To put the world in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put
the nation in order, we must put the family in order; to put the family
in order, we must first set our hearts and brains right so as to cultivate
our personal life.
The mom of a sonuvabitch in U.S. State Department
Judging from your responses to my review piece on Chalmers Johnson's Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope, I have figured out that the time is not ripe yet to try to convince the
American people that maintaining military bases all over the world is a
"suicide option" as the late Johnson warned. Under the influence of patriotic idiots from both "conservative" and "liberal" camps of the nation, the American people are fully determined to brush
aside any commonsense argument such as mine.
They stubbornly refuse
to understand I'm not one of those empty-headed peaceniks like the moron in the White House. On
the contrary, I think war is a great thing because more often than not
it is filled with a promise of real change, while peace always stinks.
Why, then, do I disagree with these mainstream political analysts retained
by the military-industrial complex of the U.S.?
Reason 1: For better or for worse, there will never be WWIII if the appellation should
mean a nuclearized version of WWII as these crisis-mongers want us to envision it. 21st
century's warfare is nothing like ones familiar to the lovers of spectacular
films starring Bruce Willis.
Reason 2: More importantly, no one knows where to find the real enemy these days. Old hawks in America should know that not a single nation in
history has waged a war against someone who held its IOUs worth hundreds
of billions of dollars.
I must admit that by now the American people have grown too
ignorant and arrogant to wake up before they run out of time. Yet, I hope that if there still remains some sanity in the corners of their minds, it
will be a little easier for them to take my views of the nonmilitary part
of America's interventionism a little more seriously.
In 1821 John Quincy Adams, the sixth President of the United States, said:
"America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy."
190 years later, in the twilight years of the American century, we have
a serious problem with the Monster in the U.S. State Department crusading against her fellow monsters in foreign lands.
The former shyster believes she has the right to police people's way of
life on every corner of the world. And now that the nation of Confucius has started to threaten America's primacy, her fanaticism is going over
Worse, America's arrogance has spilled over across the Atlantic. Emboldened by Clinton and other busybodies in America, an increasing number of Europeans have
now started telling Asians what to do, and how to do it. Examples:
■ In October the Norwegian Nobel Committee thought the Chinese government
should release Liu Xiaobo from jail because he is the year's Peace Prize laureate. (Actually, things unfolded the other way around; Liu was awarded the prize
because he had been imprisoned.)
■ In November Reporters with(out) Borders (RSF) further elevated the Japanese media to No. 11 position as
if Japan's Glass Firewall, which poses a more serious impediment to press
freedom than China's Great Firewall, had been torn down. On the other hand,
the "press freedom watchdog" thought China should remain at the
bottom of the ranking primarily because many dissidents are still behind bars.
In short Thorbjoern Jagland, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee and
Jean-Francois Julliard, Secretary General of RSF (I don't know how to create the French letter "C"
with accent sedille on my computer) arrogantly
thought the Western standards should apply everywhere in the world.
Yet, even these European bastards eclipse before the mom of a sonuvabitch
in the U.S. Department of State.
When Colin Powell was Secretary of State, he signed the 2004 Trafficking
in Persons Report, in which Japan was downgraded from "Tier 2"
to "Tier 2 Watch List" on the ground that the country had imported
too many sex slaves from its backyard countries. Then in 2005, Condi Rice
moved up Japan back to the Tier 2 placement simply because then Prime Minister
Junichiro Koizumi, known for his perpetual abuse of women including his
ex-wife and a geisha who committed suicide, had taken a legislative measure for import ban. Since
the token measure was implemented, an increased number of Japanese men
had to go abroad to buy sex.
Ever since I'd lost interest in the TIP Report
until several days ago when I somehow started wondering how the annual
report signed by the Monster was organized.
Out of curiosity I clicked the PDF file titled "TIP Report 2010" on State Department's website. I was overwhelmed by the unprecedentedly voluminous report; it took 10 minutes until my cheap computer finished downloading the 22MB, 373-page-long report.
Its content is essentially no different from the days Powell and Rice were
in office but I see a distinctive fingerprint of the Monster in the monomaniac
meticulosity with which the report was compiled.
Japan's placement remains unchanged at Tier 2. That indicates the Monster
found the sexual behavior of Japanese men barely acceptable when compared
to that of her adulterous husband.
If there is anything new in the latest edition of the report, the Monster
had her men redefine the scope of the survey into the situation with modernday
slavery in each country. For one thing, prostitution is now included in
the list of "What is NOT Trafficking in Persons." Of course,
that does not mean the Monster has ceded it to someone else as none of
her babies. Presumably she gave it up to make her friend Angela Merkel
happy. Germany where prostitution is flourishing is still among Tier-1 countries.
American taxpayers are funding the "discretionary" $55 billion/year operation with 25,000
direct employees on its payroll. If you take into account the fact that the State Department often rents out the USS George Washington from the Defense Department when the
Monster's menacing look isn't effective enough, and that it habitually depends
on CIA spies, you will find the stupidity of American taxpayers really appalling. Without doubt, they are heading for ruin.
Basically, it's none of my business, though. On this side of the Pacific, we are more concerned about intangible consequences from Washington's spending spree. · read more (475 words)
Friday, December 10 2010 @ 09:29 AM CST
Contributed by: Y.Yamamoto
The phrase "Fourth Estate" was coined by an 18th century's
Irish statesman Edmund Burke but now it's commonly used to stress the independence
of the media from the three branches of a government. Personally I'm inclined to include "independent" experts in sociopolitical issues in the fourth branch of the regime because they can't live a day without
the favor from the media.
In reality, though, not a single mainstream media organization is independent of the
other estates. That is why someone founded Reporters without Borders, or
Reporters sans Frontieres in French, in Montpellier, France as a "press freedom watchdog"
25 years ago. The nonprofit organization, now based in Paris, never refers
to itself as RWB presumably because a "W" can stand for "with" as well as "without." Instead, it uses the French abbreviation, RSF, even in an English publication.
I don't know, neither do I want to know, when RSF started releasing its annual press freedom ranking.
With these in mind, let's take a look at the following table:
No. of Countries/Regions on the List
United States (American Territory)
United States (Extra-Territorial, incl. Iraq)
In recent years RSF had already discredited itself as an independent body by favoring some countries
and disfavoring some others apparently under the influence of obsolete ideologies flavored with liberal bias. But if
you look at the most recent standings for the G8-plus-1 countries shown on the extreme right column,
you will know these self-styled guardians of press freedom now look really
like hordes of cretins.
Just take Japan for example.
Earlier this week, an Italian journalist by the name of Silvio Piersanti
gave me an e-mail from his newsroom at Il Venerdi (Friday) to ask a very valid question. He was wondering about the reason
behind Japan's quick ascension in the RSF ranking. He needed that information
because he was writing an article on the Japanese media.
My answer was that there was no reason, whatsoever, for the phenomenal
rise. The notoriously exclusive Kisha Kurabu (press club) system is still there and we don't see any sign that it's
going to disappear anytime soon. Reporters and editors in the "information
cartel" are still doing a good job by ingeniously standardizing, sanitizing
and homogenizing news stories as Laurie Anne Freeman exquisitely described
in her marvelous book, Closing the Shop.
The most recent news reports have it that in the face of the free fall
of his cabinet approval rating, Prime Minister Naoto Kan is now thinking
about joining forces with the largest opposition LDP over the yearend.
In disseminating their speculation about Kan's survival strategy, media obscurantists are trying to immunize their gullible audiences for the idea that when
something like that materializes, we call it a Grand Coalition. But actually,
that's not what it is; it's yet another reunification of the twin parties coming from the same egg.
It's not that Japan's media are particularly in love with Akikan (an Empty Can) as Kan is dubbed lately. But they certainly know the last
bastion of the current polity named the 1955 System is this Kisha Kurabu where
the Fourth Estate can have a clandestine affair with any one of the other
The first name of the Italian journalist reminded me of Silvio Berlusconi,
the media tycoon. I asked him if he thinks Italy will quickly overtake
Japan on the RSF list when the other Silvio resigns as prime minister. In response,
"I'm afraid that he won't resign. His ultimate dream is to end his
political career as President of the Italian Republic after changing the
constitution to give him more decisional power. (His model is his close
friend Putin.) If he manages to survive the current crisis (we will know
it on Dec. 14th's confidence vote in Parliament) we'll have to stand him
for several more years, unfortunately. This coming Saturday, there will
be a big march through Rome against Berlusconi. We expect about 2 million
people taking part in it. (snip) [But] the real problem is that the majority
of Italians like Berlusconi; his Byzantine style of life, his cynical shrewdness." · read more (380 words)
Tuesday, November 30 2010 @ 01:03 AM CST
Contributed by: Y.Yamamoto
It all started when I stumbled on this controversial book titled The Coming Collapse of China.
Until then I hadn't imagined that there could be an author specializing in the unscientific field called political "science" who, like management gurus such as Michael
Hammer or Peter F. Drucker, wouldn't take it for granted that when the subject entity is big enough, it should be considered as a going concern.
As I wrote in those days, I didn't really care about the fate of China.
Seven years later, I still remain that way because where the country is
heading is basically none of my business. Recent rumors on the Web have
it that Gordon Chang, the author of the book, has now revised his prophecy,
saying the collapse will happen in ten years from now if not in 2011 as he originally predicted. My take on the rescheduling
is: who knows, and who cares?
I still remember writing a long mail on March 1, 2003 to Mr. Chang. The subsequent exchange of views between us in
more than 2,000 mails and one face-to-face talk at a sushi bar in Tokyo's
Roppongi has helped me transform myself from a retired businessman into something
else. As of now I am still unable to tell the name of the shore on which
I was washed up.
Yet, I think I can give you some tips if you are a proponent or an opponent
of any collapse theory.
There are two important questions you must ask yourself before discussing
the probability of China's collapse, Japan's or America's.
"Am I planning to take specific steps to expedite or prevent it, or just forecasting about something I can't really internalize?"
As I wrote earlier this year, plans are one thing and forecasts are quite
another. It is true that forecasting is an integral part of a plan, but
if you remain uncommitted to your forecast, you can't call it a plan.
And if you are only betting on a horse, instead of jockeying yourself, you should know the fate of a nation has nothing in common with the result of the horse racing.
The same applies if you are a weatherman. You've got to be an idiot to claim you can foretell the weather of the day one year
from now because you are equipped with state-of-the-art supercomputers hooked up to meteorological satellites.
You may still insist that you are committed to something or someone. But
hold on a second.
The single most important thing to understand is that you can never commit
yourself to faceless people or those living thousands miles away from your hometown. All you can actually do is to tweet, like a little birdie, about the doomed future of China, or the endless supremacy of America, for that matter.
"How do I define the word 'collapse'? Does one of those regime changes deserve to be called a collapse?"
Another way to ask about the same thing is: "Would I readily declare
a brain-dead person dead?" If you wouldn't, you should drop all your
argument for or against the collapse theory at hand.
In this "globalized" world where state-of-the-art life-support
systems are available everywhere at affordable prices, it's highly improbable
for any nation-state but tiny banana republics to literally fall apart.
With these questions always in mind, I started writing a book which I would have titled The Unviable Japan two and a half years ago. In retrospect, I suspect the American literary
agent might not have pissed me off the way she did if I had thought about
titling it The Coming Collapse of Japan; she wouldn't have been upset so much because then I was just forecasting
Japan's future while remaining uncommitted to anything.
· read more (236 words)
Sunday, November 28 2010 @ 04:37 AM CST
Contributed by: Y.Yamamoto
Think of it as the eight-hundred-pound gorilla in the American living room: our long-standing reliance on imperialism and militarism in our relations with other countries and the vast, potentially ruinous global empire of bases that goes with it. The failure to begin to deal with our bloated military establishment and the profligate use of it in missions for which it is hopelessly inappropriate will, sooner rather than later, condemn the United States to a devastating trio of consequences: imperial overstretch, perpetual war, and insolvency, leading to a likely collapse similar to that of the former Soviet Union.
- Chalmers Johnson, July 30, 2009
Chalmers Johnson died on November 20 at the age of 79.
In today's America infested with demagogues and ideologues, scholars and pundits who address issues strictly based on facts as Johnson did are an endangered species. That is why the news from California somehow prompted me to place an order for his last book with amazon.com.
Actually Dismantling the Empire: America's Last Best Hope is an anthology of 15 essays written
in the period from January 2004 through July 2009.
For his uniquely down-to-earth approach focused on "political economy"
of subject countries, Johnson was known to be a "contrarian"
scholar, and sometimes dismissed as an "oddball" among mainstreamers. Because of the prejudice, very little is known about him in the U.S. and elsewhere. So let me first summarize here his lustrous educational background
and multihued occupational career.
In the 1950s, Johnson earned a BA degree in economics and a Ph.D. in political
science from the University of California, Berkeley. During the Korean
War, he was stationed in Japan as a naval officer. Later on, he taught
at his alma mater, but at the same time he was a consultant for an affiliate
of the CIA for some years.
Over time he developed a firm belief that it's imperative for serious researchers to receive the fullfledged education on the language and history of the subject country. This is exactly what differentiated him from other political scientists who always cut corners on their surface-scratching studies by neglecting the painstaking efforts to learn languages and histories.
How many Japan experts in the U.S., for instance, are discussing the subject country in an arrogant know-it-all attitude without comprehensive knowledge of the Japanese language and history?
To me talking about a country without knowing its culture inside out is something like an accounting-illiterate CEO trying to analyze the financial statements of his
company. I find this "imperial hubris" all the more disgusting because of my personal experience with arrogant Americans in the last two and a half years.
Needless to say, one of the keys to understanding the message of this book
is to refresh your definition of the word "imperialism." As
usual not-too-many reviewers took Dismantling the Empire seriously on the ground that it's yet another manifestation of a wicked
and unpatriotic ideology. Some even said it's totally unworthy of reading.
But now that you've known his bio, I hope you doubt that can be the case.
In fact, those who read this book expecting to see all-too-familiar ideologies
will be totally disappointed because the author only lets facts, some of
them learned firsthand, tell their stories. In short his frequent reference
to imperialism has nothing, whatsoever, to do with ideologies.
There's nothing new in the straightforward way Johnson defines the word. He says that
imperialism is an international system where "militarily stronger
nations dominate and exploit weaker ones."
As a political economist, Johnson primarily focuses on the financial aspects of imperialism. An essay dated July 2, 2009 puts the costs of maintaining "the U.S.
Empire of Bases" at $102 billion a year. In another essay dated July
30, 2009, the author quotes Anita Dancs, an analyst for the website
Foreign Policy in Focus, as saying the United States spends approximately $250
billion each year maintaining its global military presence." (I can't
tell what the difference between the two figures represents, though.)
Johnson concludes that it's a "suicide option" to stay with imperialism which is "not only morally obscene, but
fiscally unsustainable." As a former senior financial manager, I can't
Another keyword of the book is "blowback." Let's see how Johnson
redefines the word that first appeared in a CIA postaction report in 1953.
According to him, blowback does not simply refer to the unintended consequences
of actions taken by the U.S. government, but more specifically to natural responses to such operations "that are kept secret from the American
public and from most of their representatives in Congress."
The author presents a list of major countries that have given a blowback
to the U.S. since 1953. Among other things, it's especially interesting to note that Japan isn't listed there. Johnson is absolutely right in deliberately excluding the "docile satellite" of the United States.
In the last 65 years, the U.S. has habitually played
foul with Japan. So it's another miracle that America's Japan policy has never backfired. The bilateral relations haven't unfolded this way without reason.
Johnson was also known as an early "Japan revisionist" since the early-1980s when he was writing MITI and the Japanese Miracle. In those days he already coined a phrase "Cartels of the Mind" to describe the dark secret behind the economic and political miracle. So he is one of the very few Japan experts in the U.S. who know the reason why America hasn't faced a blowback from its Far Eastern ally.
In the last part of Dismantling the Empire, which was dated six months after Obama's inauguration, he specifically
talks about "10 Steps Toward Liquidating the Empire." This is
the only part I don't find really convincing primarily because a soul-searching step
is missing there; I can't tell if it's Step Zero or Step 11.
The Americans, at large, have all taken it for granted that the world revolves around their country until the end of time, as did the Chinese 2.5 millenniums ago. The worst fallout from the Ptolemaic delusion is the fact that these people are totally incapable of introspection.
As it has become increasingly evident that the process of America's decline is no longer reversible, this "sophomoric ignoramus" resulting from their "infatuation with imperialism" has started taking a devastating toll on America's health. Unfortunately, though, very few Americans seem to have woken up so far to realize a serious self-examination should be Step Zero.
Especially it's deplorable as well as laughable to see these crisis-mongers in the U.S. inventing one crisis after another out of blowback. They do so simply because otherwise they would be out of work altogether.
Thank god, I still have a few good friends in America. One of them is a Montanan. He and I always take each other seriously and value differences. While awaiting the delivery of the book from amazon.com,
I asked him to tell me his take on the idea of dismantling the
empire. As usual he gave me a frank and thought-provoking input.
The only sentences I had difficulty understanding go like this:
"If Japan were serious about removing U.S. military bases, there [would
be] only one way to do it. That would require hard work, money and some
years. Japan would have to prove that it has developed a hard capability
to defend itself well and to generate serious working military relationships
with the rest of Asia. Our leaders would not accept a few guns and boats.
Without that proof, no American bases will close."
I'm always inclined to play devil's advocate when discussing fundamental issues like this one. So my outlandish questions are:
■ Why would Japan have to prove anything to anyone before choosing its
■ What if the Japanese have no intention, deep inside, to defend itself? Indications are that they would rather see Japan become the 51st state
of America or 24th province of China than fight against anyone.
■ Which country(-ies) is Japan supposed to defend itself against?
■ Why would Japan have to seek an approval by the President of the United
States when it comes up with a plan? · read more (246 words)
Inmy previous post, I updated you on the approval rating of the Kan administration
which had nosedived from the vicinity of 65% to 27.8% in a matter of two months according to Jiji
Press. The reason behind the sharp decline was because even the world's
most credulous people had become too used to "legal" red herrings to be
put further away off the scent of the real issue.
Although the approval rating further dipped over the weekend to 21.8% according to Fuji News Network, Akikan, or the Empty Can, as Naoto Kan is dubbed lately, still hangs on to the
revolving door of the Prime Minister's office. There are two reasons he
is barely able to stay afloat.
Yanagida keeps aplogizing
On November 14, one of his cabinet members Minoru Yanagida was with his
supporters in his Hiroshima constituency to belatedly celebrate his appointment
as Justice Minister two months ago. At that time, the head of nation's corrupt judicial system confided to
the local congregation that actually it's a cinch to carry out his responsibility
as Justice Minister because the only thing he is supposed to say when answering touchy questions in the Diet is to automatically repeat the following phrases
1) I can't comment on the specific issue.
2) We are dealing with the matter based on the law and available evidence.
Actually he had used these sentences 33 times since he was appointed by
Naoto Kan to the position.
The moment the news got out, the opposition camp started to screech, saying
Yanagida's remarks were totally impermissible because these words constituted
a contempt of the Diet. The entire nation instantly turned into a madhouse.
As usual the media got extremely nitpicky about the semantics of the harmless
gaffe and replayed the video footage at issue over and over again - more frequently than Yanagida had repeated his taped answers in the Diet.
The Justice Minister offered sincere apology to everyone, automatically
repeating the same excuse that although he hadn't intended to make light
of Diet deliberations, he felt too much at home, surrounded by his Hiroshima
supporters. He added that he was under the heavy influence of alcohol at
This was yet another reminder of what I call the Culture of Apology, the peculiar climate where an unlucky person apologizes for something
he is not particularly responsible for.
But the Liberal Democratic Party and other opposition parties wouldn't
listen in part because this was just part of the predetermined misogi ritual and in part because there was nothing else to nag Kan about at that moment.
On Monday the Prime Minister had to sack Yanagida.
This always happens when it becomes too evident that something is fundamentally
wrong with this nation. Last prime ministers of the LDP administration
and the first prime minister of the DPJ administration invariably dug their
own graves because of a slip of the tongue.
In June I told my audience what the misogi ritual is all about when Yukio Hatoyama stepped down as prime minister.
But nobody seemed to understand. Some Japan experts in the U.S. went as
far as to promise Hatoyama's successor would lead the way to a new Japan.
They were mistaken once again although none of them blushed for a split
If you still don't think my explanation is good enough to convince you
why the bastard had to lose his cushy job because of a casual slip of the
tongue, you may want to turn to these Japan experts in the U.S. who boldly
claim to have more unbiased and clearer views of Japan than this humble
blogger who has lived these turbulent years in this country since 1935.
Better yet, though, you can expect the best answer from those in the same
occupation with Yanagida. In particular I recommend you contact Nobuteru
Ishihara, Secretary General of the opposition Liberal Democratic Party.
He is a son of the equally retarded Tokyo Governor who was once named a "Social
Neanderthal" by Australian journalist Ben Hills. Also he is known
to be a senior member of Sukyo Mahikari, a cult somewhat akin to the world renowned Aum Supreme Truth.
I can't guarantee you that he is reachable right now. But if you have the
luck to ask him your question, keep this in mind: you should pitch a nasty
curveball to the Secretary General of the LDP in order to get a meaningful
answer. You should perhaps word your question like this:
What's wrong with an idiot telling his fellow idiots a stupid thing like this?
Of course, the moron wouldn't be able to utter a word in response to your tricky question. But be assured, that is the best answer.
Then came the November 23 "surprise" attack by North Korea on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong. It took Japan's commander-in-chief as long as seven hours to issue a rubberstamp statement that said:
■ We strongly condemn the attack.
■ We will do our best to gather and analyze information.
■ We will work together ever more closely with South Korea and the U.S.
■ At this moment we don't think the North Korean attack will directly
affect Japanese citizens. But just in case, we should be prepared for a worst case scenario. · read more (403 words)
Friday, November 19 2010 @ 01:05 AM CST
Contributed by: Y.Yamamoto
Akikan's days are numbered
Sengoku, the former ambulance chaser, is now in defense of China
A little more than two months ago, the presidency of the Democratic Party of Japan as well as nation's premiership was being contested between the double-dyed villain by the name of Ichiro Ozawa and the firstrate idiot named Naoto Kan. At that time I told my audience that the country was getting stuck "in between the devil and the deep blue sea" as the old American song goes.
As usual most of you thought I was exaggerating or just analogizing the
situation the Japanese are in. But I wasn't. What I meant to say was that
Japan is already a dead nation. The country still shows weak vital signs, but that is only because it is on an artificial respiration system.
Since the burst of the bubble economy in 1990, mythomaniacs
in Japan's media organizations have acted like they are mandated to invent one false contention after another to dupe their credulous audiences into believing
there still are valid alternatives to choose from.
Among other tactics to put people off the scent of real issues, it is especially noteworthy that they make believe every problem has its roots in laws, and thus, can be solved by new legislation, or amendment to an existing one. Along these lines, they always cite a law which is actually irrelevant to the issue at hand, or focus on the wrong article of a relevant one.
Take the Constitution for example. They always talk about whether to amend its war-renouncing Article 9, whereas you can't even get to Chapter II which includes the particular article before getting stuck with Chapter I that defines the role of the Emperor in such a way that eviscerates Chapter III which supposedly defines the "rights and duties of the people." The fundamental law of a nation serves as the master agreement between an individual citizen and the country where he lives. That is why I have recently terminated my contract with this failed country.
Another example is the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the U.S. and Japan. In the last half century, not a single pundit who was not under the influence of communism has discussed the invocation of Article 10 of the treaty which provides for the procedure for its termination. To sidetrack people from the real issue, media obscurantists are untiringly talking about other clauses such as Article 5 or auxiliary pacts such as Japan Status of Forces Agreement in order to instill in people the absurd delusion that in an emergency, the Americans will come to the rescue of the Japanese even at the cost of their own lives.
Since early September, the Japanese have heard of yet another bunch of laws. When voters in and outside the DPJ faced the insoluble dilemma between
Kan and Ozawa, Yoshito Sengoku, Chief Cabinet Secretary and Ozawa's
archrival, got the press corps in Kantei Kisha Kurabu, or the press club collusively attached to the Cabinet Office, to focus
solely on Ozawa's violation of the Political Funds Control Law. Sengoku thought he could gloss over the ineptness of the Kan administration just by scapegoating the former Secretary General of his party.
It was as if the DPJ could have gained power from the Liberal Democratic Party last year without Ozawa's unparalleled skills in pork-barreling. Also it was as if Sengoku and Kan had proved morally stainless. The matter of the fact remains that they are just petty thieves when compared to the unrivaled master of robbery.
Ironically, though, a series of criminal cases broke out around that time where small fish such as a manager at the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare were found to have been framed by public prosecutors and judges to save a little bigger ones close to the DPJ administration. Since it was obvious that these exonerees were just the tip of the iceberg, the entire judicial system of the nation could have discredited itself.
But once again the media kicked in; this time it was Kensatsu Kisha Kurabu, the press club attached to the Public Prosecutors Office, that artfully localized the implication of false accusations as if they were isolated cases. As a result, Ozawa has still remained Public Enemy No. 1.
That is how the Chief Cabinet Secretary could help Kan retain Japan's premiership. The cabinet
approval rating shot up to 70% despite the fact that the incompetent Prime Minister had delivered, or would deliver, absolutely nothing on his promise about "Least Unhappy Society."
If you are not familiar with Sengoku, here's his bio. The bastard was one of those empty-headed campus activists before
he dropped out of Tokyo University's Faculty of Law in 1968. Until he got into politics
in 1990, he was a left-leaning courtroom lawyer. That is why he sounds so confident when talking about laws.
On September 7, a tiny Chinese trawler gave a soft pat on two patrol ships of Japan Coast Guard in the "disputed" waters off the Senkaku Islands, Diaoyutai in Chinese. The incident gave another legal challenge to the former lawyer. This time it was something about the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea and Japan's Code of Criminal Procedure.
To make a long story short, his expertise in laws didn't help him a bit in handling the Senkaku incident. While he is totally unable to look beyond laws, the Chinese don't give a damn to the international law simply because it meant absolutely nothing in the twilight years of Pax Americana where the Law of the Jungle prevails everywhere. Who could have resisted temptation when it was something like taking a candy from a baby to brush aside Japan's sheepish territorial claim and demand the immediate release of the skipper of the trawler?
As an old proverb goes, the cock is bold on his own dunghill. Now the former ambulance chaser started acting like an attorney retained by the Chinese accident faker. Emboldened by dull-wittedness and docility of his fellow countrymen, Sengoku started giving them lectures on Article 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that says in certain circumstances, it's left to the prosecutor's discretion whether to indict a suspect. Unlike with the Chinese, it was a piece of cake for Sengoku to insinuate the Japanese into believing the specific circumstance, where the Chinese captain declared, after his release, that he would do the same thing in the future, justified the invocation of Article 248.
In the meantime, it was slowly dawning on these retarded people that it was about time to have seen, with their own eyes, the video footages which were said to show how the Chinese ship rammed into the patrol ships of Japan Coast guard.
As I have repeatedly said, the right time to act in international relations is before your opponent acts, or at latest, immediately after that. But the Japanese have never learned that the right time, once missed, will never come back. That is basically why I'm inclined to call them unviable creatures.
Totally unaware it was too late to effectively respond to the provocation by the Chinese, the opposition camp led by the LDP and the general public blindfolded by the media started voicing their desire to take a peek at what had really happened in the East China Sea on September 7.
Now amid the outcry for the disclosure of the videos, Sengoku had to turn to Article 47 of the same Code of Criminal Procedure; he kept saying it would run counter to that article to make public the touchy videos.
To be more precise, however, Article 47 prohibits, in principle, the disclosure of evidence prior to the opening of trial. But never mind, nobody has bothered to question Sengoku's distorted interpretation of the law because he is an oracle, after all, who passed the highly competitive bar exam many years ago, and the reporters stationed in Kantei Kisha Kurabu were still enthusiastic about covering up the transparent trick behind Sengoku's alibi exercise.
Then, on the night of November 4, someone uploaded some video footages on YouTube that showed unspectacular scenes of the Battle of the East China Sea.
Now Sengoku faced, or thought he was facing, another legal issue. Typical of Japanese men of his age, he is totally in the dark about the way information flows in the era of WikiLeaks. And yet, the dolt didn't realize he was barking up the wrong tree when he proclaimed that the leak constituted a crime in the light of Article 100 of the National Civil Service Law that stipulates the "obligation to preserve secrecy."
This was yet another false issue because nobody but the Chinese should get hurt looking at the videos and any information that had been accessible to all employees of the JCG and dozens of lawmakers before the "leak" could not be considered classified. But dozens of lawyers, ex-prosecutors and law professors appeared on TV waido sho ("wide shows") day and night to chitchat about the "issue."
Wide shows are run by all TV stations with nationwide network exactly in the identical format, and boast highest viewer ratings in this brain-dead nation. Since these programs deal, at a time, with a wide variety of topics ranging from failed relationships between untalented tarento (TV personalities) to bizarre criminal cases, to Prince William's engagement, to politics, these self-proclaimed pundits can only scratch the surface of "serious" topics such as the video leak.
On November 13, a 43-year-old Second Navigation Officer of the JCG turned himself in, saying he had thought the Japanese had the right to know the truth and that he was prepared for any punishment. On November 16, the public prosecutors dropped the charge against the whistleblower in the face of the public outcry for his release. He may have lost his job, but the same contention is still going on in the Diet and on TV as of my writing this post.
At the beginning of this 2-plus-month-long ado about nothing, Kan owed Sengoku a lot for his initial advance which was so striking that some American pundits hailed him as a savior of the ailing country.
But after all this legal gibberish, his approval rating nosedived from somewhere around 70% to an astounding 27.8% according to Jiji Press.
Now we have seen hundreds of people rallying here and there to demand the reinstatement of the Devil. In a sense, they have a point. At least Ozawa wouldn't have begged Hu Jintao on his knees to set aside at least 25 minutes on the sidelines of the APEC Summit Meeting for a bilateral talk. Akikan or the Empty Can, as the Japanese dub Kan lately, desperately asked Hu's
mercy to save him from losing the right half of his face. At the ASEM Summit Meeting held in Brussels last month, Akikan had already lost the left half when Wen Jiabao gave him 25 minutes in a hallway.
At the last minute, Hu agreed to give Kan just 25 minutes on the condition that he not un-shelve the touchy Senkaku issue. In 1978 Deng Xiaoping forced his Japanese counterpart to swallow the idea of shelving it practically for good.
Not all those who were disappointed by the Kan administration think that trying to live with the Devil is a little better than jumping into the deep blue sea. So some of them have now started to talk about the Grand Coalition between the DPJ (minus Ozawa's faction) and the LDP. But they have learned no lessons from the past either. And there still is the public discourse about seikai saihensei (political realignment) lingering on. But it has long tested unworkable, too.
Throughout my 46-year career and 75-year life, I have studied various laws including Commercial Code, Civil Code, Securities Exchange Act, tax laws, antimonopoly legislation and Labor Standards Law as necessity arose. But I have never thought about becoming a law practitioner or doctor of juridical "science" myself. Here's the reason:
I have known in person not a single man with legal background who understands the very basics of a legal system. People tend to think laws govern their lives and thoughts, but actually it's the other way around; it's them that write, abide by, defy or rewrite laws.
In the U.S., the situation is a little different because America, unlike Japan, has a great Constitution that embodies the founding principles of the nation. But as I observe, most American lawyers are there only to stymie their clients' attempt to look beyond state and federal laws which are unconstitutional to varying degrees. As a result, now you can see a striking resemblance in behaviors between the U.S. administration headed by the alumnus of Harvard Law School and the Japanese government practically run by the dropout of Tokyo University's Faculty of Law.
Small wonder that America is quickly getting Japanized these days although it will take some time until the American people understand they are getting nowhere if they remain stuck between liberals and conservatives. · read more (102 words)
Sunday, November 07 2010 @ 08:21 AM CST
Contributed by: Y.Yamamoto
Confucius (551- 479 BC)
Most scholars and pundits in America and some other Western countries are
ignorant enough to attribute Asiatic backwardness to Confucianism. Worse,
they are also arrogant enough to assume they wouldn't find any new wisdom
if they bothered to go straight to the horse's mouths: The Four Books compiled circa 300 BC by early disciples of Confucius. The same can be said of their Japanese counterparts who are all yellow
Yankees. It is true that they have learned in schools of maxims from The Four Books that recapitulate the Confucian principles. But they have never really understood the principal tenet incarnated in one of The Four Books titled 大学 (Great Learning). It reads: 修身斉家治国平天下.
There seems to be no standard way of expressing the idea in English. But
an English-speaking Internet user has given it a try. This person translates
these words like this:
"To put the world in order, we must first put the nation in order; to put
the nation in order, we must put the family in order; to put the family
in order, we must first set our hearts right so as to cultivate our personal
life." (I made some modification to the last part of the quote for the
sake of clarification.)
In short, your integrity as an individual is all that matters.
Policymakers and self-styled political analysts who habitually invert the Confucian logic should shut their mouth altogether if that means they can't make a fast buck anymore.
You don't have to convert to communism distorted by the bastard named Mao
Zedong; neither do you need to agree with Deng Xiaoping who gave a new
twist to Maoism. You just have to sober yourself up from the delusions
being disseminated by Western demagogues and ideologues in order to see what is really at issue in this messy world.
As of writing this post, APEC 2010 is going on in this port city of Yokohama. As usual, participants from developed countries and developing countries seem to be divided over every issue on the agenda. It's quite predictable that at the closing session, the Japanese chairman will celebrate his own success in having all attendees sign the empty statement that essentially says, "Let's go on swimming together if only to sink together." · read more (124 words)
Capitalizing, directly or indirectly, on the blessings of the Internet, political analysts have
been proliferating all over the world. In America, alone, there are millions
of them if you include self-styled pundits.
You can classify them into two types: weather forecasters and Monday morning
quarterbacks. It's a known fact that there always is a cozy relationship
between the two groups. Unless pundits who specialize in predictions are
so prone to misread clues to future events, MMQBs are out of work. And
if MMQBs have a good command of sophism to convince their audience that
they are not just secondguessing, prophets lose their jobs.
In between the two categories, you sometimes come across amphibians who
have the guts to play the two different roles all by themselves. By doing so,
they effectively hedge against the risk of losing jobs.
It's some of these amphibious pundits who foresaw the emergence of a new
and viable Japan in June when Naoto Kan and Katsuya Okada succeeded Yukio
Hatoyama and Ichiro Ozawa as prime minister and secretary general of the
Democratic Party of Japan, respectively.
In fact, though, signs of the total collapse of the country have since been felt, rather than just imagined, around the clock and on every corner of the Japanese archipelago. Those who have good ears even hear the entire edifice crashing down.
Five months after the misogi-like transition of power, even these zombie-like people can tell the Kan administration will fall apart in a matter of months.
When it comes to foreign relations, the Tokyo government is now in total
gridlock because Moscow, Beijing and Pyongyang are steadfastly closing
in on the doomed nation. I'm inclined to term it the MBP strangulation
regimen after the ABCD alliance against Japan in 1941.
Kan and his foreign minister Seiji Maehara are counting even more on their
American counterparts for help. They know that if the Republicans are to regain lost ground toward 2012, that won't make a bit of difference
to the absurd security arrangement between the two nations, one dead and
the other dying.
This is yet another confirmation of Douglas MacArthur's testimony at a
joint committee of the Senate. On May 5, 1951, the general exquisitely
said: "Measured by the standards of modern civilization, [the Japanese
would be like boys] of twelve, as compared with [Americans' and Germans']
development of 45 years."
MacArthur was so foresighted that he also knew by 2010, all Americans would look like 104-year-olds.
So, are amphibious pundits in America blushing or scratching their empty
heads these days?
No, that's what they will never do. As usual, they have a good excuse, particularly in
this November. "Currently we are too preoccupied with the midterm
election to be really concerned about Japan. Maybe we were a little too
optimistic when we said the country was getting back on the right track.
But so what?"
It's in this intellectual vacuum that a growing number of political analysts in the U.S. have started twittering. The eagles have lost their piercing eyes to identify their targets
and sharp claws to cut out enemies' hearts. So all they can do is just to keep chirping.
It's true that they can't outdo the Japanese who are very good
at compressing ideas into the traditional 17-syllable format. But that doesn't really matter; Haiku poetry and tweets are basically the same thing. · read more (88 words)
Thursday, October 28 2010 @ 03:53 AM CDT
Contributed by: Y.Yamamoto
Chen Tien-shi's book about statelessness
One year ago today, I stumbled on a Japanese book titled Stateless. I instantly gave it a five-star review on my website.
If you look at customer reviews on Amazon Japan's website, you will think
I am not alone in being so enthralled by the book. As of today, the Amazon rating has averaged 4.5 stars.
But actually I have very little in common with these readers.
A comment posted by a reviewer who gave the book a 3-star rating reads
like this: "I found the book very informative but I can't agree to
the author's way of thinking because of its tilt toward negativism."
An oldish Japanese woman, who is one of my former colleagues, has once
told me the same thing about this book. She said something like Joseph
McCarthy would have said sixty years ago: "I find the author's negativism
really disgusting. Her family came over to Japan on their own. Nobody brought
them here against their will. So, love it, or leave it."
The Amazon reviewer, and Japan's McCarthy alike, have much more in common with
many other ignorant and arrogant people in and outside the United Nations than with this blogger;
they all have a bug-ridden logic circuit embedded inside their skulls. They constantly mix up things at issue with their take on them. That is basically why they use these words, positive and negative, so lightly.
Because of this confusion, they always distort the arithmetic rule. While, for instance, a negative view of a negative thing makes a plus, my positive view of something they think has a negative value does not always mean I am a negativist.
Take statelessness for example.
Those whose brains are prone to logical confusion take it for granted that
any word suffixed with "-less" is a negative thing. But what
about the word "flawless" for instance? You say, "I got
your point." But hold on, because you don't. If I say, "Your
skills in pickpocketing are flawless," how would you respond?
In fact, things are all neutral - neither positive nor negative.
The word stateless simply means that the nationality column of your passport
says you have no nationality - no more, no less. It's you that should decide
whether or not statelessness is a desirable status to be in.
To me that status is something you have to be proud of. You are mistaken when you label me as a negativist simply because I'm in favor of statelessness which you think is a negative thing.
The same can be said of humanright advocates in and outside the U.N. They keep mixing
up subjects with objects. That's why, for instance in 1961, the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees drew up the "International
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness" based on the obsolete
document called "The Universal Declaration of Humanrights."
If you are stupid enough to insist that the international body founded
when the Chinese continent was still under the rule of Chiang Kai-shek has not
yet outgrown its raison d'etre, you should give us a specific reason you
think statelessness should be reduced, rather than increased. Or at least you should tell us why
no more than 19 countries have signed the treaty of 1961 thus far despite
the ardent call by the UNHCR in the last half century.
I think it's not only useless but also harmful to cling to the outdated
hypocrisy based on the absurd assumption that Pax Americana will last many more years, if not forever.
With the pathological obsession with statelessness as something undesirable,
these people are contributing to the proliferation, not the reduction,
of stateless population. They claim that they know no borders, but actually
they know them more than anyone else does. Besides, they have put up another
wall that separates the stateless from the "stateful."
Here, I am talking about a book written by a first-rate scholar who specializes in ethnology
and international law, and people's responses to it. It's a different story
when it comes to what doers do.
Actually author Chen Tien-shi has another face; she is a dedicated activist.
Besides delving into issues
with statelessness and the "Chinese Diaspora", she has also engaged in grassroots activities such as building up a worldwide
network for the stateless. So it's quite understandable that she has no
guts to tell these individuals, in person, that they should be proud of
the plight resulting from their status. Presumably, all she can barely say is: "You shouldn't feel ashamed of the predicament you are going through."
Life is not so simple as you think it is. · read more (40 words)