Jay comments

You ever notice how these warnings like on the sign - “don’t take voyeuristic photos of athletes” - only seem to pop up here? You don’t see them plastered around sports meets in the U.S., Europe, or Australia. It really makes you wonder… is this a uniquely Japanese issue?

And let’s be honest - I think we already know the answer... and that’s this is not just a coincidence or overreaction. It's a pattern. A cultural blind spot. A problem too long swept under the tatami mat with a polite but awkward bow and a “shouganai.”

The people who say "you should be able to say anything" are the kind of people who hide behind the concept of free speech to be as offensive as possible. If physical behaviour can be restricted (i.e. a decent society has safeguards against violence

Are you seriously arguing that speech should be treated like violence? Why? Violence is tangible. Me hitting someone in the face is not the same as me saying something someone doesn’t like. Words might offend some, but what's “offensive” is completely subjective. And if we criminalize “offensive” speech, where does it stop? Do we arrest comedians, writers or people like yourself with unpopular opinions?

You may not like it, but defending free speech isn’t about “being offensive” - it’s about protecting and allowing ALL speech, even the uncomfortable kind. Because once the government decides what’s allowed, that power will be used to silence people, not protect people.

You KNOW this, so why are you okay with it?

A couple of thoughts about this so-called “landmark moment” for Australia. (Not a championship, btw. Not building a dynasty. Arresting a guy over a message.)

Right off the bat: I don’t condone racism - not now, not ever. But this isn’t really about racism. This is about censorship, plain and simple. First question: WHO decides what’s "racist?" Some faceless bureaucrat in a government office? A corporate "Integrity Unit"? A journalist with blue hair and pronouns in their bio?

Australia is walking the same path as the UK - straight into the arms of speech-policing authoritarianism. The kind where you get arrested for a tweet, but thugs roam the streets untouched. Where expressing a wrong opinion gets you punished harder than punching a bloke in the head in broad daylight.

Sorry, but free speech INCLUDES bad speech. That’s the entire point. A right that only protects nice, approved, committee-reviewed speech is not a right - it’s a leash. Australia, or any other country, cannot call itself a free country if citizens are afraid to speak. And NO-ONE is entitled to never feel offended.

This wasn’t a “landmark” - it was a warning shot to everyone: shut the bloody hell up or we’ll come for you next.

Trying to label people as that at all times actually numbs people to the use of the term. In the end it comes to be meaningless

Agree. Despite the hysterical protestations from those of a CERTAIN political persuasion, not everything is a -phobia or an -ism.

In fact, very few things ever actually are.

He whom you cannot criticise is he who rules over you.

Concerned Citizen knows.

It’s pretty telling, isn’t it? Universities in Aus will fall over themselves to threaten funding cuts if they don’t stamp out “antisemitism”, but somehow turn a blind eye to the open infiltration of campuses by Chinese Communist Party shills - people who not only spread state propaganda, but have threatened and even attacked students who dare criticize the CCP.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-23/drew-pavlou-facing-expulsion-from-uq-over-china-activism/12168678

Why the double standard, unis? Because Chinese international students are a massive cash cow, and universities will sell out their so-called values in a heartbeat to keep that delicious yuan funding flowing. So yes - they’re SELLOUTS, more concerned with revenue and appeasing foreign authoritarian interests than actually protecting free speech or student safety.

With his leadership, we may finally return to injecting only pure, locally-sourced antigens, harvested under a full moon by ethically-certified druids.

@Garlic

Instead of addressing legitimate concerns about corporate transparency, rushed safety trials, or skyrocketing autoimmune issues, you’ve chosen to mock discussions of health like it’s a sketch comedy audition.

Are you ready for the real joke? Treating serious conversations about gene therapies, regulatory capture, and long-term safety data as tinfoil-hat punchlines while pretending everything is fine because your favorite CNN host Don Lemon said so. If the strategy is to lump every critic in with “nano-octopuses” and “druid syringes” or whatever, perhaps you might be just a tad terrified of where the facts might actually lead?

For all vaccines, illnesses and profiles that are included in the recommendations. No vaccine that is approved for use in the public fails to be considered safe and effective.

Ahahaha. Wow. Ever heard of Vioxx? Thalidomide? The rushed swine flu vaccine of 1976 that gave people Guillain-Barré syndrome? And let’s not forget a CERTAIN mRNA vaccine introduced in 2021 that was pushed as a miracle, only to quietly backpedal from "prevents transmission and 100% safe" to "might reduce symptoms... sometimes, and often safe... but you can't sue us if it isn't!" - all while racking up adverse event reports, myocarditis cases, and billion-dollar profits.

All officially approved, all “safe and effective”… until they weren’t.

The idea that every single vaccine for every illness, across all ages and risk profiles, is both necessary and risk-free is - unfortunately for you - pharmaceutical fan fiction. “Trust the system” sounds great until you realize the system has a long, profitable history of screwing it up and shrugging when people get hurt.

Oddly, this is something the far-right and far-left agree on.

You should probably stop saying “Far Right” and start saying “Right So Far.” This is not a political issue, it’s about people who actually value their health and don’t blindly outsource it to bloated bureaucracies or profit-driven corporations. Caring about what goes into your body doesn’t make you anything but responsible.

Vaccine hesitancy thanks to the efforts of antivaxxer groups misleading people with misleading or even openly false information 

More completely false emotional panic. First, vaccine hesitancy is a global reaction, driven by years of pharmaceutical conglomerate contradictory messaging, corporate scandals, rushed rollouts, and public health officials undermining their own credibility. It's a signal that trust has been broken, and people are demanding transparency, not blind obedience.

Second, attacking someone for suggesting a focus on treatment is absurd - prevention and treatment aren’t mutually exclusive, and pretending vaccines are the only line of defense is both dishonest and dangerous. The idea that recommending nutrients like vitamin A - which the WHO itself supports for measles treatment in malnourished populations - is somehow “toxic” and irresponsible is transparent and laughable.

Seriously, if your argument is that people should only obey authority and never question, even when trust has clearly eroded due to them constantly being WRONG, then you should be ashamed of yourself.

https://www.who.int/teams/immunization-vaccines-and-biologicals/essential-programme-on-immunization/integration/linking-with-other-health-interventions/vitamin-a

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7076287/

Are you suggesting that the government shut down universities because of their liberal arts programs?

No, Plastic - but if universities are going to receive federal funding, it’s completely reasonable to expect them to be a net positive to society, not institutions that churn out debt-ridden graduates with useless degrees and activist mindsets who contribute little to NOTHING to the workforce or civic unity. If someone wants to study North African Queer Poetry, fine, but taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to bankroll that sort of stuff, and especially not ideological echo chambers that often produce the opposite of what we actually need.

There's far too many of them. So many should be roundabouts.

Totally agree - a simple roundabout objectively does the job better, faster, and safer. But can you imagine the confusion and collective teeth-sucking trying to figure out who has the right of way in a roundabout here? It’d be chaos at 15 km/h.

The administration has said it is trying to force change at Harvard and other top-level universities across the U.S., contending they have become bastions of leftist "w.oke" thought

Regardless of one's political persuasion anyone with a fully-functioning brain can see that modern U.S. universities, especially the so-called “elite” ones like Harvard, have become bloated, ideological echo chambers that churn out activists instead of educated, capable citizens. These institutions are no longer centers of critical thinking, they’re factories for indoctrination pushing divisive, identity-obsessed nonsense.

Young people would be far better off learning a trade, building real skills, and actually CONTRIBUTING to society instead of wasting four years being told your country is evil and everything is oPprESsiVe! The US needs welders, electricians, and builders - not more gender studies majors screaming on TikTok.

Jay, are you suggestiing above that all residents of contiguous or likely areas should be carrying a canister of bear spray?

Yes, that is exactly what I’m suggesting - phone? Check. Keys? Check. Bear spray? Check. If people in mosquito-ridden areas routinely carry insect repellent, it shouldn't be out of the question that residents in bear-prone regions be encouraged to carry a small, lightweight can of bear spray.

I mean, if you’re living in or near areas with frequent bear sightings, why wouldn’t you carry it? We’re talking about a cheap, non-lethal tool that has been proven effective at stopping bear attacks and preventing reoccurrences. You wouldn’t walk through a swamp without bug spray - don’t walk through bear country without bear spray!

Jay if the bear is bold enough to enter human habitats they are going to come back after they recover from a dose of bear spray. If they are visiting human habitats they are deem problematic and the best solution is to kill the problematic brown bear.

Based on my experience John I think you're seriously underestimating just how intelligent and pattern-aware bears - especially Asiatic black bears - really are. These aren’t mindless dum dums; they learn quickly, and if a bear gets hit with bear spray, the intense pain, disorientation, and sensory overload create a strong negative association with that specific location or human contact. Studies and field reports have also shown that bears (even "problem" ones) usually avoid areas where they’ve had a bad experience.

Local governments with large bear populations should be giving out the stuff to residents FREE of charge.

Tranquillisers will not stop a bear during or from attacking humans.

No, but bear spray will, it absolutely works and is completely legal to purchase in Japan and readily available online.

In North America, it’s recommended by wildlife experts and park services as the most effective defense against bear attacks, shown in multiple studies to be even more effective than firearms in stopping charging bears.

So the real question is (and I think we know the answer): if it’s legal, available, and proven to work, why isn't it used?

@Jay

Your personal choice to avoid medicine (if that's what you are doing) is up to you. But publicly railing against an industry that saves the lives of others is irresponsible. If you refuse to accept point (2), please keep it to yourself.

What you’re advocating for - blind faith in pharmaceutical giants and massive food corporations, and the silencing of dissent - hasn’t exactly boded well for the general population, as this article itself reports. We've seen rising chronic illness, opioid addiction, and skyrocketing healthcare costs all under the watch of those same “life-saving” industries.

Yes, modern medicine is often a benefit but pretending pharmaceutical industry or massive food corporations have no profit motive or history of harm is pure fantasy.

Also, "Garlic": why exactly should any opinion that doesn’t align with a pharmaceutical conglomerate or ultra-processed food manufacturer be censored, silenced and cancelled?

t was terribly easy to prove with data that the recommendations do not originate the problem, the lack of adherence to the recommendations was, it was also easy to prove that your claims about bad recommendatio

Unfortunately, here’s the awkward bit: the “experts” you rely on just happen to be the ones propped up by food conglomerates with a vested interest in keeping the public misinformed. Meanwhile, independent researchers - you know, the ones without corporate sponsors - have already dismantled the talking points you continue to recycle. It’s painfully clear to anyone watching that you’re defending a corporate narrative, not nutritional science.

The notion that this crisis stems from people not following the guidelines is, frankly, adorable. Millions of Americans did exactly what they were told: low-fat everything, “heart-healthy” carbs galore, and margarine over butter like obedient little consumers - and the reward? A nationwide spike in obesity, diabetes, and metabolic disease. That’s not bad adherence. That’s bad advice, full stop.

Sorry, but we (you) cannot continue to kid ourselves with this “I debunked it already” routine. When faced with real data, your strategy tends to shift between selective quoting, deflection, and a strange new definition of the word ‘evidence.’ It’s transparent, it’s tired, and most of all, it’s obvious to anyone not trying to protect the very system that created this mess in the first place.

Still false, NOT listening to these recommendations is what led to the overconsumption of processed carbs, after all the original pyramid explicitly recommended whole grains not "processed carbs" as you falsely claim.

Although I compassionately understand this is clearly beginning to frustrate you, there's no excuse for that disingenuity. You accuse others of misinformation yet the reality is you still haven’t produced a single link from an expert or institution not financially tied to a pharmaceutical conglomerate or massive food corporation. Plainly obvious to everyone here.

So in the interest of real health, kindly stop twisting it: it wasn’t non-compliance that led to metabolic collapse - it was corporate-influenced policy masquerading as health advice, and you’re still out here defending it. Are you ready to finally link a source that isn’t financially tied in with Kraft, Kellogg’s, or Pfizer?

Carb-heavy was never part of the recommendations, that is the population having an unhealthy diet in spite of the experts saying that a balanced diet is much more healthy.

More disinformation, easily debunked (yet again) with a quick look at public record.

https://www.nal.usda.gov/fdpir/usda-food-guide-pyramid-1992

The original USDA Food Pyramid from the 90s explicitly advised 6-11 servings of grains per day, placing them as the foundation of a “healthy” diet - while essential fats were shoved into the “use sparingly” tip of the pyramid.

These recommendations led directly to a nationwide overconsumption of processed carbs - breads, pastas, cereals - marketed as “heart healthy.” And surprise: obesity, metabolic syndrome, and type 2 diabetes skyrocketed.

So no, sorry, not only do you clearly know nothing about nutrition, but it’s obvious you don’t want to learn - because it is very clear and obvious your only goal is to defend the pharmaceutical-industrial status quo, despite you being consistently been debunked again and again since 2021.

Pharmaceutical companies have nothing to to with the food pyramid, and the nutritional recommendations are not illogical,

The original USDA guidelines were HEAVILY influenced by grain and dairy lobbyists, not science - and the result? A carb-heavy, low-fat diet that fueled obesity, diabetes, and heart disease, making people lifelong customers of pharmaceutical products.

Unless you can kindly explain who “logical” it was when they told us to avoid eggs, eat 6-11 servings of grains, and that sugary cereal was “heart healthy.” Explain how or why blatantly obvious corporate-driven malpractice should be mistaken for “nutrition.”

The editorial published alongside the study said while the administration's MAHA movement is bringing welcome attention to chronic diseases.., vaccine-preventable diseases,"

...aaaand there it is. Just when we thought we might finally get an unbiased article free from heavy pharmaceutical conglomerate influence - one actually focused on health without being soaked in pharmaceutical industry talking points - this “news source” gives get a big fat “NOPE, had you fooled!” Right on cue, the editorial pivots from legitimate concerns about chronic disease to scolding the public for not taking their vaccines(!) and lamenting cuts to programs tied directly to government-pharma alliances, as if the only path to health is another injection. God forbid we talk about food quality, toxins, or lifestyle - nope, it’s always back to the syringe!

kids today more likely to have obesity, chronic diseases and mental health problems like depression, a new study says.

Uh, is this really any surprise? Look at the system running the show. For decades, U.S. children have been force-fed ultra-processed, chemical-laced junk from Big Food while being pushed into a medical system that hands out psychiatric labels and pills like candy. Instead of addressing root causes - like diet, sleep, movement, and environment - the US has let huge Food Corporations run the show, while pharmaceutical conglomerates back the illogical food pyramids and team with modern psychiatry to slap an SSRI prescription on everything from sadness to screen addiction.

On the mental health front, the grip psychiatry has on American is INSANE. Normal childhood behavior is pathologized, emotions are medicalized, and the answer is somehow ALWAYS a pill. All while kids are living off boxed lunches and sugar bombs for breakfast. This “comprehensive picture” is just confirmation of what anyone paying attention has known for years: people have outsourced their children’s well-being to corporations and corrupt money-driven institutions, and the results are clearly being felt.

Japan to set up team to address issues over foreign residents

Uh yeah, here's one: is the 1,100 yen “non-Japanese tax” at a certain amusement park supposed to cover the cost of extra signage, or is it a premium fee for the privilege of not being able to bow or use chopsticks properly?

I mean, if Japan is setting up a team to “address issues over foreign residents,” maybe step one should be: "Why are we charging foreigners more to scream on the same roller coasters?"

https://ticket.junglia.jp/ticket/

https://junglia.jp/en/ticket

Just wondering, do women in Japan get to pull from the same excuse playbook when they do something like this as the men often do?

"I was drunk and am unable to remember a thing."

"I did it to relieve stress from work."

"I was unable to satisfy my sexual urges."

Now THAT would be interesting.

This does not apply to the options being described as healthier by RFKjr, the article clearly points out that healthier options are already available, not about stopping boiling vegetables but about choosing much healthier options, something perfectly doable, but not when the objective is to do as the food industry demands for the money invested in putting the current government in place.

All you've done here is the usual parroting of your narrative with zero real-world grounding. The smug claim that “healthier options are already available” ignores the basic economic and logistical reality for most low-income, elderly, or disabled people. Onviously, perfectly balanced, home-cooked, additive-free meals exist - in overpriced boutique delivery services that charge triple and don’t accept Medicare or Medicaid. Telling people those are the “real” options is like telling a homeless man he should’ve invested in real estate.

What is actually happening a massive upgrade over the nutrient-void, chemical-laced JUNK that’s been served in institutional settings for decades. No high-fructose corn syrup, no seed oils, no petroleum dyes. And yet somehow, you of course think this is a bad thing. Wholly unsurprising and disgusting.

Why when there is a fraud, cheating or simmilar actions done in Japan by foreigner, there is most of the time Chinese ONLY?

Because for Chinese people (from the PRC), there’s a popular saying: ‘Victory matters - not the path you take.’ From childhood, people are raised on stories glorifying cunning over integrity, wealth over wisdom. So it’s no surprise that when fraud or cheating cases hit the headlines we often find the same pattern these people bending the rules, cutting corners, trying to win at ANY cost. I don't think it's about individual malice - it’s about a culture that rewards results, not ethics.

These are just the facts, and proves some cultures are better than others.

When I remove the peel from a carrot, it becomes processed. When I put it in boiling water, it's further processed. But remains in a healthy state to eat.

Very good point Wallace. Possibly the smartest thing you've ever written.

He is not supporting "real food options" he is supporting the same industry he supposedly is fighting against, the same as when he abolishes safety controls, fires people in charge of inspecting food and makes it completely voluntary for the foo

Completely false, so loaded with misinformation it should come with a warning label.

Making food recall tracking “voluntary,” is flat-out nonsense. The current system is so broken that major food recalls still happen after people get hospitalized, and industry insiders have spent years lobbying to avoid real reform. What is now being pushes for is a leaner, more accountable system that puts responsibility back on the corporations, instead of pretending bloated oversight magically prevents contamination.

But tell us, WHY do you think supporting cleaner, more accessible meals for the sick and elderly is some deep betrayal?

Anybody but the least reasonable understand it’s a step in the right direction, and vastly superior to the poison Food Conglomerates have dumped on America for decades with government rubber stamps. So no, this is disruption, and the only people whining are the ones who benefited from the old, corrupt system.

I admire Tucker for doing this interview - not because I support Iran or its regime, but because it takes guts to poke holes in the suffocating narrative control surrounding Israel. For way too long, Israel’s massively outsized influence on U.S. foreign policy, media, and political discourse has gone unquestioned, and anyone who even dares to raise an eyebrow is instantly smeared.

By putting voices like this on record - whether you agree with them or not - Tucker is helping expose, ridicule, and condemn the uncritical obedience to a foreign power that has warped American priorities for decades. For me, this is about demanding that America stop being held hostage to the interests of another country that does NOTHING in return.