Japan Bans Use of Web Sites in Elections

couch_warrior writes with a BBC article about Japan's choice to restrain political speech in the 21st century. The nation of Japan bans the use of internet sites to solicit voters in its upper house elections. Based on election laws drawn up in the 50s, candidates are restricted in the ways they can reach their constituents. Candidates are even restrained from distributing leaflets that will reach more than 3% of the voters. What's more, people who are trying to change the laws are failing. Despite heavy internet usage and a strong installed base of high-speed connectivity, young people just don't feel involved in politics. "In Japan, 95% of people in their 20s surf the web, but only a third of them bother to vote. Some, though, do not seem keen on politicians using the web to try to win their support. 'I believe that internet resources are not very official,' says Kentaro Shimano, a student at Temple University in Tokyo. 'YouTube is more casual; you watch music videos or funny videos on it, but if the government or any politicians are on the web it doesn't feel right.' Haruka Konishi agrees. 'Japanese politics is something really serious,' she says. 'Young people shouldn't be involved, I guess because they're not serious enough or they don't have the education.' There cannot be many places in the world where students feel their views should not count. Perhaps it is really a reflection of the reality — that they do not."

Comments

Nonsense.

[Anonymous Coward]

In any democracy, all people who are affected by the laws should have a say in how those laws get made. Indeed, they have a responsibility and a duty to make their voices heard.

To paraphrase an old saw about reading, "the person who doesn't vote is no better off than the person who cannot vote!"

Re:Nonsense.

[cheater512]

At least the Japanese excuses are better than the Americans. "I'm too lazy to vote" doesnt inspire confidence in a country.

Re:Nonsense.

[Hatta]

To paraphrase an old saw about reading, "the person who doesn't vote is no better off than the person who cannot vote!"

Actually these days it's more like "The person who doesn't vote is no worse off than the person who does vote!"

I'm too stupid to be posting a comment.

[Lordpidey]

Hey, I just realized, I'm too stupid and uneducated as a person to post comments, please take this away from me.

Re:I'm too stupid to be posting a comment.

[Dan East]

I thought about modding your post down, thus martyring your post by censoring it. It would prove your point in a very ironic way. But then someone else would post and say that Slashdot should add an "Ironic" moderation. If that existed then your post would be modded back up as Ironic, making it no longer ironic since your post's score would be high. An astute moderator would observe your post is without irony, and would moderate it overrated. Thus would begin a vicious circle consuming Slashdot Moderation points, until none were left to moderate other posts in other stories. First Post posts, spam and trolling would go unchecked without moderator points to hide them, and Slashdot would lose readers because the signal to noise ratio would be so low.

So I thought it best to avoid the entire fiasco by making this post instead, thus removing the lingering temptation to mod the parent down.

Dan East

Re:I'm too stupid to be posting a comment.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure you're not thinking of UbuntuDupe?

Re:I'm too stupid to be posting a comment.

[mapkinase]

I agree

That's the difference!

[jforest1]

...between Japanese and American students. American students think they know everything and people care what they have to say. Japanese students know everything--including that nobody cares.

--josh

Re:That's the difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

Japanese university students hardly know everything. For the most part, university is the first time that they get a tiny bit of intellectual freedom from the test taking grind of junior and senior high. Most of the university students I meet in Japan are still relatively underdeveloped in terms of personality and it is not until their dreaded job search that they start to become part of society. Point in case, usually when someone becomes a full-time employee they are then referred to as "shakai-jin" or a member of society.

That being said, I really wish these students were involved with politics. They could make such a tremendous difference if they even gave the topic the smallest amount of thought. These young people aren't afraid of the changes happening around them and they have a generally positive outlook of the future. The current politicians are just about as corrupt as you can get, and that's saying a lot when you compare that to the current US situation.

Re:That's the difference!

[badasscat]

Or perhaps there's simply a nation more apathetic than the American one?

Well, if that's the case, then I'd say their relatively low crime rate (and ridiculously low rate of gun crime), low unemployment, high literacy rate, high median income, and the fact that they haven't been involved in a major war since WWII shows their apathy is working out pretty well for them.

Maybe we could learn a thing or two from their political process? Is is serving us in any way, shape or form to have presidential election campaigns that are now 2 years long? That's what internet campaigning has done for us...

Maybe the fact that Japan has rejected political appeals to a bunch of MySpace losers is actually a *good* thing...

Re:That's the difference!

[Mr. Sketch]

But when it comes to voting, American students think that their vote doesn't count, whereas Japanese students think their vote shouldn't count. Big difference, but ultimately, the same outcome: they don't vote.

Re:That's the difference!

[Icarus1919]

It's a lot easier to govern a country that's more than 10 times smaller than the US.

Re:That's the difference!

[Ironsides]

then I'd say their relatively low crime rate (and ridiculously low rate of gun crime)

That's what you get when the commoners have been barred from owning guns and swords for a few hundred years.

low unemployment

5.2%. Not ridiculously low, just a good number. Could stand to go lower.

And a bit higher that the U.S. high median income,

Couldn't find anything on this, got a link? Also, ever notice how much apartment rents are in Japan?

and the fact that they haven't been involved in a major war since WWII

You do remember that the U.S. forced the Japanese after WWII, in their Constitution and military protection treaties, to have an exceedingly small military that is only good for self defense, and that it would need the U.S.'s help if they ever got into an actual war.

They also have a falling population, as the death rate is now higher than the birth rate.

Maybe we could learn a thing or two from their political process? Is is serving us in any way, shape or form to have presidential election campaigns that are now 2 years long? That's what internet campaigning has done for us...

On the other hand, they are restricting the free speech of the candidates. Possibly also the speech of third party groups (think unions/associations in the U.S.) (they didn't say, so I can only guess). Also, the web is a relatively cheap communications medium, this levels the playing field with well funded candidates. Do you really want it so that only candidates with a lot of money can publicize themselves? The candidates also are barred from campaigning for about two weeks prior to the election. Do you really want that as well?

The free speech portion of the first amendment is supposedly for political speech as the number one motivator behind it. Do you really want a law that blatantly, drastically and unreasonably infringes on it?

Re:That's the difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

I suspect Japanese kids saying they "shouldn't" vote is more of a cultural thing. I don't think the difference is actually that big insofar as why they're not voting. If kids aren't voting, no matter where they are, they just don't care enough and, if you could get them to be honest, they'd probably admit they don't *know* enough about what they're supposed to be voting for/against. That and they're probably more cynical about the whole thing than their parents.

Re:That's the difference!

[byteframe]

I'm surprised some fat anime fag didn't want this to get put into "your rights online" because he pretends to live a secret Internet life as a Japanese girl.

Re:That's the difference!

[try_anything]

they haven't been involved in a major war since WWII

They haven't had an official army, which conveniently lets them off the hook. Since World War II, they have relied on the U.S. military for security, and they have provided funding and accomodation for the U.S. military. Willingly or not, directly or indirectly, they have played a supporting role in every war the U.S. has been involved in. One might as well say that the District of Columbia has not been involved in any major wars. During the Korean War, Japan provided massive amounts of materiel and logistical support for the U.S. military, which helped spark Japan's economic recovery. Many Japanese took Japan's involvement in the Korean War as a sign that U.S. and Japanese leaders had decided the pacifism clause in the Japanese constitution was no longer inconvenient and would henceforth be ignored.

Re:That's the difference!

[try_anything]

no longer inconvenient

I meant "no longer convenient," of course.

Re:That's the difference!

[kklein]

Um, I teach university here in Japan. I've also taught university in the states. So believe me when I say:

These kids are dumb as rocks. Really, really dumb.

The argument for these people being smart and this education system being good is predicated on test scores. As an educator and an assessor, I can't tell you how dumb that is. Basically (and I speak from experience in the K-12 education system here) no one does any learning in school until a few weeks before a big test, and then everyone crams FOR THE TEST. They don't actually learn anything; they just learn how to take the test. The most immediate place you can see this is by trying to talk to any Japanese college graduate in English. These people have all had about 10 years of English. They should be able to carry on a basic conversation, right? But you'll find that they can only spit out a few words, horribly mispronounced, and usually lacking any kind of syntactic structure. Why? Because they've never been expected to DO anything based on what they studied; they were only asked to pass tests. And they do. But they have zero real-world language--or any other kind of--proficiency, unless they've become involved in something in their careers.

Companies here fill the role we in the Western world give to schools. Now, I have many CS friend who bemoan the fact that they didn't really learn how to program well until they hit the corporate world, but that's not even what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that some of my English major students walk out of here into programming jobs--with no prior experience or education or even an interest in programming. Why? Because when they interviewed for the company (and you interview for COMPANIES here--not jobs--the company then will decide if they want you and where you should go and what you should do), they looked like the kind of person who'd make a good programmer.

So if that's the case, what is the impetus to learn anything in school? If it has no bearing on your employability, save the name of the school, why bother actually learning about politics, history, language, ANYTHING? Answer: none. There is no reason whatsoever to learn anything, unless you just happen to be interested. So my boys are interested in drinking and getting laid (nothing wrong with either, mind you), and my girls are interested in Prada and Louis Vuitton (and I have no problem with brand goods, either--although I'm a Gaultier man myself). Very few, however, are interested in anything we'd call "important."

Of COURSE there are exceptions. Of course. But the sick and sad thing that I see over and over is that the exceptions--the people who really did learn things and really are aware of their surroundings--do not fare any better than their benighted colleagues. They don't get better jobs. I'm sure that wherever they end up working, they do a better job, but they still get the same kind of generic jobs with the HORRIFYING starting salaries as the idiots around them.

Japan is not a meritocracy, and it shows. They have done very well for themselves by refusing to compete domestically and by keeping foreign entities on a short leash in Japan. But the lack of sound Japanese leadership has had a lot of repercussions that it seems most people don't realize. Look into who runs Nissan. Who has controlling stakes in Mazda. Mitsubishi. Who runs Sony. Etc. These "Japanese" companies--the companies we point to to say "Japan is amazing"--haven't been run by Japanese people for a long time. The exceptions, of course, are Toyota and Honda, and they're big ones. But still.

PLEASE stop buying the Japan hype, people. If you came over here and lived for a few months, you'd be just like every other gaijin, saying "I always thought Japan was X, but it's actually Y!" It is nothing like what you imagine. It is a silly place.

Re:That's the difference!

[treeves]

Will someone please mod parent up Informative? I've only been to Japan once for a short time, and work for a Japanese company in the US, and while this guy's take may not be the whole story, it is certainly interesting and based on real experience.

Re:That's the difference!

[drsquare]

That's what you get when the commoners have been barred from owning guns and swords for a few hundred years.

Well, Britain has banned gun and sword ownership and you can barely open the newspaper without reading about the latest shooting, stabbing or armed robbery.

Also, ever notice how much apartment rents are in Japan?

They're expensive, because they have more money.

On the other hand, they are restricting the free speech of the candidates.

Every country has laws regarding political campaigning. Would you rather the media was filled with political propaganda leading up to an election?

Re:That's the difference!

[DDLKermit007]

Acccctually the main problem is the main populous of Japan just doesn't care. They are FAR more apathetic to everything going on around them than any other simple minded part of the US. They generally don't care as long as something doesn't bother their microcosm of life. Even at that they'll far too often just move aside when it does. I really like the country (hell I'm still enjoying it even though were having an Fing MONSOON hitting land here), but thats something I just have never been able to get used to. People here just don't care, and those that do are seen as disrupting the flow of things, and thus all too often get ostracized.

This move is purely been made because the internet has allowed people in other places to stand up for themselves elsewhere. Sure it won't keep scandalous information about politicians, and hopefuls from getting out, but it'll sure help make sure such information is never taken seriously. China's government WISHES they could control media as well as Japan is able to, and they do it so effortlessly because it's all too often self censored. Anywhere like the internet where anyone can do some damage they make the "outer fringes" in people's minds.

Re:That's the difference!

[moosesocks]

No.

It's a superiority complex versus an inferiority complex. Historically, they've existed in both countries for a long, long time.

Re:That's the difference!

[moosesocks]

Japan is a small insular nation, approximately 1/25 the size of the USA, and is located along major trade routes.

Any sort of direct demographic comparison is apples to oranges.

China or Russia might be a better point of comparison, although there any number of reasons why that isn't all that great of a comparison either.

Also, the USA's GDP per capita is considerably higher than that of Japan's "economic powerhouse". I never really understood the hype behind Japan's economy being so superior to the US, when there were very few numbers to back it up. They make nice cars and TVs, and all of the sudden, American citizens make inferences about the rest of the country's economy.

Re:That's the difference!

[lanceblack]

-- 6 years teaching in the Japanese university system. -- 4 years in corporate training. Couldn't agree more. Hence: a single party 'democracy' since 1955. Young people feel they are not 'worthy' to vote. Old people vote for populist novelists, guys with flashy haircuts, and the grandsons of the guys their grandparents voted for. Japan is not democratic, no more than China is communist. What we need is some new terminology to put a handle on the complexities of the socio-economic-political systems that actually exist in the world today. It would suddenly make political discussions far more meaningful.

Re:That's the difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a keio univ student in japan (and is a japanese, 25 years old now), which i dropped off after staying for 6 years (2 years extra) by not even attending half of it.

while you have said tad bit too much at the end of it by calling it a silly place, i totally agree how education is sad. i've seen people play games on their comp while attending class, since computer displays can't be seen from professors. and just do everything for the exams and reports to be handed out at the end of semester. and students even rob others' belonging in the changing room when they're having class outside...

and this is the university that is called to be one of the best in japan, wow. and since i had no interest in learning in boring class, most of the time i learned programming and skills related to webs and linux on my own, and i can say i have surpassed most of my friends by a good margin in terms of those skills without taking any of the class seriously.

the thing is, parents don't understand, and people don't really understand you unless you take the proper route and graduate it, but im very too certain that im capable enough to surpass any of the same year students to be very useful and i've started my own business related to web service on my own.

i keep telling my parents how beating school with great score has no meaning and graduate paper is NOTHING but they had a hard time understanding it...

but that doesnt mean all of japan hype is sad though, i still buy how our skill is great on auto mobiles and electric products, not just becuase the CEO isn't a japanese doesn't mean all the skills needed to develop are foreign. and see how environmentally friendly (as in co2 emission) compared to other developed countries. and then again, no guns make it safer too imo. japan still has great parts but like the topic, education is sad, and the worse fact is students don't get how sad it is, so they just go along with the route deployed for them ending up as not so useful work force no matter how good of university they go to.

as a programmer i feel really sad how japanese lack any serious english skill as it IS required to be an ace programmer, for to look up resource and information and to communicate with other developers and so on. I hope someone fix this sad education system and basically i feel sorry how our young people don't try for the better but just sit in fixed environment.

Re:That's the difference!

[kklein]

The party thing MAY be changing. The Koumeito Party (which may or may not still be a part of Souka Gakkai, the eyebrow-raising, sorta cultlike, basically Nichiren Buddhist sect that has LOTS of money) seems to be gobbling up power, and it's worrying people a bit. They just pushed through a tax hike that has made it very uncomfortable for a lot of people--gaijin and otherwise--here, with my officemate's take-home being reduced by about $250. However, they still hold that no one's tax actually changed. Very, very strange.

Re:That's the difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to say that your English is really good! I hope that doesn't offend you.

One of my good friends is Japanese and told me that when he went over to Japan, he visited his cousin and the conversation went something like this:
Friend -- (In Japanese) So I've heard that you've been learning English. Why don't we try having a conversation?
Friend -- Hi.
Cousin -- ..Hi.
Friend -- How are you?
Cousin -- .. *pauses* .. good.

Cousin -- OK! You're in Japan, just speak Japanese!!!

I have a lot of friends who are very obsessed with Japan since I'm involved in the anime community (I'm a video gamer myself). While I'd love to visit and learn more about the culture (and see what kind of amazing stuff exists in Akihabara), I just don't get how so many people are not willing to accept that Japan, like the rest of the world, has its faults.

Re:That's the difference!

[Ironsides]

Well, Britain has banned gun and sword ownership and you can barely open the newspaper without reading about the latest shooting, stabbing or armed robbery.

And in Switzerland, just about everyone has a gun, and they still have less of a problem than the U.K. Of course, looking at the latest from BBC, there is news of a triple homicide by being beaten to death, so I don't see lack of weapons leading to a lower crime rate either.

They're expensive, because they have more money.

They are expensive because they have little land.

Every country has laws regarding political campaigning. Would you rather the media was filled with political propaganda leading up to an election?

Isn't that what we already have? As opposed to only a select few being able advertise themselves? The more limits you place on how people can publicize themselves, the more you give a stranglehold to a select group of candidates.

Re:That's the difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am going to agree with you as I worked for many years as a software developer in Japan for a big company and have seen the "results" of the Japanese education system first hand.

I am going to precurse this by saying that I knew some REALLY, REALLY smart people when I worked in Japan. Master/Expert/Guru guys and gals who knew their stuff. I am in no way saying that Japanese people are all dumb, but I do have to comment what their education system allows to sneak through.

Now, everytime would I get a new grad over there (entry level programming job), they have already gone through several months of training at our head office. So you figure they would be all prepped and ready.

They guys don't know ANYTHING about programming. Nothing. We even had one guy that knew so little, that he kept getting more menial and menial jobs (as per his "aptitude", like installing software, etc). One time he ended up with a DOS prompt (this is a few years ago, mind you), and he freakin panicked. This guy eventually got transferred somewhere else to work in the patent department. He just didn't like programming, but I was shocked that he figured this out after graduating from a technical discpline, and getting a job at a big company as a PROGRAMMER. There were others like him, they would just move to testing or something else. Development is too "hard".

This is compared with the average student I work with now that I've moved back to Canada. They've all had programming courses where they learned "something", and at the very lease know what programming is, and many program in their spare time and KNOW things. They haven't even graduated yet but they are WAY ahead of their peers in Japan.

I've known many people that have taught in Japanese Universities (various disciplines), and they really do hate the fact that know matter how little work a kid does, they are not allowed to fail them. University is a joke, all they do is party, even at the "good" schools.

Re:That's the difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, im the #19858087 anon poster, but out of 10 people around me at best, one could at least code something, and that was the so called 'one of best' university in japan and on technical skill faculties, now that im out of the university, when i think back, i just wonder, what they have been doing... yes, i hear them play tennis, do part time job for some small money, do a tutor, go to a trip...

it's maybe just me, who got influenced by living in australia while i was in junior high school but i just don't get how they're spending/enjoying their time in university and just for the sake of surviving the curriculum, they look busy.

and i don't know where these guys came from, but when i worked for some web service company targetting mobile devices, i just had hard time trying not to laugh when the staffs just keep asking dumb questions all around.

some server guy : "which web site do i go and download apache and install?"
php programmer : "hey, what is a hex?"

well, i for one, really hope for the japan's future... i know there are talents, or otherwise we won't be producing this much that is worth exporting around, but so far, what i've seen are not relaxing.

Re:That's the difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

hey, thanks :) i had 3 years of life in australia, that gave me some nice time.
just having hard time trying to keep up with english, but thanks to the internet, its not that hard as once thought to keep using it living in japan. just im getting a bit awkward how my pronunciation has dropped...

but still, i can speak a bit more than average japanese :)

Re:That's the difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, I teach university here in Japan. I've also taught university in the states. So believe me when I say: These kids are dumb as rocks. Really, really dumb.

... It is a silly place.

And you believe the fact that you "teach university" (and I certainly wonder why, given the vitriol of your comments) gives you the authority to dismiss the entire education system there? To my trained ears, you're saying the same things one might easily hear in, say, some gaijin-packed bar on a Friday night in a dark corner of Roppongi. It's nothing new, it is certainly not +5 informative, and is unsurprisingly one-sided.

To tackle your one less conjectural point: Foreign ownership or control of a company does not (at least in any meaningful way) reflect the shortcomings or successes of a nation's education system. By your reasoning, Asahi Glass would have been acquired by Saint-Gobain. Matsushita would be under the control of GE. Neither is the case so sorry but Toyota and Honda are not the only exceptions to your arbitrary assertion. For your information, Sony runs Sony. Mitsubishi is controlled by Mitsubishi (minus the ailing, scandal-prone passenger cars division, which I suppose you are alluding to). And sure, Renault saved Nissan from almost certain collapse (gaining market access and technology at the same time) but they did not make Nissan the company that it is.

Re:That's the difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds to me like an incredibly job market... no where in a tight tech job market would such a person get a job. Which is probably the rub:
if you have alot of jobs in your nation then your going to have firms hiring whoever to do whatever...

Now if Japan has a known lousy market then your statements dont make sense from the classic perspective.

All I saying that in light of a good job market you can blame that on unqualified candidates getting positions, and unqualified candidates getting good positions ceases to reflect on the school system.

In america, for example, such a candidate wouldn't get that job. Not because of the school system. But because there are always several other more qualified people for the firms to hire.

And its about the job market and not the education system. When its tight you have to prove your not a chump, and maybe even by way of backflow people respond by working harder at their education. If the job market is loose and any chump can get a shot.... then thats going to reflect in how much effort people put into schooling.

But anyway about it... I wish your story was true in america because it would mean we had tech jobs coming out of our ears.

Re:That's the difference!

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone mentioned about the youngsters getting some freedoms and acting wild in certain learning situations/institutions.

My understanding is:

1. schools in rural areas of Japan are actually much more strict
2. Japanese society loves strict rules but
3. they also have a need to bend rules so they don't go nuts from the other forms of strictness.
4. schools are a stepping stone to businesses. They play the game they need to in order to get a job. The game is just different than here, and sadly is less merit based than the U.S.
5. everyone is different. Some people love to learn for learning sake. Japan, US, wherever.

Those damn vans.

[Takichi]

The article talks a little about the loud speaker vans candidates usually use to get their message out. I hate them! The volume they blast their cookie cutter pleads for endorsement are as deafening as they are annoying. My house is a little ways from the road that they drive by, and it sounds like they're right outside my window. If you're unlucky enough to be on the side of the road when they pass, you need to cover your ears to prevent damage to your hearing, all while they're smiling and waving in white gloves. The worst is when election day is coming, so you have three or four vans all trying to out do each other.

Sorry, that was a bit of a rant. But it gives you an idea about what those damned trucks are like. After reading this article, it looks like things won't get any better for a while.

Re:Those damn vans.

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

Hrm. I've never personally seen one of those, but I wonder what the legality is of responding with your own megaphone? Maybe even following them around, refuting everything they say over and over, citing examples of negative things they did, etc. Or making a parody campaign running under the platform of banning non-police megaphone use in the streets and tell everyone to vote for you instead

Re:Those damn vans.

[MidnightBrewer]

Hrm. I've never personally seen one of those, but I wonder what the legality is of responding with your own megaphone? Maybe even following them around, refuting everything they say over and over, citing examples of negative things they did, etc. OK, first of all, senselessly refuting everything they say and citing examples of negative things they did is not only incredibly childish, it's also considered slander and harrassment, which is illegal in many countries. Not the best way to make your point.

As a foreigner in Japan, it's also a really good way to get arrested and lose your job. I had a friend of mine who jokingly posted a fake flyer on a designated political materials bulletin board near the train station, and he was called up in front of a disciplinary committee at the board of education. He was given liniency because he was a foreigner who didn't know any better, but he was told that as a teacher, he was expected to maintain a certain image. The Japanese really don't have a sense of humor about these things.

Re:Those damn vans.

[UbuntuDupe]

My understanding was that they do that because every other form of political speech (tv/radio commercials, billboards, signposts, etc.) is heavily regulated, so they feel they have to resort to that to get any attention for less-known candidates. Maybe someone more familiar with Japanese election law can fill in?

Given how stringently they're regulating internet (including YouTube) ads, that's pretty believable.

Re:Those damn vans.

[engineerofsorts]

Having experienced those damn vans, I would have agree. However, I suspect, as another poster suggested, following them around with your own sound car to contest what they say would be difficult: As with those damn American political adds, there is nothing said worth contesting--same ol' fluff, whether blown through a megaphone sound truck, or through your 70-inch Sony family spiritual center.

Re:Those damn vans.

[_xeno_]

The article talks a little about the loud speaker vans candidates usually use to get their message out.

Those things are real?! I always thought they were a joke. (Honestly! I can only recall ever seeing them in old cartoons, like old Looney Toons from the 1950s. Which might explain the "throwback to the 1950s" line in the article.)

...

I've tried to come up with something witty to say, but I seem to have failed. Although I suppose the loudspeaker thing is slightly less annoying than the US tradition of simply drawing up the district boundaries such that the whole voting process is basically a formality wherein the incumbents are reelected... (Proud Massachusetts native, home of the Gerrymander! I live in the district directly south of the original Gerrymander!)

Re:Those damn vans.

[Riktov]

In Japan campaign ads on TV and radio (and any other electronic mass-media, I assume) are not allowed in any form. Having experienced both the Japanese campaign vans and the obnoxious election-season American TV ads, I'd say it's a toss-up -- well except for the fact that you can just turn off your damn TV.

Re:Those damn vans.

[Cold-NiTe]

Jesus Christ, don't tell me he was a guy in the JET program... Because that would make the entire system look bad, and I may not get to read my beloved OUTPOST NINE entries by Azrael.

Re:Those damn vans.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't have anything useful to say, then just go and find someone's butt to fuck. I hear they love that in the Gay State.

Re:Those damn vans.

[spooje]

If you used a megaphone it's most likely the cops would arrast you for interfering with someone else's right to free speech. At least that's what they threatened to do to me when I yelled "shut up" at them.

Now, if you're talking about the right-winger's black vans, the police would just laugh at you as the right-wingers beat the crap out of you.

Re:Those damn vans.

[MidnightBrewer]

Not a JET, but working for a prefectural government.

Actually, the poster was in fun and completely harmless. There are much more serious offenses committed by JETs every day, and the disciplinary board was merely taking advantage of the opportunity to "make an example." He proffered an excellent apology and got off scott-free.

JETs don't need help to look bad; if the Japanese were going to shut the program down due to the bad behavior of the participants, they would have done so already. The JETs are doing a good enough job of looking bad, however, that people do question why the government's spending so much money on the project. Many prefectures are cutting down on or eliminating participation altogether.

The good news is, the new government under Prime Minister Abe is doing a serious review of the Japanese education system, and is talking about mandating English studies starting in elementary. Regardless of what happens to JET, there are enough private companies and teaching opportuninities that people like Azrael will be able to find a place to work for a long time to come. JET may have the highest profile, but it's not the only game in town.

Re:Those damn vans.

[jez9999]

If you're unlucky enough to be on the side of the road when they pass, you need to cover your ears to prevent damage to your hearing, all while they're smiling and waving in white gloves.

So do the people on the float wear ear protectors then?

Re:Those damn vans.

[mapkinase]

Your comment is underrated. Yesterday I was entertaining my guests with a fine tandoori chicken when young Asian guy came ringing at my door selling some politics. First I said I do not have time now and mentioned the circumstances, when he insisted I was forced to say that I do not believe in politics.

Breaking the apathy

[alvinrod]

'Young people shouldn't be involved, I guess because they're not serious enough or they don't have the education.'

I'm not up to date on the civics education in Japan, but I feel that in America it's sorely lacking and really explains why we have such poor turnouts for our elections. I didn't have Civics (American Government, or whatever you may have had instead) until Senior year in high school, and by then it was obvious that most of the students in my class didn't care. It seemed as though most were content to sleep or slack off during the class or agonize the teacher with idiotic questions or annoying answers.

I think if we would have had the class at a much younger age and a teacher who promoted the importance of voting and participating in government, more students would have been interested in their government and the political process, perhaps to the point that they would research candidates on their own and make informed political decisions or have intelligent political discussion beyond "Bush is a Nazi!"

Looking back on my education as a child, I really wished that there would have been more classes like this at a younger age or just more schooling in general. I look at the other countries where children receive more schooling than here in America and wonder why this isn't something that we as a country aren't attempting to emulate.

Re:Breaking the apathy

[Scotch42]

because providing education to the crowd is to cut the basis of the inique power that drive that same crowd... -- maybe I'm a libertarian, maybe not

Re:Breaking the apathy

[Repossessed]

I attended three different school systems over the course of my pre-university education. Only one of them covered civics, and it was in the fifth grade, (Come to think, the Uni seemed to skip it too). Not an actual civics course either, the teacher just felt it necessary that we actually *read* the constitution when we got to that lesson in history. The whole thing too. She brought in those little booklet copies for everyone and everything.

I owe her (and all my fifth grade teachers) a lot, not just for that lesson either.

Re:Breaking the apathy

[try_anything]

I think the quote was referring to education that would enable one to vote intelligently, rather than education that would motivate one to vote. I had plenty of the second kind in elementary school. That could be why I was an idealistic little kid and still am*.

Still, despite the civics classes I had in elementary school and high school, I have a hard time feeling educated when I vote. I try to read every article about local politics I see, but it's like they're written in code. I know what all the words mean, but I don't have a deep understanding of them. I find it much easier to vote on national issues than on local ones. I'm pretty sure that no amount of American effort or manpower can fix Iraq, but I have no idea whether local schools need more money. I have no idea whether property taxes are too high or too low. Sometimes I feel like I should leave voting to people who are better educated, just like the Japanese guy who was quoted.

As I get older, I am starting to figure out why young people have doubts and older adults radiate confidence. As an adult, you get used to faking things, especially things you know you won't be called on to justify. Adults talk as if they have well-grounded opinions about property taxes, school boards, water districts, and so forth, but they're really just repeating things they read or hear. My neighbor seems to know everything about local politics, and he's always enthusiastic about elections. It's intimidating to hear him talk with assurance about local issues. I feel stupid and inadequate, because my understanding of local issues is so vague I can't even articulate it. On the other hand, my neighbor talks with the same assurance about high-performance cars:

Neigbor: "Did you know the 2009 Acura C5X-9000 is going to have neodymium assploditrons? It almost makes it worth it to drive my old 2006 heap another year."
Me: "What the hell is an assploditron?"
Neigbor: "Some cars have assploditrons instead of wickdumpits. Wickdumpits tend to accumulate carbon residue and get bendy. Assploditrons don't have that problem. The neodymium ones will supposedly eliminate bendiness altogether."
Me: "And that improves the efficiency? Or acceleration? Or handling?"
Neigbor: "It improves performance."
Me: "Ah. Performance."
Neigbor: "Yep. You wouldn't believe the difference. You have to experience it."
Me: "So what do assploditrons and wickdumpits do?"
Neigbor: "Well, wickdumpits accumulate carbon residue. Assploditrons don't, especially neodymium ones."
Me: "But what do they do for the car? Why are they there?"
Neigbor: "Ummmmm. I'm not sure. I think they might be part of the drivetrain. Or the injection system."

It's this kind of confident fakery that causes many intelligent people to feel apathetic and inadequate when it comes to voting. Those people should vote. If there's anyone whose votes are needed, it's the people who doubt their own worthiness to vote.

* (I'm a typical American liberal who thinks the United States has the best political system in the world but hates American complacency and keeps obsessive mental lists of things we could do better and foreign examples we could learn from.)

Re:Breaking the apathy

[Cold-NiTe]

Regarding political discussion;

It seems that wherever I go, discussion on President Bush consists of one thing and one thing alone. And just by seeing it, I recognize the vast inequity between the problem represented by our current Administration and the ability of the population to understand the seriousness of that problem. What is that thing? Name calling. That's right, something as simple as people going around saying "Bush is a Nazi." is all I need to hear (noting that it is unbelievably frequent) to know that our population on the whole is woefully ignorant. The saddest thing here is this, They don't even know why they "hate" him. When I hear baseless name calling, it blatantly screams out that the person doing the name calling doesn't have any clue as to what wrongs have been committed or even what makes them wrong or they mix up what came from where. Issues like Abu Ghraib or other handiwork of Vice President Cheney is attributed to President Bush, or failings of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is attributed to President Bush with no note of Gonzales himself. To be fair, it's all the same administration, so at least knowing the list of offenses would be good enough for me, but faithfully as ever many of my fellows around here just don't seem to know even that.

So what in the blue hell does that have to do with this topic? Simple. Even if they support the same position I do, even if I'm the same age as them, I don't see them as educated enough to vote. That's right. We'd both vote the same, thus in essence they would be supporting my cause of choice. But their reason is flawed. They are voting for "Not Bush", because he's "Not Cool". That's just not going to cut it. I'm willing to lose my own right to vote, if it keeps them from voting too. Sounds spiteful and caustic of me, sure, but there's just a minuscule chance that they'd actually read the bloody issues for once. And that would make it all worth it to me.


As "try_anything" said so succinctly;

"It's this kind of confident fakery that causes many intelligent people to feel apathetic and inadequate when it comes to voting. Those people should vote. If there's anyone whose votes are needed, it's the people who doubt their own worthiness to vote."

If you doubt the value of your vote due to whether you are informed enough on an issue, then put that goddamn graduation cap on, cause you just graduated into a Voter of the highest ordinance. Anyone who A. feels they should be informed to vote, B. is never sure that they are informed enough and C. believes that voting is so important that they should be MORE educated in order to do it, is a 1 in a MILLION kind of person. And exactly the kind of person we need.

Re:Breaking the apathy

[stephanruby]

"I didn't have Civics (American Government, or whatever you may have had instead) until Senior year in high school, and by then it was obvious that most of the students in my class didn't care. "

And why should they? I've been educated both in France and in the US, and in the United States I was taught fairy tale stories about American civics and American history. That's another problem with your civics education (assuming you received the same one I did), if all your past Presidents in your history books are heroes and saints, then what happens when you realize that your current leaders are not any of these things -- that must be really demoralizing.

Re:Breaking the apathy

[F'Nok]

I wish I had mod points to +1 that rant.

Re:Breaking the apathy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, something as simple as people going around saying "Bush is a Nazi." is all I need to hear (noting that it is unbelievably frequent) to know that our population on the whole is woefully ignorant.

Personally, I don't use the "Bush is a Nazi" argument in it's simple form because it is easily mis-inerpreted (usually intentionally, from what I can tell). On the other hand, there are actually some very deep questions about whether there are subtle patterns of behavior that the Bush administration has in common with the Nazi government and whether these patterns lead to poor governing outcomes.

Fundamentally, Hitler is unpopular because he was a driving force behind WWII but there is also a question of whether other Nazi policies were also objectionable in and of themselves. I think that most people would agree that these other policies were objectionable but there is substantial disagreement on the reasons.

One school of thought is that the policies were only objectionable because they were carried to such an extreme. That it's OK to be racist, to commit human rights abuses, and to deliberately mislead the general public as long as such policies are not taken to an extreme. This would be the "Bush is not a Nazi (because Bush is not as extreme as Hitler)" school of thought.

The other school of thought is that while a government may occasionally unintentionally egage in policies that are racist, or abusive of human rights or deceptive to the general public, it is never OK for a government to intentionally engage in such policies. While there is a great deal of secrecy concerning the Bush administrations policies, it is overwhelming likely that the Bush administration has intentionally engaged in at least some of the same objectionable behaviors as the Nazis (although obviously not to such an extreme extent). This would be the "Bush is a Nazi (because he intentionally engages in some of the same policies)" school of thought.

The saddest thing here is this, They don't even know why they "hate" him.

This may come as a surprise to you, but some people really do object to things like torture, wars of agression and even just being lied to. If you honestly think that the Bush administration has not intentionally tortured people or if you honestly think that the invasion of Iraq was necessary (rather than just that the benefits of invasion might in some sense outweigh the harm) or if you think that the Bush administration has not deliberately mislead the American public then you've got your head much farther into the sand the the "Bush is a Nazi" crowd.

Re:Breaking the apathy

[jez9999]

* (I'm a typical American liberal who thinks the United States has the best political system in the world but hates American complacency and keeps obsessive mental lists of things we could do better and foreign examples we could learn from.)

Please explain to me how the electoral college, legalizes bribery, and first-past-the-post electing could possibly be considered the best political system in the world.

Re:Breaking the apathy

[try_anything]

Please explain to me how the electoral college, legalizes bribery, and first-past-the-post electing could possibly be considered the best political system in the world.

First, bribery exists in every country. It's impossible to completely criminalize bribery and favoritism. It's a constant struggle between the zeal of reformers and the ingenuity of businessmen. Bribery is also the most egalitarian and economically efficient form of corruption. Any currency in the world can be converted to US dollars, but nothing can replace privileged birth and access to closed social circles.

As for the electoral system, that certainly isn't our forte, but you can have a lot of garbage in the mix and still be number one. Many aspects of our functioning society (as opposed to the bare legal structures) are amazingly good at keeping the peace. American political apathy is famous, as is our failure to degenerate into rioting and internecine warfare despite our "intolerable" levels of inequality. Americans are not actually that much different from other people, and our "oppressed" classes aren't actively repressed. If they felt they were living in intolerable conditions, they could easily arms themselves, disrupt society, and demand changes. Yet this idea has very rarely been pursued by capable, organized people. People all over the world are puzzled by this, or they believe that Americans suffer from a uniquely American form of apathy, or they get paranoid and credit the media or the US government with superhuman powers of control.

In my experience, people who are familiar with India are especially mystified by the United States. India is home to some fascinating and very progressive ideas about race, and Indians are often horrified by the racism they see in the United States. Then they wonder why the United States, with its terribly primitive ideas about race, does not suffer from deadly ethnic riots like India does. It must be social indoctrination into materialistic philosophies and consumeristic values! No, it's the political system. (Yes, and consumerism. And prosperity. It is complicated.) A renewed effort at school desegregation in the US is running into resistance from black neighborhoods, where residents are very happy with the status quo of being granted funding and autonomy. Not bad, eh? When political reformers attempting to help out "powerless" minority groups get plenty of support from the majority, and then find out that it isn't clear how to improve on the status quo, it must be admitted that the political system is not where the problem lies.

To the contrary, there are huge social and cultural problems in the United States, and the political system does a pretty good job of enabling literacy, prosperity, and peaceful coexistence, which are ideal conditions for working on difficult social problems. The only people pessimistic about America's ability to deal with these problems in the long term are those who believe that peaceful coexistence is an impediment to progress. The government can be faulted for not imposing solutions aggressively enough in some cases where federal-level solutions are appropriate, but it does provide citizens with autonomy and resources to devise their own solutions, so they aren't helpless in the face of government inactivity.

Of course, that looks messy and negligent, and meanwhile countries that have never grappled with problems in the first place tut-tut at our messiness. I'm thinking here of the citizens of some of the "enlightened" countries of Scandinavia, who have attitudes (regarding cultural and/or racial superiority) that have proven extremely dangerous in the United States, a multiracial superpower, but which (to all appearances) don't cause major problems in mostly homogeneous nations that have no weight to throw around.

(Footnote: You might think I have to be a conservative to talk this way, but I assure you, I'm not. I just think that in the long run, societies can't afford to disreg

there's a reason

[circletimessquare]

it's because of cutthroat exploitative politics like this (it's funny, laugh)

good rule

[Jeek Elemental]

Im not sure what the implications of this are in Japan, if it ensures all parties get the same air time Id say its good.
If used by the ruling parties to stifle others, ofcourse not so good.
A totally open system will only favour the party with most money/biggest corporate backers.

Where I live political ads on tv are illegal, and I think most agree its for the best. Anyone wanting to sling mud on another candidate has to do so face to face in a debate, and be ready to back it up or be called on it.

Re:good rule

[ceoyoyo]

I've long thought that all forms of election advertising should be illegal and "reaching the voters" should be done exclusively through debates where everyone gets equal air time. You shouldn't have to be able to afford TV commercials to run in an election.

Re:good rule

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't advocate going that far. Media such as web sites and email, which are within the reach of practically everyone, should still be permitted.

In the UK, paid TV and radio advertisements are banned, but you can still campaign via posters, leaflets and print advertisements.

The main problem with excessive restrictions is that you hand a substantial advantage to the incumbents, who will usually get substantial media coverage due to their position.

I suspect that has a lot to do with the Japanese system. As it stands, the ruling LDP gets far more airtime simply due to day-to-day (i.e. "non-election") political coverage.

Re:good rule

[ceoyoyo]

There are drawbacks with both systems. I think election signs are the worst. They have no information whatsoever about the candidate or the issues. Leaflets aren't far behind, along with all the radio, TV and print ads. I've heard too many people say they were going to vote for the candidate with the last sign they saw before walking into the polling booth.

I'm not sure the incumbent would benefit from getting more media coverage... the challengers might just as easily benefit.

Web sites might be okay... the problem is, it's really hard to get your site noticed without money for advertising. Maybe an official election site that has links to all the candidates would work.

Still, I think a series of televised debates would work well. Most people have a TV or know someone who does, and if you don't you can go to the debate in person. That way you see all the candidates and there isn't any TV magic or unchallenged half truths. Anybody who can't be bothered to watch the debate... well, it's probably better they don't vote anyway.

Re:good rule

[vtcodger]

The article title "Japan Bans Use of Web Sites in Elections" is unusually inaccurate even for Slashdot. If one actually reads the article, they find that what is banned isn't having a web site. It is changing the content or putting up a new site in the final few weeks before an election.

If I recall correctly, this isn't even a new policy. I think Japan does it for every election.

Japan has no shortage of cultural excesses. (e.g. the sound trucks). They probably are addressing some real, and hopefully unique to Japan, problem with these rules.

definitely not!

[r00t]

We don't let children vote. What a horrifying thought! Mickey Mouse would be telling kids to support billion-year copyright extensions.

We do let people vote at age 18. An 18-year-old is unlikely to have been supporting himself for long, to have effective memories of both recessions and booms, to have a decent understanding of world politics, and so on. Most 18 year olds are still strongly influenced by the various fads and peer pressures of youth, typically as encouraged by the usual large corporations. (the pop star says we should vote for...)

So really, low turnout of inexperienced people is not bad. We don't need any more people voting for the guy with the attractive haircut.

Re:definitely not!

[Spy der Mann]

One thing that scares me is that Mickey Mouse can't tell children to vote, but the RIAA sells products to kids (and to everyone), and with that money they lobby congressmen into approving the laws they want.

Suddenly i remember that biblical prophecy about the number of the beast and that everyone must put it in their foreheads to get what they want. Why does it seem SO similar to me? :(

Re:definitely not!

[timmarhy]

agreed. i'm 27 soon and i've only just grown a brain in the last few years. before age 24, I just had no fucking clue, and worse yet i THOUGHT i did just like others my age.

i know there's probably plenty of people reading this aged 17 - 25, who'll hate this simple fact. Your too young to have experienced enough to have much of a world view.

granted i'm not old enough to look down my nose at you, but i have atleast the realisation i have lots to learn.

Re:definitely not!

[ZakuSage]

I, for one, am in favor of opening voting up to all ages.

Re:definitely not!

[Strange Ranger]

I'm not sure how the Japanese military works, and it's been a long time since I was 18, but I do remember thinking that if I'm old enough to be sent into combat, then I'm damn sure old enough to vote.

If we can trust 18 year olds with a ballet, a motorcycle, a firearm, or to drive a tank in Iraq, it sounds like pure hypocrisy to deny them a beer.
I'm sure Japan has its fair share of hypocrisy.

Re:definitely not!

[Anonymous Coward]

What is required for combat, and what we ask from kids is physical abilities, not wisdom. That's why we give them a gun AND orders to follow. We know kids are not able to take good decision, so we let someone more mature decide what to do.

Voting should be exactly like that. We tell the kid where to put the mark, and the kid do it.

Re:definitely not!

[irc.goatse.cx troll]

(the pop star says we should vote for...)

The rap star says we should vote for... OR DIE

Re:definitely not!

[djh101010]

We do let people vote at age 18. An 18-year-old is unlikely to have been supporting himself for long, to have effective memories of both recessions and booms, to have a decent understanding of world politics, and so on. Most 18 year olds are still strongly influenced by the various fads and peer pressures of youth, typically as encouraged by the usual large corporations. (the pop star says we should vote for...)

Yup, and that's why we have democrats in office. By the time you hit 30, you realize that the sky isn't pink, that everyone isn't nice, and that bad people really do exist, and if you use logic rather than emotion, you give up the "everything is wonderful" viewpoint.

So really, low turnout of inexperienced people is not bad. We don't need any more people voting for the guy with the attractive haircut.

Far as I'm concerned, if people are too damned lazy to vote, or can't figure out the ballot, they're too stupid/useless to have their opinion matter. Leave the important decisions to the grownups who can actually follow a line to a circle, and who are able to differentiate between useful members of society and leeches.

Re:definitely not!

[Gogl]

And the 60 year old is going to be an intelligent voter? They're not going to blindly vote for any asshole who promises "morality" and "the good old days"?

Face it, all ages of voters have the potential to be (and often are) stupid. Frankly, I've talked to some pretty damn thoughtful 12 year olds. I'm not saying that newborns should vote, but 18 sure as hell is an arbitrary line in the sand. Some people grow up before then, and some never do.

Re:definitely not!

[Anonymous Coward]

> So really, low turnout of inexperienced people is not bad. We don't need any more people voting for the guy with the attractive haircut.

Hey, if I just turned 18, maybe it's just possible that I could actually be more politically informed and qualified to vote than 90% of the 30-year-olds out there. How are you going to determine I'm not?

The important point being, you don't have the power to keep me from voting just because you think I'm voting for a haircut!

Re:definitely not!

[kenjay]

Most 18 year olds are still strongly influenced by the various fads and peer pressures of youth. . . I was in high school when the voting age was lowered to 18 from 21. Many thought US politics would veer sharply to the left (the early 70's were reverberating from the "hippie movement"). It didn't happen. Kids vote pretty much like their parents vote (if they vote at all).

Re:definitely not!

[ceejayoz]

Age isn't the only reason people can be morons. How, exactly, do you know your being 23 was what made you one?

Re:definitely not!

[lena_10326]

So really, low turnout of inexperienced people is not bad. We don't need any more people voting for the guy with the attractive haircut.

Heavens, they might even vote for public medicine, anti-war candidates, or rights for women, minorities, gays, and transgendered, because that's how those youngins usually vote. Going by history that is.

Re:definitely not!

[rolfwind]

agreed. i'm 27 soon and i've only just grown a brain in the last few years. before age 24, I just had no fucking clue, and worse yet i THOUGHT i did just like others my age.

Have you maybe though that this is you and a fraction of the rest of the population? I am tired of someone's experience being expanded onto applying to everyone as a quasi-universal experience.

I know people over 50 that still act and think like teenagers. And I know teenagers that have it together without acting like they are the masters of the world.

That said, advocating passiveness of the original parent is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. For one, if I wanted to learn how to cook - do I stay back, observe for years, and wait to do anything? No, I absorb one thing at a time, and then try it myself. I might fail the first few times, but I will become infinitely better much sooner than somebody who becomes an armchair cook watching Rachael Ray all day.

Second, passiveness and complacency is precisely the problem with politics. Let the more experienced people take care of it. Well, we have let others take care of it. Look at our country today - two big sides of "experienced" adults mostly with rigid adherence to "their" political party despite all else, our nation with neck up in debt with several looming financial disasters in the future our politicians believe they can either borrow their way out of or don't care since they'll be long gone by then, etcetera.

Yeah, I'd rather have people in as early as possible. Yeah, they will make mistakes early on. But I figure someone inexperienced at 18 making mistakes will recover and be more willing to change their opinions than someone who is 35, observationally experienced and practically inexperienced, and set in their ways.

Let's not forget, many of the "experienced" senior citizens are also voting to look out of their interests. It could and should be counterbalanced.

*You may notice my sarcastic use of experience throughout. I believe anybody who supports a particular political party in this day and age, particularly one of the big 2, has not learned anything of value from their so-called experience. There are good people in both parties, but that is inspite of the party's best trying otherwise. Since most people of any age fall in this category, a lot of experience is not being put to use anyway. I refer you all to George Washington's farewell address.

Re:definitely not!

[ShieldW0lf]

The Baby Boomers are the largest demographic, and will be until more than half of them are dead.

In a democracy, their interests will be deferred to in all things.

They also hold most of the money, and therefore dictate where the economy goes, and there isn't much a young person can do about that either.

There are rock star exceptions you can point at, but they are the exception.

Re:definitely not!

[modecx]

Yup, and that's why we have democrats in office. By the time you hit 30, you realize that the sky isn't pink, that everyone isn't nice, and that bad people really do exist, and if you use logic rather than emotion, you give up the "everything is wonderful" viewpoint.

Hah, to some people, the only reason we have democrats in office is because the republicans would run wild, cutting social security, the poor excuse for medical assistance in this country, and you know, they'd piss on lawns and all sorts of shit.

I guess it's true: where you stand depends upon where you sit.
My guess is that you're sitting upon a medium sized, pineapple shaped hemorrhoid, often whilst in the seat of a late model German made sedan.

Re:definitely not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Suddenly i remember that biblical prophecy about the number of the beast and that everyone must put it in their foreheads to get what they want. Why does it seem SO similar to me? :(

Sorry to derail, but the Book of Revelation isn't a prophecy. It was a book written buy a guy as a message to the people about hope. Hope that the persecution under the Roman empire (at the time) would end soon. The book is basically nothing more than a cleverly written piece, with its message hidden behind extravagant symbolism, about how the Roman Empire would fall at the hands of the Christians, which it basically did.

Preachers like to throw it around to scare people, especially into donating money (or helping churches out in other ways). Why keep your money and put any value your own time if the world is going to end soon? It's an easy way to control people.

Re:definitely not!

[AuMatar]

Yup, and that's why we have democrats in office. By the time you hit 30, you realize that the sky isn't pink, that everyone isn't nice, and that bad people really do exist, and if you use logic rather than emotion, you give up the "everything is wonderful" viewpoint.

Exactly. People realize this, and stop voting for Republicans who have their head in the sand, no logical plan other than to increase their personal wealth and power, and vote in people who will actually try and make the world a better place.

Re:definitely not!

[Cold-NiTe]

"Some people grow up before then, and some never do."

There you go. End game. That's all you needed to say.

Re:definitely not!

[drsquare]

The worst that happens if you make mistakes in making dinner? You have to eat bread and butter or go hungry.

The worst that happens if you make mistakes in running a country? Too terrible to even imagine.

Re:definitely not!

[smoker2]

I totally agree.

How many 16 year olds have experience of getting up at 4am to go to work, year after fucking year, just to meet the payments on a mortgage/credit card/loan/gas bill/electric bill/whatever ?
How many 16 year olds can be trusted to vote for politicians that promise decent care for the elderly, and reasonable pension provisioning ?
How many 16 year olds actually give a flying fuck about anything except themselves, or things that affect them directly ?
The reason I mention 16 is because Bliars govt. has mooted the idea of lowering the voting age to 16, thereby increasing the number of impressionable people who are most likely to vote Labour, just because they don't know any better, and after all Labour has given them The Vote !

Yes, I realise that you can't tar all 16 year olds with the same brush regarding their opinions, but you can definitely say they haven't had to work for a living ever. And most of what govt. does is payed for by those who pay income tax. How can you make an informed decision on a proposed piece of legislation, if you have no concept of what it will cost YOU in terms of your pay packet/standard of living, and whether it's a good trade off.

I have been paying taxes and National Insurance to the govt. for the past 25 years, and what have I got to look forward to ?
My state pension as provided for by the NI payments will be so small as to be useless.
If I need hospital treatment in the future, I am likely to be refused because I smoke (despite the fact that in 25 years, I have never required hospital treatment, and have never clogged up accident and emergency because of a cut finger)
Where has my money gone ? Am I entitled to nothing I was promised and have payed for (in advance)?
And yet the govt. is happy to pay people to do nothing rather than work, to pay people grants for life choices, to give people tax breaks for life choices (marriage, pregnancy, multiple children) while I as a single white male, am taxed the most and receive the least (nothing to be precise). I agree with the principle of social support, but I don't agree with being treated as a cash cow for other peoples life choices. The whole social support structure was intended for people who had fallen on hard times, not to provide a nice side line for people who decided to have 6 kids, but couldn't afford to provide for them.

How can you expect a 16 year old to have a sense of grievance like that, without which, any political decision they make is rather shallow and open to manipulation.

Bah ! Get off my lawn !

Re:definitely not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Japan doesn't have a military. They have the Self-Defense Forces, but even that is a seriously tiny force - it's around 250,000 personnel.

Re:definitely not!

[ultranova]

agreed. i'm 27 soon and i've only just grown a brain in the last few years. before age 24, I just had no fucking clue, and worse yet i THOUGHT i did just like others my age.

I've only just grown a brain last night. Yesterday, I just had no fucking clue, and worse yet I THOUGHT I did just like others my age.

Wait - I just made a conclusion concerning the entire population based on my own anecdotal experience. I guess I still don't have a fucking clue. Oh well, maybe tomorrow ?

Anyway, you seem to be confused about the purpose of voting. It is not there to let people exercise the tyranny of majority, but to allow people to remove unpopular or abusive leaders from power without resorting to bloodshed.

Re:definitely not!

[fbjon]

The worst that happens if you make mistakes in running a country? Too terrible to even imagine. And just who are making those mistakes running the country(ies) right now?

Re:definitely not!

[the not-troll]

Let me get this straight - you say letting 16 year olds vote is a stupid idea because they don't understand the importance of having a pension in old age and to support it you point to how the current system screwed it up? You know, that's a really idiotic argument. I absolutely can't see

• 
  how letting younger people vote would make it any worse than it already is; or how they would have any more weight than any other societal group
• or why they should be worth less as human beings (by disallowing them the right to vote) just because they haven't yet enough "experience" (so you'd like to disallow them voting when they go to college because they haven't any real world experience yet?)
• or how them voting should be responsible for a crappy system which was created without them voting.

And don't even get me started on how completely worthless voting is because we only vote on "representatives" who don't instead of the real issues: I do understand it, but what good does that to me if it is not me who votes on it but someone who is paid to vote in a specific way? And even if they aren't paid tend to be informed about as well as your average person: If people are too stupid to make correct decision, what could make anyone think that they could possibly vote for good representatives?

As for your other grievances: I think a big part of the problem is simply the lack of education and perspective we provide your young. In fact, your education should start with yourself, realizing that all that talk about people having an easy life off of your money is absolutely nothing but propaganda, designed to divide the people (between "old" and "young", "haves" and "have nots", always saying that the other are unfairly better off) and make them toe the party line. Don't get me wrong, there surely are some people who intentionally misuse social support. But I really have yet to see any proposal which really curbs the misuse instead of simply making it harder for those who really have a problem. Indeed, one might compare it to copy protection: It makes legetimate use difficult while doing nothing to make illegal use harder after someone has taken the first hurdle.

As an aside: I don't really see why we still have to put up with this insane idea that people have to "deserve" to live. Applied to your example: You seem to prefer to let the children die because their parent can't afford them. I think that you work hard and "they don't" should really solved in another way than hoping for them to die or cruelly providing for them too little to live, too much to die. Indeed, your pension being so small doesn't come from teenagers voting for immediate pleasure but from the idea that old people should hurry up with dying and not leech money off of society. After all, if you worked all your life but haven't made millions to retire on, you can't have worked all that hard, can you?

Re:definitely not!

[Jasin Natael]

I agree that more young people should vote -- I don't think the boomers waited until their thirties to start voting, and neither should we. But let's get back to the question at hand, Is the internet a suitable medium for political advertising? And, more pertinently, is it an appropriate medium to capture the interest of a younger, disaffected generation? The intent of Japan's law here is to limit the public's exposure to the politicians' direct message.

Most recent grassroots campaigns are started online. AFAIK, nobody is talking about stopping community efforts to get the word out about a candidate. The potential benefit is in keeping the politicians and their paid interests offline and limiting their exposure to the public. It prevents the most well-funded candidate or political action committee from having multiple staffers constantly astroturfing on myspace, or bombarding you with advertisements. And, it should cause the size of the campaign to more closely reflect the number of people who genuinely want the candidate elected.

This is probably part of the reason the boomer generation has been able to behave the way they do -- they receive all of their information top-down. Perhaps if they weren't inundated by thirteen political advertisements per hour on TV and radio, and didn't have flyers in their mailboxes weekly, they could be a little curious about what's really going on. And if every article about a candidate online couldn't link back to that person's propaganda-filled website, that could be good, too. As it is, most people think they already know what's relevant. So, while it's far from certainty, restrictions like this may be a solution to the passiveness and complacency you mention above.

But caring isn't enough. We have to go further and start convincing our parents and bosses to think again. Like it or not, a lot of this complacency and feeling helpless is justified: The Baby Boomer generation is 77 million people here in the US, compared to 44 million people for other age groups over the same time span. In Japan, it's worse. Their social safety nets are even *better* at causing children to be a net liability instead of an asset. That means people, through greater perceived benefits, are more deeply committed to the status quo, and there are fewer young people to oppose the system.

Perhaps a little real-world experience is just what the younger generation needs so they can feel ready to decide for themselves. But I hardly think online advertising and second life pavilions are the best way to convince them that there is a real world in need of their attention, and that they should start to give a rat's ass about what happens beyond the walls of their apartments.

Re:definitely not!

[homer_s]

How many 16 year olds can be trusted to vote for politicians that promise decent care for the elderly, and reasonable pension provisioning ?
How many 16 year olds actually give a flying fuck about anything except themselves, or things that affect them directly ?

So you are saying that 16 year olds would want to stop old people stealing from them and would look out for their own future? That would be wonderful.

Re:definitely not!

[portforward]

Whatever, just get off my lawn!

Re:definitely not!

[Anonymous Coward]

If we can trust 18 year olds with a ballet, a motorcycle, a firearm... I wouldn't trust them with any of those. They'd probably crash the motorcycle, rob someone with the firearm, and totally not get the ballet. Probably would be noisy during the good parts, too. Bloody jerks. ;)

Re:definitely not!

[Emperor BMA]

Preachers like to throw it around to scare people, especially into donating money (or helping churches out in other ways). Why keep your money and put any value your own time if the world is going to end soon? It's an easy way to control people.

Granted that "preterism") is a common modern historical-critical viewpoint, this is hardly the entire story.

Historically, the dominantly held viewpoint was what is referred to as "a-millennialism" or that "now is the non-literal millennial reign of Christ and final judgment will be at some unknown time in the future, so don't even bother worrying about it" which is still the official position of the Roman Catholic Church as well as some of the more traditional Christian denominations.

In addition the so-called "Left-behind" theology (technically called "Dispensational Premillennialism") was actually deemed a heretical viewpoint by numerous key theologians and it was still considered such until it was very recently revived in the late 1900s by a certain Reverend Darby in England.

Re:definitely not!

[ZippyKitty]

When I was in junior high and high school I thought they should lower the voting age. And I still do (I am in my mid-30s.) I was more politically informed then. Granted a lot of the information was biased by the teachers. But now there are other factors that bias my opinions (slashdot, friends etc..) Now that I am older it is harder to keep up on the important issues. I do (mostly through the internet - which is why I found this story rather scary). And I probably vote differently now - partly due to experience. But I don't think I am getting smarter (quite the opposite in fact) and I think my 16 year old self had a valid stake in the matter... and a valid opinion. I still have lots to learn. If we all waited until we didn't no one would ever vote or only those who think they know everything will vote. That is not a comforting thought.

Re:definitely not!

[Teancum]

I am convinced that Armageddon and the Apocalypse are going to become self-fulfilling prophecies by modern Christians, who are hell-bent to see that the "right side" is going to win them. Eventually.

Or more to the point about what you are saying here, history tends to repeat itself, sometimes on an especially grand scale.

As a practicing Christian, I find this to be a horrifying thought and something which my co-religionists are doing which is less than worthy of the title "Christian". Armageddon doesn't have to happen, and many of the reasons why it may eventually occur are planted seeds by so-called Chritians who ignore their fundimental philosophical leader (aka Jesus)..... just as many of today's problems are happening in the Middle East because those of Islamic faith are ignoring the basic teachings of Mohammed.

Of course this thread is getting very off topic for talking about Japanese websites in elections when I bring up Al-Queida and Mohammed.

Re:definitely not!

[ZippyKitty]

What is required for combat, and what we ask from kids is physical abilities, not wisdom. That's why we give them a gun AND orders to follow. We know kids are not able to take good decision, so we let someone more mature decide what to do.

After WWII we now require these 18 year olds to have the wisdom, in the face of orders, peer pressure and chaotic environment to not follow immoral orders. I think that requires considerably more wisdom than chosing between rather similar candidates.

ZK

Re:definitely not!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a thought:

If you treat people (even teenagers!) like adults, they will ACT like adults.

Re:definitely not!

[smoker2]

Ok, explain how giving electoral power to a body of people with LESS experience of the consequences is going to change things for the better.
Where did this "deserve to live" crap come from ? All I said was why should I pay towards people who CHOOSE to have 6 kids knowing they can't support them ?
And as for people having an easy life off my money, it is in no way propaganda. I have a 45 year old idiot who lives above me. He does not work, he makes no money, the state provide everything. And I am regularly woken at 3 or 4 am by him returning home with a bunch of friends, pissed up, and they turn the music on and right up. I resent paying taxes to support this guy. Who has the better life ? I don't get pissed up every day, I have to work 14 or 15 hours and then try to get some rest despite the best efforts of the guy I am paying for !
Your last statement is just stupid. How is expecting a pension you have paid for "leeching" ? How is preventing teenagers from voting any different from preventing teenagers from smoking ? In both cases, they have no experience of the consequences of their actions. Where do you draw the line ? Should we let 12 year olds vote too ? After all, they are human beings. In the UK at least, you reach the age of majority at 18, which means your parents are no longer responsible for you. Are we to say that parents cease being responsible for their offsprings wellbeing at 16 or 12 ?

Re:definitely not!

[smoker2]

Stealing ?
I have been paying into this for 25 years ! These kids have been educated at schools I have helped pay for. They have got there on roads I have subsidized. They were born in hospitals I helped subsidize. they vandalize things I pay for every week through my paypacket.
Seems to me the whole credit culture has become the norm. The world seems to be full of people who believe that the government pays for stuff, so why shouldn't they have as much of it as they like - completely forgetting where the govt. got the money from in the first place.
i.e. ME and people like me !
And how can I steal from a 16 year old who HAS NEVER CONTRIBUTED to government funds ?

Re:definitely not!

[the not-troll]

Ok, explain how giving electoral power to a body of people with LESS experience of the consequences is going to change things for the better.

I don't need to because I didn't claim so. I just pointed out that you have not explained how they are supposed to make it worse because all you did was lamenting the current state of affairs which they didn't cause.

Where did this "deserve to live" crap come from? All I said was why should I pay towards people who CHOOSE to have 6 kids knowing they can't support them?

What else would you do? Not giving them money or means of living in some other way when they can't afford living just makes sure that those kids either die or turn to crime.

And as for people having an easy life off my money, it is in no way propaganda. [some anecdote]

You didn't read what I wrote. I didn't say that such people do not exist. Indeed, I acknowledged that this is the case. I just pointed out that you, the media and the politicians overstate that problem and do nothing to solve it but instead go after the legitimate using the cases of misuse as justification.

Your last statement is just stupid. How is expecting a pension you have paid for "leeching"?

I didn't say it is, but it is the perspective younger people have, according to what you wrote, on the elder; the point being that everyone accuses the other of wasting the money even if it is not the case because of prejudice and propaganda planted by interest groups to make you go against each other so they can do what they want without ever becoming a target.

Where do you draw the line?

If they can hold the pen and make their mark, they're eligible to vote. Even if their voting behaviour were random or stupid, I really don't see how it would get better with age. After all, what use is experience if you don't learn for it - but nobody ever does.

In the UK at least, you reach the age of majority at 18, which means your parents are no longer responsible for you. Are we to say that parents cease being responsible for their offsprings wellbeing at 16 or 12?

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. Just look at the US where in many places you can only drink after becoming 21, even though you usually can vote earlier. To claim that gaining one right requires losing another does only make sense if you already believe that the current system is perfectly just. I could write my opinion regarding this, too, but it is not only to far from the topic but you will also again not understand it because it also would be too far from your imaginary black-and-white world.

Re:definitely not!

[Castar]

How many 16 year olds can be trusted to vote for politicians that promise decent care for the elderly, and reasonable pension provisioning ?

And how many elderly can be trusted to vote for things that are good for young people, and not just good for the elderly? Damn few, it seems like.

One of the great things about democracy is that if everyone who has a stake gets to vote, no one will be screwed over too badly. (Unless there aren't enough of them - but that's another issue.)

Candidate research

[Sigma 7]

As a voter (not in Japan, but in another country), I found the easiest methof to find out who I was voting for is the Internet - a quick way to determine the platform of each political candidate. Some of the candidates don't have a website, but a quick search on other information didn't pull up anything - which usually indicates a minor candidate.

In my opinion, restricting the use of websites would make research more difficult - if everyone was serious about voting (which isn't the case) where they would contact or do quick research on each candidate, it would bog down the campaign offices with questions (especially if a statement gets made that may need clarification.)

I'm for keeping the campaign serious, but it shouldn't lock down the methods used to contact the candidates (unless such methods are disruptive - another story.)

Re:Candidate research

[pjt33]

I'm reminded of my experience in the last European elections here in the UK. I wanted the official word on where the parties and candidates stood on software patents, so I checked their websites. They all had websites which listed some of their policies, but nothing so specific. So I wrote to their campaign offices. Only one party replied, and they didn't really answer the question, although they did send lots of stickers, presumably so that when I was convinced by the "reply" I could canvas on their behalf.

Japan Bans Use of Web Sites in Elections

[Anonymous Coward]

The title makes more sense when you remember that the Japanese mix up their l's and r's.

Re: Japan Bans Use of Web Sites in Elections

[Jerf]

An interesting theory... [google google google]... but apparently a false one.

Re: Japan Bans Use of Web Sites in Elections

[moosesocks]

Can you seriously not hear the difference between a Chinese, Japanese, or Korean accent? As long as there's not much crossover (ie. a native Japanese speaker who learned English from Chinese instructors), the difference between them is night-and-day.

If you can't be bothered to learn the difference between several very distinct cultures, you have absolutely no right to comment on global issues.

Sort of like how the media occasionally manages to mistake Buddhists for Islamic Militants....

Breaking slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Looking back on my education as a child, I really wished that there would have been more classes like this at a younger age or just more schooling in general. I look at the other countries where children receive more schooling than here in America and wonder why this isn't something that we as a country aren't attempting to emulate."

I believe it's called "higher education". Anyway I received the same education as most when it came to civics and history. Solution? I now have an adult-sized library on both subjects and I post on slashdot, upsetting the apple cart every chance I get.

Re:Breaking slashdot.

[alvinrod]

Unfortunately a "higher education" might not do much good when you have a population that is largely apathetic to political participation, and by this I mean truly researching the candidates and issues instead of looking at how whatever political party they identify themselves as belonging to would vote on the issue.

I don't know how the rest of the country operates, but I just don't think that having a single civics class in the senior year of high school is enough to motivate the young adults to be politically active. Some, like myself, were postively affected by the class and have become more political as a result, but for the most part there were too many other students who left that class the same as they went in to it.

Unless you want to take classes in college you're really not forced to do so. There may be requirements to take a certain number of science courses or a certain amount of math regardless of what your major is, I can't think of any universities that require a civics course. If they do require one, good for them as I feel it's vastly more important than learning a little bit of chemistry and is certainly more applicable to the lives of the majority of the students who go through that university.

I honestly believe that the best solution is to start civics courses in school much earlier on, hopefully fostering a love for the political process instead of disdain. Hopefully students would have a greater interest in participating in politics as well as a better understanding of how to be a good citizen. I think that America would largely be a better country if more people were politically active and thinking for themselves.

I'm glad that there are people out there who have spent the time to become well acquinted with civics and history, but I fear that there are no longer enough people who take the time to become knowledgable in such fields. The vast amount of anti-intellectualism in this country is frightening and taking steps to reduce such traits in future generations would hopefully be a great benefit to not only our country, but also to the rest of the world as well.

Define "definitely"

[Lurkingrue]

As long as the aforementioned hypothetical 18-year-old can't be asked by his/her country to serve, and die in its service, I guess I'm fine with that. As far as this much-older-than-18-year-old is concerned, though -- if you're old enough to be a soldier, a sailor, a member of the police force, or a firefighter, then you should be old enough to vote.

Re:Define "definitely"

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as the aforementioned hypothetical 18-year-old can't be asked by his/her country to serve, and die in its service, I guess I'm fine with that.

Then again, 18 year olds in the military aren't doing a lot of thinking for themselves, are they? They are there to be molded into weapons. I think that's why youth is preferred.

Re:Define "definitely"

[timmarhy]

being asked isn't the issue - i'm fine with young ones not votng even if they are asked - it's the ability to say NO which is important.

Re:Define "definitely"

[Kickersny.com]

if you're old enough to be a soldier, a sailor, a member of the police force, or a firefighter, then you should be old enough to vote.

Yet you're not old enough to drink alcohol, apparently.

Re:Define "definitely"

[mcrbids]

if you're old enough to be a soldier, a sailor, a member of the police force, or a firefighter......

Or buy beer, get married, be tried for a felony with full penalties, etc. etc. etc.

You got my vote.

Re:Define "definitely"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the issue. If an 18-year old can be sent to die in a war on behalf of America, shouldn't that 18-year old have some say in the process of that leads to making the decision to become involved in said war? Especially in the context of the draft, without giving 18 year olds a vote, you are making slaves of those drafted.

Re:Define "definitely"

[Hal_Porter]

As long as the aforementioned hypothetical 18-year-old can't be asked by his/her country to serve, and die in its service, I guess I'm fine with that. As far as this much-older-than-18-year-old is concerned, though -- if you're old enough to be a soldier, a sailor, a member of the police force, or a firefighter, then you should be old enough to vote.

Fair point.

But you still agree bloggers should be sent to camps at least during the election period, right?

Re:Define "definitely"

[AuMatar]

Actually no. The vast majority of non-officers have never been to college. Many barely finished high school. Another large percentage did ok in high school, but can't afford college and are in it for the GI bill. The number of recruits from the middle and upper class are vanishingly small.

Re:Define "definitely"

[Anonymous Coward]

if you're old enough to be a soldier, a sailor, a member of the police force, or a firefighter, then you should be old enough to vote

Drink, too.

Or do drugs.

Wait, I'm 27 and I still don't seem to have that right. WTF?

Re:Define "definitely"

[corbettw]

Speaking as a vet, I disagree with this sentiment. There's a world of difference between being able to follow orders and being able to discern which is the better course for the nation to take. An 18 year old can do the first one, but not the second. They simply don't have the life experience to make judgments that effect literally millions of people (if not billions).

Re:Define "definitely"

[baboo_jackal]

The vast majority of non-officers have never been to college.
See, this is an interesting thing to say.

In my platoon of 32, there were 30 enlisted. My platoon sergeant and 2 of my 3 squad leaders had degrees. The vast majority of my soldiers were actually going to college (UMUC, online). A significant segment of them did not reenlist in order to pursue higher education.

Outside of my platoon, I knew other platoon leaders whose soldiers were doing the same. In fact, our squadron CSM made civilian education a priority for our soldiers. In our squadron (battalion), the soldier who did not have his degree, or who was not pursuing one, was far less common than the ones who were.

Now, anecdotal evidence doesn't prove anything, of course, but that's not my point.

Many barely finished high school. Another large percentage did ok in high school, but can't afford college and are in it for the GI bill. The number of recruits from the middle and upper class are vanishingly small.
So, enlisted folk are just plain dumb poor people who don't know any better! (right? It sounded better when you said it, of course, but that's essentially your point.) Problem is, you just can't prove it to be true. Now, I don't claim that you're wrong. I just know my small part of the Army.

Can you provide anything to back up your claims? Probably not. (by the way, don't trot out stuff regarding initial enlistment - I'm talking about those people who have actually been in the Army for a minute.) I mean, my own personal experience only involves 600 or so soldiers in an Army of hundreds of thousands, so it's very limited. But it's more than you gave us.

I mean, I get it - you believe that the Army is a horrible class-ruled organization that discriminates horribly against the poor and downtrodden. How trite and naive. Go back to the dorm and read more Bertrand Russell.

Re:Define "definitely"

[MBraynard]

Your statement and the rectangle-glasses wearing nerd corp who couldn't do a pullup or sexually satisfy a woman to save their lives (if that interests them) who modded you up WANT to believe what you just said, but it's not true. Not that it is really an issue for you at all.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/ wm1244.cfm

Re:Define "definitely"

[MBraynard]

Posted this earlier, but you may find it informative. Huu-rah!

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/ wm1244.cfm">Evidence.

Re:Define "definitely"

[Dillon2112]

Also speaking as a vet, I disagree. What makes democracy beautiful is that it is not the responsibility of each person to vote in the interest of everyone else. It is each individual's responsibility to vote *in their own interest* (whether or not they can even determine that is another question). We draw an arbitrary line at 18, but I know of plenty of people that will *never* be able to "discern which is the better course for the nation to take".
In general, I think the question should be "how early can we reasonably get the citizens involved in the direction their country is going?" rather than "How many people can we find to remove from the voting pool for one reason or another?" We all live here, and one of the founding principles of the US is that each citizen can have a say in how the country is run, even people with whom you disagree or believe to be incompetent.

Re:Define "definitely"

[baboo_jackal]

Hey, that's a good read - thanks!

Re:Define "definitely"

[MBraynard]

Welcome. Something else that is ignored is that many officers are actually former enlistees who got their college degree while enlisted. Mustangs, some call them. At least in the beginning, they are better officers.

Re:Define "definitely"

[baboo_jackal]

I want to say that well over 2/3 of all the junior enlisted in my unit were taking courses in pursuit of a degree. Honestly, I can't tell you how many times I was approached by E-3's and E-4's asking about OCS, Green-to-Gold, Warrant school, (Medical School, even!!!), etc. These kids have goals, just like any other American - they're just working a full-time job while pursuing them, instead of going to college on their parents and the taxpayers' bill.

The dumb country bumpkin stereotype for enlisted folk just isn't true anymore. And even if it were, the Army takes those young people and very explicitly teaches them a system of values that acts as a moral compass that, quite frankly, a lot of Americans never get exposed to. I'm getting out of the military next year - I'm in Germany now - and I realized something a few months back:

I was walking home from the bar in my little German town with a couple of my buddies when a large group of rowdy "youths" approached - you know, obviously drunk, loud, obnoxious, mean-looking guys. I immediately knew they were American soldiers - you know, the haircuts, they were actually in good physical condition (not the typical emaciated-looking European), etc. As they approached us, they recognized us, quieted down a little, said hi (Sir), and kept on going.

It dawned on me that had this been America, and those *not* been Soldiers, I would have been really, really nervous about me and 2 other friends walking past a group of 8-10 rowdy youths. But since I knew they were Soldiers, I knew that they, regardless of their ebullience, would be overall, well-behaved.

Now, that's not to say that Soldiers don't get in trouble: they do! (And the media is somehow always right there, eager to point it out. Imagine if they paid as close attention to the behavior of similarly aged kids in college! That would be eye-opening!) It's just that, in general, I happen to trust young Soldiers to do the right thing in any given situation. I don't have that level of confidence in a random youth plucked out of the civilian US population, and I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that Army culture instills a very definite sense of right and wrong, and gives these kids a way to make sound, rational judgements that I think the typical American lacks.

Just my 2 cents.

Strange

[zionian117]

Japanese youth are strange! When the youuth of rest of the world want to have more voice in the political process they don't think they are mature... wtf? And anything that prevents politicians to reach that core group is bound to have lasting consequences to the nation.

Re:Strange

[Lemmy Caution]

While things are changing somewhat, there are two cultural elements at work here: the first is a strong value on humility and modesty about one's self and one's family that pervades society. Bragging and bravado is not thought well of whatsoever. Also, there remains a lot of deference to age and experience: until one has proven oneself, there's little value in what one might think or say.

Maybe they should the age when you can vote

[iminplaya]

How about 45? Most people are pretty serious by then. Humor and lightheartedness have no place in government, or in this post :-) Maybe they shouldn't let the candidates campaign. Just post their voting record and the people can discuss amongst themselves. The more I think about it, the more I like it. It would cut way down on false promises and other deceptions.

Re:Maybe they should the age when you can vote

[try_anything]

By that age most people think the world was perfect when they were young and youth culture is the cause of all social problems.

Because of fossils

[unity100]

They are old. they dont understand internet. they cant cope with younger candidates who will be using websites, whereas they dont understand jack about it. Hence, they just ban it. That simple.

Vote for Shinzo Abe!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shinzo Abe!
Shinzo Abe!
He has my vote!

Popularity contest

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as politics is a competition where the peacocks that preen and squark the loudest are elected we will have useless leaders and live in a dangerous world. The very attributes that make a person successful at winning popularity contests make them ineffective leaders. Those qualities are
vanity, ego, power lust, ambition, self-importance... it is astonishingly obvious I think that the majority of those who are involved in politics today are mentally ill to some degree and would be diagnosed with personality disorder.

In an age of nuclear and biological weapons we can no longer afford to select leaders and representatives because _they__want_ to be in power. I think we all realise this in our hearts and that worldwide dissolutionment with "democracy" is a reflection of it.

Look at Hillary Clinton, the woman is so desperate for power she is practically foaming at the mouth with lust. She says one thing one day and reverses it the next, she will say anything to anybody that makes her ego dream of being president closer. You can SMELL her desperation and it's so ugly! Can you imagine the destruction and misery such a mentally inconsistent person would cause in office? These japanese kids get it... democracy does not work and we need a better way.

It's said democracy is the worst of all the the methods we have tried. But there is one method we have not tried....

A workable solution to maintain democracy is to randomly select a congress/parliament. Any random selection of citizens from 18-80 years old
would be infinitely better than the shower of shit we have in offcie today or can expect in office tomorrow if we alow them to self-select.

Re:Sounds like a great way to protect the status q

[PMBjornerud]

Living in Japan, I have various issues with the Japenese political system. Not being Japanese, I don't think it's my job to make any changes, though.

It's definetely impacted by the seniority system that permeates the country. If you're old, you have a say, if you're young, you do what you're told. Obviously this is not a hard rule, but there definetely is such a trend. The standard view is that such a system would encouage some serious corruption (having a real and powerful organizations of organized crime does not help, they assasinated a difficult major during the last election).

I can't say I understand the Japanese democratic systems. I'm sure it protects the status quo, will probably change, though will change very slowly as the next 2 generations grow up. The system works somehow, and people still have to option to change things if they get completely out of hand.

Election Day

[shalmaneser1]

I recently saw a documentary called "Election Day" about a Japanese man running for office. While noting that Japanese documentaries stylistically are very different than modern American documentaries: what happens, boring or not is what you see; it's still incredibly interesting.

There seem to be no television ads, no yard signs with slogans, no big campaign rallies. Instead there's the use of existing events: politicians visiting school exhibitions, attending morning exercise programs for the elderly, and so on.

There's also a lot of the politician himself walking around town, introducing himself to people on the street, and standing around with a bullhorn at various popular locations ( ex. the train station ) apologising for the intrusion and explaining his views on things to anyone who will listen ( no one ever seems to stop and listen for very long ).

In what seems to be the culmination of the campaign there's even a bizarre bus tour around the small town while he and his wife shout things over a pa and wave politely from the bus.

In contrast with American politics -- it's strange to say the least.

All in all though it was refreshing to see a politician taking cat naps in his ultra tiny car and pounding the pavement all by himself to connect with everyday people and to drum up votes.

Re:Election Day

[Ironsides]

Sounds like what the representatives do in the U.S., state and congress. They go door to door where I live (Northern, VA).

Won't last forever

[VonSkippy]

Luckily, the problem is self solving. Japan has the oldest (and therefore the most dying) population of any civilized nation. In a few generations, either the Country will be gone, or over run with care-taker robots. In either case, hawking political hogwash via the net will be the least of their worries.

Re:Won't last forever

[Hal_Porter]

The population will stil be 70 million in 2095

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Japan #Basic_facts

I actually think that aging will be stopped or reversed for rich people in the developed world before then, so it will be quite a bit higher than this. The odd thing is that everyone was worrying about overpopulation up until a few years ago when it became clear that birth rates drop dramatically once infant mortality does, i.e. human population is self stabilising.

I'm voting for godzilla

[Anonymous Coward]

Godzilla for president!!

Anyone who decides not to vote for the monster party candidate will be transformed into a tasty gojira snack.

>>> !!!! ** YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED ** !!!!

Title somewhat misleading

[achurch]

It's not that Japan "just banned" the use of web sites; it's that the law as written doesn't allow it, and hasn't been changed (in relevant part) since the web came about. Or rather, it's that the law is believed not to allow web sites; a few candidates that tried it got a warning that it "might" break the law, and none of them were willing to actually take it to the courts. (Interestingly enough, in this election the political parties have started posting their non-candidate members' speeches, arguing that they're allowed as descriptions of party activities rather than restricted candidate activities. We'll have to see how that holds up.)

Incidentally, a similar problem with videos of campaign speeches was discussed here in April.

That's OK

[ml10422]

I guess I'm OK with the ban. I couldn't read all those funny Japanese characters, anyway.

Japan at Election Time

[BillGatesLoveChild]

I've been in Japan at election time. There's a distinct lack of information to go off:

* You'll find each neighborhood plastered with election posters from 30 or so candidates. These show the candidate grinning or looking stern, their name and a 'Vote for Tanaka'.

* Election Vans drive around the neighborhood saying 'I am Tanaka. I am Tanaka. Please Vote for me. I am Tanaka. I am Tanaka. Please Vote for me. I am Tanaka. I am Tanaka. Please Vote for me.' These annoy the crap out of everyone.

* That's all folks! Try making your choice off of that!

* Websites would have given a place for some intelligent debate, because you get nothing from the above. If you watch NHK's News Hour you will get some reasonably intelligent analysis, but for local issues you have to rely on the local stations and they do next to no politics. If your household watches the variety show or the kids want to watch anime channels instead, you'll get no information at all.

* There's only one real party: The LDP. Sure, there are fringe parties, but apart from one glitch (quickly) corrected the LDP have always held power. (Don't get too cocky: In the US the Republicans and Democrats are pretty similar. Last Election both Pro-War and Pro-Big Business.)

* Most Japanese don't talk politics. They've realized it doesn't make a difference. They try and carve out a living and hope the politicians leave them alone (Again don't get cocky. The hours you spend sitting around shooting the breeze with your buddies might feel good, but ultimately makes no difference either.)

* There's a big disaster looming in Japan because the pension system has been paying out more than is coming in. This has been known for 20 years, but no one has had the guts to do anything about it. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's plan to Save Japan? He's going to make sure children know how to use chopsticks. Other than that, he's done nothing. How did Abe get elected? He didn't. The LDP appointed him. His Grandpa was an important politician and now it's "his turn".

Re:Japan at Election Time

[The One and Only]

Wow, Japan sounds like a less annoying version of the United States, right down to the failing national pension system.

Re:Japan at Election Time

[Rocketship Underpant]

You're quite right. I live in Japan at the moment, and as far as I can tell, Japan is barely a democracy. There's one party that always gets elected and decides everything, and the average person neither cares nor talks about politics. That doesn't mean people don't have a sense of civic duty; au contraire, they're very active in the nighbourhood and in their kids' schools.

Japan's culture is different, and I suspect it's the possibility of public shame and humiliation that restrains corruption -- the minister who recently committed suicide over what in the West would be a minor scandal comes to mind. The people don't seem to "believe" in democracy, "making their vote matter", or foisting their views on others; they simply live and let live, and I think that's a healthier attitude than many people in the West have, who seem to think life is all about politics and electing a government that gives you what you want.

Re:Japan at Election Time

[Bueller_007]

1) There is constant political and election coverage of election on the web (try Yahoo, etc. which have whole sites dedicated to election info.) Only political candidates are banned from updating their web pages. There is not suddenly a blanket thrown over the entire Japanese internet media.

2) There is constant political and election coverage in newspapers. How did you forget about those? As I recall, Japan has the highest newspaper readership in the world.

3) There is a lot of political and election coverage on television.

4) Contrary to what you state, the purpose of posters and election vans is surely not to provide insight into a politician's campaign platform. They are merely for publicity--the extremely annoying but more sanitary and time-efficient Japanese equivalent of shaking hands and kissing babies.

5) The LDP has indeed been the dominant power in Japanese politics since WWII, but you must realize that the LDP is a collection of competing factions with different political views that ***run candidates against each other***. In addition to all of these competing factions within the LDP, there are currently five other parties who have members in either the Upper or Lower House of the Diet.

6) Japanese people may not talk about politics with YOU, but you can't necessarily misconstrue this as a lack of interest (especially on the part of older people). Voter turnout in Japan is consistently higher than in America. 67.5% in 2005, 56.4% in 2004.

7) No, of course Abe didn't get elected. At least not by the public. He's a *prime minister*, not a *president*. But don't act like he was just appointed by the LDP out of the blue. He was elected by the Diet (each member of which was elected by the public). You're confusing his role as prime minister with his role as president of the LDP. The two are not the same. This doesn't change the fact that he's a miserable bastard and a terrible leader, but you're absolutely wrong on your charges.

Re:Japan at Election Time

[revengebomber]

It's less annoying because the exported all their annoyances. Now if you'll excuse me, there's a group of middle schoolers across the street screaming "kawaii" at the top of their lungs. (Get off my lawn!)

Re:Japan at Election Time

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> There is constant political and election coverage of election on the web (try Yahoo, etc. which have whole sites dedicated to election info.) Only political candidates are banned from updating their web pages. There is not suddenly a blanket thrown over the entire Japanese internet media.

I doubt news sites will be writing opinion pieces on the views of every candidate standing. A lot will remain unheard. It would be best if they could write it themselves, and the web would have been a good way for candidates to get their views to the voters they are trying to court, without having them "filtered" by a news site. Especially so since young people in Japan are very "wired" by world standards.

> There is constant political and election coverage in newspapers. How did you forget about those? As I recall, Japan has the highest newspaper readership in the world.

The Japanese media, both TV and print, are shy of controversy. The (English Language) Japan Times, which does occasionally tread on toes, is an unusual newspaper by Japanese standards.

> 3) There is a lot of political and election coverage on television.

Only if they're being watched. I've lived in households where neither news or current affairs never graced the screen.

> 4) Contrary to what you state, the purpose of posters and election vans is surely not to provide insight
> into a politician's campaign platform. They are merely for publicity--the extremely annoying but more
> sanitary and time-efficient Japanese equivalent of shaking hands and kissing babies.

Posters+Loudspeakers (esp without policies) are useless. It's a photo and annoying loudspeaker that tells you nothing about the candidate. Western baby kissing is equally useless, but they can at least voice their policies.

> 5) The LDP has indeed been the dominant power in Japanese politics since WWII, but you must realize that the LDP is a collection of competing factions with different political views that ***run candidates against each other***. In addition to all of these competing factions within the LDP, there are currently five other parties who have members in either the Upper or Lower House of the Diet.

All parties have factions, and like I said I don't pretend the west is any better: Republicans and Democrats have far more similarities than they have differences.

> 6) Japanese people may not talk about politics with YOU, but you can't necessarily misconstrue this as a lack of interest (especially on the part of older people). Voter turnout in Japan is consistently higher than in America. 67.5% in 2005, 56.4% in 2004.

Without laying my life story bare for you, let's say I have it on good authority. Japanese people don't sit around and talk politics. Why waste time discussing what you can't change?

> 7) No, of course Abe didn't get elected. At least not by the public. He's a *prime minister*, not a *president*. But don't act like he was just appointed by the LDP out of the blue. He was elected by the Diet (each member of which was elected by the public). You're confusing his role as prime minister with his role as president of the LDP. The two are not the same. This doesn't change the fact that he's a miserable bastard and a terrible leader, but you're absolutely wrong on your charges.

You're splitting hairs: Remember in the US people vote for an electoral college who in turn choose the President. Is that to say the President isn't elected either? Now in a Parliamentary Democracy, you vote for your local representative who is a member of the political party who in turn votes for someone from that political party to head it. Different names, but same animal.

It would be fair to say Koizumi, despite his foibles, *was* elected and at the time, he espoused a vision that got people excited. He stepped down, not because he wanted to go, but because of a power sharing arrangement that said he had to give Shinzo Abe a go. Ah Shinzo... I don't even think his mama is excited about him.

Re:Japan at Election Time

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> You're quite right. I live in Japan at the moment, and as far as I can tell, Japan is barely a democracy. There's one party that always gets elected and decides everything, and the average person neither cares nor talks about politics.

In much of the West, there are two parties which between then always get elected and decide everything. We act like we have a choice, but I'm not so sure. Millions of people in the US, the UK and Australia marched against the war, and our leaders took us to war anyway. Not really a democracy either, but we feel better if we call it that.

> That doesn't mean people don't have a sense of civic duty; au contraire, they're very active in the nighbourhood and in their kids' schools.

A friend who works in Japan noted to me in the West the Government cleans the pavement. In Japan, the shopkeepers clean the pavement in front of their shop. Either way, the street is cleaned, and perhaps even better and more often.

> Japan's culture is different, and I suspect it's the possibility of public shame and humiliation that restrains corruption -- the minister who recently committed suicide over what in the West would be a minor scandal comes to mind.

The Japanese concept of admitting a mistake and taking responsibility is pretty nice. It works too, because the people you apologize to accept it and everyone gets on with their lives. By comparison, apologizing in the West is seen as an admission of liability. It's said that Japan has more flower arrangers than it has lawyers, and the flower arrangers can get better results :-)

> The people don't seem to "believe" in democracy, "making their vote matter", or foisting their views on others; they simply live and let live, and I think that's a healthier attitude than many people in the West have, who seem to think life is all about politics and electing a government that gives you what you want.

Amen.

Re:Japan at Election Time

[Fred Ferrigno]

It would be fair to say Koizumi, despite his foibles, *was* elected and at the time, he espoused a vision that got people excited. He stepped down, not because he wanted to go, but because of a power sharing arrangement that said he had to give Shinzo Abe a go. Ah Shinzo... I don't even think his mama is excited about him. Seems like the same thing that just happened with Gordon Brown in the UK. It's just the way the parliamentary system works. You elect a party, not a person. They may run with one guy as the leader during the election, but there's no real guarantee that he's gonna stick around.

Re:Japan at Election Time

[DeeVeeAnt]

'His Grandpa was an important politician and now it's "his turn".' Completely different to the US then, where you inherit the job from your father.

Re:Japan at Election Time

[manekineko2]

6) Japanese people may not talk about politics with YOU, but you can't necessarily misconstrue this as a lack of interest (especially on the part of older people). Voter turnout in Japan is consistently higher than in America. 67.5% in 2005, 56.4% in 2004.

I'm not sure what you basis your perception of Japan upon, but I would not translate the higher voter turnout to Japanese people talking/caring more about politics. In fact I'd agree with the grandparent, Japanese people don't talk or care much about politics. After all, why bother? The politicians will be corrupt, and you can't change anything, just keep your head down and hope they don't bother you. Shou ga nai.

Re:Japan at Election Time

[Anonymous Coward]

I am American, living in Japan (about 12 years). My understanding is that the voter must *write* the name of the person they want on the ballot. You not only have to know the name, you have to be able to recognize the kanji (Chinese characters) for the name. So one idea with the trucks is to get as much attention as possible so that people remember the name.

A candidate in a recent local election actually used katakana for his name, just so it would be easier for people to remember and write. (Katakana is the relatively simple "alphabet" that is usually used for foreign words and names. It is rare for a Japanese person to have a katakana name).

Personally, I am not sure why hearing someone scream "vote for Suzuki" at you for weeks would make you want to vote for them. Nor can I figure out how it would help me remember how to write the name. My Japanese wife couldn't find the above mentioned candidate's name on the ballot - she was looking for the usual kanji, not the katakana he used. So go figure.

As for the pension fiasco, you forgot another important factor - not enough children. Japan is for the Japanese. There is no immigration to speak of. So with only like 1.25 children per woman, this country will be empty in 100 years or so. Long before that however, it will go bankrupt trying to pay the retirees. I think the estimate is 1 worker for each retiree in like 2030. Taro's taxes go straight to some retiree as a pension check.

Something has to change. Maybe taxes go through the roof (which kills consumption and would likely make couples have even fewer children). Or maybe the retirement age goes up to 70 or 75 (not likely and still doesn't solve the birthrate problem). Or you allow in more immigrants, in hopes that their numbers can stabilize the situation. Even assuming allowing more immigrants would stabilize anything, Japan would have to take in like several *million* immigrants each year, every year, for the next several decades. Not going to happen in a country where the number of non-Koreans* naturalized each year is probably in the low thousands.

So in terms of the pension system at least, my opinion can be summed up in two and a half words: "they're screwed."

Also, to address the article, in Japan it is often the case that whatever is not expressly allowed is forbidden. Not always of course, but it seems that way to this American a lot of the time. That this would apply to election laws as well does not surprise me.

*technically, many of the people of Korean descent in Japan are not Japanese citizens, despite being born and raised here to parents who were born and raised here. Many do not even speak Korean and have never been to Korea. Some are technically "North Korean" just because their grandparents were told to choose one when Korea was divided.

(Americans: imagine that at the end of the Civil War, the black slaves were freed but then denied American citizenship. Instead, each family is shown a map of Africa and told to decide which country they are a citizen of. But they stay in the States as resident aliens. Kinda-sorta-but-not-exactly what happened to the Koreans in Japan.)

Many of these Koreans choose each year to take Japanese citizenship. Point is, it would be totally misleading to consider them "immigrants", even if a couple hundred thousand did get citizenship in any given year.

Re:Japan at Election Time

[Teancum]

You're splitting hairs: Remember in the US people vote for an electoral college who in turn choose the President. Is that to say the President isn't elected either? Now in a Parliamentary Democracy, you vote for your local representative who is a member of the political party who in turn votes for someone from that political party to head it. Different names, but same animal.

I think you miss what the electoral college is and why many in the USA continue to support the electoral college in the first place.

Most importantly, the only function they have is to elect a President, not to enact legislation or perform any other duty, unlike electing somebody to Congress (or a parlimentary seat, for instance). Only on very rare occasions have there been faithless electors (aka voted for somebody other than who they pledged), and there has never been a presidential election overturned by a wayward electoral college that didn't decide the President who represented what the vote tallies recommended they cast their ballots toward. Based on state representation and other election factors and not just raw popular vote.

You can complain about the Bush vs. Gore situation in 2000, but that was a close election by nearly any system you can come up with and did involve some tie breaker issues as well. Certainly the polling was within the margin of error of even the vote gathering techniques, where even innocent (and not so innocent) counting errors could and did influence the final result. Creativly "discovering" new votes that were uncounted and changing the voting rules after the election is over only added to that mess. Frankly, I think the electoral college saved the USA from something even uglier had it not been in place for this election in 2000. Imagine a full nation-wide recount or even a second run-off Presidential election! Neither seem like something comforting to me as an American citizen.

Re:Japan at Election Time

[Bueller_007]

I suppose I base my perception of Japan upon the fact that I live there and "older people" I talk to (i.e., above age 35) are usually quite opinionated, if you can weasel it out of them or liquor it out of them.

I would say that high voter turnout kinda contradicts your "shou ga nai" claim. If you've got no way of changing anything why would you go out of your way to vote?

Uninvolved?

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite heavy internet usage and a strong installed base of high-speed connectivity, young people just don't feel involved in politics.

Unlike in the United States.

Protect the political stablishment

[Vexorian]

You know, these things are not 'serious' or 'educated' enough to invade our holy elections, we cannot let it to get into the voters attention... they could listen to it. What's worse is that we have absolutely no control over it, some guy in his basement could make a video and submit it to youtube, at least with the other ways (the expensive ways) there's more control regarding who is able to spread political speech...

Once the politicians begin to "protect" the citizens from certain kind of speeches or media...

This doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Cracked Pottery]

The Internet is a cheap and egalitarian medium. Without knowledge of Japanese politics, it is hard judge the effect. There is something useful about retail politics, so maybe politicians should be walking the streets. I don't know, for example, if there is an equivalent of Fox News acting as a division of a major Japanese party. The 3% leaflet rule seems like it might be hard to monitor. As far as young people not having good judgment, that depends on whether they agree with me.

Actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

They only have one syllable, where the tongue touches the roof of the mouth (like the L) but where the tongue is in the front of the mouth (like the R), which is why they have trouble distinguishing and pronouncing the two.  Hell, it can even sound a bit like a D in, say, the "ru" syllable.

Joke ---> .

|  0
| \|/  <-- Me
| / \

Wait?  What?  Something went whooshing over my head?  Sorry, I'm a bit hard of hearing ever since I went deaf in my right ear.  Erections?  Huh?

Mod this racist parent post down, please

[rockout]

Where to start? I was in the military and I think you pulled that first stat right out of your posterior; I certainly didn't see many airmen coming from a wealthier background than the average, nor did more than a handful of them have anything past a HS education. Your "read-between-the-lines" reference to African-Americans in this country is so blatantly racist that I can't believe at least 1 person modded you up for it. And by the way, the other thing I noticed about 18-22-year-old-airmen in the AF was how many of them took on two massive car payments that ate up most of their paychecks because they didn't have to worry about housing. Then they'd take on massive credit card debt on top of that, to the point where the AF had (and probably still has) programs instructing these kids on how to be financially responsible, teaching them even during basic training. It didn't seem to do much good, however; many of them still engaged in that type of behavior that did not seem to indicate they were well-educated or had familiarity with money in any way.

Re:Mod this racist parent post down, please

[MBraynard]

Racist? But not inaccurate?

Here's your evidence. You're totally full of shit - and so are the people who modded you up.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/ wm1244.cfm

Re:Mod this racist parent post down, please

[rockout]

Again, where to start?

The last part of your post was racist, indeed, and has nothing to do with the article you point us to. So, let's assume for the moment that your first point is valid (it's not, but I'll get to that) - sticking in the last bit robs you of any credibility you may have been posing with. So yes, racist.

For support of your "enlistees are smarter than you think" argument, you point us to an article from an avowedly partisan conservative group, and that article cites as a reference a study done by - oh, that same conservative group. Not sure that quite meets the standard of proof I'd require to actually believe your point. Even without my personal experience dealing with enlistees of all backgrounds in the USAF, of which you have obviously zero.

Thank you for your time.

Re:Mod this racist parent post down, please

[MBraynard]

A) Your background counts for nothing. Besides, we're talking about the military here, not the USAF. (heh). All of the documentation behind the citations (including the NY Times - funny you missed that one) is an attempt to be scientific. Go look at the citations within the study that are cited? Straight from the source. What do you have on your side?

B) Racist? Wait, this is too good - you first attack the ENTIRE US MILITARY as dumber than the general public (which I refute). Then I make a comment about government parasites living off of my tax dollars, and somehow that is racist? Are you implying that all people who are part of a certain ethnic group constitute said parasites? Who is really the racist? And the hypocrit?

Is this why you liberals lose all your arguments? You accuse the other side of being racist to get them to shut up (doesn't work on me), and then you ignore real evidence while presenting none of your own.

Your post in 10 years

[rockout]

I'm 37 soon, and now I finally have it all figured out. When I was 27, I hadn't figured out ANYthing, and worse yet, I THOUGHT I had grown a brain in the last few years, just like others my age. I know there's probably plenty of people reading this aged 27 who'll hate this simple fact. Your [sic] too young to have learned how to spell "you're" or to have much of a world view.

Well that's all well and good...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but Japan does have its own little political system, which I would argue has at least some advantages over the American system. The biggest example is that they make it very easy for just about everyone to run for office, and gathering a certain (relatively small) amount of support means you get official coverage as a candidate. Specifically, you were allowed a certain amount of air time on public television besides every other candidate that would allow you to publicly declare your platform, all for free.

I could understand their motivation to do something like this. I think their main concern is to prevent the very rich candidates from completely overwhelming every single other candidate, pushing aside the "casuality" of the internet.

Manjusha's Comment

[manjusha]

this is manjusha's comment.

Bliss

[BillGatesLoveChild]

On the bright side, if you choose to remain ignorant the anime is pretty good. :-) http://animesuki.com/

That's odd

[rock_climbing_guy]

I was just reading this a few minutes before the story was posted

http://www.thejapanfaq.com/FAQ-Prices.html

Japan...

[okinawa_hdr]

Japan is a great place to live. We have Akihabara, Maid Cafe's, all the Manga your heart could desire, Sushi, and cute girls. However, there is also an blind political system with deep corruption. Take it for what it's worth.

Yeah, so?

[Guppy06]

"In Japan, 95% of people in their 20s surf the web, but only a third of them bother to vote."

Here in the United States, we get all the fliers and websites and spam and junk mail and road signs and everything else you could want, and we still get a similar result.

It doesn't matter how you "reach out to the voters" if the voters still don't like you.

that is above average education and wealth

[r00t]

You're pretty unaware of the state of humanity, probably because all YOUR classmates were going to college and could afford it.

The vast majority of people in the USA have never been to college, barely finished high school, and can't afford college.

There's nothing wrong with offering these people an opportunity. They have the right to refuse, though that might be a foolish decision.

An example of what he is talking about

[ashitaka]

Loud, obnoxious Japanese election van.

Turn your volume all the way up to get an sense of how it is to be there.

Bingo! My daughter's experience exactly.

[ashitaka]

My 13-year-old daughter is spending part of the summer attending middle school in my wife's home town. She was so looking forward to this as she likes Japan itself and was excited about the different school experience.

Now each time we talk on the phone she keeps telling me horror stories about the complete lack of discipline, direction and interest in learning in the classrooms. She feels she's back in kindergarten. She's witnessed ijime (bullying) that has gone unpunished. There's one guy in her class that repeatedly pulls other students pants (plus underwear) down in the middle of class and grabs female student's breasts. (Luckily for him he hasn't tried this with my daughter) Nothing is done. Were this North America the student would have been expelled or in counseling years ago. The school's token gaijin English instructor is an Australian who is just there to pronounce out the words taught by the Japanese English teacher. His pronunciation is, of course, with a strong Australian accent which (no offense to Aussies out there), will make them difficult to understand for other English speakers. As the parent pointed out, it doesn't matter anyway as none of these students can connect more than one or two English words together to hold an even basic conversation.

Japan has some of the world's best technology and some extremely creative people. But the use of technology to help the society as a whole politically and socially is held back by the culture of "it's not our place to change things".

Re:Bingo! My daughter's experience exactly.

[kklein]

1) Yeah, I was one of those token gaijin. If all he's doing is being the human tape recorder, though, that means he's crap. I knew people like that. If you're going to be serious about being an ALT (assistant language teacher), you at least make your own lessons. A big part of that program (I worked for the government; lately schools are turning to private companies) is about just providing entertainment for the kids in hopes that they won't notice that English class, which should be fun and empowering, is the most boring awful experience in school. I have a master's in English, requiring a lot of study of linguistics, but I did not know that there was a "rule" for when to pronounce "the" with a schwa and when to pronounce it with an [i] ("ee"). This is the kind of idiotic crap they teach in English class. If you don't follow the pronunciation pattern, people will still understand what you mean, but if you skip the article or use the wrong one, or use one when you shouldn't, they won't. The problem is, the latter only comes with meaningful communicative practice; the former can be crammed for a multiple-choice test. Ugh, don't get me started.

2) I saw horrible, horrible things in the education system here. Heartbreaking things. I, like much of the Slashdot crowd I'm sure, endured more than my fair share of bullying in junior high and high school, and made it clear to the kids in question that nothing would be tolerated on my watch. A loud and public dressing-down of two bullies who stood up from their desks, walked over and started punching a fat kid from both sides IN THE MIDDLE OF CLASS got me a private talking-to by the principal. Telling a kid to go home after he PUSHED ME AND TOOK A SWING AT ME (on the same day that he TRIPPED AN ELDERLY FEMALE TEACHER IN THE HALL) got me a lecture on how I don't have the right to deny this piece of shit an education.

My wife was a teacher at that school for 15 years. She once went on an exchange to a US high school. She couldn't believe how "adult" they were, and she came back horribly depressed (she quit only a couple years after).

As a college teacher, some of the crap I deal with on a daily basis is the stuff of junior high. I have to ask for quiet. I have people carrying on full-volume conversations across the room WHILE I'M TALKING (and not at the beginning of class--right in the middle). I have people who walk into class, plop down, and GO TO SLEEP (these are classes of like 25 people--not lecture halls). I point out that they don't have to come if they don't want. They say they'll be good. "BE GOOD." IN COLLEGE. It is unbelievable. And this is at a pretty good school, and I am (I hear) one of the more interesting teachers. I hope I never find out what it's like to be one of the boring ones.

3) Technology... I just can never figure out where this idea comes from. I'm sitting in front of a computer full of Taiwanese parts designed by American companies. I have a 50M DSL line that runs at 3M on a good day (see, those amazing numbers you read about the speeds here are the speeds AT THE POST--they have little bearing on what you'll get in your house--yay Japanese lack of consumer rights!). My phone is a Sharp (Japanese), but is almost as big as my first Motorola flip-phone in the US (ca 1998), the big difference being that there I could afford to talk on it. My bill is $70/mo, with no minutes. I can call my wife all I want, but I'm careful about using it for anything but. It's 3G, but I once read an article on MSN while waiting for the doctor and when I got my bill I found that that little web surf cost me $25.

When I want tech, I wait until a trip to the US, where I'll have more choice for less money. I just honestly have no idea what people are talking about, "technology" in Japan. Here, more than anywhere else, it seems, technology only serves the companies that sell it. Anything that might make something useful to the user is disabled or requires a trip to Akihabara, which has become a kind of manga

Re:Bingo! My daughter's experience exactly.

[jrumney]

His pronunciation is, of course, with a strong Australian accent which (no offense to Aussies out there), will make them difficult to understand for other English speakers.

Are you suggesting that only Estuary English speakers are qualified to teach ESL? Or do you have a different "standard" in mind?

Re:Bingo! My daughter's experience exactly.

[ashitaka]

The point wasn't qualified to teach and as the other poster pointed out, these people aren't there to teach, just be human tape recorders. "Now repeat after Alan-san".

To be understandable to a world of English speakers learning in a neutral accent is best. The kids at this school are not only having difficulty basically pronouncing the word but they are attempting to pronounce it in a way that will inherently limit who will be able to understand them. The specific case here is a *strong* Australian accent. I would probably say the same thing about cockney, Lancastrian or Bronx.

Re:Bingo! My daughter's experience exactly.

[jrumney]

To be understandable to a world of English speakers learning in a neutral accent is best.

Who gets to define what a neutral accent is? How strong an accent is, is relative to the viewpoint of the listener.

Re:Bingo! My daughter's experience exactly.

[ClamIAm]

I did not know that there was a "rule" for when to pronounce "the" with a schwa and when to pronounce it with an [i] ("ee").

I'm pretty sure I remember learning this in elementary school (USA). If I remember correctly, when the following word begins with a vowel, you use the "ee".

I hope this doesn't mean I went to a horrible elementary school/had bad teachers/etc.

The problem is with this peculiar aspect of democr

[mapkinase]

Namely, when millions of people elect somebody whom they never met personally.

More logical democratic system is when someone elect community leader, those leaders elect township leader, township leaders elect county leader, county leaders elect state leader and state leaders elect the president of usa.

Give us a break

[fullback]

I've been in Japan for over 15 years. First, if you don't understand the language, you don't understand the culture. To the English teacher: your students probably have no interest in telling you all they know about everything. Getting into the typical argumentative/philosophical offered up by most low-time foreigners here is tedious since it always ends up being a pompous monologue on "This is how we do it in America, and you should too" nonsense. Unless you've been here at least 10 years and speak and read the language, you're languishing in the dark and still full of the preconceptions you got off the plane with. Knock it off, STFU and leave. Eighty percent are in Japan teaching English because they are social misfits who couldn't fit in with their own culture. After a few years they develop the "gaijin anger complex." They don't really know what the hell is going on around them and are angry at being trapped since they can't function in their own culture or Japan.

Instead of discussing the topic, they can only rant about how stupid everyone around them appears to them.

I find the Japanese election system a refreshing dose of honesty. Not the politicians - they suck everywhere - but the simple elegance of simply doing what most people in western countries won't admit to. They vote for whomever has the face or personality doesn't make them want to vomit.

The election "season" is short, weeks instead of years, and that is a blessing. Who really cares what a politician says he or she are going to do on website, a debate or a commercial... they never do what they promise anyway. When is the last time a politician did what the said they were going to do? They rely on your goldfish-like memory to get elected and re-elected. (Oh look! A bridge! I'll swim under it. Oh look! A bridge! I'll swim under it. Oh look! A broken Social Security system. I'll fix it. Oh look! Iraq. We're making progress)

To the next goldfish, I mean person, who thinks the Japanese have it wrong, all I can say is look at who the American public, in the self-proclaimed model democracy of America, elected in the last two elections. And you think the Japanese system is strange? Uh huh.

Japan dirty little secret

[anti-pop-frustration]

His Grandpa was an important politician and now it's "his turn".
If by "important politician" you mean Class A war criminal, you are absolutely right.

It would be akin to having the grandson of high ranking Nazi official as chancellor of Germany... Yes, Japan is that much depoliticized.

Re:Japan dirty little secret

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> If by "important politician" you mean Class A war criminal, you are absolutely right.

Huh? Now you've attracted my attention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobusuke_Kishi says "Until 1948, Kishi was imprisoned as a Class A war criminal. ... Shintaro Abe is Kishi's son-in-law, and his child Shinzo Abe, the current prime minister, is Kishi's grandson."

Eeek!!!!!!!! Well, I've wondered about Abe's extremist views and how he could justify them. There you have it: Brainwashed as a child. Richard Dawkins says 11 out of 12 kids stick with their parent's religion, when in theory at age 18 they should choose their own. This is the political equivalent.

Interesting Policy

[mboyd]

While extreme, I like some aspects of this policy. First, material on the internet is generally more informal than 'real-world' information, and by restricting candidates to brick-and-mortar campaigning has the potential to prevent the sort of ridiculously overblown campaigning we see in the US by keeping candidates more accountable for what they say. Secondly, this policy may actually help political expression. By keeping candidates off of the internet, citizens are allowed to shape the discussion, thus creating an inter-citizen dialogue instead of having one candidate preach at large groups of others. Just some thoughts.

Low voter turnout? Good!

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I do not see low voter turnout as a big deal. We have all these campaigns to "get out to vote!", "Rock the vote!", etc here in the states, and I see them as relatively pointless. If a person doesn't care who's running, doesn't know what the candidates views are on the issues, doesn't even know what issues they want the candidate to "agree" on, or, even worse, votes straight party line republicrat or demopublican, it really is a worthless vote. I think it's a fine thing that younger people in Japan feel if they don't know anything about who is running, that they don't have to get out to vote.

          On the other hand, I do think a wider dispersal of information about candidates would be a great thing; I would think, if the information availabe really is "I'm Tanaka! Vote for Tanaka" as some posters (that live in Japan) has stated, then web information could only be a good thing. I must admit, I didn't even look at candidates own sites, but do check the web for information about candidates; the candidates themselves are an ureliable source of information, since they will generally lie to sound how they think they should.. i.e one day they talk to an environmental group and talk about how they love their fuel-efficient hybrid, next day they're talking in Detroit, and wow! They have a Suburban AND an Expedition and drive both all the time.

Democracy

[BillGatesLoveChild]

Wasn't critizing the US Electoral College. Rather was pointing out it's not that different from a Parliamentary Democracy: In both cases you elect a proxy and the leader is elected through the proxy. The previous poster said Abe wasn't elected by Japanese Voters because Japan is a Parliamentary Democracy. I said if you claim that, you should equally claim Americans don't elect their President either. Just gluing back together a split hair :-)

Clearance

[unity100]

The fossils in parent post are not japanese people. OLD POLITICIANS.

Or as they would say...

[Floritard]

Japan Bans Use of Web Sites in Erections. I know I'm terrible

Japan culture

[Anonymous Coward]

I know a lot of Japanese people, and I think their culture has greatly affected their answers to these questions. To get a real answer out of someone from Japan, in my experience, you have to

1. know them well
2. ask them no less than three times (I'm not kidding)
3. and then know how to interpret their answer
4. go for your best guess if it was a question they didn't want to answer

There was an article somewhere (textbook?) that did a non-scientific test on truthful answers to questions to random ppl on the streets of different cities around the world. The questions were often related to things like "how do you like my shirt? I think New York was considered the most honest in that they had no problem saying the shirt sucked. Tokyo was the opposite of New York, as being polite and telling white lies was more culturally acceptable.

Also, consider the cultural idea that older = more respect in Japan. Some youngsters just answered that way to avoid sounding disrespectful.