Blog

 
Political Prose

Still made in America, but for how much longer?

Sunday’s New York Times has an interesting piece by Louis Uchitelle on American companies that continue to do much of their product…


Sunday’s New York Times has an interesting piece by Louis Uchitelle on American companies that continue to do much of their production in America. “Made in America” is more common than you’d think. In spite of two decades of intensified globalization, the United States remains the world’s top manufacturer, accounting for 23.8 percent of manufacturing output worldwide in 2004, compared to 24.6 percent in 1982. (This is measured by “value added,” which takes into account the dollar value created at each stage of production through the addition of materials and labor.)

Uchitelle profiles three companies — Harley-Davidson, Haas Automation, and Hiwasse Manufacturing — to see what drives their decisions to either keep their production and supply lines in America or look overseas for cheaper options. For those companies that managed to stay rooted in America, two factors stand out: the benefits gained from tariffs and other forms of protectionism, which stymied aggressive foreign competitors and sustained companies during their most vulnerable years, and the efficiencies brought about by automation, which slashed labor costs and helped American firms compete with competitors abroad who pay much lower wages (for example, Chinese firms).

But given the particular advantages they enjoy, the companies in Uchitelle’s article may be the exceptions that prove the rule. Today, with the World Trade Organization and other free trade agreements in place, it’s harder for the U.S. government to protect industries — a fact that may be good for poor people in China, India, and other developing countries, but does not bode well for Americans toiling in the manufacturing sector. Furthermore, the automation that helps American firms compete is quickly spreading throughout the world. These companies may not be able to rely on their technological edge for much longer. (Indeed, as Thomas Friedman points out in his new book, America is falling behind other countries in churning out the engineers and scientists who can fuel its future innovation.)

—Victor Tan Chen

Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Death of the chief


Before the mourning began — indeed, even before his death — the speculation about his successor began; Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist succumbed yesterday, at the age of 80, to his very private battle with thyroid cancer, and now the media is engaged in as respectful a feeding frenzy as possible about Justice Rehnquist’s legacy and the changing face of the US Supreme Court.  

Justice Rehnquist’s legacy is undoubtedly conservative — advocating states’ rights and the public role of religion in America while rallying against abortion and desiring to limit civil rights and the rights of criminal defendants — but his successor may even sit more staunchly on the far right of center. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement earlier this year on July 1st, which leaves two vacancies on the court.

President Bush nominated John Roberts — a stalwart conservative who, at 50, is preposterously young compared to his peers, should his nomination be confirmed by the Senate — as O’Connor’s successor, and Justice Rehnquist’s passing has cleared the canvas of American law to be repainted to President Bush’s liking. As Justice O’Connor was the nine-person panel’s less predictable swing voter, Roberts would, as a justice, considerably change the Supreme Court. The new session of the Supreme Court is fast approaching, and if there are only eight justices serving when the court reconvenes on October 3rd,  any ties will fail to set a legal precedent (although they will affirm lower court decisions). President Bush’s term in office now has a definite expiration date, but he now looks well positioned to engrave his ideological legacy on American law.  

—Mimi Hanaoka

  

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Political Prose

‘We are throw-away people’

The National Guard is finally out in force on the streets of New Orleans, but for some it is already too late…


The National Guard is finally out in force on the streets of New Orleans, but for some it is already too late. Survivors recount stories of infants and elderly victims who died of dehydration and exposure after days without help. Journalists describe the situation as a war zone, with corpses decomposing in open air and rapes taking place even in supposed safe havens. Criticism in Washington mounts as refugees ask why the government relief took so long in coming. “We are throw-away people,” a refugee tells Reuters.

We won’t know for some time the full extent of Hurricane Katrina’s toll, but it will likely reveal many of the dead to be African American and poor. In New Orleans, the city devastated by a one-two punch of hurricane and levee collapse, 68 percent of the population is African American, according to 2004 statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau. One in five individuals and one in seven families in New Orleans live under the poverty line, which in 2004 was $18,850 for a family of four. “If Sept. 11 showed the power of a nation united in response to a devastating attack, Hurricane Katrina reveals the fault lines of a region and a nation, rent by profound social divisions,” wrote Mark Naison, a professor of African American studies at Fordham University, in a piece quoted by The New York Times. (Kanye West was a bit less diplomatic in his choice of words.)

Has New Orleans been ignored by the nation’s leaders? Mayor Ray Nagin thinks so. Democrats (and some Republicans) have harshly criticized the federal government for its handling of the disaster. Some have complained that the Bush administration diverted funds that could have gone to levee building and reinforcement to the war in Iraq and tax cuts for the wealthy. Matthew Barge of FactCheck.org provides an even-handed assessment of this charge, concluding that, yes, the president drastically underfunded an Army Corps of Engineers project to enhance the levee system protecting New Orleans: Bush’s budget allocated $3 million of the $11 million the Corps requested for the project in fiscal year 2004, and $3.9 million of the $22.5 million requested in 2005 (Congress subsequently raised the funding to $5.5 million in both years). That said, it’s unclear whether the money cut would have made a difference. “The Army Corps of Engineers — which is under the President’s command and has its own reputation to defend — insists that Katrina was just too strong,” Barge writes, “and that even if the levee project had been completed it was only designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane.”

What is clear is that local officials had been complaining as early as four years ago that not enough funds were being devoted to hurricane protection. Federal officials knew of the danger, but little was done. The last paragraph of the FactCheck.org analysis is especially chilling:

Whether or not a breach” was “anticipated,” the fact is that many individuals have been warning for decades about the threat of flooding that a hurricane could pose to a set below sea level and sandwiched between major waterways. A Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) report from before September 11, 2001 detailed the three most likely catastrophic disasters that could happen in the United States: a terrorist attack in New York, a strong earthquake in San Francisco, and a hurricane strike in New Orleans. In 2002, New Orleans officials held the simulation of what would happen in a category 5 storm. Walter Maestri, the emergency coordinator of Jefferson Parish in New Orleans, recounted the outcome to PBS’ NOW With Bill Moyers:

Maestri, September 2002: Well, when the exercise was completed it was evidence that we were going to lose a lot of people. We changed the name of the [simulated] storm from Delaney to K-Y-A-G-B… kiss your ass goodbye… because anybody who was here as that category five storm came across… was gone.

A terrorist strike in New York, a hurricane in New Orleans, and an earthquake in San Francisco — is our government trying to win the Triple Crown of disasters? This time, an entire American city was turned into a war zone. An entire urban population was thrown onto the trash heap. Do we have to wait for a third catastrophe for the people in charge to get the message?

—Victor Tan Chen

UPDATE, 9/8/05, 12:20 a.m. EST: The Guardian points out that earlier allegations of rape have not yet been substantiated by authorities.

Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Reflections on New Orleans


In the last two years, I have moved nine times with six different addresses over two states. For two months, I found myself lost in the streets of New Orleans. There was uptown, the Quarter, the Warehouse district, the Faubourg Marine, and the suburbs. Through the eyes of a transplanted but temporary local, New Orleans was an exciting adventure with every day bringing another experience to retell.

Fourth of July weekend was spent with my best friend, Ally, and another college friend. As we left the bar in the Warehouse district, we got lost finding our way back to the French Quarter, where we parked as far away from the Warehouse district as possible. With blisters on Ally’s feet, we stopped at Café du Monde at the halfway point. Drinking our chickaree coffee and eating our beignets, we thought we were never going to get back to our car, much less where we were sleeping. Despite the blisters, the walk, the generic bar, the laughter that flooded the desolate streets still haunts me, as if the laughter of the dead cemeteries rang with us that night.

New Orleans is a place of a haunting. The antebellum mansions, the cemeteries every few blocks, or the voodoo that litters the streets of the French Quarter like so many tourist traps; you are never more than a block from history. The city breathes the slave trade and Andrew Jackson, decades after both of their deaths. Whether riding the streetcar on St. Charles past houses that have been there since before the city or passing time in a coffee shop opened while you were there, you inhale the city past and present without judgment or celebration. To ignore is to forget, which the city’s inhabitants are reluctant to do. Everyone knows something, even if everyone knows it. There is art, life, movement, and beauty in the dirtiest crevices of the city.

Now that dirt has washed away. The city is covered in water, and no one knows when it will be evacuated. The bodies of the dead remain unburied; the bodies of the living are still uncertain as to when they can go home or if they have homes. To think of a city engulfed by history, now by water, confuses me, especially since newscaster[s] act [as] i[f] the city is dead, when perhaps it just needed time for cleansing and healing. The city has not forgotten the sieges and the wars and also reemerges stronger, healthier, and more beautiful, daring nature to fight with it again.

While the houses and landmarks are forever altered, our histories of the city have been added to. Much like Gloria Gaynor, it will survive, and so will its people. I raise a glass to the city that haunts my memories still. The ability to forget you is not even succeeded by death. You will rise, again, stronger, more capable, and more beautiful. We merely await your rebirth from hibernation.

—Brett D. Currier

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Political Prose

Help for victims of Hurricane Katrina

If you want to help the relief efforts in Louisiana and elsewhere, please consider making a donation to the American Red Cross. The local and national websites are jammed with visitors, so you might want to try …


If you want to help the relief efforts in Louisiana and elsewhere, please consider making a donation to the American Red Cross. The local and national websites are jammed with visitors, so you might want to try the Red Cross donations site set up on Yahoo.

Below is an excerpt of an August 31 message by Dr. Greg Henderson, a pathologist in New Orleans. The email, which has been circulating on the Web, gives a first-hand account of the devastation in that part of the country. (The text has been edited slightly for typos.)

—Victor Tan Chen

UPDATE, 9:34 p.m. EST: If you live in the Southeast and can offer hurricane victims a place to stay, the grassroots organization MoveOn.org is organizing an emergency national housing drive. Also, a reader asked if the authenticity of the email below can be verified. It was sent to me by a friend who said her family knows this doctor, so I have no reason to doubt its authenticity. If you know otherwise, of course, please let me know.

UPDATE, 9/4/05, 7:37 p.m. EST: Some errors corrected and the email header changed in the text below, based on the original version of the email posted on the Web (I was using a forwarded version before). The rumor-quashing site Snopes.com is looking into the veracity of this email, so you might want to check this page later for their determination.

UPDATE, 9/6/05, 1:52 p.m. EST: See this post for more details.

From: Gregory S. Henderson MD, PhD
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 20:21:55 -0500
Subject: Re: thoughts and prayers

Thanks to all of you who have sent your notes of concern and your prayers. I am writing this note on Tuesday at 2 p.m. I wanted to update all of you as to the situation here. I don’t know how much information you are getting but I am certain it is more than we are getting. Be advised that almost everything I am telling you is from direct observation or rumor from reasonable sources. They are allowing limited internet access, so I hope to send this dispatch today.

Personally, my family and I are fine. My family is safe in Jackson, Miss., and I am now a temporary resident of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in New Orleans. I figured if it was my time to go, I wanted to go in a place with a good wine list. In addition, this hotel is in a very old building on Canal Street that could and did sustain little damage. Many of the other hotels sustained significant loss of windows, and we expect that many of the guests may be evacuated here.

Things were obviously bad yesterday, but they are much worse today. Overnight the water arrived. Now Canal Street (true to its origins) is indeed a canal. The first floor of all downtown buildings is underwater. I have heard that Charity Hospital and Tulane are limited in their ability to care for patients because of water. Ochsner is the only hospital that remains fully functional. However, I spoke with them today and they too are on generator and losing food and water fast. The city now has no clean water, no sewerage system, no electricity, and no real communications. Bodies are still being recovered floating in the floods. We are worried about a cholera epidemic. Even the police are without effective communications. We have a group of armed police here with us at the hotel that is admirably trying to exert some local law enforcement. This is tough because looting is now rampant. Most of it is not malicious looting. These are poor and desperate people with no housing and no medical care and no food or water trying to take care of themselves and their families. Unfortunately, the people are armed and dangerous. We hear gunshots frequently. Most of Canal Street is occupied by armed looters who have a low threshold for discharging their weapons. We hear gunshots frequently. The looters are using makeshift boats made of pieces of styrofoam to access. We are still waiting for a significant national guard presence.

The health care situation here has dramatically worsened overnight. Many people in the hotel are elderly and small children. Many other guests have unusual diseases…. There are [Infectious Disease] physicians in at this hotel attending an HIV [conference]. We have commandeered the world famous French Quarter Bar to turn into a makeshift clinic. There is a team of about seven doctors and PAs and pharmacists. We anticipate that this will be the major medical facility in the central business district and French Quarter.

Our biggest adventure today was raiding the Walgreens on Canal under police escort. The pharmacy was dark and full of water. We basically scooped the entire drug sets into garbage bags and removed them. All under police escort. The looters had to be held back at gunpoint. After a dose of prophylactic Cipro I hope to be fine. In all we are faring well. We have set up a hospital in the French Quarter bar in the hotel, and will start admitting patients today. Many will be from the hotel, but many will not. We are anticipating dealing with multiple medical problems, medications and acute injuries. Infection and perhaps even cholera are anticipated major problems. Food and water shortages are imminent.

The biggest question to all of us is where is the National Guard. We hear jet fighters and helicopters, but no real armed presence, and hence the rampant looting. There is no Red Cross and no Salvation Army. In a sort of cliché way, this is an edifying experience. One is rapidly focused away from the transient and material to the bare necessities of life. It has been challenging to me to learn how to be a primary care physician. We are under martial law so return to our homes is impossible. I don’t know how long it will be and this is my greatest fear. Despite it all, this is a soul-edifying experience. The greatest pain is to think about the loss. And how long the rebuild will take. And the horror of so many dead people.

PLEASE SEND THIS DISPATCH TO ALL YOU THINK MAY BE INTERESTED IN A DISPATCH from the front. I will send more according to your interest. Hopefully their collective prayers will be answered. By the way, suture packs, sterile gloves and stethoscopes will be needed as the Ritz turns into a MASH.

Greg Henderson

Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Gays: the “real” weapons of mass destruction


We’ve all heard the claim that gays are destroying the so-called moral fabric of America — not to mention that “sacred institution between a man and a woman” — with their calls to wed. And, of course, we’ve all heard that gays are to blame for the HIV/AIDS epidemic. But here’s one I bet hasn’t even crossed your mind:  Gays are to blame for the deaths of hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq.

Or so says Rev. Fred Phelps, the founder of Kansas’ Westboro Baptist Church. The church, which isn’t associated with any denomination, claims that God is wreaking havoc on American soldiers in Iraq out of vengeance for “a country that harbors gays.”

Not only does this claim essentially equate gays with terrorists by buying into the war on terrorism’s rhetoric of certain Arab states’ “harboring” of terrorists, it also calls into question the validity of the claim that the U.S. “harbors” gays. That is, while plenty of gays and other sexual minorities reside in the United States, does the U.S. really provide sexual minorities refuge in the truest sense of the word? Sure, sodomy is now legal. But on November 2, an awful lot of Americans went to the polls because they didn’t want gays to be able to — gasp — marry. And that’s just one civil liberty amongst dozens (hundreds?) that gays lack in the United States.

It’s worth noting that Phelps’ following is fairly small and self-contained. In fact, almost all of the members of his church are his relatives. But, still, I can’t help but wonder what on earth is going on in their heads. This isn’t even a question of why troops are dying in Iraq. It’s a question of whether middle America — or in this case, a Kansas church — will ever recognize that you can’t keep blaming everything on gays, especially when you’re part of what keeps gays from gaining the political power necessary to “threaten” that of the Religious Right.

Perhaps even worse, though, is that as insulated as Phelps’ group might be, their message isn’t contained. Phelps’ followers have been out in droves across the country at funerals for U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq, holding up signs saying things like “God hates fags” and “God hates you.” Believe what you will, I suppose, but there’s a time and place for everything (though, I’ve got to wonder why Phelps’ church doesn’t seem to have the time to embrace love and compassion). And that’s probably why Phelps’ followers haven’t been winning over too many supporters with this strategy of harrassing the families of the fallen.

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Burning visions of an alternative society


On Monday, August 29, thousands of people will converge upon the Black Rock desert 120 miles north of Reno, Nevada, to create an ephemeral arts utopia known as Burning Man. For eight days, their nomadic community in a city of tents and caravans will flourish in the desert. On the sixth of September they will depart, and the desert will be as empty as it was before they descended upon it.

Burning Man is an annual event which has grown from an interactive performing and visual arts community of twenty people in 1986 to its current manifestation of over 35,000 in 2004. Its “Leave No Trace” manifesto both preserves the integrity of the desert environment as well as perpetuates one of its many reasons for being: Burning Man has been described as an alternative to modern consumerist, capitalist society.

The festival takes shape from the supplies its visitors bring with them in their cars. Since weather is extreme, “radical self-reliance” is advised in order to avoid overexposure to a drastic range of temperatures. The only goods sold are ice and coffee: participants must bring with them everything they will need to survive for a week in the desert. Tickets are sold in advance to discourage last-minute participants from traveling into the desert unprepared.

The focus, according to founder Larry Harvey, is to create a visionary utopia where participation, creativity, diversity and self-expression are valued above consumerism and capitalism. Each year artists are given a different theme. This year participants are invited to explore the Psyche: the amorphous, ever-changing territory of identity and dreams.

Burning Man has been viewed as a modern-day Woodstock, a Las Vegas which rises each year from its own ashes to which many escape the obligations of modern life. However, the tremendous success of the festival, well-documented on the website, suggests that Burning Man has transcended mere escapism and has accomplished what many artists aim to achieve with their work: an inspiration which outlasts the moment of contact between audience and artwork and follows the public into their homes.

The “Afterburn Report,” published by Burning Man organizers each year on its website, details the evolution of the festival and of efforts to respond to the needs and interests of its participants. Last year’s report describes a recent effort to organize a regional network “designed to aid and enhance the independent efforts of our far-flung communities,” providing “a means for regional groups to gather, collaborate, and interact all year long.”  

For the many participants motivated to extend the ideas of the community they helped create to their daily lives, Burning Man has become more than a laboratory for social change: it is a growing grassroots movement which is gaining momentum and crossing continents.

—Michaele Shapiro

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Political Prose

A conversation this country needs

An anonymous reader took the time to write a detailed response to my post last week about Cindy Sheehan and her efforts to meet with President Bus…


An anonymous reader took the time to write a detailed response to my post last week about Cindy Sheehan and her efforts to meet with President Bush. Here it is:

Why would you meet with a woman who said the following at a S.F. rally in A[p]ril 05:

“We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!”

So declared Cindy Sheehan earlier this year during a rally at San Francisco State University.

Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: “We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now.”

Sheehan unleashed a foul-mouth tirade on April 27, 2005:

“They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up…” Sheehan said of the Bush administration.

“If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?”

“The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war.”

“We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people.”

—But I wouldn’t expect someone who can only look at one side of an issue to see why the President wouldn’t want to meet with her. Common sense people. Stop thinking with your lust to hate Bush and use common sense.

It’s certainly true that Cindy Sheehan is not the most subtle or diplomatic public speaker. Personally, I wouldn’t phrase some of those comments the way she did. But then again, I didn’t lose a child in Iraq. If anyone has the right to be angry, it would be Sheehan. Most of us Americans have the luxury of living our lives as if the United States was not in a state of war. Sheehan no longer has that privilege. If she’s not the most moderate voice in the chorus, there may be a reason.

The reader justifiably complains about the hateful rhetoric that afflicts this country. The first step we can take to stop the hatred is to start a dialogue. If Bush would meet with Sheehan, he could begin such a dialogue. Meeting with her doesn’t necessarily mean that Bush would have to compromise his views, or Sheehan hers. But it’s a necessary step to begin some healing. It’s the only way that both supporters and opponents of the president will ever learn to look beyond their side of the issue and consider seriously what the people across the aisle have to say.

Instead of constructively engaging his critics, the president seems to believe he can wish them away. Thankfully, however, there are Republican leaders who want to see a dialogue take place. Some have had the courage to speak out publicly, comparing Iraq to Vietnam and asking tough questions about when the troops will come home. A few have even come out in support of Sheehan’s request to speak with her elected representative. Senator George Allen, Republican from Virginia, said that it would be good for Bush to invite Sheehan in “just as a matter of courtesy and decency.” Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican from Nebraska, said that “the wise course of action … would have been to immediately invite her into the ranch.” The fact that Bush is not doing the “courteous and decent” thing is inflaming hostilities and showing the world that Bush would rather stick his head in the ground than face the reality knocking on his doorstep.

Cindy Sheehan is one woman with a tragic story. Fervent supporters of the president have spent a good deal of time dragging her name into the mud. What’s more important than what this suburban mother said or didn’t say, though, is what she represents: a conversation waiting to happen. A conversation on this war and on its future end. A conversation that this country needs and the president needs to begin.

—Victor Tan Chen

Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

What makes you gay?


While gay marriages have been variously performed, overturned, and sanctioned — most recently in Spain — the question lingers: What makes you gay? And, more importantly, why does that matter?  

A recent article published in The Boston Globe summarizes the theories relating to homosexual behavior; it is entirely unresolved whether homosexuality is determined on the cellular or genetic level, in the social sphere, or in related hormonal developments and reactions, or a myriad of determining factors.  

Scientific breakthroughs aside, one reason to determine the source of homosexuality would be to further social acceptance. Should homosexuality be explained as an inborn characteristic, certain biases would lose their foundations. The ambiguously named Family Research Council, a conservative Christian organization, spawned the book Getting It Straight, in which the organization claims that should there be research that proves that homosexuality is an innate characteristic that precedes any nurture, such a discovery “would advance the idea that sexual orientation is an innate characteristic, like race; that homosexuals, like African-Americans, should be legally protected against ‘discrimination;’ and that disapproval of homosexuality should be as socially stigmatized as racism. However, it is not true.”

It was only in 1973 that the American Psychiatric Association scrapped homosexuality from its list of mental disorders; in an ideal world, a scientific explanation of homosexuality would melt away the profoundly illogical prejudices that can accompany discussions related to homosexuality.

—Mimi Hanaoka

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

Japan’s culture of defeat


“The Japanese people have stopped thinking about war … Even though our troops have been sent to Iraq, we don’t see ourselves as having any connection to war … the concept of building a nation through military power has disappeared and we just spend our days having fun,” is how Takashi Murakami, one of Japan’s pre-eminent pop artists, characterizes the lingering effects of the atomic bomb, 60 years after the days of infamy, on the Japanese mindset.  

What, then, is this Japanese mindset? According to Murakami, who was born in 1962, it is an attitude towards life, framed by the annihilation of the atomic bomb and the seven-year-long American occupation that followed, characterized by defeat, a desire for pleasure and entertainment, and a childlike inability to form a clear identity. Such a mindset may well be true, and given the counterproductive and curiously nasty trends that surface in Japanese culture — the tendency of many Japanese in their 20s and 30s who have forsaken or believe they have been forsaken by corporate culture to wander from temporary job to temporary job; the overwhelming lack of faith in the national pension scheme that is woefully under-funded and may become unable to sustain today’s youth; the bizarre phenomenon of “oyajigari,” whereby Lolita-esque schoolgirls meet older, typically married men, and then extort them for money while threatening to reveal their liaisons to their wives and children — but what is the solution to this event that occurred over half a century ago?

Murakami theorizes that this culture of diversion and defeat is “because we lost the war and because of the way we lost the war. We didn’t lose with courage, we just gave up and showed the white flag.”  What, then, should the Japanese have done or do now? According to Murakami’s characterization, a reversal would be a return to imperialist militarism. Regardless of whether the timbre of Japan’s current social identity was informed by an initial culture of military defeat, it has now become an identity, nonetheless, in the 60 intervening years; let military defeat be absorbed into the culture and be transformed so that the legacy of militarism, as well as the resultant defeat, can be left behind.  

—Mimi Hanaoka

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Blog

The burden of choice


Pro-choice? Then you probably hate John Roberts. Pro-Life? Then you’re probably a supporter, right? The judicial nominee’s prior record has largely been been overshadowed by speculation on his beliefs and position regarding Roe vs. Wade. Whether that debate will become clearer in the months preceding the nomination process remains to be seen, but in light of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s recent advertising misstep, this is a good time for men and women who consider themselves advocates of legal abortion to reconsider their tactics.

The language surrounding the abortion debate has become increasingly militant.  Activists from both sides pose it as an either/or: either you’re for it, or you’re against it, and as the conservative right positions themselves in what they claim as moral high ground, pro-choice activists have allowed themselves to be pulled into a debate over fetal life. A woman’s right to choose trumps a fetus’ right to live, or vice versa, depending on what camp you belong to.  But this is not a winnable debate. In allowing themselves to be handcuffed by this language, the pro-choice community has eliminated the in-between space many women dwell in when confronting decisions about their pregnancies.

Abortion is a reality because each year, “almost half of all pregnancies among American women are unintended. About half of these unplanned pregnancies, 1.3 million each year, are ended by abortion.” Each of these 1.3 million women and girls is making a decision, and, like all intimate decisions, the myriad emotions surrounding this choice are individual to each woman.  No one, despite the caricatures painted by the pro-life movement, approaches abortion happily.  The pro-choice community has been reluctant to admit that abortion is often tragic or dreaded, and often unpleasant. But in order to remain a viable political entity, they need to both acknowledge that truth and find room in their rhetoric for the voices of women who have or have not chosen abortion, as well as those who provide medical services.

And that’s what some parts of the movement are doing on websites like Abortion Conversation, which encourages men and women to talk about their experiences and feelings surrounding the issue.  Everyone, regardless of their opinion, should read Abortion Clinic Days, a blog written by Bon and Lou, two unnamed abortion providers. The providers write about their experiences with patients, many of whom are conflicted about their decisions. Bon writes, “Ultimately, the burden of choice is heavy for some women, crushing even for some, and for most, quite bearable.”  As the debate surrounding John Roberts and the Supreme Court continues, the pro-choice community must reposition itself to include all these women.

—Laura Louison

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:
 
Political Prose

Things look awfully better with your head stuck in the ground

Forget elephants or donkeys, hawks or doves. What does the Bush administration most resemble? An ostrich. With the mother of a fallen Iraq War soldier camped outside his ranch for nearly two weeks, a vacationing George…


Forget elephants or donkeys, hawks or doves. What does the Bush administration most resemble? An ostrich. With the mother of a fallen Iraq War soldier camped outside his ranch for nearly two weeks, a vacationing George W. Bush refuses to stick his head out the door and say hello. Meanwhile, the American effort in Iraq is, well, in its “last throes” — by which I mean it will probably go on for another five, six, eight, 10, maybe 12 years. Arianna Huffington sums up the current state of the Iraqi union:

How bad is the situation there? Barham Salih, Iraq’s minister of planning and development, tried to look at the bright side of things by saying, “We are failing to reach compromises. But we are not killing each other.” You know things are in trouble when the good news is that the Founding Fathers of the New Iraq are not blowing each other to bits.

Personally, I don’t mind if the president takes a vacation — running the country, after all, is “hard work” — but I’m puzzled why he won’t meet Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq last year. For one thing, it’s just good manners. Bush points out that he already met with her once last year, along with other relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq. Fair enough, but if a woman who lost her son in a war you started decides to come all the way to Crawford, Texas, for another chat, you might as well take 10 minutes out of your fishing trip and give her a good listen.

Avoiding Sheehan is just a dumb political move, too. I’m not sure who’s advising him these days — is Karl Rove too busy fending off special prosecutors? — but someone knowledgeable should have taken Bush aside and told him that if he didn’t talk to Sheehan soon, he’d just be enticing an army of reporters to come out to Crawford and turn his ranch into another Elián González/Terri Schiavo hatefest.

Well, the hatin’ has already begun: On Monday night a local resident drove his truck out to the protesters’ roadside encampment and ran over about half of the 500 wooden crosses they had hammered into the ground — crosses that bore the names of U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq.

Where was our valiant “war president?” Out on the range, with his head stuck in the ground.

—Victor Tan Chen

Victor Tan Chen is In The Fray's editor in chief and the author of Cut Loose: Jobless and Hopeless in an Unfair Economy. Site: victortanchen.com | Facebook | Twitter: @victortanchen

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also: