POSITIVE

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_re_us/us_prodigy_study_abroad

Since the other program will bring him to Africa, I assume there is no technical problem to bring this boy there.

If the professor who actually handles this program thinks that he (she?) doesn't want to bring 13 year-old boy, can the university enforce him to do so? Discriminatory treatment without any reasonable excuse may be illegal but can the institution force the program to the professor? Apart from the real story, I am a bit interested in this issue...

If this program may be held by any professor, the university may change the professor in charge and it may be all settled. However, in the university, there are may exclusive programs that no other professor can take place. In such case, can the university enforce this professor to bring him? But professors are generally entitled to free teachings...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_licence

Yesterday, I heard the argument about the marriage license on the radio in Rochester. I wondered; the country which prides the freedom requires license to marry?!

As it bears the word 'license', I think it's natural to think that if I don't have this license, I'm not allowed to marry. To marry, I will need this license beforehand like my driver's license.

However, it seems NOT: ha...really surprised... ^^;

It seems that it's a kind of official certificate that the couple has legally married, although some countries/regions have different definitions or effects.
Well, as the reference mentions, I agree that there should be a kind of the argument that there must be a much better wording... ^^;

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20100310-00000068-mai-soci

This article is about the decision made by BPO (Broadcasting Ethics & Program Improvement Organization) that the comment which Mr. Tahara, a journalist, had made was within his freedom of speech although it was not appropriate. His speech in question was that "the abductees from Japan to North Korea have been dead already" and this made the family of the victims angry which brought them to accuse him that his action was illegal.

Then. Could his comment illegal? Unless it violates the public interest or rights of others, free speech is guaranteed.
Under this rule, even false information may be not illegal; i.e. uploading your false personal information on the website is not illegal by itself unless you contracted that you will tell the truth since anonymity is the fundamental rule in the website although it may be not appropriate in some place. The point is that APPROPRIATENESS and LEGITIMACY are pretty different things.

If Mr. Tahara has done sufficient research and reached to the point that it was reasonable to believe that the abductees are not alive anymore, it should be regarded it was within a secured free speech even against the fame of the abductees and their families; I even doubt if this could be an issue of their fame...
If this kind of speech is not acceptable, this is A PROBLEM. If such an examined statement should be illegal, then how can information come out in the market of free speech? Banning such speech might cause diminution of speech; you know, it's going to be too scary to speak out...

When I think of myself being one of the abductees, it's so heart breaking. But this should not directly mean that no one should comment anything which are not welcome to them. We should be careful that when we call someone's saying illegal for just feeling offended, we shall also be called illegal with our saying which might offend others which means this method potentially limits our options.

Although I hope the abductees are fit and waiting for the day of returning to their home in Japan, I do not believe Mr. Tahara's comment was illegal. But as BPO stated, I think utmost care toward their families should have taken place when we think of their very long history of very tough battles.

As a whole, I am totally agree to BPO's conclusion.

http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20100306-00000532-yom-soci

This article is about how the doctors should be when they upload their opinions on the web. In Japan, patients were in the potentially-disadvantaged position against the medical service including the doctors so that it is said that many damages caused by the doctor's negligence had been ignored. However, I assume it was a blessing of the Internet that the disadvantaged ones have become able to obtain many supports from many people in the world and have got access to the power of the media.

However, this condition has been the same for the doctor's side. This article tells that the doctor's voice has become very strong but...not fit....^^;

I believe, both party of the medical service should be on the fair field in the market of free speech. It is not fit to have unilateral flow of the information related to the medical accidents. One of the reason that our society weigh the market of free speech is that there can be more chance to find the truth through the cross-examination of the both party's argument. Be cause, those who are in the most interest can be expected to provide the strongest evidence for themselves so that the both having fair but free speech conditions are very important keys for the third party to decide their opinions including which side to support.

Then, what was the problem? Of course, providing patient's information illegally is not acceptable and offending or threatening a specific person or party which will be a crime should not be acceptable. However, their speaking in anonymity as well as the others should be acceptable since Internet is such a place from the beginning.

I think the point is that their argument is not a kind of argument... Just blaming with no points within the issue. In other words, it lacks the point of view to persuade the other or the party that they want to speak.

When we come to this point, I must say about the culture in Japan whose culture is so reluctant to argue. But if you don't want to do crime but want the others to accept your opinion, I believe that you do need skills to argue with persuasiveness. I think I have seen some news programs trying to provide information from both sides and I really respect that since it is still common to see such news programs are filled with non-expert with unilateral opinion.

http://www.iza.ne.jp/news/newsarticle/politics/diplomacy/364219/

This is what I really feel sorry to the government of the United States. I remember an article telling that Ms. Sarah Palin had condemned Mr. Obama with this issue. However, I think those who are troubling correlation between the two government is solely Japanese government...

It is not unexpected situation that many Japanese administrations are in a bit chaos since Democratic Party of Japan which had won the power this time had been away from the responsibility of the governing party for very long time. As a first example, there may be things that they didn't know so that troubles may come out like the trouble they had with the rule to schedule the meeting of the emperor and the Chinese VIP visitor. And as a second example, as the party is expected to change many things in the administration, a kind of chaos triggered by their effort to change was already expected to come out.

BUT: Can this chaos be justified? This problem has been long under discussion within the country and with the States. The party could have lots of time and opportunity to study about this. Moreover, their attitude with this topic was already mentioned in their manifesto; their current status makes me assume that they have made their statement without sufficient study.

It appears so silly that no one appeared in the study. As Mr. Hatoyama has stated that the resolution will be offered by May, I think someone appearing without any answer could be acceptable...

I do hope Japanese government will work WELL with the government of the United States well with this...

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/vancouver/blog/fourth_place_medal/post/Luger-who-died-told-father-he-was-terrified-of?urn=oly,219592

It's really regrettable to have this kind of accident. As sports, at large, consists of a variety of movements, there is a kind of risk and its management is also counted as a skill of the sport. However, experiencing error is also the very important factor for players to improve their skills.

Since sleds run over 100km/hr, it is easy for us to assume that this sport needs very serious attention with the security. (If you bike, I think you can imagine how scary it is for people who runs in such velocity without any protection like cars.) If the course is safe only for highly skilled athletes, is it sufficient to say the course was safe? It is very easy to guess that there are a great deviation between Olympic athletes with good training circumstances and with not sufficient circumstances. This competition cannot be a kind of a gamble implying "if you are not sufficiently skilled for this field, you may die." And I think it is not fit as a sport if it forces an athlete to say, "I'm scared of this field that I might die but I will try my best." This is not a sport anymore.

I assume that the reason that this sport do not make a route as a tunnel which covers whole route is for press service and provision of light into the course. I consider a kind of transparent cover may improve the security of athletes, whereas the technique of transparent material which may be strong enough to support the shock on the route has not probably come out yet... But I hope there will be in the near future.

At this moment, to lessen the speed, the starting level has been lowered so that I hope there will be no further accident.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/world/asia/11uzbekistan.html?th&emc=th

The article is about the story of the prosecution against an artist whose picture allegedly provide negative impression on the country. Well honestly speaking, I may say.... "do they look so in deed?" ^^; Anyway, the result of the prosecution was 'found guilty' and she was sentenced to the prison up to 3 years.

Although she could be freed for being granted an amnesty, can any people publishing pictures be prosecuted for how the pictures appear??? If this case is acceptable in the country there must be a specific obligation that people must not express the negative impression of the country.
So... this country does not have opposition party in the politics (I think it's republic country...)?? How do they argue the issues without providing negative impression? But issues are negative in nature so that they can be issues... If there's no negative factor, it's not an issue at all...
Or... by picture is not acceptable but by word of mouth is fine?

At least, if the reason provided by a panel of experts convened by the prosecutors, a foreigner unfamiliar with Uzbekistan will conclude that this is a country where people live in the Middle Ages, was sufficient factor for the criminal punishment, it's unbelievable. If they wanted to promote the country in other way, they could have published pictures by themselves with some kind of campaign...at least without suppression of free expression.

I would like to assume that there were other reasonable reasons for the conviction...but if not...I will say "is it safe to travel there, take pictures in cloudy day which may provide a bit dark image and upload them to the blog?" ^^;

Maybe, I should keep my eyes on this topic hoping that I find persuasive reason someday.

(Not my marriage! ^^; )

When we think of 'family', there is a couple at least at the beginning. And we think of it's a set of a male and a female. In Japan, it is possible to change the family register with the gender since 2004 and it is possible for those to marry other people who has the other sex registration.
By this method, it is possible that those who have got the same sex originally can have legal marriage.

But this method may only help a couple who want to marry as a male and a female, and does not work for those who want to marry as a couple of the same sex.

Japanese constitution tells that marriage may accomplished by the agreement done by only both sexes (24-1). Some says that this clause demands marriage to be held by both sexes, whereas others says this clause is meant to exclude the third party's element to influence the accomplishment of marriage so that the marriage between the same sex is not prohibited.
Since a law exists through out a long term followed by the society with dominant ideas which change their attitudes from time to time, the interpretation of law shall be done according to the purpose of the clause and the dominant idea held as a common sense at the time the issue's on the table.
As the purpose is to exclude the third party, the matter to be argued must be whether our common sense realize an apparent same-sex couple as a married couple.
Personally, I think this may happen someday in the future but I think it is hard to realize a couple of apparent men or women as a married couple right now in Japan... I can assume a man walking with a woman intimately as a married couple but....if it's a couple of a man walking intimately with a man...no such assumption may arise...I may only guess them as close friends (sorry....).

If the way of their living has become common and we can share the point of view of how the marriage life is, I think it is possible to apply the legal word 'marriage' to those couples without revision of the constitutional clause. Till then, I think we can support them based on their contracts and by some legislation with adoption for example.
I would like to keep a close watch on this topic.

=Mexico=
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/world/americas/07mexico.html?th&emc=th
=Ref.1: Japan=
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%80%A7%E5%90%8C%E4%B8%80%E6%80%A7%E9%9A%9C%E5%AE%B3%E8%80%85%E3%81%AE%E6%80%A7%E5%88%A5%E3%81%AE%E5%8F%96%E6%89%B1%E3%81%84%E3%81%AE%E7%89%B9%E4%BE%8B%E3%81%AB%E9%96%A2%E3%81%99%E3%82%8B%E6%B3%95%E5%BE%8B
=Ref2: Japanese constitution 24=
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E5%9B%BD%E6%86%B2%E6%B3%95%E7%AC%AC24%E6%9D%A1

Tuberculosis had been once declared extinguished in Japan but it has been heard sporadically recently.

But in Haiti, the country affected by the earthquake on January 12th, it has been a dominant disease. It occupies the second place of their death rate for infections after AIDS. At the only sanatorium for this disease in the country has now got only one personnel to care fighting with deficiency of tools and medicine.

His struggling is awesome. No one may condemn him to be with his family ousted from their damaged home but he keeps on working at the sanatorium to care the patients. He alerts that there's a great risk of the outbreak with the resistant type of tuberculosis since many patients have fled the sanatorium without medicine they need to intake constantly and they are now among the others seeking for asylum. According to the staff of this article, discerning the infected to provide them the medicine in such hot climate and under dusty circumstances may be difficult.
I really can't stop but feel pity for such these ordeals; losing home, losing food & water and risking their health or even their lives... I hope the support that the many countries providing will prevent the worst consequence and do well with rebuilding the country...

At the same time, as we hear severe natural disasters more often than before, I worry how long the world can afford to support all of them effectively...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/world/americas/06tuberculosis.html?th&emc=th

There was a State of the Union delivered by Mr. Obama in the States.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/politics/28obama.html?th&emc=th

And there will be the Japanese version soon as our supplementary budget was adopted today. I hope we can hear good and CONSISTENT one since we have had many discrepant comments among the cabinet members...^^;

The foreigner's franchise has been argued diligently since the governing party has been changed. Related to this argument, it is also quarreled whether the content of the nationwide university-admission test was appropriate or not.
-news-
http://www.iza.ne.jp/news/newsarticle/politics/dompolicy/347133/
-supreme court's judgement mentioned above-
http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/89B4E23F93062A6349256A8500311E1D.pdf

The concept of the judgement was that the foreigner's franchise is not guaranteed but it is constitutionally acceptable within the local politics. This statement is not within the subject matter of the litigation so that this does not bind the case. A lawmaker cited this and blamed the government that it is not appropriate to include such idea as an option of the multiple choice test.

This problem appears a bit complicated because they seem to be combined with 2 problems which are, firstly, the problem of whether foreigner's franchise is acceptable and, secondly, the problem of the appropriateness of the test.

According to the first problem, I understand the concern of the opponents of the foreign franchise that acceptance of the franchise may also accept the foreign countries' indirect control over the related Japanese local politics. With this point, I don't think it is not appropriate to accept this concept right now. However, although it may be very rare to happen but if the Japanese national government faces the situation that the foreigner or foreign government's aid is vital for its retention, it may be acceptable to endow foreigners with voting power within the local politics by national law. Some nations accepts indeed.
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%96%E5%9B%BD%E4%BA%BA%E5%8F%82%E6%94%BF%E6%A8%A9
In other word, foreigner's franchise is not guaranteed but is 'acceptable' technically, however, as a political decision, it should not be endowed by law yet since our Japanese society is not in such condition to accept it.

According to the second question, it is very simple. As a test, if it instructs to pick up the one which is not appropriate and if there is apparently wrong one among the answer options, test takers are supposed to pick up that one. The test is not asking whether the option mentioning foreigner's franchise is appropriate or not. This test is asking whether the test takers can remember that the candidate who failed in the single-member constituency system can have another chance for the House of Representatives by the proportional representation system.
This is a trap that I didn't understand before I teach kids...^^;
This is a technique of the test to sort out the exact one out of the others including vague/argumentative ones. This scales how much the test takers have prepared. If they have studied enough, they can pick up the correct one at once and save time. If not, they will lose time and/or lose its score. This skill is very important when we work. Those who can sort out the very exact one first anyway may grab a better chance than the one who cannot.
Ironically, I'm asking this to myself to be good now...(sigh)

As a whole, I think it was a good chance for us to think seriously about the foreigner's franchise but the quiz in question is not erred at all.

It has become NOT rare to hear the news of acquittals. Ashikaga's case is the very famous one right now.
-Today's news-
http://headlines.yahoo.co.jp/hl?a=20100122-00000046-mai-soci
-Relative thesis especially with the DNA method-
http://www.ls.kagoshima-u.ac.jp/staff/h-nakaji/hanji1776.html

It is very understandable that the accused strongly demands the apology from the investigators. It is really regrettable that such false accusation happened. If the saying 'I'm sorry' does not mean the investigation and its accusation were illegal, probably the investigators are very willing to say so. It is not comfortable to hear but it is true that wrong result does not mean the investigations done were illegal. If this is not acceptable, crimes may only be solved by the god.

Of course, forcing the suspect to confess is illegal. But providing the fact that the institutions have found and asking relative information to the suspect is not illegal by itself (or it should be done). And if the fact found by this method provides very strong verification, it is reasonable that investigators presents this fact toward the suspect.

I think 3 things may be considered to avoid further similar cases.
Firstly, when we adopt the new method of the investigation, its fair and very sufficient tests should be done beforehand. And when it is to be adopted, its methodology including its weakness/insufficiency should be well informed to the investigators' division. This may provide obligations on the investigators to check if the result they got from this method is truly reliable or not. If the suspect denies involvement, it must be reasonable to test the verification of the outcome.

Secondly, although it may be hard for those who are under detention for pretty long time to maintain his innocent claim against the investigators, the fact that he confessed cannot work zero or positive for the accused in general. But I hear that suspects expect that judges may understand that their confession is not true. However, how can pleadings of not guilty without any sufficient evidence negate the validity of confession (true criminals also do so)? If this kind of pleading works as a 'sufficient' negation, the justice may be difficult to be find.
Then, what should be done? Assurance of lawyer's assistance from the first interrogation and education teaching that the confession is a very good ticket to the jail may work for this.

Lastly, I am with the opinion of innovation of the transparency of the interrogation. The confession should not be obtained by sharing the personal information of investigators. If the security of someone might be risked by its playback, its play maybe limited in the closed court or concerning part may be manipulated.

The second declaration of unconstitutional statement at the Supreme court has come out.

http://www.courts.go.jp/search/jhsp0020?action_id=search&hanreiSrchKbn=02&recentInfoFlg=1

The original court has found as below (brief).
The locals has built a shrine on the land A hoping for rich harvest in the Meiji era. Later, a primary school was built adjacent to the land A and its expansion for a school building and a gymnasium had brought the shrine to be replaced to the other place. The land B owned by a local was provided to accept this shrine. Later, this local donated this land to the local government as a substitution of this fixed property tax. In 1953, this local assembly decided its acceptance and its free use for the the use of institutions, including the shrine, on the land.

The plaintiff claims that the free use of the property of the local government is against the principle of the separation of government and religion stated in the constitution so that its not canceling the loan for use and not requesting/claiming the removal of the institutions and its return represent the facts of the illegal property management: Request of the declaration of the illegal statement.

The decision quashed the original decision and reversed its decision back.

I have heard the comment of the critic saying that the criterion of the unconstitutionality has been changed by the Supreme court, while I totally disagree since it still holds the one which has been repeatedly stated that it should be judged unconstitutional (con.89) if the relationship between the usage/offer of the public property and religion exceeds the acceptable level concerned with the fundamental purpose of the institutional guarantee of the security of free religion and based on the conditions in our country including social and cultural conditions.
The peculiar thing to be mentioned should be the process of this application. Generally, when the criteria of the purpose and effect of the financial action/statement which we generally use to judge the common standard I mentioned above are to be considered, the original aim of the act tends to be in question. But this time, the Supreme court has said that the original intent of its free use was not to support/protect the specific religion, whereas it was only for remuneration toward the former owner's cooperation for the expansion of the primary school's utilities. But! The latter does not exclude the former... Since the ownership was transferred toward the government not for such contribution but for its tax payment, the government should have charged the borrower as the general lease contract. With this point, it is fair to say that, objectively, from the beginning, its free use has had a characteristic of supporting/protecting the specific religion and it has effect that the general public may see such situation as a special governmental support/aid toward the specific religion.

Except for this point, I am with the decision of the Supreme court.

In japan, we have had lots of communal/social activities with Shinto or Buddhism, where as various religions have become prevalent even though they are still minorities. With support of the guarantee of their human rights, there may be many adjustments in many local governments following this case or many identical law suites may be filed. However, excessive reactions shall not be expected since if the official financial management can be regarded as neutral (does not have to be 'free') with religion, it may be acceptable.

（ちょっぴり復活。で、徒然なるままに～）

I read an article that most of the rates of the hourly paid workers at Japan Post Service will decrease. It says that their decrease are accordance to the appreciation of their working quality.

Well, I understand that they suspect this as a result of the company's motivation of decreasing the employment cost. I think it's true. But what I felt was a little lack of persuasiveness to counter this reason.

The employees' opinion seems that losing their client's mails TEMPORARILY is not fair to be the reason of depreciation. Breaking the mirror of the bike is too minor so that it should not be counted for his/her disadvantage.
Are these fit??

If these happened to other major couriers, I shall think that they are working in very tough conditions so that some accidents may naturally happen since I have seen and know them that they work with very high quality service with tough conditions.
But if it comes to this company... I have heard lots of substandard service on news, actually seen terrible service being done and witnessed their reckless and inappropriate behavior in public...whose action would generally cause one being fired if one belonged to the other couriers. Then is it not fair that I assume that their appreciation may be fair?

Yes, I have seen many workers raising their qualities of services but since they have damaged their own trust too much before, it may take much time and effort to regain trust like the other companies have already.
Well, but about trust matters, this is just my personal opinion which many differ from other people.

I really appreciate the company's roll in history in Japan. Their nation wide delivery service and international service had been a pride of Japan. And I really loved Japanese Postal service.

Having very tough economy and working situations nation wide right now, I can guess how tough their conditions are.
But on the other hand, they must be in very lucky condition to work since the company has very strong labor-union. Right now in Japan, very many people are losing job in unfair ways without any backups. (Well, I may be one of them in the future. Who knows?)
Having such better condition to others, I believe they have better condition to overcome from the both side which I mean the employees raising their quality of service and the company providing appropriate working conditions based on fair appreciation of workforce.

I believe they can.
I assume Sagawa, one of the major company of courier) might have had very tough time to raise their employee's service quality which finally seemingly succeeded. At least I feel as glad to have their service as to have Kuroneko's service, generally said the only-best for a long time, right now.
Sagawa could do, then why not JP?

ref:http://dailynews.yahoo.co.jp/fc/economy/japanpost/?1243663162

The citizen judge system will start from 21st this month.
There was a news that the government of Nagasaki city has asked to their workers to decline receiving their allowance from the courthouse.

The alleged reason is their receiving double salary from the tax fund cannot be acceptable.

At a glance, the personnel seems to receive double pay for the day from the tax fund. But can this be an accurate reason?
If the personnel is to be blamed for being double paid, it should be in the case like being double rewarded for the same work. If the payments are done for different works, it can't be any double pay. In the latter case, the personnel should be separately rewarded.

Then, are the works same?
The municipal personnel will receive his/her salary on the day based on the right of paid holiday. This is based on one's position as a general worker as a civil servant. This position shall not differ to the one's position working in private sectors because their nature of "giving workforce & receiving payment" relationship is the same. So "as a civil servant" shall not be the point.
On the other hand, the civil-judge's allowance is paid for the temporal job as a civil judge which is apparently different from the personnel's general work.
Then it is not accurate and not fair to call double pay.

If we think this from the point of views of general workers working in private section, it may be very easy to understand.
Can we accept the company's order to decline the allowance? We will say "The paid holiday is the right that we obtained based on our daily working. And we are forced to exercise this right which means that we are forced to lose days of paid holiday. Moreover, why do we have to lose right to be paid for our work as a citizen judge? Are we forced to volunteer as a judge? Is the work of citizen judge can be such?"

I don't think the civil servants are not allowed to speak in this way. If they are not, it will be the violation of the egalitarian principle which is stated in the Constitution #14. It is municipal responsibility to respond appropriately to the claim of double payment from the citizens. Their not having such capability cannot be the reason to force their personnels to volunteer.


Additionally, their tax funds are different. The municipal tax fund will be expended for paid holiday, while judicial system is for nation wide service so that the fund for citizen-judge's allowance is national tax.
In other words, we are paying municipal tax for civil service and national tax for nation wide service which means that we are paying tax for each service so that we do expect each work to be paid separately.
So I don't think not declining the allowance is not acceptable.


It is really frequently heard of inappropriate municipal expenditures so that it is understandable that the officials tend to be nervous with the clams from the citizens. But I don't think their request to their personnel is fit. I wonder if the city has received appropriate legal advice from appropriate specialists...

Reference: http://www.nagasaki-np.co.jp/kiji/20090516/04.shtml

I heard the news that a local government seized their residents' fixed allowances to fulfill their tax delinquency.
There may be pretty tough arguments for this.

The government officials say that this allowance is intended to support the poor and also to stimulate economy so that no seizure is expected.

But I'm sure every citizen must pay tax and if they don't they will have tax-debt against the government. Since the fulfillment by the allowances would make their debt gone, they do have benefit by the allowances. Since allowances are done by physical money, the difference for them shall be just paid from their wallet or not AS FAR AS THEY PAY.
The opposing opinions sounds like tax is not a kind of thing that they have to pay. If so, yes, it is reasonable to consider that seizure deprives the asset unreasonably. But they have to pay...!

And one more serious problem there will be if the local government do no seize or at least do something with collecting tax. Because not doing these means, the government simply gives the taxpayer's money to non-taxpayer. Is this fit? At least I'm afraid it damages the rule of equal-taxation.

I understand the government has to execute the law. So they have to transfer the allowances to their citizen's bank accounts. But once they're transferred, they're dissolved in the deposits which simply consists of the assets of their citizens. Technically, there's no reason to call the seizure of "allowances".

Of course there are people who cannot pay tax unfortunately. But such people have a way not to have tax obligations so they can't have problems of these seizures. Therefore, it is not appropriate to call this seizure unjust.

Personally, since I'm not living rich right now but paying all tax and managing my living within my little income, I can't understand the government paying my tax money to the people who are not paying tax... I don't feel this is fair.

I heard that Nashville T.N. is in the argument whether they should make only English as their official language.

The opponent said if this bill is adopted, it will be punishment for the immigrants who cannot understand English.
But as far as they can have language support in some way, their disadvantage cannot be fatal. Why can it be a punishment?

When you move into the country, it is your responsibility to adapt to the country and it is not the country's government responsibility to adapt. If you don't want to adapt, why you move in there???

I'd been in the States and I really appreciate their nice support in many aspects to live there. But I have never expect their government to ADAPT to ME...

There was a case that I couldn't have phone service in the international airport because I couldn't understand the explanation of the prepaid card very many ears ago.
At the beginning, I really got shocked because I didn't understand the personnel's explanation at all. But at the third round to have her explanation, I noticed. "It's not English from the beginning to the end..."
I can understand if I couldn't have service there because I couldn't understand English. But how can I accept the situation that service there cannot be available because I don't understand something language which is not English?!

So unbelievable...

I found an interesting article on the newspaper today which tells that Japan will be cornered with whaling.
Whenever this problem comes up, I really feel trapped.

If whaling should be banned for its barbarity, then why not dogs, kangaroos, or rabbits?
How can you tell killing only specific animals would be barbaric and killing others won't be barbaric?
I heard that somewhere government recommended a specific way of killing kangaroos which is very horrible to describe...(^^;)
Can you imagine your dog can be food for someone in the world?!

As far as their lives are not going to be wasted, I do not disagree with their diet culture. It's been the way that their or our ancestors could keep their lives.
But how can you tell these animals' lives are precious but those animals' lives are dispensable? Is CUTE looking is the criterion?? I don't think not all the human beings are cute... (^^;)

Their concept of saving animals' life is very precious and I agree with that. But I am still looking forward to seeing something persuasive information which may show that nothing other than whaling should be totally banned...

※Please let me make sure that this comment does not mean that I am against 'specific country or the government'. I do love there and really respect the government there in deed!(^^) Especially, I do look up to their international commitment these days.

The inauguration ceremony is about to start.
I'm very impressed to see a huge crowd in Washington D.C. on TV.
I had been the one who expected Ms. Clinton to win the race for the presidency. But I would admit that this great excitement toward the ceremony is because it was HIM to become the president.

At the beginning of the race for the nomination, he was very minor that so many people were to say 'who is it?'. With this point, I think
he has proved how smart not only himself but also his staff are.

I feel a bit sorry to see his government faces so terrible problems to deal with. But I hope he and his staff will be able to handle these well at least to lift the bottom of the great depression all over the world up a bit...