Same Tactics, Different Location

Wary Eye Cast on Abe's 'New Japan' is a shallow overview of Japan's new prime minister, Abe Shinzo.

It isn't comforting but also not surprising to see that the attacks taking place in this country are also taking place elsewhere. In the U.S. it is some sort of mythical, christian America. In Japan, the politicians leading the attacks against working people are vocally calling upon bushido, the old samurai code that allowed the elite to cut down peasants as part of their social rights. For a wonderful commentary on bushido, I recommend the film Harakiri.

These politicians aren't subtle, either. They focus their energies on "left-wing" education and "brainwashing" — this despite the fact that their party has dominated Japanese politics for the whole period they say is the problem. At the same time, they claim that their cronies who are right-wing terrorists aren't a threat. It's obvious pandering to these groups which openly harass and commit violence against the population (and have done so for some time).

The LDP has had the remilitarization of Japan as a goal for some time now. What isn't reported on here is that there's obviously been a shift in the Japanese population. For decades, leading politicians wanted the constitution changed, but knew that the population wouldn't support it. Economic desperation and social breakdown over the last fifteen years, however, have shifted people's opinions. In the absence of another voice, the demagogues have gained ground. This subtext is throughout the article, but not mentioned clearly.

The Gas-Roots Lie in Tobacco

Great article at the Guardian entitled The Denial Industry. It uses corporate documents to show how it was actually Phillip Morris who spearheaded the astroturf organizations that are so prevalent today, though it is ExxonMobil who perhaps benefits the most now. (All of the above are providing funding, of course.)

There's too many details to talk about here, but what's really impressive is the level of calculated, patient, insidious planning that has gone into creating the media environment today. What many people call "right-wing" should really just be called "corporate." Not that those two ideas are in any way contradictory, but it is important to draw a distinction between people who are desperate and attach to backward ideas and those that are shilling for company profits.

Celebration of an Embargo

Today's article From the Ground Up, Cuba Is Crumbling gives a nice long list of how bad the situation is in Cuba. It makes a weak attempt to try to place the blame elsewhere, but the reality is that 45 years of embargo have devastated the economy, and continues to do so.

In addition to the weakness of the economy, more and more of the infrastructure is falling into disrepair. This, of course, has had an effect on the population, forcing them to deal with it by scavenging from any and everything. Of course, it is hard to decipher how much this reflects the real attitude of the population — U.S. newspapers like to pretend that Cubans are on the verge of returning to a U.S.-sponsored dictatorship. I'm sure, as much as people are dissatisfied with the current situation, they have no interest in seeing their health care system and other public goods completely disassembled by U.S. interests.

The other thing to point out here is that much of the infrastructure that is crumbling wasn't even there before 1959. It isn't like Cubans lived in some slick, polished dream up until that date. It's a testament to the Cuban people that they have what they do, in spite of the embargo.

So-Called

The littlest things can actually say a lot. In today's short quip, Council Fails to Override Veto of Living Wage, it starts off with the statement, "The so-called living-wage ordinance..."

This article is about the City Council's inability to override a veto from Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley. The ordinance would have forced larger employers (read as Wal-Mart to many) to pay higher wages, something like $10/hour plus some amount of benefits, if my memory is correct.

But why the editorial phrase "so-called"? Is it because this wage would not in fact be enough to provide a living wage? Because to put the recipient above the national poverty level would take a few more dollars? I really doubt it. And it isn't a coincidence that the use of the phrase "so-called" is applied to something that would help working people. I don't see the paper reporting about the so-called Patriot Act, or any of the other long line of insidiously misnamed laws and propositions that come before us on a regular basis.

Pollution in Perspective

There were a few interesting articles that touched on pollution on Friday and Saturday:

• New Power Plants May Get Leeway on Smog

• Air Quality Board Approves Revised Pollution Credit Policy -- Much to Critics' Displeasure

• Pollution Concerns May Lower the Boom on Offshore Fireworks

Basically, when it comes to major polluters, like power plants, the South Coast Air Quality Management District wants to give them a break. Instead of really enforcing the (poor) pollution standards that have been set, they are lowering them. Instead of the $90,000 per pound fee every year a plant is over the limit, the South Coast AQMD decided a $54,000 per pound fee just once (not yearly) would be enough. And, oh yeah, these plants are likely to be in poor neighborhoods where the air quality is already low and asthma rates high.

The contrast with this issue was the concern over the pollution from fireworks shot over the ocean. The pollution from this is probably less than from one airliner making a flight over the Pacific. Furthermore, there has been only one study done on this pollution, whereas there are plenty of studies to show the horrible effects of pollution from power plants.

The difference is small fry (fireworks companies and the towns who hire them) versus big fry (energy industry). It is yet another good example of how incapable this system is of tackling environmental issues. They can attack the individual and expect us to monitor our purchasing and recycling habits, or even attack smaller industries, but the only thing they have to offer in way of controlling the big industries is to offer them greater and greater subsidies at our expense.

Environmentalism without Economic Change

I finished Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things recently. The book presents a lot of great ideas about how to rethink the way we approach things like manufacturing and housing. These are areas that definitely need to be approached differently.

One thing the authors have a track record on is analyzing the various chemicals available for different industrial processes and eliminating known problems. More of this cannot be bad. Most importantly, they lay a groundwork upon which more research needs to be done for there to be real human-centric progress.

There’s a limitation to their approach, however, and it was clarified for me by a simple comparison between what’s presented in the book and how things played out. A chapter late in the book talks about the Ford Rouge plants and lists a long number of design changes there when they rebuilt some of the facility. If you drive past the Rouge now, there is certainly a lot of greenery filling much of the open space. They also implemented the pressurized air approach to atmospheric control within the plant. Problem is, since they were put into place a few years ago, half the blowers stopped working and there has been no maintenance done on them. Then there’s the “living roof.” This caused a number of “problems” – the most prominent being that it attracted “unwanted” gulls and pigeons. To counterbalance this, you now have at the Rouge what is called the “roof of death.” This is where poisons have been laid to kill all those birds (bit of contradiction to the principles here, I think). And when the wind blows, the decayed carcasses and other detritus come to earth and create a health hazard for the workers there.

The failing, like with books such as Fast Food Nation, is that their final proposals lie within the capitalist system and its reliance upon profit. The core proposals and ideas are good, and I recommend the books, but they always hit the wall of this economic system. Certainly, a niche can be carved out wherein the dwindling “middle class” can feast on safer food, enjoy safer products, and live healthier lifestyles, but without changing the economic system, these kinds of changes will be more about PR than human lives.

No Man is an Island

"Your Honor, years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth. I said then, and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free."

— Eugene V. Debs

There's more to this than simple solidarity with the oppressed. There is the very real consequence that while one people oppresses another, they cannot be free. There is no choice in this, for no man is an island but a part of the whole.

There are consequences to the oppression of other people, and it has only been the high level of wealth extracted from these people that had allowed the U.S. to have a period of seeming calm. But we've been seeing our freedoms erode for a while now, accelerating more after 9/11. These are not freedoms we can simply gain back by marching for a right here or there. The natural tendency of our system is toward one that is more and more overtly oppressive.

Why Lieberman Matters

There's been all this talk recently about Lieberman. My first impression was something along the lines of "who cares?" There is one issue to bring up here, though.

Lieberman is like Dean and Kucinich in the last presidential election. They never really had the full support of the Democratic Party, but they were very useful in bringing in votes. Lieberman is actually the reverse of this, in that his defeat by another rich man whose only difference is that he's opposed to the war in Iraq. Will this make a difference in how the Democrats support the war? Not really. But it will have the effect of pulling people into the Democrat fold when they should rightfully toss the Democrats on the trash heap where they belong. It helps create the illusion that the Democrats might actually oppose the war.

Better Late Than Never?

The California Labor Federation has voted to oppose Proposition 85, set to appear on this fall's ballot (article). It's about time. Actually, it was time decades ago.

This is really a no-brainer, but also a sign of where labor unions are and have been. The fact that this comes up as a "controversial" decision makes it clear that labor has not taken the leadership role that it should. The group most harmed by abortion restrictions are working women. It is working women who must lead a fight for abortion rights, since they are the ones that face it not simply as a moral issue but as an economic issue.

The article brings up a notion that should be laughed at: the idea that such a decision isn't necessarily representing all of the members. The role of leadership is to lead, and more so in a labor organization. Leaders should represent the interests of workers, but as leaders they should realize the need to fight greater problems in society which are in the interest of all workers. This would be a much more fruitful investment of their resources than dumping money down the Democrat hole.

The reasoning behind this vote which the article points to, and doubtlessly is a major factor, is that unions are relying more and more on "liberal" elements to man their campaigns and work as allies in various fights. One downside to this is that it appeals more to the morals of these outsiders. A robust movement would pull these people in without effort, instead gaining its strength from individual workers who see real possibility in fighting as workers. And that should be the morality of a labor organization.

PATCO and the Decline of U.S. Workers

It's the 25th anniversary of the crushing of the PATCO strike. The strike was so significant and successful in the destruction of working-class organization and standard of living that they decided to name an airport after the leader of that attack (Reagan).

Although the media plays up the cockiness of the union, they really don't get at the story of what really happened. The union was set up for the fall, so that the ruling class could make a demonstration to the rest of the working class. Well before the strike, Carter had already helped push worse working conditions on the air traffic controllers. This lead the union to back Reagan for president, with Reagan making all sorts of promises to the union.

When the FAA presented a concession-heavy contract, the union went on strike. Reagan then proceeded to fire all the controller, bringing in scabs. The plan of attack was already laid, the FAA setting up a "Strike Force" from the year before.

Now working conditions are even worse, and NATCO (PATCO's replacement) is looking at a situation where new hires will be trained at the busiest airports – obviously the worst idea if your concern is safety. But that's just it, they're concern isn't our safety.

The PATCO strike, since they were privileged compared to other workers and expected to win, had an incredibly demoralizing effect on the working class. Combined with unions who were already in bed with management, it sped up the degenerative process that leaves us with the working conditions we see today.