*Insert moobs joke here*
Where to start with this monstrosity? Much like Ms McCarthy hides her head in the sand in the face of scientific evidence, Mr Arudou resorts to name-calling and trying to tweak emotions in the face of a calm evaluation of the situation. As ever, the apparent effort that has been put into the overdone and tortuous wordplay that would not be out of place in a satire but sits uneasily in a serious piece far outweighs the effort in researching the facts. One could be forgiven for thinking that he wasn’t even in the country for the last month. 
Mr Arudou, Debito, Dave, or whatever you want to be called: have some balls and come out and say you are against nuclear power; don’t dress up your opposition in cowardly paranoia about how The Japanese State is out to get you and everyone else.
Prime Minister Naoto Kan was on the scene with rescue teams almost immediately.
No he wasn’t. He did take a helicopter flight over Fukushima the day after the earthquake (allegedly delaying vital work), called off one visit to the scene due to a bit of rain, then finally arrived over three weeks after the earthquake, an even slower response than the three days it took the then Prime Minister to visit the site of the Kobe quake.
I thought Kan did the best he could
Yes, a lot of people thought that, although that isn’t saying very much…
Japan’s "nanny state": the assumption that "father knows best"
Surely a nanny state is one where nanny knows best? Or is that too sexist?
The reflexive, obsessive control of information has done our people a great disservice.
Just because the NHK news (and the broadsheets too) aren’t running around like headless chickens proclaiming we’re all going to die, unlike, say, CNN (which I seem to remember you saying you were watching) it doesn’t mean that they are controlling information. Did you actually watch the NHK coverage or the press conferences?
lipstick on a wasteful political boondoggle
:roll:
the story came under more demanding global standards of scrutiny. [...] This caused burgeoning speculation
Which was it? Is the global standard rampant speculation when the facts are lacking?
a media meltdown poisoned by gross mutations of logic.
Like the ones you’re making in this article?
Japan adjusted "safe levels of radiation exposure" to suit political expediency.
No it didn’t. It upped the exposure rate for workers from 50 millisieverts to 250 millisieverts in accordance with practices in other countries for dealing with emergencies. Furthermore, Edano has been talking about reviewing the 20 km exclusion zone (outward, not inward), but has explicitly ruled out raising acceptable exposure rates in the air or in foodstuffs.
While Japan’s media cartels as usual skimped on investigative journalism
NHK Newswatch 9 had an interview with one guy talking about how readings in the turbine room were hidden from the workers and there was only one dosimeter per team, not per person as required by the regulations. Such a cover-up by Team Japan! Furthermore, tonight had another anonymous worker, a team leader, talking about how they have a mountain to climb but are still at the bottom looking up – radiation levels are so high that they can only screw in one bolt before having to exit the area.
People moving to a safer location were treated as deserters.
However, one popular destination, Hong Kong, is actually more dangerous.
We were told that nuclear power was safe.
That was bollocks when you first said it and is still bollocks today.
Part of it is due to the lack of class-action lawsuit mechanisms in Japan’s judiciary
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
This is a society, remember, that has never experienced a popular grassroots revolution in its history.
What about Sakamoto Ryoma? The UK has never had a grassroots revolution. Do you tar my homeland with the same brush? Iran had a grassroots revolution about 30 years ago and that worked out really well.
Has there been confirmation about Debito’s alledged trip to Canada?
As I much as I disagree with his content, method, etc.; I can’t hold Debito’s supposed trip against him (especially if he had planned and departed for it before the events in March).
I disagree with the majority of what he wrote, but, as a Japanese national, I do feel that Debito has right to comment about his adopted country from abroad. As much as I disagree with it….
>As I much as I disagree with his content, method, etc.; I can’t hold Debito’s supposed trip against him (especially if he had planned and departed for it before the events in March).
AC, fair enough. I don’t think anyone so far is operating under the view that Debit’s a flyjin or anything. However, by letting his debitards assume that he’s boots-on-the-ground in Japan and keeping up with all the news sources available here and not there, it’s dishonest of him to write about the “lack” of information or “coverups” by the evil Japanese government, given that he doesn’t actually know anything.
That’s the way I see it, anyway.
Simon, that’s just what I was going to say to AC too. If he’s in Canada (and he surely must be, as I believe the second-hand evidence I have had from a trustworthy source) and watching CNN on his own admittance, then he is just making stuff up, much in the same way as he made stuff up about the census during last year’s trip to Canada.
Personally, I think he was or is in Canada also. I think the most incriminating piece of evidence is Debito’s absolute lack of refuting these allegations and rumors. He has refuted far less, far more aggressively.
But, as you know, I’m always a little wary of wading into alleging-with-less-than-100% waters as that is one of my major criticisms of Debito.
Where to start?
@nigelboy:’I don’t give a flying F*** where Mike graduated.’ No, I don’t imagine you do since you are most likely not his employer….
@level3, chrysansemumsniffer,LB, and Jerry: Thank you for your replies. I see your point, and it sounds pretty fair to me.
@mcc: ‘debito apologist’ ?! lol! are you for real? or trolling…
@Mike Guest: Sorry Mike, last but not least. Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it takes time to write the explanation, and you must be sick of having to explain again and again.
For what it’s worth, your explanation is fine for me, and I wouldn’t take everything David says as the gospel truth, hence my interest in this site.
If you don’t mind, there are a couple of things I would like to ask you. Clearly many people post against David on the net, why do you think he chose to focus on you?
Secondly, given the ongoing trouble it causes you, in retrospect, would prefer not to have bothered?
“No, I don’t imagine you do since you are most likely not his employer….”
Neither is Mr. Arimichi. Didn’t stop him from stalking Mike though.
@nigelboy
Why are you fretting so much over who ‘stalks’ Mike or not? What’s your connection? Dave confronted Mike because Mike posted the fake interview, that is Daves reason for being interested in Mike, isn’t it?
I am sure that Mike is a big boy and can take care of himself, but I am certain that Mike must be glad to have friends such as yourself keen to aggrievate strangers, such as I, on his behalf…
Gee James Grey.
Let me remind you that the word “stalker” was first introduced on this thread by you.
Now you have the nerve to ask “Why are you fretting so much over who ‘stalks’ Mike or not?”
Do I have any connections with Mike? No.
Do I give a flying F about his credentials? No.
Did I enjoy his parody? Hell yeah.
Did I enjoy the childish tantrums (stalking) by Mr. Arimichi afterwords? Yes.
Do I care how Mike handled the situation with Mr. Arimichi? No.
Does that answer all your questions?
Just pointing out a pattern.
He and his following are all big fans of relying on lawyers to solve every little social dispute.
@niggelboy
(sigh), I first used the word stalker to describe how some people on this site seemed to spend rather a little too much energy speculating about Dave’s location and relationship status (however relevant that is).
Level3, I think, described Dave’s confrontation of Mike as ‘stalking’.
I personally do not believe it was. If Mike did the same thing to me, perhaps I would find him and give him a punch on the nose.
‘Now you have the nerve to ask (blah, blah, blah)’- you are a such pompus windbag sir! I have met your type via the internet before. In real life I imagine you to be a bundle of insecurities who wouldn’t say boo to a ghost. It’s easy to be brave when there is no chance of actually meeting the object of your scorn, isn’t it?
If you’re not Mikes mother, perhaps you should let him stick up for himself. He seems more than capable (please see my most recent reply to him). Either way, I don’t see how Mike can derive any positive association from you. I am sure mikes colleagues would love to read all this.
@mcc
Fair enough. No harm done.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9429347.stm
sigh – you know for some reason I completely brain farted on the date on that article… nothing really relevant to the current situation since it’s 3 weeks old.
Hi James.
Let me answer your questions- they are good ones. I think Debito’s reaction was so over-the-top and out of proportion with the ‘sin’ committed for three reasons:
1. The parody stung him. It hit home and made some points that he didn’t want to address.
2. With the blog and newspaper column I have a very small amount of ‘public face’, although not nearly as much as Debito. I think this legitimized the parody to some extent, making it more of a threat. Hence, Debito had to hit back harder.
3. (This is probably the biggest reason) His close friend, Jennifer Beamer, wrote a critical response to the parody soon after I posted it. Her criticisms were of the half-baked, non-sequiter variety. So, I wrote a snarky reply. This irked him no end. This same person also wrote to the host of the blog thereafter trying to ‘blackmail’ them into taking it down- but of course they didn’t.
Do/did I regret it? Here’s what I have some misgivings about:
1. I have to maintain some academic face in my position (although you’d expect that for Debito too). And although I in no way connected to my university or position, yes, I thought that maybe being lowbrow wasn’t entirely appropriate. Nothing wrong with lowbrow per se (and I certainly do not understand the frat boy references- I made no scatological comments or talked about chicks ‘n booze did I?) but slingin’ it out with Debito (whose site is largely lowbrow no question) felt like it might not be quite right.
2. Using the ELTNews, which is about English teaching, to run the piece may have been questionable- although the site owner had no problem with it. Maybe I should have just offered it here and under a pseudonym but…
3. I wish I could have anticipated Debito’s actual confrontation better and responded more forcefully. I really had trouble following his line about ‘credentials’ and although I knew he didn’t know the situation about Regent and my/their relation with UBC, it’s hard to lay it all out when someone is in your face barroom confrontation style.
4. I felt concerned for some people I knew who were undergoing sensitive job-related negotiations and didn’t want them to be affected by any fallout.
5. I knew Debito would try to dig some shit up on me and you never know what people can or will find on the internet so that keeps you on your toes. I also thought that if he did so (and he did) he’d just look worse. Fine by me.
6. People would think I’m more concerned about Debito than I actually am.
But here’s why I thought it worked:
1. His excessive, overblown reaction not only proved that I had hit a legit target but it also inadvertently proved much of the parody to be accurate. The more he ranted and searched for dirt, made stuff up, got stuff wrong, exaggerated wildly- the worse he looked. Fine with me.
2. There was a great outpouring of support from people whose opinions I respect. Some had been targeted by Debito in the past. Many had been frustrated by his diatribes but had avoided confronting him (for obvious reasons) and also because there was no real venue for opposing Debito then.
3. It became more and more apparent that those who were championing Debito’s hissy fit riposte were of the “Debito, ya pwned that guy lol!” school of discourse. Fine with me.
4. I think I raised some legitimate points in the parody that people have been discussing since (and had to some extent before I posted it too). These are points not just about Debito’s prejudices and dogma but also about dealing with the greater complexity of the socio-political issues that underlie them.
By the way, I wrote about the follow-up here on tepido.org. earlier. If you go to the “Debito goes on holiday” thread and read down about 20 comments you’ll find it.
Hi Mike Guest – re Point 3, a sarky reply to Jen Beamer helps explain a lot!
I can’t let this other Jenny McCarthy (referring to somebody that lacks the ability to criticially analyze information) go unchallenged. “john k”, a frequent contributer and enabler for debito.org, accuses Japan of having contributed very little to the Indonesia tsunami aid effort here:
http://www.debito.org/?p=8713#comment-245256
Look at that comment carefully: it has been edited by Mr. Arudou. Apparently John K’s original statement lacked “a source.” John K provides a source, but it’s an irrelevant one: it is a source for just one small fund for two provinces, not the total sum of the aid.
Indeed, even if you didn’t read the purpose of the site, the chart alone should have set off tons of red flags and alarm bells for any critical reader: the sum of the aid from all countries is a mere $685M, when the total aid was in excess of $14B. Indeed, the cost of the SDF that Japan sent over there exceeds the cost of the contributions on that list.
In particular, I find this comment from John K to be especially repulsive:
http://www.debito.org/?p=8713#comment-245299
Another commenter, Valentina, challenged John K, here, with actual facts:
http://www.debito.org/?p=8713#comment-245371
John K’s response? Rather than critically re-reading the content of the site he mentioned or checking and verifying other sources, he merely looked at a timestamp, and decides that’s the only criteria he needs to establish which is correct:
http://www.debito.org/?p=8713#comment-245535
The true list of donors, and how much they actually committed, is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake#List_of_donors
(Valentina was right. If John K and his table is to be believed, Australia, which was the biggest contributer, is also not on the “top 15 of ‘real’ contributers.”)
The amazing part of this is Debito’s level of moderation: he demanded a source from John K, but he didn’t bother to read or check to see if the source made sense.
In the last comment, John K accuses Japan of needing to “follow up.” I think following up is good advice — for John K, that is. Follow up on your fact checking. It takes more than citing one website and taking a table out of context.
John K also accused Japan of not helping New Zealand during its quake. I’m not even going to dignify that with a reference (go look it up, John K. You need the practice), as Japan contributed so many specialists that some of them were late getting to the scene of Tōhoku because they were still in New Zealand. Anybody that watched the news (English or Japanese) or read a newspaper is well aware of Japan’s direct expertise and help it provided.
Not only is it not true, it’s rather sinister in its motives. John K doesn’t believe people should help Japan, and he was willing to put out disinformation to try to convince others to not do something so that Japan can suffer on its own.
Horrible.
Just came across this interesting article about science deniers. Does this remind other of anyone?
Interesting article but..
bias much?
Funny how they gloss over similar science denial from the left.
Opposition to genetically modified foods going as far as convincing leaders of starving Third World nations to destroy donated food and seeds
Insistence that organic food is somehow “better”, reducing overall agricultural efficiency and raising food prices while often using far more agrichemicals (“natural” ones grandfathered into the definition of “organic”)
Throwing away money on corn ethanol (yes, right wingers from farm states do it too) that makes engines less efficient and raises food prices, hitting the poor the most.
Favorable views for wasting money, resources and precious months and years of life on alternative medicine (acupuncture, homeopathy) that has been proven time and again no better than placebo. WHERE CAN WE GET THESE PLACEBOS!!!
Rejection of agricultural science for centrally-planned farming that ended up with millions starving to death around the world.
Opposing DDT outright while about 1 million people continue to die from malaria each year.
Silencing geologists who approve oil fracking projects.
Hounding people out of office for daring to even discuss whether men and women tend to score better/worse at math/language.
The same for those who dare to discuss that men being attracted to women and vice versa has some natural origins (not even mentioning about homosexuality).
Denial of simple economic concepts like the Laffer curve.
Claiming all climate science issues are “settled” when they certainly are not.
The near universal opposition to any practical form of power generation (nuclear, coal, oil) or even green power generation if it spoils the beach view from the summer house in Martha’s Vineyard.
A general trend to oppose any technology which doesn’t have an Apple logo on it.
Many Hollywood spokespeople and the media machine that gave them airtime and newsprint for anti-vaccination BS resulting in increased infant mortality were leftists.
Just the deliberate ignorance of basic arithmetic when it comes to budgetary matters.
And then there’s the minefields of psychology and sociology.
The Right has no monopoly on science denial.
Yeah, go ahead and roll your eyes.
5 years ago I was firmly left.
Issues about
Garden of EdenThe Environment (specifically non-issues like sealing and whaling) have forced me to admit to myself how biased mainstream media is.They will literally publish anything that fits their world view with practically no fact-checking whatsoever.
The disaster and anti-nuclear sensationalism has brought out how they’ll even do it with major topics that are easily debunked.
It kind of says it all when CNN’s top “expert” was a guy that majored in an International Relations field at MIT — usually they only mentioned that he graduated from MIT.
Meanwhile, the Nuclear Physics branch of MIT had their own blog on Fukushima which practically debunked everything this bureaucrat-cum-all-things-nuclear-expert said.
Why didn’t they get any of the guys from the appropriate field at MIT? Probably because they weren’t printing sensationalist claptrap.
The only credentialed physicist I saw them interview the entire time was Michio Kaku… whose career is founded on 30s soundbites to the Discovery Channel and “cofounding” (according to wiki) an infamous non-theory of untestable fantasy with ever increasing dimensions of masturbatory math prose.
I’ve always believed Math teachers are like the English teachers of Science… and in that paradigm, Kaku would be the Murasaki of Science, writing the first novel purely for enjoyment.