deluded. Ain’t nothing going to change. Might win a superficial concession to make them shut up, but business will continue as usual.

    George Carlin was right: “The politicians are put there to give you the idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land. They own and control the corporations. They’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the statehouses, the city halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies, so that they control just about all of the news and information you hear. They’ve got you by the balls. They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying — lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else.”

    Anyway. Sorry about the slight thread hijack. Did I mention that I’m bitter?

    ReplyReply
  45. Technically, I fail to see the irony in my own statement.

    Perhaps one of the 20-hour work week English Dream Navigators could look it up on Wikipedia and explain it to me using a variety of power tools metaphors?

    ReplyReply
  46. @Sixth Sense:

    Nice find. Now *that’s* an apologist.

    I have to wonder, if all those groups making up the Japanese business world have their own unique ways of dealing with fraud, why wasn’t Woodford’s Anglo-Saxon confrontation just met with a huge shrug?

    ReplyReply
  47. Here we go again… | Japologism - Unapologetic apologism - pingback on April 10, 2013 at 10:37 pm

Leave a Comment


NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>