Dear People of the World (formerly Dear Americans)

More than half of Japanese citizens disagree with amendment of article 9 of the constitution, which prohibites State's possesion of arms. Even among youngsters who never exprienced or know the stories about the war there exists strong opposition.

Even after 60 years, people's opinion about the Pacifist constitution is not greatly changed. No one wants the war. But some politicians want to change it.

Well, my opinion is since I am realist I agree with constitutional amendment.  But not now, in the future. One of the reason many people oppose the amendment is they fear that if the constitution is amended, our troops would be easily sent to anywhere by stupid politics. Recently Japan sent troops to Iraq to follow the order of Bush. Our country lacks civilian control functions in the politics. That means our country's democracy is not functioning well.

We have yet to review the mistakes we made in the past. Older generations never reflected how they were wrong in the past. We've been suffering the traumas of the past and have yet overcome it. One example is denying of Masscre of Nanking. We always regret the consequences of the war, not the cause of the war we provoked. We rarely talk about Manchuria and Pearl Harbor.

We have to study the cause of the past mistakes.

That is what we have to do to get ready for the amendment.

Some oppose it simply because they are passionate pacifist. They say they want to make their country completely non military state like CostaRica. But that is totally impossible taking current situation Japan is in into account.

We have the troops so called "Self-Defense Force" and foreign mercenaries mainly stationed in Okinawa island already. That means we need military force to protect our national interests. Also it is not good for our country to heavily rely on US military presence. US is our most reliable ally but the foreign troops who always prioritize their own national interest ahead of others after all.   

60 years have passed after Japan’s surrender in World War II, the citizens of Japan are able to speak about how much pain and suffering that they experienced as a result of the war, yet we are unable to discuss how much pain and suffering that Japan caused the citizens of other nations. To discuss such things one runs the risk of being labeled masochistic. Those in mass media willing to report upon the country’s responsibility for the atrocities that occurred during the war are also few and far between. Why do they not wish to cover such stories? One might reason that this is because the media reflects public opinion, but this is not the entire explanation. Rather it is also because the media itself bears a portion of blame.

The headline reads, “3.5 Million Yen! A Glorious Monument to Patriotism”. The article contains a report on the collection of 3.5 million yen in donations and introduces some of the donors following the Asahi Newspaper’s collection of donations for the production of military aircraft. Even a mother and her child in elementary school are featured among the donors. However, the reality is that the military aircraft produced from these donations was flown to China and used to bomb such cities as Chongqing resulting in the slaughter of innocent civilians. Many people would probably be surprised to hear that the Asahi Newspaper collected donations for production of military aircraft. Considering that the newspaper is known for being a large liberal media outlet which often covers Japan’s accountability for war crimes such as the issue with so-called “comfort women” and the Nan king Massacre. The Asahi Newspaper may now even seem pacifist with its recent critical position towards the Japanese Self Defense Forces participation in Iraq, but this was not the case just prior to World War II.　In fact, it may be more accurate to say that this was not the case for the period between the Manchurian Incident and the end of the war. Prior to the Manchurian Incident, which thrust Japan into the messy quagmire of the 15 year war to follow, the Asahi Newspaper objected to the dispatch of troops to Siberia during the Taisho Period (1911-1926) and further took the position of moderates who were in favor of a peaceful resolution without the use of military force to protect Japan’s interests in Manchuria.

Why then did this position change? It is generally understood that this change was due to the boycotts that occurred after the outbreak of the Manchurian incident in 1931. As a public weary of the economic recession leaned towards military fervor, Asahi found that it’s stance contrary to other media and not in sync with military views resulted in a drop in its sales. After this, the Asahi Newspaper editorial policy changed drastically. 

Prior to the war, it is generally said that newspapers, magazines, and other media could not criticize the military because they were subject to intense scrutiny by authorities and laws limited their freedom of speech. However, this was not the only reason. Mass media of this era not only failed to criticize, it became a backer in a sense fanning the flames of war. It chose to support the war in an effort to increase circulation and sales. In other words, it did so in tune with the public opinion of the time which was in favor of war. This same phenomenon is at work today. Great example is US media's reports on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Frankfurt School, established by Jewish Scholars who defected from Nazi Germany, is critical of mass media which takes this position. It says that the press and mass media should above all take a neutral and impartial position and should not curry favor with emotional public opinion. It is thought that the spread of Nazism in Nazi Germany was due to the bolster support provided by mass media. At that time it appeared that the papers’ sales grew and stimulated national opinion, but in fact mass media lost sight of the all important truth and dragged society in an utterly inane direction Germany, a defeated nation like Japan, chose to abolish all of the newspapers which bolstered the Nazi regime. Yet in Japan, the mass media of the prewar period survived. Moreover, it has yet to apologize to the public for the role that it played in World War II, and to this day the press club system symbolic of the cozy relationship between mass media and government officials still thrives. In fact, this may be why none of the Japanese newspapers are willing to own up to the past. It is for this reason that we, along with mass media, are unable to fully own up to our accountability and the circumstances of Japan’s defeat in the war.

Prime Minister Koizumi is idiot.

He is just making our country worse. He visited the controversial shrine which honours war criminals responsible for Japan's invasion of China. The shrine insists the war was just and liberated Asians from western imperialism. That is not true. The Japanese army killed many, many Asian civilians there.

Asian victims and their familes never forget that.

Half of Japanese citizens including me oppose his visit to the shrine. business people, too.

Prime Minister says it was private visit. Private? He went there with press. Since he is a PM, he can never be a private person.

For Americans, it should be great news, as Japan's relationship with China got worse, US government can get more dealing cards when it comes to negotiate with Japan or China. For China and Japan, it is just a bad card.   

The top picture is the sanctury of the shrine.

The shrine has the museum that shows how bravely Japanese army fought in the war. The war Japan failed.

The below is picture of famous zero-sen air-fighter.

I bought a DVD of the story behind America's one of the most popular show in history "Charlie's Angels."

It was almost like a story of the most popular Angel, Farrah Fewsett-Majors.

Since Farrah became the angel, her marriage life with Lee Majors, who was very popular as "6 million dollar man" in those days got in a big trouble. Then she decided to quit the show.

That was a big trouble for the production. The interesting thing was the contract between the production and Farrah was basically oral. You can't imagine this thing can happen in today's Hollywood. The actors there now have to sign on piles of contract papers in order to be in the show. In those days, oral agreement was common. 

In 1970's America, women's action drama was considered to be very unique. But there was feminist movement in those days, so their sexy detective characters were very criticised. I thought it was highly accepted by feminists because they act as independent strong women, not just being sexy. It seemed feminist women in those days expected too much from entertainment industry.

Anyway, it was a nice story. It is not documentary. It is a drama based on the book written by a former manager of Farrah. The actress who acted Farrah resembles real Farrah so much. However, I like Cheryl Ladd best among real 6 Angels. I hate the Angels in the movies.

Please also read http://dearamericans.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/04/30/ch...