Hanaguma

The author is wrong. I have lived here more than twice as long as him, worked in the public school system, and sent my son through it as well. If anything, mixed kids get the superstar treatment. I suspect he lived a rather sheltered expat life in Tokyo, as do many international journalists.

Given the huge problems of public debt here, yes they do. More people are retiring and fewer people are paying into the social safety net. It is not a sustainable model. Perhaps not a quickly increasing population, but even a stable one, would make for a better future.

Yep, 15 million is a record for gun rights groups. But compare it to other lobbying efforts and it is a drop in the bucket. The health care lobby spent more than $500 million. Finance spent $450 million. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/ranked-sectors So the gun nuts spent 3% of the largest lobby group. You really think this is a problem?

Well, the NRA is not a major player in lobbying according to Open Secrets. Care to flesh out your assertion a little? The NRA is the constant boogeyman and pales in comparison to Big Pharma or Big Business in lobbying.

I am sure thousands of men would be more than willing to volunteer! I did... still have my visa too. ...guess it works!

You are absolutely right. But the sad fact is that most Japanese would rather see their country slowly depopulate and keep its culture intact, rather than allow immigration and face the spectre of change. For most young people, having kids just isnt a priority. Companies basically have no accommodation for parents and their responsibililties. Women who get pregnant are 'encouraged' to retire, and men who ask for paternity leave are given the serious hairy eyeball.

Gotcha. So this is like "rape rape" being a different crime than "rape". Guess hatin' on the gays is racism now too... Hard to keep up with language these days. Silence is violence, words are violence too.

How is it racist to burn a religious text? Muslim is not a racial group. If someone burns a Bible, are they racist too?

Really? The "gun lobby" didn't even make the top twenty lobby groups according to this list. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/top-spenders The NRA spent about $5 million. By contrast the US Chamber of Commerce and US Association of Realtors EACH spent more than $50 million.

Why would anyone want to live in such a country? Maybe you should ask the million people who naturalize every year. Or the 15 million plus who risked their safety to enter the same place illegally.

A shooting in a state with among the strictest gun laws in America. Chance of "a good guy with a gun" being present in California is probably the lowest in America. Watch the cameras evaporate if the suspect is, indeed, Asian in descent. Or perhaps he will be one of those dreaded "white Asians"...

The insanity is that the teacher warned the students about it, gave them time to decide whether or not to see the image, allowed them to choose to turn off their screens (it was an online class) and also told them when the image was gone so they could safely rejoin the class. And STILL someone managed to be offended. That takes a lot of effort on the part of the "victim". The threat is real though. The only solution is for all industries and academia to simply say "no more". Blasphemy laws do not apply in free countries. Those who demand them should be ridiculed and mocked mercilessly.

I was being told that offsetting was not a scam by another poster. Greta did her Atlantic sail, the yacht owners acknowledged that they had to fly crew members over to sail the yacht back, but they would "compensate" for the carbon used. Which means offsets. I agree with using less fuel. I do that myself- drive a small car, careful with the thermostat, etc. But offsets are indulgences.

Would Greenpeace be an acceptable source for you? Carbon offsetting is truly a scammer’s dream scheme. It’s a bookkeeping trick intended to obscure climate wrecking-emissions. It’s tree planting window dressing aimed at distracting from ecosystem destruction. https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/50689/carbon-offsets-net-zero-greenwashing-scam/ Or this Australian professor who researched the government's offsetting schemes? Prof Andrew Macintosh, the former head of the government’s Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, said the growing carbon market overseen by the government and the Clean Energy Regulator was “largely a sham” as most of the carbon credits approved did not represent real or new cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/23/australias-carbon-credit-scheme-largely-a-sham-says-whistleblower-who-tried-to-rein-it-in

Yeah, pretty creepy group. I remember Schwab boasting that half of Trudeau's cabinet in Canada were all members of his cult. Dude gives me the willies. None of them will ever lack a place to lay their head or a crust to nibble, as long as the Schwab and Soros types are lingering on this planet.

You are right. It IS the problem. With climate change being treated as a religion, there is incentive to vilify those who don't believe as the religious leaders do. All the Greta types and Davos people do is ignore the three elephants in the room- China, India, and Africa. Those folks aren't interested in the Davos agenda, carbon neutrality, or sustainable bug eating. They want to get rich. And to do so they will use whatever energy they can get their hands on. Until you get them on board, all the bloviating and gum flapping at Davos will have zero impact. When Klaus Schwab gives up even one of his billions to "the cause", perhaps sells his yacht or his resort property in Jackson Hole Wyoming, he might have a shred of credibility.

When I see Noah starting to build the Ark, I will believe it. In other words, when these "global leaders" do more than add to the hot air in the atmosphere, I will believe them. When they start to practice what they preach, I will believe them.

Not at all. "The climate is not changing" or "All change in climate is purely due to natural forces" is far different from "I agree that humans are a factor, but it is hard to determine exactly how much of a factor or how specifically".

They are skeptical of the "established scientific concensus". Not of climate change itself. Interesting article. It brings to light the mindset of the average climate alarmist. This was included as a definition of a "climate denier": Claiming that while humans are contributing to a changing climate, they are not the main contributors, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary

Read the article. Nothing in it about people denying that the climate changes. They DO disagree with how much human activity contributes to it, and whether humans can make a significant difference in changing the direction of change. Different things entirely.

Yes. I don't know anybody who 'denies' that human activity has an impact on the climate. Do you?

Can you tell me what a "climate change denier" is? Someone who denies that the Earth has a climate or that it changes? It has become a rather odious catchphrase with deliberate ties to the original "Holocaust denier".

Of course you have a choice. Work from home. Use technology. Eat local. Refuse to use heating and air conditioning. Grow your own cotton and sew your own shirts.

Oh well, that's OK then. They paid a sin tax into some faux scheme to justify their emissions. Sounds a lot like the "indulgences" the Catholic Church used to sell. But for the rest of us peasants who can't afford to buy off our consciences, we walk and eat bugs.

...so she posed for photos with them, walked with them for a time, then suddenly "refused to budge"? Pull the other one, mate.