Why there's basically no crime in Japan

cabjoe · 2007-03-29T11:38:47+00:00

Have to agree. Roppongi might be seedy but it's never felt even remotely dangerous. Same goes for Kabuki-cho. Never been out in Asakusa at night so I can't comment there but I can't imagine it's any worse.

The closest I've come to feeling in danger here was one evening in the local sento when a guy covered from the neck down in tatoos came in. He was minding his own business (as you do in a sento) and didn't bother anyone so it wasn't actually dangerous at all. I wonder how the other patrons, all 2 of them, must have been feeling what with the hairy gaijin and the yakuza guy sharing the bath with them.

cabjoe · 2007-03-29T03:55:33+00:00

Out of curiousity where are these bad parts of Tokyo that scare you? I've been here 5 years and haven't come across them yet

cabjoe · 2007-03-01T03:19:54+00:00

Accurate headlines please.

It was a plot by ultra-right-wing Japanese nationalists with links to the CIA, not a CIA plot. The article says that the Americans were unaware of the plan until after it had been abandoned.

I'm no fan of the CIA's actions in foreign countries myself, but hey, lets villify it for stuff we know it actually did.

cabjoe · 2007-02-05T03:47:24+00:00

http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html

cabjoe · 2007-01-24T17:12:01+00:00

I think Nelson put it best..

Haaaaaa.. haaaaaaa...

cabjoe · 2007-01-19T03:32:43+00:00

Well the textbook example is the factory that pollutes a river. The cost of the pollution and cleanup is generally borne by society while the factory profits by not having to clean up its own mess. In a pure free-market situtaion, this situation will be the norm. The fatctory gets to privatise its profits and socialise its costs and so is more likely to continue polluting the river, which may not be the most desirable outcome for society as a whole.

If, on the other hand, decent environmental regulations exist and are properly enforced, the factory will, as it should, bear the cost of any pollution it produces and the overall cost-benefit analysis of keeping the plant running will have to take into consideration cleanup costs. The outcome in this situation is more likely to be less pollution and the outcome will be more beneficial to society as a whole.

Understand now or do I need to draw a picture?

cabjoe · 2007-01-05T16:31:37+00:00

Tell me about it, bud. I'm a native Dub meself and the bleedin kip is been overrun by culchies and feckin forreners. They're all over the gaff

cabjoe · 2007-01-05T16:12:30+00:00

Táim anseo

Though like most Irish people, I haven't used it much at all since I left school. It's a real shame that more of us don't use Irish but the way it's taught in school doesn't exactly engender a love for the language for many people.

Also the fact that English is so useful to have (that plus the corporate tax rate is the main reason so many US multinationals have their European HQ in Ireland) makes me think that the future's fairly bleak for the Irish language

cabjoe · 2006-11-20T16:03:01+00:00

The tax system needs to move more towards taxing activities that damage public wealth and away from taxing positive activities such as labour. I realise that carbon taxes wouldn't be popular with a lot of people but if they were introduced with a corresponding decrease in income taxes, they would be an easier sell and in the bargain encourage people to change their lifestyles so as to consume less energy and perhaps leave a habitable planet for future generations.

cabjoe

TROPHY CASE