The Japanese Power Vacuum: Where Will They Go Now?
So, some background for those unfamiliar with Japanese politics:
In the post-war era, Japanese politics has been technically a multi-party system with one party that dominated all the elections, the Liberal-Democratic Party (the LDP). Up until 1993, the LDP won a clear majority every time and were in charge of the Diet (Japanese Parliament). In 1993, because of the Recruit Scandal and a whole bunch of other nonsense, members of the LDP casted votes of no confidence against the then-Prime Minister Kiichi Miyazawa, and Miyazawa in return dissolved the Diet. Dissenting LDP members created and joined other parties, and the result was an eight(!!!)-party alliance with Morihiro Hosokawa as the 11-month Prime Minister.
Interesting fact about Miyazawa — he once threw up in the lap of George Bush, Sr. True story.
Another interesting fact — Ichiro Ozawa was also the engineer behind this small political crisis (as with the current one). He’s the one who glued together the eight-party alliance and served as a “Shadow Shogun” type figure under the Hosokawa administration (a la Dick Cheney in the Bush Administration).
After the 1993 election, the LDP was able to regain control over the Diet, although from then on it would need to be a part of a coalition in order to maintain the majority (e.g. with the Komeito Party and others). So, in 1993, things changed (kinda), and then they reverted because the change wasn’t real.
That’s why the election of Yukio Hatoyama was so significant. He’s a member of the DPJ, the Democratic Party of Japan. This was the first time in post-war Japanese politics that the party change was genuine. There has been a lot of discontent in Japan for the last two decades (dubbed “the lost decades”) due to recession, an aging population, and tense international relations. Ironically so, the reign of former PM Junichiro Koizumi (2001-2006), the charismatic maverick Lion of Japan, contributed greatly to the DPJ’s coup as well. Japanese specialists at the time were speculating that it’d be hard to fill the shoes of someone like Koizumi, and they were right. Koizumi’s protege, Shinzo Abe, turned out to be nothing like him at all. He made some really unfortunate comments about the existence (or “lack thereof”) of “comfort women” — women who were forced to be sex slaves to Japanese military during WWII. His agricultural minister then committed suicide in the midst of a financial scandal, and Abe’s popularity rating plummeted, and he resigned after one year in office. Four other PMs have resigned since him. Basically, Japanese politics reverted back to the status quo ante-Koizumi at a time when the Japanese people have been in need of a strong leader that can make policies to pull the country out of economic stagnation. This is basically why Hatoyama got elected.
Thus, Hatoyama’s election itself was a revolution of sorts. Even though he needed the backing of the Social Democratic Party and the People’s New Party in order to have a majority in the Diet, he was able to win 42.4% of the vote. With the help of Ozawa, yami shogun-sama. Hatoyama made many promises: reduce the power of the bureaucracy (which would further lessen the LDP’s power over the Diet because it would weaken the LDP-Bureaucracy-Big Business Iron Triangle that has existed up until now), raising the minimum wage, reducing the fuel tax, giving a monthly allowance to families with children, farmer subsidies, and work towards moving US military bases from Okinawa.
So, what happened?
Campaign funding scandals happened, and Hatoyama was already losing favor in the polls because he did not follow through on his promise to work with the Americans to relocate the Okinawan base. Now Japan is left with a serious power vacuum. There are a few possible options for what could happen in the next election cycle:
1. The LDP could get its act together and find a charismatic and politically scandal-free candidate to run and win. This option is unlikely, because I can’t think of one.
2. Another unlikely option, a third party candidate could become a Dark Horse. Despite the corrupt ways of both the LDP and DPJ, there seem to be no major 3rd parties gaining ground. But it’s still an option.
3. The most likely option: the DPJ will find a way to clear its tainted name by removing association with the Shadow Shogun Ozawa all together. The problem with this is that although Ozawa has resigned from office and made a public apology like Hatoyama, unlike Hatoyama, he has not promised to remove himself from politics in the future. Right now, it’s looking like Naoto Kan, the finance minister under Hatoyama and the current prime minister (as of the June 4th Leadership election), is the clear front runner. He has a politically clean record (that we know of) and has made a concerted effort to distance himself from Ozawa and Hatoyama. He has little experience in the field of economics, but during his time on the Hatoyama cabinet, he has proven himself a quick learner. Kan also has a great reputation for being a whistleblower from his time as a health minister in the 90s–he exposed bureaucrats who did not properly enforce regulations for testing blood for the HIV virus. These bureaucrats basically had allowed HIV-tainted blood to be given via transfusions, in particular to hemophiliacs who need them frequently. So, Kan has a reputation for being a bit of a gadfly with a strong distaste for the type of corruption that is typical in Japanese politics. He reminds me very much of Koizumi in these respects, so I hope that he goes on to win the general election.
My concern is this: Japan seems to be incapable of finding a strong leader who can fix some of its internal problems and the economic recession all while staying a viable player on the international front (with North Korea as a constant threat). Since 2006, Japan has had five Prime Ministers–a disgrace to democracy, but at the same time, a bit of déjà vu for Japan specialists. Japan’s new leaders need to step it up and not revert to the ante-Koizumi status quo, because the election of Hatoyama was a mandate from the public that they will not tolerate the old Iron Triangle system anymore. This requires a charismatic leader with a pair, and hopefully Naoto Kan can follow through with these expectations until the next general election.
Smith College 2010 Commencement and Ambivalence About Ford Hall
Posted by Nellie in Smith College on May 17th, 2010
This weekend, I went to the 2010 Smith College Commencement. I had a great time with all my awesome Smithies, the weather was lovely all weekend, and the Commencement speaker was Rachel Maddow! I loved her speech, so I have embedded it here.
Almost as awesome as my commencement speaker.
So, this year was a big year for Smith College. One of the biggest things was the opening of Ford Hall, the new engineering building, which has finally opened after many years of construction and waking Smithies up on Green Street. The cost? $73 million. And as with everything else that happens at Smith College, there is controversy (and I have an opinion about it).
Smith College’s Picker Engineering Program is the first and only accredited all-women’s engineering program, and it’s been around since 1999. We are very proud of our program, but I’m gonna be straightforward: so far, it has been small, and it’s stayed small (maybe about 30 people in the c/o 2010?). Why? A multitude of reasons. People don’t associate LACs with engineering. There are still far fewer women in engineering than men. There is no graduate program to go along with the undergrad. The program is excruciatingly rigorous, and it takes a certain personality type to handle all the work (i.e. masochists). Smith seems to be under the impression that it’s is not advertised enough, so they have spent tons of money to make the engineering program all shiny and stuff. Also, a lot of time is spent trying to convince undergrads in the sciences to switch to engineering. “Pure” science and applied science are not the same thing!
Of course, I support the engineering program, but $73 million is excessive for a program of its size (approximately 5% of the college’s population). $12.6 million came from the Ford Company. The rest came from [or is going to come from], um…Smith’s administration hasn’t told us yet. I’m assuming that it’s coming out of our endowment, but the endowment has shrunk significantly in the last few years (yay recessions!). Lots of other things have been cut due to budgetary constraints, e.g. dining, housekeeping staff, financial aid, campus organization budgets, the department budgets for various humanities subjects. Not to mention the hiring freezes. East Asian Languages & Cultures and East Asian Studies both took some big hits. Our EALC and EAS programs are the best amongst all the LACs–we have the largest departments and offer the most classes about East Asia–and East Asia is one of those “hot” fields of study, so the cuts simply don’t make sense. None of the cuts make sense, actually. Our housing and dining system is one of the big perks of going to Smith. So are the campus organizations.
On the plus side, the building is beautiful, and finally the engineers have a decent place to study and have classes. The architects were from Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, all the workers were from the union, and the facility is eco-friendly.
But, y’know…Yeah, America is great. But we killed a lot of Indians to get here.
Steve Jobs is a Dick
Posted by Nellie in technology on April 29th, 2010
(cue Kyle’s mom’s is a bitch)
Weeell… Steve Jobs is a dick, he’s a big fat dick, he’s the biggest dick in the whole wide world. And not in that good way.
First reason involves Gizmodo-gate and the police raid of Jason Chen’s home. Apple got so much free press from the issue, from USA today and CBS and CNN…you get the point. He gave the phone back after they asked for it. Why on earth would they decide to raid his home? Who at Apple thought this was a good idea? Why would you diss your biggest fans?
Reason number two why Steve Jobs is a dick: he kicks his BFF Adobe in the balls by releasing this 1500-word essay on why Flash is obsolete. Now, he raises some good points. From an SEO point of view, Flash is annoying. I recognize that it has it’s place, however, from games to fancy car websites that don’t need my SEO help to hilarious animations to ridiculous Japanese music.
But a lot of Jobs’s issues with Flash products revolve around how some of Apple’s products aren’t able to use Flash. Whose fault is that, really? He points the finger at Adobe, saying that their products aren’t compatible with touch screens and that Adobe is a “closed system” (ironic, coming from the Maestro of Closed Systems himself). And Adobe points the finger at Apple, saying they haven’t even tried to develop Flash-compatible touch screen products because Apple is trying to protect the interests of their app store. In his essay, Jobs basically affirms Adobe’s accusation when he says
Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free.
Reading between the lines, all I can see is PROFIT. Also in this essay, Jobs also basically disses any involvement Adobe had with helping Apple’s popularity (see the entire first paragraph). Adobe’s Creative Suite was a huge incentive for designers to buy Apple products in the early days.
Way to step on your supporters, Steve Jobs. You’re a dick.
Love,
Nellie
the Arizona Immigration Bill – A Defilement of Civil Liberties
the Arizona Immigration Bill SB1070
I am thankful that our oh-so-liberal media has been opposed to this bill, because the infringement on civil liberties here is a disgrace. Illegal immigration has been a huge shock to the US in the last decade. A lot of the concerns surrounding the immigrant influx of the last decade are based on nothing but fear and xenophobia. Sure, it’s a problem. But what’s the real problem here? Are these people actually criminals? Do they actually take our jobs? Or are these just fears that are manipulated by politicians to perpetuate their own self interest?
Are illegal aliens criminals? According to the law as it is now, illegal residency is a federal civil offense. However, in reality, these people are reduced to the level of a common criminal by being forced to behave survivalistically–jumping over fences and fending off the gun-totin’ Citizen Border Patrol and swimming miles in the ocean–just to be able to enter this country. Because people don’t get the permission they need to enter the country lawfully, they resort to unlawful methods. We’ve turned otherwise ordinary people into criminals by prohibiting their entrance into this country. Just like with everything else in economics, when you prohibit or limit the supply/demand equilibrium, you are going to end up with illegal black market activity. …I think our politicians need to take Intro to Macroeconomics again.
Prohibiting entrance also creates another dangerous problem — criminals now have the advantage and the incentive to come over. We’re selecting for people who behave criminally to enter the country. Thus, all of our complaints about how illegals can be “dangerous” is no one’s fault but our own.
Another so-called problem with illegal immigration is that “they” (the illegal immigrants) take jobs away from “us” (the “real” Americans). This, however, is a flawed assumption. “They” often perform tasks that American citizens won’t perform. California wine country is a great example of this. Illegal immigrants are also a viable market demographic, and many small Southwestern towns (some of which are in Arizona!) are dependent upon their illegal population on both the supply and the demand side.
Our current situation is that of uncomfortable equilibrium. Illegal workers are a major way that American-made products are staying competitive in the world market. With the growing sophistication of China’s manufacturing capabilities, it’s becoming more difficult for the US to not outsource most of its manufacturing to reduce costs. This equilibrium is supported by both wealthy and blue collar conservatives, the former because the profits keep coming in, the latter because their jobs are still relevant in this country. However, the blue collar conservatives are being lied to egregiously — they’re being told that the illegal immigrants are the reason for their lost jobs, not that global market competition dictates that they’re getting paid way too much for the job they’re doing in the first place, thus natural market activity is making their job irrelevant (which is the reason why illegal immigrants so easily undercut, say, union workers). Naturally, the second explanation is more difficult to understand, and it’s a harder pill to swallow.
So, the wealthy members of the conservative party have to keep an equilibrium — keep everyone xenophobic, but not make them xenophobic enough so that they want to kick the immigrants out. With the bill, it seems that their balancing act has gotten out of hand. There’s no way that this is going to pass unnoticed by the Supreme Court. It’s an obvious violation of our 4th Amendment rights, as everyone even has the right to refuse to show identification to law enforcement without probable cause. Of course, now the problem lies in what “probable cause” means. Currently, the only way to be suspicious of whether or not someone is illegal is to use some major racial profiling and assume that all non-white Hispanic-looking people might possibly be illegal immigrants. I’m pretty olive-skinned, are they gonna card me too? Sigh.
The solution to these problems is so amazingly simple — open up our borders. Not entirely, but relaxing some of our regulations and immigration quotas would eliminate a great deal of this nonsense. Opening up the border would have a number of its own consequences, naturally; however, I think that most of these fears we have are rooted in xenophobia, white privilege, and entitlement.
And now, from the Colbert Report…No Problemo!
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| The Word – No Problemo | ||||
|
||||
And Rachel Maddow on the subject:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Thoughts on Cannabis “Addiction”
Posted by Nellie in Drug Policy on July 28th, 2009
At the center I work for, a new program was launched called S.A.L.S.A. — “Students Advocating Life without Substance Abuse.” The students are high schoolers that go around to middle schools and talk about the harmful effects of substance abuse. It sounds like a totally wholesome program, but I’m ambivalent. The students focus on two substances, alcohol and cannabis. No other substances are discussed.
Alcohol has been extensively studied. We know about its potentially addictive properties. We know that we shouldn’t drink and drive. I don’t have a problem with telling young people they shouldn’t drink until their brains and bodies are fully developed. I also have no problem with saying that drinking in excess is bad. Just as long as alcohol isn’t treated as a taboo, I’m good.
But the bit on cannabis use got to me. As with alcohol, I don’t have a problem with saying that under-aged kids shouldn’t smoke. We don’t really know what the effects are on a developing brain, and I’d rather we don’t find out. The real hot button issue for me was when they mentioned cannabis addiction.
According to the FDA, cannabis is a Schedule 1 drug, which means it is classified as having a high risk of dependency. However, I’ve never seen an independent study definitively show that one can become physically dependent on the drug. Ok, I take that back — I’ve seen some say that there are mild withdrawal symptoms such as restlessness, irritability, mild agitation, nausea, insomnia, sleep disturbance. Let us compare this to caffeine withdrawal symptoms: moderate to severe headache typically lasting 1-2 days, mood instability, nausea and/or vomiting, muscle pain and/or stiffness. And nicotine withdrawal…I’d rather not relive that. So, according to the logic that many anti-cannabis advocates use, cigarettes, caffeine, and alcohol should all be illegal, because they all have addictive properties.
I don’t believe that any study has actually determined causality when it comes to cannabis and these supposed withdrawal symptoms either. Many use the drug in order to relieve nausea, anxiety, or insomnia in the first place. It only follows that if they stopped usage, those symptoms would come back.
In terms of dependence, what I have seen is emotional or psychological dependence. Smoking pot makes a person feel good. That person proceeds to stop worrying about all problems. For many people (I’d venture to say most), when the worry isn’t there, the drive to do anything about the situation disappears. It’s easy to get addicted to feeling good, especially if already dealing with depression or a lot of emotional pain. And that’s how people become addicted to food, exercise, etc., which are fine in moderation and harmful in excess.
If any of you have found any good research on the topic, I’d love to see it. I’m always up for scientific evidence one way or the other.
Thoughts about working with children in Roxbury
I have been trying to get a blog started for so long, and when I finally did, I got writer’s block. Shame! But now I have something to post about. I’ve been working at the Boston Learning Center for five months now. What I’ve seen in this short period of time would make anyone lose faith in our education system. The engrained classism and racism in our system is astounding, even in a liberal place like Boston.
To give a short background, I’m currently teaching two different summer classes at two different community centers in Roxbury. One class is for 5-7 year olds, the other is for 13-17 year olds. Both programs are for girls only, and both are designed to change the paradigms these girls have learned.
One of the main things I’ve learned is that black and latino students are taught from the very beginning that they will lead lives of failure and mediocrity. The sad part about it is that they are not only treated this way by society but also by their own parents. On the surface, they’re told that they can do whatever they aspire to do. But teachers aim lower with these kinds of students–they automatically assume these kids know less, they give them easier work, and they don’t challenge them at all. And one of the biggest things I’ve realized is that no one trusts these kids. How will they ever believe that they change acheive if no one else ever believes in them?
Teachers unions are also one of the biggest contributing factors to mediocrity. Bill Gates said it in a very roundabout way in one of his TED talks (Bill Gates’ talk on mosquitoes, malaria and education — transcribed). Teachers have very little incentive to become better: their pay only goes up with seniority or if they get a higher degree. But the studies show that teaching quality levels off after about 3 years of experience in the classroom. So why do teachers get paid more for seniority? Unions. Plain and simple. Don’t get me wrong, teacher’s unions are necessary–teachers do need protection and they are an underrepresented, underpaid, and overworked group. But the system needs to be changed dramatically, especially when it comes to compensation and incentives.
And the last problem that I’ll mention today is MONEY. One of the most disgusting things about our society is that we seem to be okay with the current system of school funding. Richer districts have more money to fund schools, poorer districts have none. What message does this send our children? It teaches them that rich people inherently deserve more and that poor people will always be fucked by society.
Why Ron Paul is Wrong About North Korea
Ron Paul again distorts the facts to drive home his paranoid, isolationist message.
The “subsidies” that Ron Paul refers to here were actually a small part of a bigger vision, the Agreed Framework of 1994. The Agreed Framework was actually brilliant in theory–in short, the DPRK agreed to discontinue all nuclear weapons development in exchange for normalized relations and a light water reactor (LWR), a type of nuclear plant. They even signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The problems came with implementation. Legislators, particularly in the Republican Congress, were not willing to yield as much as was stated in the Framework. We never totally normalized relations with the DPRK. And to make things better, in January 2002, former President Bush took the liberty of calling the DPRK one of the “axis of evil.” It shouldn’t need to be said that calling an already paranoid, marginalized state “evil” was not a good idea. Given the circumstances, it should come as no surprise that by the time we got around to constructing the LWR in August 2002, the DPRK had renewed its weapons program. The CIA found evidence of a uranium-enriching centrifuge facility in November 2002, and from there our diplomatic relations fell apart.
Ron Paul doesn’t only need a history lesson–he needs one in economics and international relations as well. His argument of non-intervention is totally absurd. According to him, we shouldn’t give them money, but we shouldn’t threaten them either. Apparently, we should normalize all relationships with them and keep trading. This is borderline delusional. I think Dr. Paul forgot a very important fact here: the people of North Korea are starving (which he couldn’t resist pointing out) despite all of our subsidies to them, which were designed to help them alleviate this very problem. Why? Because Kim Jung Il funneled all of the money into his military. What makes Ron Paul think that Kim Jung Il wouldn’t do the same thing with money gained through trade with the US? In this respect, there is essentially no difference in giving them money through subsidies or through the “non-interventionist” policy he proposes.
Isolationism doesn’t work. We figured this out during World War II. Dr. Paul proposes that we should let it just be Japan or South Korea or China’s problem. He has again failed to recognize that in today’s increasingly globalizing world, Japan/South Korea/China’s problems are fundamentally our problems too.
Who is Vivid Prodigy?
Short answer: A 22-year-old with too many ideas in her head.
Long answer: I was born and raised in Charleston, SC, by two Bulgarian parents who accomplished the American Dream by hitting it big in the real estate market back in the 1990s. Think Flip This House with funny accents. I graduated from Smith College in 2007 with a degree in Government and East Asian Studies. I was inspired to study government because of political theory Professor Magnus Ryan, whose class I took as a high school student on the Cambridge College Programme. My focus eventually came to be international relations, particularly in the East Asian and Southeast Asian regions. After graduating, I moved to Cambridge, MA, and worked for a while, most notably at Harvard Business School. In my post-baccelaureate career, I also tried out a premed program. Currently, I am working at a major educational non-profit organization in Boston, where I do event planning, strategic planning, and fundraising, and soon I’ll be assistant director of one of their programs. On the side, I’m working on some humanitarian entrepreneurial projects with a mentor.
I have many and varied interests–politics, international relations, business, economics, social media, technology, health, science, religion, art, and the list goes on and on. Originally, the idea for a blog came during the 2008 presidential campaign, when I noticed that the quality of media and journalism was on the decline (i.e. untruths were being reported and the analyses of issues were one-sided and polarizing). Now that we have a different political administration, this still holds true. And as the President, the country, and the world face crisis after crisis, the public should know what’s really going on. Of course, this blog will reflect my own personal opinion, but my mission is to find the truth in the sea of information and misinformation.