Abe's state funeral reminded him of the greatness of the deceased - the breakaway from the post - war regime has truly begun.
2022-09-28
Category:Japan I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
A person who has remained at the center of conversation
Former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral was held on the ２７th. Looking back on this issue now, I was convinced today that this was also former Prime Minister Abe. At the same time, I felt sad, wondering if I was really saying goodbye to former Prime Minister Abe.
Anti-Abe group that continued to make only noise
After Mr. Abe was shot, there was an uproar over whether or not to hold a state funeral, but the tone of the crazy people who opposed a state funeral was exactly the same as the one that was being waged during Mr. Abe's time as prime minister. Ta. Ironically, it may be thanks to the ridiculous anti-Abe people that even after Mr. Abe's murder, we still had the opportunity to support former Prime Minister Abe until today. However, what were their achievements?
Read it together
Untimely protests against state funerals - Media incitement that is getting worse - The media is not representative of the people.
The size of the opposition that makes you laugh
What is the argument that divided the nation into two?
What is the content of the poll?
I don't understand the difference from sports newspapers
Mass media turning into sports newspaper due to slump in sales
The process of dividing national opinion into two
The media does not represent the people
Report only the facts, not opinions
On the day of the demonstration by opponents of former Prime Minister Abe's state funeral, it is said that there were around 100 to 200 people, based on a partial count. Police said there were 500 people. It is said that 4,183 people attended the state funeral, and approximately 23,000 people donated flowers (as announced on the 27th).
What exactly was the debate that reportedly divided the nation into two? Kudanshita, where the state funeral was held, is close to Meiji University's Surugadai campus. The university has traditionally had a strong left-wing student movement. Of course, ordinary students have nothing to do with it, but even if left-wing activists in Tokyo gathered together, it gives the impression that there were too few of them.
What is the content of public opinion polls conducted by the media? The problem is the questions. Depending on how the question is asked, it is possible to lead the data to the result intended by the questioner. I would like all public opinion poll data to be disclosed.
It seems like all mass media are now doing what sports newspapers and other media were doing before the decline of major mass media due to the spread of SNS.
In order to sell articles with headlines, sports newspapers publish speculative information in the headlines that have not been fact-checked, and sell them at station kiosks even though they say that the information is unconfirmed by adding a question mark at the end. It will be done. The "?" part is hidden from view due to the way it is displayed.
Many people were surprised and tolerated it, saying, ``It can't be helped because it's a sports newspaper,'' but no one believed it and it was just a form of entertainment. That's what all the media are doing now.
The underlying issue is sales. Sports newspapers used to take desperate measures to increase circulation, but I wonder if many media outlets now think of this as the right way to go. What is more troubling than sports newspapers is that the major media barely have the power to stir up public opinion.
Using the current issue of state funerals as an example, when the opposition party first objects to a state funeral, the media immediately jumps in and reports on it. At this stage, the ruling party and the opposition party are in conflict, so in that sense they are theoretically divided into two parties. However, this does not mean that national opinion is divided into two.
Then, the media outlets loudly convey the opinions of the opposition parties, and the process of dividing national opinion into two begins. It is incitement. First of all, there is a process in which the media themselves agitate and increase the number of opposition parties, and then they cultivate them as if it were a big problem divided into two.
They increase sales by raising the grade of articles based on irrelevant opinions and information by several levels. The more confrontational the structure, the more sensational it is. This is a common method that the media has used in the past on various issues.
The media sometimes uses expressions such as ``representing the people,'' but it feels very strange and even unpleasant. They are just office workers, not representatives of the people. When did they receive the mandate of the people? When did he run for election and when was he elected to the Diet?
If you're an average office worker, you might go to a yakitori restaurant for a drink with your colleagues on the way home from work and talk about politics. The media are just office workers, so that should be fine. You should not express your opinion to the people as if you were a representative of the people. We need to stop privatizing public airwaves and simply collect and report the facts.
Escape from the postwar regime
Personally, if I think about former Prime Minister Abe's most important accomplishment, it is that he brought all of the Japanese people to the entrance or exit of the task of breaking away from the post-war regime.
He was probably the first Japanese prime minister to firmly declare that the Japan-Korea issue is over. What was the meaning of the joint visits to Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima with Mr. Obama? What prompted the reorganization and proposed the Quad framework for the purpose of the U.S. Seventh Fleet's existence is already a shift to a new Asia-Pacific regime. What does UN reform mean? The United Nations is the postwar regime itself. He even took on the challenge of making that change.
What the Japanese people have regained is their pride as Japanese people rather than the economy. That's thanks to Shinzo Abe.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Know the difference between the Rising Sun Flag and Hakenkreuz - What is the Korean historical perspective that equates them?
In the history of the world, I have never heard of a country changing its flag because it won or lost a war. Britain and France have been at war many times, but did Britain, which won the Anglo-French War, demand that the French flag be changed? On the contrary, there is no idea that such a thing would become a point of contention in post-war processing. South Korea persistently demands that Japan abolish the Rising Sun flag, just as Germany abolished the Hakenkreuz flag.
A national flag symbolizes the country. The disappearance of a national flag means the disappearance of that nation. The Rising Sun Flag is the internationally registered flag of Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force. Calling for the abolition of that flag is the same as calling for the abolition of the Maritime Self-Defense Force. Is South Korea claiming that it wants to go to war with Japan? If this is not the meaning, then the perception of what a ``flag'' is is too different internationally.
South Korea always equates the Rising Sun flag with the Hakenkreuz, and claims that since the Hakenkreuz, the symbol of Nazi Germany, has been abolished, the Rising Sun flag should also be abolished. Hakenkreuz is the party flag of the Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers' Party), and there is a history of it being used as the national flag. There is no Nazi party now, so there is no Hakenkreuz. That's simply the story.
Unless Japan disappears, the Japanese flag will not disappear, and unless the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force disappears, the Rising Sun flag will not disappear. In the first place, the Rising Sun Flag is a flag that has been passed down culturally, so it will not disappear even if it has nothing to do with the Self-Defense Forces. No country will abolish its flag at the request of another country.
There is only one country in the world calling for the abolition of the Rising Sun Flag. That country is not at war with Japan.
The letter he wrote to his fiancée before the suicide attack contained nothing but compassion for the people left behind. This is a letter that Captain Toshio Anazawa sent to his fiancée before the suicide attack (partial excerpt). Chieko received the letter four days after Captain Anazawa passed away. The true state of mind of a man who goes into battle is not filled with any grudge against the enemy, but only consideration for those left behind.
-----
~I have nothing but to wish for your happiness.
Don't get hung up on the small principles of the past. you don't live in the past
Have the courage to forget the past and find new opportunities in the future
You live in the reality of the coming moments. Anazawa no longer exists in the real world.
It may have been extremely abstract, but I hope that it will be useful in various concrete situations that will occur in the future, and that it is not a selfish or one-sided statement. I am speaking from a purely objective standpoint. The cherry blossoms in this area have already fallen. I'm sure my favorite maiden will be visiting here soon. I'm not sure what to say at this point, but I'd like to express my feelings a little.
●Easy to read book
``Manyo'', ``haiku collection'', ``dōjō'', ``one-point bell'', ``hometown''
●Pictures I want to see
Raphael “Virgin and Child” Hogai “Sad Mother Kannon”
●Chieko: We meet often, talk often, and have no sex.
The future will be bright and cheerful. Not giving up on herself, she cheerfully smiles and marches on.
Toshio
Chieko-sama
Vaccine class action lawsuit initiated by bereaved families - Causal relationship between vaccines and tragedy to be explored on a global scale.
Families of people who died in Japan due to the coronavirus vaccine have started a class action lawsuit. It seems like it has finally begun. As the coronavirus spread throughout the world as a pandemic, vaccines spread as if to follow it. Used by almost all countries.
The dangers of the vaccine, which had a significantly shortened testing period, have been known from the beginning. In Japan, a research team at Kyoto University discovered the phenomenon of vaccine fragments remaining in the blood and presented the findings at an academic conference. It can be said that the harmful effects of residual vaccine fragments on all immune-related reactions are unknown. However, its harmful effects have not been scientifically verified.
The vaccine itself has not been tested or scientifically proven. It is a matter of course that the harmful effects have not been scientifically proven. Even if the plaintiff files a lawsuit, it is likely that the conclusion will be that the causal relationship cannot be determined. However, once this vaccine undergoes formal testing, the causal relationship may become clearer. It will take more than 10 years.
This problem is similar to war in some respects. It is a collective truth that we turn a blind eye to the sacrifices of a few people in order to protect the majority of society. The world is enveloped in this collective truth, and it is also true that tragedies that appear to be caused by vaccines are occurring in every country. The WHO is also silent on this matter. Interpretations and solutions to this worldwide choice of life will probably be completely different depending on the country.
Internationally important elections will be held in 2024 - Japanese politics will be greatly influenced by these.
2024 is X-year. The US presidential election will be followed by the Taiwanese presidential election, Russian presidential election, and South Korean general election. The Russian presidential election is likely to be a close call, but everything else will have a big impact on Japan.
In Taiwan's presidential election, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party has a slight lead, with the Kuomintang and People's Party trailing behind. The third party, the People's Party, has many points in common with the Democratic Progressive Party, but it is a strange party in that it receives political donations from China. There is no movement yet, but if the Kuomintang and the People's Party join together at the last minute, the Democratic Progressive Party will be completely defeated.
The Nationalist Party has made it clear that it will maintain the 92 common sense, which means that it will maintain the "one China principle." If pro-China forces win, the result will likely be the same as in Hong Kong.
South Korea's president is said to be a right-wing national force, but the majority of the National Assembly is left-wing and both Democrats. The majority of the National Assembly will be the pro-China, pro-North Korea, anti-American, anti-Japanese parties we witnessed during the Moon Jae-in era. If this party wins the general election, an anti-Japanese leftist president will be elected again in the next presidential election.
The big event in 2024 will be the US presidential election. If Biden, the Democratic Party of the United States, were to win here, the environment surrounding Japan would shift to the left, and Japan's cabinet would also become left-handed. China's One Belt, One Road initiative may end in failure, but the Free and Open Indo-Pacific concept advocated by former Prime Minister Abe will also become a mere shell.
On the other hand, if the Democratic Progressive Party wins in Taiwan, the power of the people wins in South Korea, and Trump becomes President of the United States, will Japanese politics become right-wing? At that time, the Indo-Pacific concept will progress and a prime minister will be needed to take over the initiative. Is today's Japan simply being swept away without being able to exert its influence even in Asia?
Whether the debate on the ability to attack enemy bases is a matter of propriety, possession is an issue, or start is an issue - possession is an issue.
What is the point of the ability to attack enemy bases
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
1999 Yoshinari Norota
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
1969 Cabinet decision
The debate over the ability to attack enemy bases has led to confusion in public opinion regarding whether it is permissible to attack enemy bases, whether it is permissible to possess such weapons, and what stage refers to the initiation of an enemy attack. appear. Looking at the government's views so far, it has consistently been stated that the ability to attack enemy bases falls within the scope of defense, and the government has also made clear its views on launching such attacks. The question is whether or not to actually own it.
Issues regarding the ability to attack enemy bases
[Possibility] Is it okay to attack enemy bases (enemy territory)?
[Initiation] What is the initiation of an attack by an enemy country (activation conditions)?
[Holding] When and what to hold
Regarding the ability to attack enemy bases, Prime Minister Ichiro Hatoyama already answered in 1956 that in the event of a missile attack, ``It is inconceivable that the purpose of the Constitution is to sit back and wait for self-destruction.'' Since then, the Japanese government has continued to interpret it as constitutionally permissible.
1956 Ichiro Hatoyama
The purpose of the Constitution is that if an imminent illegal violation is committed against our country, and if a guided missile or other attack is carried out on our land as a means of such violation, we should sit back and wait for our own destruction. I don't think I can think of it that way. In such cases, take the minimum necessary measures to prevent such attacks, for example, as long as it is recognized that there is no other way to defend against attacks by guided missiles, etc. I believe that hitting bases with guided missiles is legally within the scope of self-defense and should be possible.
In 1999, Defense Agency Director General Norota responded that the Self-Defense Forces would use the necessary force if there was a threat of an armed attack.
1999 Yoshinari Norota
In situations that do not result in an armed attack against our country, police agencies are primarily responsible for dealing with the situation, but in cases where the general police force cannot respond, the Self-Defense Forces respond by dispatching public order, and are not responsible for suppressing the situation. It's possible. Then, if a certain situation corresponds to an armed attack against our country or the possibility of such attack, a defense operation is ordered, and the Self-Defense Forces will use the necessary force to defend our country. That's why .
In 2003, regarding the launch of an attack on Japan, Director-General of the Defense Agency Ishiba announced that he would turn Tokyo into a sea of fire, and stated that if Japan began injecting fuel, this would be considered the start.
2003 Shigeru Ishiba
Now, I have a question from the committee members: There has been a statement that Tokyo will be reduced to a sea of fire, that it will be reduced to ashes, and for that purpose, in order to accomplish that, in order to make it come true. If they started injecting fuel or did something like that, then their intentions would be clear. This is a case where someone says, "I'm going to shoot this thing and reduce Tokyo to ashes," and then they just start pumping fuel, or they start making preparations, and they start taking action. Well, if you do that, wouldn't that be called a start?. That's true, because the intention is clear and that's what it is. Therefore, what I am saying is no different from what the Minister of Foreign Affairs is saying.
On February 16, 2022, Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi spoke at a subcommittee of the House of Representatives Budget Committee regarding the "capability to attack enemy bases" that the government is considering possessing. , stated that they would not rule out the option of bombing military bases, and acknowledged that it falls within the scope of self-defense.
As stated above, the government has already stated that the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense. Regarding the next issue, ``retention'', there was a Cabinet decision in 1969.
1969 Cabinet decision
Possessing so-called offensive weapons, whose performance is exclusively used for catastrophic destruction of the enemy country's homeland, immediately goes beyond the minimum necessary range for self-defense. Therefore, it is not allowed under any circumstances. For example, the possession of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range strategic bombers, and attack aircraft carriers is not allowed.
This is the current argument for ``possession'' of the ability to attack enemy bases. In other words, the debate is whether it is a minimal weapon for self-defense or whether it exceeds it.
Since the current government opinion has interpreted it as falling within the scope of the right of self-defense, it does not fall under "offensive weapons used only for catastrophic destruction" and can be interpreted as something that can be possessed. . Until now, the government's position has consistently been that possessing the ability to attack enemy bases is within the scope of the right of self-defense, but it has not actually possessed it and has kept it ambiguous. All that's happening now is an effort to actually own it. Possession of the ability to attack enemy bases has already been deemed constitutional, and the launch of an attack by the enemy has been defined, so it would be unreasonable to now say that we are opposed to actually having the ability to attack enemy bases. The premise of the argument seems to be different.
The cabinet decision defines weapons as those used only for the catastrophic destruction of the enemy's homeland, so it is clear that this does not apply to weapons used within the scope of the right of self-defense.
