Politics @ 4-ch Archives

What's the deal with them? If they want to be Korean, they can move to Korea. If they want to be Japanese, they can become citizens. What good is the middle ground?

Picture this, if you can. You're a typical second or third generation Zainichi Korean who has lived in Japan all your life. You went to a Japanese school and only speak Japanese, not Korean. You're proud of your Korean heritage in much the same way as are many second-generation immigrants in other countries, and may have relatives in Korea.

Can you not see how this is a difficult choice? On one hand, to go back to Korea would mean plunging yourself into an unfamiliar country speaking an unfamiliar language with no prospects. On the other hand, becoming a naturalized Japanese would mean renouncing your Korean citizenship and sacrificing part of your heritage in a way that many countries other than Japan do not demand of their naturalized citizens.

It's not as simple as you make it sound, and it's no great surprise to me that many Zainichi Koreans have opted not to make the choice you offer them.

A Chinese begins to burn the Star-Spangled Banner at last.
http://livedoor.blogimg.jp/newstimeschool/imgs/0/3/033d4662.jpg

Hope he was careful, some Pakistani guy died the other day from inhaling the fumes while burning US flags.

wait, wait, it's so funny that why that guy burnt US flag?
Just coz we support Japan?

>>3
we?

From what i can tell, rest of asian superpowers are not content with this whole touchy-feely relationship US has with china. US has been expected to side with "the good" in the EA conflict, but so far is chickening out. Just patience, it's on the agenda after elections.

Since the election is coming up in two months, I thought we should have a thread for the lesser (in terms of popularity, anyway) candidates. I know there's already an Election 2012 thread, but that thread is a clusterfuck, to be honest. Besides, this board is practically dead anyway, so who cares?

Here are the other, non-Obama/Romney candidates I know of so far (with my stupid opinions attached):

Gary Johnson (Libertarian) - I like this guy. He has a lot of good social and foreign policy stances. Not too crazy about his fiscal policy, but I'm not a libertarian, so that's to be expected. He's still better than either of the frontrunners. Also former governor of New Mexico, so he has executive experience.

Jill Stein (Green) - According to the extremely simplified online political survey I took, my views line up with Stein's the most. She's a doctor with a degree from Harvard, and she's clearly intelligent. I like a lot of her views, though she's somewhat to the left of me - but I'm fine with that. I'm thinking of voting for her.

Rocky Anderson (independent?) - I think this guy might have a party, but if so it must be one of those "one-candidate" parties centered around just him. He's the former mayor of Salt Lake and a former Democrat who left the party in the 90s. Again, I like most of his stances: he's sort of like what a Democrat would have been in the 60s or 70s. Doesn't have a lot of name-recognition, though.

Well, voting for third-party candidates is not going to really get them elected because of the first-past-the-post voting system in place. There's something called the "spoiler effect" that just ends up securing the two mainstream parties in place. This video explains it rather well. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

I'm still voting third-party on principle, even though I know it'll do absolutely nothing.

>>2 Well yeah, I know very well that none of the above have a chance of winning the election because of how the electoral system is stacked. I'm also going to vote third party in protest, and I hope many other disaffected Americans will join us (though honestly I don't hope very much.)

How about Jack Fellure, candidate for the Prohibition Party? Don't think the Prohibition Party is relevant 80 years since the end of Prohibition? Well think again! They've drafted an official policy which includes:

>Believing that we, as humans, are created in the image and likeness of God, we call for the taxation of all forms of internet pornography at a level which discourages it...

[Fellure] asserts on his campaign website that his platform based on the 1611 Authorized King James Bible has never changed. As a candidate, he calls for the elimination of the liquor industry, abortion and pornography, and advocates the teaching of the Bible in public schools and criminalization of homosexuality. He has blamed the ills of society on those he has characterized as "atheists, Marxists, liberals, queers, liars, draft dodgers, flag burners, dope addicts, sex perverts and anti-Christians."

What a fun guy...

Or hey, what about Peace and Freedom? Rosanne Barr, macadamia nut farmer, actress, and comedian, is their presidential candidate. Cindy Sheehan (anyone remember her?) is running for VP.

What the hell is Peace and Freedom? Well, it's basically Democratic Socialist re-branded so as not to scare the straights. It routinely places fourth in every California race.

They have a combination of well-grounded policy and ideas from outer space:

• International trade agreements must guarantee the protection of workers and the environment in all participating countries; abolish NAFTA, GATT and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
• Abolish the CIA, NSA, AID and other agencies for interference in other countries' internal affairs.
• Legalize marijuana, decriminalize drug use, and make substance abuse treatment freely available.
• End environmental racism: no toxic dumping in anyone's back yard.

i was very shock to hear this news.
had not get detail but it mentions forth srrogate mother to give birth TV show.
They risk life of babies and surrogate mother, just for TV show?
Hey TV crew coming, cannot wait give birth now!
if it's true really sorry for Cindy.

http://jisin.jp/news/2548/4408/
November 2003, Actress Aki, Mukai and wrestler Nobu, Takada went Nevada to ask surrogate mother Cindy, Vanleed.
Cindy could gave birth naturally but because of TV show, surrogate mother needs to Caesarean.
Few year laer at third surrogacy, Cindys Uterine rupture.

Barack Obama is A POST TURTLE!
Post Turtle
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working with cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually, the topic got around to Barack Obama and his bid to to be a heartbeat away from being President.
The old rancher said, “Well, ya know, Obama is a post turtle.”
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.
The old rancher said, “When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a post turtle.”
The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain.
“You know she didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put him up there to begin with.”

aren't we all.

Kinda like Sarah Palin.
I guess I'll be writing in RONPAUL.

Barack Obama is a transgendered negro?! WTF

Failures: forgot to find/replace one "she" and Obama isn't going to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, he'd be THE President.

Behold the most stunningingly original content on 4-ch:

Bob Barr is A POST TURTLE!
Post Turtle
While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75-year old Texas rancher whose hand was caught in a gate while working with cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually, the topic got around to Bob Barr and his bid to be President.
The old rancher said, “Well, ya know, Barr is a post turtle.”
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him what a post turtle was.
The old rancher said, “When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a post turtle.”
The old rancher saw a puzzled look on the doctor’s face, so he continued to explain.
“You know he didn’t get up there by himself, he doesn’t belong up there, he doesn’t know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb ass put him up there to begin with.”

Palin was funnier

I just wanted to get in on the sage action.

　　　　　　　　　,.､. :.:;:"´ﾞﾞﾞﾞﾞﾞﾞﾞﾞ.:.｀`ヽ
　　　　　　　,. '´;:;:;:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:;:.｀ヽ､
　　　　　　/.:;:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:.:.:r'"´￣￣｀ﾞﾞﾞﾞﾞﾞ`ヽ
　　　　　/;:;:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:;:.: .､　　　　　　　　 　',
　　　　　!;;;:;:;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:;:;:;::,　　　　　　　 　 ',
　　　　　!;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;:;:;;;:;:;:,.: 'ﾞ´　　　　　　　　　　l
　　　 　 !;;;;;:;:;:;:;;;:;:;:;:;,'′ 　 　　,,､-'''''''ﾐ　 ﾉ-.｛
　　　　　V⌒ヽヽ.:;.:; 　　　.,, _´,, ｨrﾃぇﾞﾞ　｛ｪｯﾉ
　　　　　 V い ｝ ｀ﾞﾞ　　　　 ' ´ ￣~｀ 　　ヽ｀ヽ
　　　　　　'､ヽ_ｿ　　　　'.　　;　　　　,.ｨ　　 ヽ　l
　　　　　　 ヾ__ ﾉ　　　　　　i　　 ,r'´　｀¨'''"´V
　　　　　　　 j!　　　　　　　 l　 ; {　,r--_‐ｲ　/
　　　　　　　 ;　　　 : ､　　　:. 　{｀ヽ ｪ ｪｿV
　　　　 　 　/l　　　　 : .､　　:. 　'.､　｀二´ /

"Didn't get up there by himself."

There there, keep on telling yourself that. ;)

>>9
isn't the whole point of elections that no one can get to be president on their own?

the assumption is that the market encourages "self reliance" by forcing people two work. well, it doesn’t, and this is because of two reasons.

the first reason is that the market does NOT reward people according to work. work is only one factor out of many. some of these factors are good and should be rewarded, like ingenuity. some are either a-moral or immoral, like luck or privilege. privilege can also be explained as owning the necessary capital to invest. there are a lot of hardworking people out there without anything to invest in.

this whole "capitalism rewards according to work" thing needs to be explained in context. when capitalism was just starting, it was fighting against an immoral system where people were rewarding with wealth and power according to nobility. they did not have to work to be rich- they were born rich. Adam Smith, therefore, in trying to convince people that capitalism was better then feudalism, devised a theory on why things are expensive (or not expensive). to him, something is only expensive if it takes a lot of effort and labor to make. therefore, capitalism rewards according to labor.

this became the dominant theory of value for over a century. it was called the "Labor Theory of Value." (LTV)

Do you feel that Self-Reliance is an illusion or that Self-Reliance within a capitalist society is an illusion. Because although I understand where you're coming from, thinking on a larger scale I come back to the thought that no society has Self-Reliant individuals.

In either case, I think the people whom appear to be most individual or "self-reliant" are the ones with a lot of resources.

this is copy pasta. i have no clue. good question, though. wasnt expecting a response this intelligent.

HOWEVER, i think that the issue isnt black and white. there are some people who really are self-reliant in capitalism, BUT just because a person does not have the resources to take care of them self doesn't mean everything is their fault. also, just because a person has all the resources he needs to live, doesnt mean they worked for those resources. marginal theory proves this.

this guy probably has a different viewpoint then me. i dont know his exact views, but i dont think he views capitalism as a good thing. me, i dont think capitalism is good or bad. it's a-moral. it can do good things, it can do bad things. i just get very annoyed with people who try to make capitalism out to be moral. you know, like the paulfags.

Please feel free to stomp all over my current perception of Adam Smith's definition of "Self-Reliance", I learned about him some time ago and I've been doing some googling. But it seems that in "Self-Reliance" Adam Smith writes that a Self-Reliant individual is one who is entirely self-sustaining. But that isn't how free-market or even soc-capitalism works, it is entirely reliant on interdependency, trade, communication and social structure. It really brings out that hokey image of the intelligent age-of-reason frontiersman heading out west to find a solitary and successful existence.

Also I think of Buddha, and about our everyday reliance on living things such as grains of rice or wheat or animals. etc. etc. You can go really far with this idea.

Of course in another sense self-reliance often just means "Gets by in today's society".

On the topic of morality in an economic structure, I definitely see government types and economic systems as tools, like memetic tools to form civilization. I feel similiar to you in that the ones who get annoying about it are the ones who clutch to their breasts a favored dogma, like the Paulfags, like republics or democrats, whatever, getting attached to these things is why we can't have nice things.

I agree with this. Back in Smith's day you could just buy a farm and live off your own land. you could seek a profit if you wanted to, but if you grew all your own food you were not totally dependent on the market. the Market itself (with a capital M) was voluntary.

you cant do that today. individual markets may be voluntary, but the Market is not.

I completely agree with this post. i find it totally ironic that no real economist would say that the market rewards according to labor and hard work unless he's just saying what people want to hear. and yet, even though the subjective POV on value is dominant, people (especially politicians) go back to the LTV as propaganda.

however, let me play devils advocate. if there are bad externalities, wouldn't there also be good externalities? isn't it possible that the good externalities, in which third parties in a market profit, can even out the bad ones? just a thought.

also, and i mean no offense by this, but is English the OP's original language, or are those just a bunch of sloppy typos? it's hard to believe that someone who understands the difference between the LTV and Marginal Utility would make all these errors unless they didn't speak English.

So (I think) you are pointing out that the externalities (The effect of an (economic)exchange outside of the exchangees) are a good way to view a poor perspective on modern self-reliance?

In that case, I mean, regardless of whether or not the externalities have a negative or positive impact, it leads to the thought that there can be no Self-Reliance unless we are, per your example, going off on our own, building a farm, etc. And that's on the economic level, not the philosophical or agricultural in which we are never ever self-reliant. There can definitely be good externalities though, but I feel there would be more in a culture where consumption is less important than value on work and commodity.

On another note, what do people think of Self-Reliance in a post-Singularity civilization? Assuming (probably correctly) that space-travel and/or nanotechnology will create enough resources and space to make quite possibly all individuals wealthy enough to be completely independent. IS that true self-reliance?

I'm tired.

You're talking about a post-scarcity society, right? Well, I'm kind of cynical about that idea, but I guess it might happen. I guess that would be self reliance, but nobody would work for their own food. Is that really self reliance?

Let's expose corporate crime in English!
http://awabi.2ch.net/test/read.cgi/english/1331150932/3

3 名前：名無しさん＠英語勉強中[] 投稿日：2012/03/08(木) 15:34:59.66
"Watami Co., Ltd.," formerly called as "Watami Food Service Co., Ltd.," killed a young Japanese lady by violation of Labor Standards Act.
(ワタミ株式会社、かつてワタミフードサービス株式会社と呼ばれていた会社は、労働基準法違反で若い日本人女性を一人殺害しました。)

Ms. Mina MORI, who belonged to Watami, killed herself at the age of 26 in 2008, due to mental instability by excessive and illegal hard work.
The bereaved family claimed workers' compensation around four years ago. As a result, the examiner of Workers' Accident Compensation
Insurance officialy affirmed the petition, and the determination letter dated on Feb.14, 2012 says; "She could not afford holidays at all
because her overtime work is more than approx. 140 hours per month. We suppose that the main cause of her suicide would overtax by

I'm coming into this thread very late and admittedly have only skimmed most of the replies-

but, I don't even understand why "self-sufficiency" is a relevant question at all. Persons perform differing degrees of labor and are influenced differently by fate, but I'm at a loss how this has become a moral question at all. The entire statement is framed in moral terms and it seems increasingly silly to me. A thousand mouths, each demanding their own sanctity as if it had a value. Such is politics.

Entertaining side note: Marx also believed in the labor theory of value. It has some relevance to him in the sense that it reflects the social character of capital. I don't really see how the LVT leads necessarily into the fiction of the invisible hand of the market at all.

MIT Predicts That World Economy Will Collapse By 2030

"Forty years after its initial publication, a study called The Limits to Growth is looking depressingly prescient. Commissioned by an international think tank called the Club of Rome, the 1972 report found that if civilization continued on its path toward increasing consumption, the global economy would collapse by 2030. Population losses would ensue, and things would generally fall apart.

The study was — and remains — nothing if not controversial, with economists doubting its predictions and decrying the notion of imposing limits on economic growth. Australian researcher Graham Turner has examined its assumptions in great detail during the past several years, and apparently his latest research falls in line with the report’s predictions, according to Smithsonian Magazine. The world is on track for disaster, the magazine says.

The study, initially completed at MIT, relied on several computer models of economic trends and estimated that if things didn’t change much, and humans continued to consume natural resources apace, the world would run out at some point. Oil will peak (some argue it has) before dropping down the other side of the bell curve, yet demand for food and services would only continue to rise. Turner says real-world data from 1970 to 2000 tracks with the study’s draconian predictions: “There is a very clear warning bell being rung here. We are not on a sustainable trajectory,” he tells Smithsonian.