Okinawa in the News:

When an alliance is not an alliance, a change of government throws up interesting possibilities
There has been considerable handwringing in the western press, especially among Americans, over the future of the U.S.-Japan military alliance under the new regime. Will Japan's new masters seek to undermine the security of Asian and American interests by steering a more independent course?

http://asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2041&Itemid=176

Comment: I found the above article to be honest and refreshing. Japan has some hard thinking to do as to how they will make the, so called, alliance work. Since 70+% of the U.S. military stationed in Japan are located on Okinawa, it’s going to make for some interesting reading over the next few months as the DPJ has its work cut out for it as now they actually have to implement policy instead of merely opposing it!

Anyone who follows this blog knows that I’ve never been a fan of the proposed new air facility at Camp Schwab to replace the one at Futenma. I would be in favor of something smaller in scale such as a large heliport with support facilities and fixed wing activities transferred to the massive U.S. Air Force base at Kadena. I’d also like to see some long term plans for a continual reduction of forces and facilities here on Okinawa.

What I am totally against is what the opposition wants. I started to say “what the opposition is planning” instead of “wants” but that would imply that they actually thought about how those actions would actually affect the local population. They, the opposition is mobilized and wired as a result of the recent change of events and will settle for nothing less than the complete withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Okinawa yesterday, sooner if they can get it.

Unfortunately what these people are proposing is nothing short of economic suicide. The local economy is teetering now and could not handle the shock of what so big and sudden a move like that would do. Though the current proposal is not ideal, it certainly was a move in the right direction. What is needed is a strategic plan for the removal of or a significant reduction of U.S. forces here over a period of years if not decades. The local economy needs time to adjust to the changes vice shock treatment as proposed by the opposition.

On the national level, Japan is now a mature nation state. If they want respect from other nations as well as from their friends, they must start to stand on their own and own up to their global responsibilities. By that I do not mean they have to rewrite their constitution in favor of one that lets them use their military aggressively. They could take the Swiss approach of arming themselves to the teeth and work through diplomacy while remaining relatively neutral in matters of conflict.

This will be a hard line to walk. The fun part will now be watching the DPJ try to walk it instead of always criticizing the opposition as they had always done in the past. Monday morning quarterbacking is easy, leadership is hard! Now we’ll see if they’re really up to it.

Japan in the News:

DPJ to create spending watchdog

Council will have power to shut down wasteful public projects

Democratic Party of Japan President Yukio Hatoyama plans to set up a powerful watchdog body to keep tabs on wasteful public works spending when he forms his government next week, party sources said Sunday.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090907a1.html

Comment: It would be nice for once to actually see a party and a politician keep this promise. This is the kind of promises we’ve all heard thousands of time before only to find out later that, in reality, it just meant a new fox was guarding the hen house. What is important for the politicians is they must follow through on such promises. What is even more important for the press, if they want to keep the people’s trust, they have to report the facts honestly.

Admittedly, there is still plenty of wasteful government spending to reign in. The DPJ must be reminded that they only got to where they are now by not being in charge and as such being seen as ineffective like the LDP. That is the luxury of being the opposition. They won’t have that luxury any more. They rode in on hope and change but as we can see from across the big pond is that hope and change isn’t selling too well right now.

Although the LDP deserves a lot of blame, one must not forget that Japan appears to be coming out of the economic doldrums rather quickly and relatively unscathed as compared to the U.S. and most of Europe. The LDP does deserve some credit for that, though it seems unlikely they will get it. The DPJ has put forth some good proposals that in previous posts even I admitted could work but, only if they really meant what they said and will actually follow through on them.

Duel of market ideologies past due in Japan's polls

The world has undergone drastic change in the first decade of the 21st century. There appears to be no end to terrorist activities and international disputes in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide attacks on the United States.

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20090907ts.html

Comment: How obtuse can you get! I spent two full thirds of this article wondering where in the heck the author was going. It wasn’t till the final paragraphs where I finally ferreted out that the good professor argues for Keynesian economic policies and seems to want to blame the free market for all of the world’s present woes.

While the popular theory is that Keynesian economics brought us out of the “Great Depression” of the 1930’s, new looks back on that era have shown that such economic policies instead only deepened and prolonged the misery. Brits like Tony Blair who only toyed with it rather than hopping in with both feet like his Labor Party predecessors, as well as his successor, and was able to maintain a level of prosperity. But, even he couldn’t avoid the incremental leftward political creep of labor party politics and its eventual effects on the British economy that we see today.

In Japan, former Prime Minister Koizumi and his party and coalition members were elected in a landslide because people believed in Mr. Koizumi as well as his reforms. His reforms were not about making everything fair. Anyone with half a brain knows that no amount of government intrusion can make life fair. Koizumi’s reforms were about freeing the people and business from the long arm of interventionist government so that as many as who wanted to could try their best and hopefully succeed.

In my humble opinion, Mr. Koizumi’s problems were two-fold. First, he didn’t go far enough with his reforms and second, he ran out of time. Let us not forget that when he left office, it wasn’t because he was forced out. History will show that Mr. Koizumi was one of the longest serving Prime Ministers and remained in office for as long as the law allowed him to. To the bitter end, he remained and still remains one of the most popular Japanese politicians in recent history. The truth of the matter is that Koizumi’s policies lost favor not because not because they were flawed but because his successors weren’t up to the task of seeing them through to fruition.

In the U.S. Mr. Obama, in spite of his paper thin resume, got to the highest office of the land largely because of an outgoing lame duck president and a war that were made unpopular by endless Democratic Party demagoguery and the incessant drum beat of negative press. Furthermore, the press failed to do their constitutional duty of honestly telling the general public just who candidate Obama really was. Running against the weakest possible candidate that the opposition could have possibly produced only made his task all the easier.

One must remember that Mr. Obama didn’t fully close out the deal against candidate Hillary and until the super delegates committed. Before that moment, a convention floor fight looked inevitable. Furthermore, don’t forget that Mr. McCain almost caught up to him near the end of the campaign. Had the economy not tanked when it did, we might be arguing about President McCain’s mishandling of the issues instead. Admittedly, had McCain won, we’d probably still be in deep global economic doo-doo but I doubt that we’d be talking about deficits in the trillions of dollars for the foreseeable future and hyper inflation of the currency just around the corner.

For those that want to discuss Keynesian theory vs. Austrian School of economic theory, I welcome the debate. It’s high time we really had a healthy debate about economics as well as the myth of anthropogenic global warming, whether or not universal healthcare is a basic human right and a host of other issues. There is no consensus on or anything even close to a majority supporting any of these issues as the press and the political left would like you to believe! The truth is they (the left) don’t want to debate. They earnestly think they are right and everyone else is wrong so they only want to silence dissent.

If you happen to be one of those who still think that FDR’s Keynesian economic policies lifted us out of the “Great Depression” I welcome you to follow the link provided at the end of this paragraph and then when you’ve digested that, scroll all the way down to the bottom of this page and watch the Late Dr. Milton Freedman simply destroy the feel good socialist premises of “Lefty” talk show host and mainstream media elite wannabe Phil Donohue’s questions. It’s high time for a healthy debate, I say, let it begin! http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf

Japan sticks to greenhouse gas target

Yukio Hatoyama, Japan’s prime minister-elect, vowed on Monday to go ahead with plans for an aggressive cut in greenhouse gas emissions in spite of opposition from business groups.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97701616-9ba0-11de-b214-00144feabdc0,_i_email=y.html

Comment: For all the good things they, the Democratic Party of Japan, (DPJ) talked about and promised during the campaign, this is one promise that I wish they wouldn’t keep. If enacted and aggressively pursued as they say, I’d bet the house that this will negate any positive gains made through the keeping of all the other positive economic promises. In fact, I’d still look for the Japanese economy to potentially tank as a result of this one promise! If that happens, look for a resurgence of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). I know, it’s a weird name for a conservative party but then again, this is Japan.

China, Taiwan, Korea in the News:

North Korea says in final phase of uranium enrichment

SEOUL, Sept 4, 2009 (AFP) – North Korea said Friday it has entered the final phase of uranium enrichment to make nuclear weapons and is also building more atomic bombs from spent reactor fuel rods.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090903/wl_asia_afp/nkoreanuclearweaponsun_20090903232647

Comment: They see the Obama administration as weak and they’re flexing their muscles. Look for rice shipments to North Korea to increase!

The world's largest economies have economic growth

China's government has turned around its economy far faster than most thought possible, to 7.9% in the second quarter.

http://www.examiner.com/x-20010-NY-Business-Investment-Examiner~y2009m8d29-The-economy-is-improving-quickly-than-expected-in-the-worlds-largest-economies

Comment: conspicuously absent from the list is the U.S.! How’s that “Hope and Change” working for you now! Interesting to note, all of the economies that are experiencing growth are those that until now have been moving rightward across the political spectrum toward more free and open markets. This has been especially true of China who still calls themselves communist but has evolved into a mature Fascist state. Those that are absent have been moving leftward toward command and control centrally planned economic policies. The correlation here is that rightward movement politically produces economic growth and leftward movement stifles it!

It will be interesting to watch both the Australian as well as the Japanese economies. Australia lurched leftward after the 2007 general election but only a more conservative leaning Australian Senate has put the kibosh on any uber-radical changes proposed in parliament. The growth they’ve experienced since then may be residual from its recent and more conservative past. Japan has ousted the conservative leaning “Liberal Democratic Party” (LDP) after more than 50 years in power. Only time will tell if the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) will stick with its centrist campaign promises or go forward with “Hope and Change, the Sequel!”

China alarmed by US money printing

The US Federal Reserve's policy of printing money to buy Treasury debt threatens to set off a serious decline of the dollar and compel China to redesign its foreign reserve policy, according to a top member of the Communist hierarchy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/6146957/China-alarmed-by-US-money-printing.html

Comment: Once again if you want to hear the truth you have to abandon the U.S. Administration’s propaganda machine commonly referred to as the Mainstream Media or (MSM). This report came from the UK Telegraph and reports on this subject are conspicuously absent in the American media. Speaking specifically on economic policy, it’s a crying shame that the west has to look to the Fascist Chinese dictatorship for some common sense.

Liberal Fascism in the News:

Democrats’ despicable duplicity

Democrats insisted on changing the law in Massachusetts to require an election to fill the office of Senator John Kerry, should he be elected president in 2004. 

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14451

Comment:According to the MSM, it’s only duplicity when the conservatives do it!

News you can’t get in America

If you want news about what is happening back in America but don’t want to put up with the allegedly objective journalism of the left leaning MSM outlets, check out this outlet for a breath of fresh air: http://canadafreepress.com/

Quote of the Week:

What a profound short little paragraph that says it all
 
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what
they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it." ~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931

Special Bonus:

Perhaps I should preface that question with what is a name in the first place! A name is merely a label we give someone or something. For example, most people know me as Keith, the name given me by my parents. But I’m also known to some as brother and other’s who I’ve served with in the military know me as “Doc” and there are others who know me as “The Chief.”

We also know things by the name we give them. For example, Kool-Aid is a delicious drink served up to kids on a hot summer’s day. Thanks to the Reverend Jim Jones it’s known as a poison. He made up copious amounts of it, laced it with cyanide and coaxed some of his Jonestown followers to partake of it. Those that wouldn’t drink freely, he forced them to drink it. As a result of Reverend Jones, the name Kool-Aid also became the label for a corrupt, rotten or doomed philosophy.

So we know from a historical context that a name is label or identifier that we give to someone or something. We know that someone or something can be known by several names and we know that sometimes meanings of names can be changed and they can be changed for a host of different reasons. Sometimes the course is natural like the progression of a person from son to husband then father, grandfather and so on. In some cases the name change can be manipulated.

This is especially true in the political arena. Take any of the current political dramas unfolding before our very eyes. It just depends on your orientation or point of view whether a person is a freedom fighter or a terrorist. A look at the current global economic crisis and government’s response to it, is it a stimulus package or pork. Other popular terms that are often bandied about in the political arena include words like partisan, non-partisan bipartisan and post-partisan.

We know that in political terms, a partisan is someone who strictly adheres to a political ideology. They hold to it tenaciously and apply it across the board to a host of issues. We use terms like conservative and liberal to label or name the two ideological camps. Bipartisanship takes the term partisan and gives it an interesting twist. The idea behind this label is that there is some sort of middle ground where the two opposing sides can compromise and work together.

In reality, this never happens. What really happens is members who have identified themselves as being of one particular stripe or another don’t really adhere wholeheartedly to the principles of their particular affiliation. For example, in America during the 1980’s there was a thing once known as a conservative democrat. They belonged by affiliation to one particular stripe but their personal ideology, or lack there of, was in conflict with the party affiliation. They forsook their affiliation and voted along with the Reagan Tax cuts and military build up. They became known as the “Reagan Democrats!”

In more recent times, the opposite has happened. Now in the name of bipartisanship it is the right of the political spectrum that has left its roots. These days we have what is known as the Republican in Name Only or (RINO). What they in fact are is non-ideological republicans who for the sake of that magic word “bipartisanship” have caved in to the other side’s way of thinking. In short, the term bipartisanship, which many believe to mean both sides meeting in the middle, in fact really means that one side, or enough members of one stripe forsaking their ideological or party affiliation.

That leaves us with an interesting term that is all the rage these days, post-partisanship. The current American President describes himself as being a post-partisan politician. But just what does he mean by the word? By dissecting the word, what it should mean is the end of partisanship or that the practice of partisanship is over. So post-partisanship does not mean the same thing as being non-partisan. However, that is the impression that most people have when this word is so loosely and carelessly bandied about. But if the new president meant he was going to be non-partisan, he should have just said so from the get-go, shouldn’t he?

So if post-partisanship is not the same thing as being non-partisan but, in fact means the ending of partisanship. That leaves us with an interesting question. Just how do you end partisanship? Because our education system is so lacking, I feel it important that we first review. Partisan means strict adherence to a set of political principles, non-partisan means no adherence to any or all principles and bipartisan means the capitulation of enough of the members of one affiliation to bring a victory to the opposition. Then naturally post-partisanship must mean that the ideological war is over and one side has defeated the other.

But is the war really over just because one side says so? In the minds of many today, it is! This way of thinking, or lack of it, goes back to the free love philosophy of the 1960’s and manifested itself most clearly in the popular “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came” antiwar slogan of the time. Recently we’ve seen this way of thinking resurface in the “debate is over” argument when it comes to the question of manmade global warming. Now we’re seeing it rear its ugly head again in the manifestation of this new term called post-partisanship. In the latter, it merely means that the liberals have claimed victory over the conservatives.

To be sure, they did win the election. But did they do it honestly? In places like the uber-liberal enclaves of San Francisco and Boston, the answer is yes but in the conservative rural areas of the Midwest, south and west, the answer is a resounding no. In the latter, the democrats won by outwardly behaving and sounding more conservative than the supposedly conservative republican candidates they ran against.

But back to the, is the war really over because one side says so. Not hardly! Just ask the Japanese and the Germans following WWII, how did the war really end? Did it miraculously conclude merely because the U.S. and their allies declared victory or did it end because the other side was utterly defeated on the field of battle. Now compare that with the never ending war between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Ask yourself why that war never seems to end? It’s certainly not because the Israelis declared victory and walked off the battlefield. It seems to me we’ve tried that tactic several times and we seem doomed to repeat it again.