What hinders the transformation of the opposition

 A typical article about how when things start to change, the opposite comes out.

 Well, I don't know what the speaker really meant, because it's possible that he edited the article to make it easier to understand, forcing it to talk only in one direction even if he was talking about something a little deeper...




 It seems that switching to the suggestion type is a bad idea.

 According to them, the proposal type is an easy partner for the administration, and there is no point in making proposals because they will just be snatched up. According to the commentator

To whom are we talking about when we say "proposal-based"? Are we talking about getting the government to accept proposals and appealing to voters about its ability to govern?

It would be so much easier for the government if the opposition parties, given the limited time available for questioning, gave priority to their own presentations while ignoring criticism. Voters will not recognize the need for regime change when the stable relationship between the ruling and opposition parties functions to pick and choose the proposals."


 If the ruling party had continued to accept the proposals of the opposition parties, there would be no doubt about its ability to maintain power. If the ruling party had continued to accept the opposition's proposals, it would not only be questioning its ability to stay in power, but would also be asking, "Wouldn't it be better to change the government? In fact, it would make sense to appeal to the voters by saying, "Our policies are reflected in your policies! I think it makes sense to appeal to the voters.

 It seems to me that there is a certain level of recognition that the opposition parties should specialize in finding fault with each other due to the 55-year system. There was another article (by Sankei) that said that the opposition parties are more comfortable with themselves, and I guess that is what will happen. I guess the assumption in Japan is that opposition parties are not supposed to implement any policies.




 That may be fine for the elderly. In reality, support for the LDP is higher among the young. The old-fashioned supporters of the LDP may appreciate this attitude. However, an attitude of constant criticism will not be well received by the young. In response to this, he says that the preconditions are different from the first place.

 The Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan is about 80% in favor of the government's bills.

 I don't know if it's a good thing if you agree with them, but according to the numbers, they are not only criticizing, but also agreeing with a lot of them...

 And then

In the first place, opposition parties are opposition parties because they are ideologically different from the ruling party, and it is natural for them to be at odds with each other in terms of policy.

 In short, the remaining 20% of the opposition parties say that it is natural for them to be at odds with the ruling party (and I read this favorably, but if I read it a little maliciously, I could say that 80% of the opposition parties agree with the ruling party when they should be at odds with it on policy. This may be why the opposition parties are becoming weak.) ) Confrontation is natural, but what about one-sided criticism? In response

 The opposition members in the Diet do not suddenly become enraged and start criticizing the government. However, if the government continues to read off the pages of unanswered questions or makes incoherent excuses, the tone of their criticism will become harsher. However, when the ruling party's answers are spliced together, edited into a plausible form, and reported in combination with the spliced answers, the opposition party's questions appear to be unreasonably rhetorical.

 So, it is only because of the editing that it looks that way.

 If this is the case, as I pointed out in my previous article, we need a national TV station that will just show the Diet without any editing. That is the mission, no fun, no editing, just media for the sake of it.





 ※A translation of the above text will be provided later.

  We also published an article in English.






 I don't know if I agree that editing is bad. But that doesn't mean that the proposed opposition is bad.

 And the main reason why it is not popular among young people is this power-harassing, partly-elderly, attack performance. It is not hard to understand that it is a cut-and-dry performance, but at any rate, the show is this kind of attack. I'm sure the performers are aware of this. I think they are talking about how to improve the situation where this is not accepted by young people and is only criticized.


 I believe that the political reform of the Heisei era was to break away from the 55-year system and to create a tense political system that would allow for a change of government.

Without criticism, how can society develop and political power become healthy?

It is irresponsible pseudo-democracy to say, "The government is doing its best, so let's all work together.

 As sovereign citizens, we should actively participate in politics toward the ideals that we should have. You seem to be recommending a critical opposition party* since the 55-year system, but times are changing. Instead of criticizing to make political power sounder (in other words, to complement it), opposition parties should be expected to change themselves to make better politics and realize their own policies. As a complementary force to the ruling party, it is not the role of the opposition to criticize and improve the ruling party (although this was the case under the 55-year system).


 (This was the case under the 55-year system.) Most contextually, we are not talking about the opposition parties here, but about the newspapers. I think it is because the media indulges the opposition parties and even if they become a complementary force to the ruling party.... Maybe it's not about the opposition, but if so, what should the opposition do in the end? In the middle of the article, the discussion turned to newspapers and media, making it difficult to understand.


 Since the title of the article is "The Perils of Pseudo-Democracy," the last part may be the main focus, but if it's the media who is calling the shots, that's a problem. Perhaps it's to the voters. After all, let's have more criticism! It may be a call for more criticism.


 However, we should not forget that the younger generation is getting tired of the lack of constructive criticism in the current world where criticism is frowned upon.

 No matter what we do, all we get is criticism, and for the past 30 years, we have been stagnant and have nothing constructive to offer. We must not forget this world situation.


 We need constructive suggestions, not criticism, and it's fine if the suggestions include criticism of the other party, but we have better ideas! I'm not denying that we have a better idea!


 I can do better than you! So get out of the way! Then I can understand, but the criticism of the 55-year system is a criticism of the attitude of criticizing, but not doing it oneself, without spending any money.



The Essence of Life as Known Only to Those Who Live Risk

Author: Nassim Nicholas Taleb
Diamond Inc.



 There are many ways to say what Taleb is saying, and there is also a question of what it indicates to cut one's losses in general, but it is necessary to do so in the face of the fear of repercussions for oneself, and there is no point in only criticizing from a safe territory.

 There is no point in only criticizing from a safe distance. It is important to be able to do something better on behalf of the other party, and if you cannot do so, you must accept criticism.


 In addition

 On the other hand, what can we do about the so-called "Morikake" issue or the "Cherry Blossom Viewing Party" issue other than criticizing or pursuing? There is no way to come up with countermeasures. If you watch the news and feel that the government is still at it, it is the fault of the ruling party for causing scandals and not responding to questions from the opposition in good faith.

 This is the devil's proof, as we have been told repeatedly. They claim that they have not responded to the allegations and say that they are suspicious and dubious. If it were a clear case of corruption, it would be left to the prosecutors & the ruling party would have a sense of urgency. If it is a clear case of corruption, the prosecutors will leave it to the ruling party and the ruling party will feel threatened. If it is such a case, it will be easy to change the government and it will not be necessary to raise suspicious and questionable issues in the Diet. The ruling party would be able to change the government easily, and they would not have to make suspicious statements in the Diet. Because of this strategy, Tsujimoto and other suspicious parties would be able to fight back. Well, I think that's good in itself because it's good for both parties and for the people.

 Also, you say you can't come up with a counterproposal, but is that so? It should be possible to propose a system that would prevent this from happening, and the opposition's strategy should be to assume that the alleged problem existed and submit a plan to prevent it in a straightforward manner. Even if the ruling party tries to go back to the fact that there was no such problem, they should just assume that there was and say, "Let's make sure this doesn't happen again.

 There are many things that can be proposed, such as strengthening the authority of the prosecutor's office to investigate, proposing a system to make political intervention more difficult, such as a reporting system, banning politicians from talking to bureaucrats except for policy consultations, and requiring recording and documentation of interviews. If they resist, they can say, "Well, well... do you have something to be ashamed of? If they are reluctant to do so, you can press them in a sarcastic manner.

 If you're talking about the future, not the past, it's good to be positive.


 There are many ways to be positive and damage the other party, instead of trying to prove that there is no such thing as the devil.


 I'm not too impressed with this, but a good example would be the Restoration Party's correspondence fee issue.

 If you resist, they criticize you for having something to hide! This is a better tactic.


 This is a more sophisticated tactic.


 Instead of criticism, make suggestions. It's okay to criticize the other party in your proposal, but it's important to include something positive and constructive.


 What is required of the opposition parties, the media, and the voters in general is constructive suggestions.


 So, since I've been doing a lot of freewheeling from a third party without spending any of my own money, I think I need to spend some of my own money once in a while! (Of course, this is not to say that I don't want to be a third party.

 (Of course, criticism from a third party is also important, and there are things that can be seen by taking a step back from the parties involved. (Of course, third-party criticism is also important, and there are things that can be seen by taking a step back from the parties involved and critiquing them.)
*** Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) ***



 ※Translation of an earlier article

 NHK, never the Japan Housemates Association, is under fire by NHK, the Japan Broadcasting Corporation




 First of all, the motive for adding subtitles that are not true is unclear. Well, whatever it is, the subtitle fiasco is not going away.

 It's a politically sensitive subject, and the subtitles are not factual, which could be seen as a public broadcasting service, not a state-run one, broadcasting on the side of the government.

 It is unlikely that the situation will ever be resolved, but it is unlikely that drastic reforms will be made. It's about time for public broadcasting to get some votes.


 It's about time that the public broadcasting system is overhauled, and we should be grateful for what it has done.

 In the first place, there is no need for NHK to engage in variety shows or any other business that would generate a lot of revenue. Whether it is Kohaku or Taiga dramas, the public nature of these programs is unknown, and those who like them can watch them.

 The same is true for BS broadcasting of big league baseball games and other sports broadcasts, which I am personally indebted to. I think people should be able to watch what they want to watch on cable TV or other subscription-based services.


 In the case of politics, there are a lot of sources that are actively reporting or propagandizing in many fields, so it is not worth NHK's time to broadcast something that is biased or untrue, which could be criticized as poor propaganda on the part of the government. There are probably people who are paid to give false testimonies on NHK*, and if you choose the right people, you can pick up as many arbitrary voices as you want. There are people who are paid to give false testimony on NHK.

 It is possible to pretend to be on the side of the opposing forces and make claims to discredit them.

 There is no limit to what you can do if you start to suspect, and you can do anything you want.


 On the other hand, there are important things that are not profitable at all. For example, live coverage of the Diet session (no one but the most politically connected would watch a Diet session on cable TV), 24-hour disaster information, and speeches by politicians (based on the Public Office Election Law). Political material will be all over YouTube, but live political information is difficult to find in some places. I would like to see something objective. Also, disaster information is useful but difficult to monetize. It is unlikely that many people would sign up for a disaster information channel just in case, and it would cost a lot of money to provide 24/7 support (even if you get the information from the government. (Even if you get information from the government, you will also need to be able to move around during a disaster to some extent. It is not possible to have commercials during times of disaster, and I think it would be a little bit difficult to have information that is usually about depth 1...and on and on. It is possible to have a weather forecast as well, but it would be difficult, and I would like to see this kind of information as a national minimum. Political speeches are also essential from the perspective of fairness. It is important in a democracy to be able to broadcast speeches throughout the country regardless of financial power.


 NHK should be split up and the former fully privatized as a profit-making company (although the Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications (MIC) would probably have to own a portion of the shares at first), and the airwaves should be auctioned, with the possibility of bankruptcy if the auction does not yield enough revenue.

 If there is a concern about too much vulgarization, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC), which is a shareholder of the company, can put a stop to it, but too much government involvement is not good. However, restrictions on foreign investment will be put in place.

 On the other hand, I think the latter should be nationalized.

 On the premise that as a state-run TV station, it should convey the government's views, but it should also provide information on disasters, provide live coverage of the Diet, and broadcast speeches fairly from each party.

 The content would be so boring that almost no one would watch state-run TV, and it would be the minimum content for a national minimum, which would be operated by taxpayers. In terms of content, there are only government views, government PR, speeches by politicians, disaster/weather information, and live coverage of the Diet. The live broadcast of the Diet would be more extensive than NHK's current broadcast, and all committee meetings would be broadcast.

 Use fixed cameras as much as possible, without editing, without spending money, and keep the speeches of politicians as they are. At any rate, make it possible to understand the "originals" (broadcast the submitted materials as they are, just as in political broadcasts).

 Even so, there is a possibility of arbitrariness in the selection, but we will take advantage of the fact that it is a state-run program and stick to it as is, without seeking to make it interesting.

 If I have to do something else, I will translate foreign broadcasts. Although mistranslations are not impossible, the basics are the same. If the subtitles are left as they are, with no overlap, either in Japanese or with simultaneous interpretation (with the secondary audio remaining the same), even if a mistake is made, it won't be a big problem because people who understand the original language will be able to see it. In the first place, anything that goes beyond the scope of mistranslation would be considered falsification, and could be sued by foreign media.

 This may be an important feature that commercial broadcasters cannot provide.


 The current NHK has too many problems, it is criticized by both the left and the right (the right says it is more leftist, the left says it is more rightist, and the right says it is like a propaganda agency of the government), it is often under fire for its content, and many of its programs are full of inaccuracies. In fact, most of the specialized programs are often under fire for their content, and many of them are full of inaccuracies, and I don't know where they are going. In fact, most of the specialized programs are halfway leveled and look difficult and respectable, but the content is pretty bad or elementary, or full of intricacies and non-technical to make it easy to get into), and there is nothing you can do about it.

 Not only the program that went up in flames this time, but all the programs are not high in quality level, for example, a fake history program with a historical novelist and an announcer. I don't know if it's a novel, historical content (with controversy), or something else, but they make episodic or entertaining programs. I don't mean to say that there is anything wrong with the "funny" type of history, but that's what cable TV is for, and people who like history should be able to watch it (and the level of interest should be divided there. (Also, the level should be divided into those who like history, whether it's a full-fledged academic series, a funny episodic series, a history that can be used for business management (actually, it's impossible)! or novels, etc.)

 The same goes for music, art, technology, politics, and economics. The occasional debate between politicians is about as decent as it gets.

 I often wonder what is the point of broadcasting personal subjectivity on public TV (I think it's fine if it's done on YouTube, cable TV, or commercial TV because it's popular).

 Of course, in the end, there is no other way but to include "subjectivity," so it is important to cross multiple "subjective" viewpoints, but this is not the case. It should introduce the viewpoints and opinions of both the opposition party and the ruling party, but it is indifferent to one side (the current flare-up is the end result of that), and there is almost no attitude of inviting members of both parties to comment on their own stories, as is done overseas.

 →It is important to have both sides of the argument, not just the ruling and opposition parties.


 There is no incentive for NHK to do something about it. There is no incentive for NHK to do something about it. (There is no incentive for NHK. (This is more reasonable).

 (This is more reasonable.) Even if they stay in bed, the necessary things should remain state-run (rather than offering poor editing incentives. ) The rest should be privatized.


 In any case, I think it is time for a drastic reform in the context of information law.

*** Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) ***