Fukushima radiation -- free at your doorstep from TEPCO

                                     Cartoon  of "Our Friend the Atom" from the 1950s  
                                           Disneyland television show

I don't know if anyone has ever done the math, but it's an interesting question whether or not nuclear power would ever have paid its way as a domestic energy source if one had counted all of the costs involved in its creation including research & development, construction, liability insurance, accident clean ups, radioactive waste disposal, decommissioning aged reactors, etc.  And as Helen Caldicott has argued over the years, one also needs to count the enormous burden of human costs in illness, disability and death, along with the economic burdens of caring for people stricken with diseases caused by radioactivity emitted by the plants and their malfunctions.  

Of course the genius of modern capitalism is to avoid all costs of this kind.  Privatize the profits, pass the bills on to someone else, "externalities" as those amusing economists call these things.  In the wake of the ongoing calamities of the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) now argues that radioactive isotopes released from plant are no longer its property.  Evidently, they're giving away the deadly particles, free of charge, to anyone (mis)fortunate enough to have them arrive on their property or in their bodies.  In the spirit of the holidays, think of them as gifts that keep on giving.  

One of the earliest victims of this insidious policy is a Japanese golf course.  Here's a report from The Australian newspaper.

In defending a lawsuit from a Fukushima Prefecture golf club, lawyers said the radioactive cesium that had blighted the Sunfield Nihonmatsu golf course's fairways and greens was the club's problem. The utility has taken a similarly hard line defending claims from ryokan (inn) and onsen (spa) owners.

TEPCO's lawyers used the arcane legal principle of res nullius to argue the emissions that escaped after the tsunami and earthquake triggered a meltdown were no longer its responsibility. "Radioactive materials (such as cesium) that scattered and fell from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant belong to individual landowners, not TEPCO," the utility told Tokyo District Court.

The chief operating officer of the prestigious golf course, Tsutomo Yamane, told The Australian that he and his staff were stunned: "I couldn't believe my ears. I told my employees, 'TEPCO is saying the radiation doesn't belong to them', and they said 'I beg your pardon'."

The court rejected TEPCO's argument, but ruled it was the responsibility of local, prefectural and national governments to clean it up.

The case - and the club's bid for $160 million in clean-up costs - has proceeded to the High Court amid fears the ruling could result in some local governments being bankrupted.

   *  *  *  *  *  *  *  
By the way, I'm wondering who will pay for the damages to the world's seafood industry from the radioactive debris now floating away from the shores of Fukushima and into the Pacific Ocean.  Certainly, it won't be TEPCO.  Will shoppers and restaurants need to take geiger counters to seafood markets?   How much do those things cost?
                                                               
                                                                  
                                                                                            
 

Ready for everyday torture of Occupy protesters?

                
                         From Gizmodo, sketch of a "riot shield" now in the laboratory

The use of tear gas, pepper spray, billy clubs, other weapons are now commonplace in efforts by America’s local police officers to dispatch those involved in Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.  As protesters make use of constitutionally protected rights of free speech and assembly, they are confronted by increasingly potent varieties of “crowd control,” including forms of violence that cross the line between civilized law enforcement and practices of torture.  Our newly militarized “riot” squads carry an impressive array of high tech instruments that city and campus cops now wield with little sense of restraint.  The boys and their toys are ready for whatever expressions of freedom you have in mind.

Among the more insidious devices deployed or under development are ones that attack demonstrators  with high intensity sound waves.  These include the LRAD sound cannon used in police crackdowns against Occupy Oakland and in the political cleansing of Zuccotti park.  According to a report in Gizmodo:

The LRAD corporation says that anyone within a 100 meters of the device's sound path will experience extreme pain. The version generally utilized by police department  (the LRAD 500X) is designed to communicate at up to 2000 meters during ideal conditions. In a typical outdoor environment, the device can be heard for 650 meters. The 500x is also capable of short bursts of directed sound that casuse severe headaches in anyone within a 300-meter range. Anyone within 15 meters of the device's audio path can experience permanent hearing loss. 

Evidently, the cannon is just the beginning of an ongoing process of "innovation" in this field of engineering and marketing.  Google Patents contains a patent application for a dandy item, the "Man-Portable Non-Lethal Pressure Shield," submitted in December 2010 by James H. Bostick and now, according to Gizmodo, patented to Raytheon, Inc., The "non-lethal pressure shield creates a pulsed pressure wave that resonates the upper respiratory tract of a human, hindering breathing and eventually incapacitating the target." 

 

I find it appalling that there is not widespread public outcry about the development and use of these technologies against citizens who are simply exercising their basic constitutional and human rights.  The purpose of sound cannons and the new riot shields is to cause injury, perhaps permanent injury, to the ears and internal organs to persons who receive their blasts.  Thus, the summary judgments of police result in what amounts to immediate, extreme physical punishment without arrest, presentation of evidence or judgment in a court of law.  Injure now, ask questions later!

How is lawless conduct of this kind justified?  Or have we reached a point at which questions of  justification are beside the point?  Having grown accustomed to the "enhanced interrogation" of those suspected of “terrorism,” the American populace may be ready for swift, mundane torture of their neighbors who are simply marching in the streets, holding signs, chanting slogans, and camping in Occupy parks.

          

                

                                                                        

                                                           

Confronting Tyranny and Stupidity -- recent updates

It's been a little over four years since I delivered a brief talk -- "Confronting Tyranny and Stupidity: What Works?" -- for a teach-in on democracy at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.  The occasion was the abolition of the Faculty Senate at the university.  Much has happened since then, including this, this, and this from recent days. The natives are restless.  My talk was basically about the varieties of oligarchy that have afflicted many world societies and, alas, some contemporary American institutions as well.  (The YouTube video of the first part of the talk streams above.  Part II and Part III can be found here.) 

Dan Froomkin's essay in Nieman Watchdog describes the some of the broader patterns of oligarchy in the country right now, noting the forces now arrayed against the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Quoting political scientist Stanley Winters, he comments:

What this means, Winters says, "is that although U.S. democracy is founded on one-person-one-vote, each oligarch can bring to the political table the dollar impact of 20,000 Americans.  Decisions like Citizens United open the flood gate for oligarchs and their minions in the wealth defense industry to flex the maximum political muscle money can buy.  And that's just in the context of electoral campaigns.  No one is even talking about how the wealth defense industry silently and invisibly benefits American oligarchs every day, year-round."

By contrast, he says: "Anybody who wants to challenge the wealthy, they've got to get rained on, and eventually snowed on, and it means they have to stop whatever they're doing. Ordinary citizens actually have to join organizations and physically be there and participate, to the exclusion of anything else they might do. And that is at tremendous burden."

His conclusion: "This is one of the reasons a very small number of ultra-wealthy Americans can distort democracy in their favor against tens of millions of ordinary citizens."

My talk concludes with some reflections on Barbara Tuchman's wonderful book, The March of Folly, a work that grows in relevance each day.  Here is her optimistic vision of how citizens, leaders and whole societies might begin to dissolve the follies in which they are enmeshed:

"If the mind is open enough to perceive that a given policy is harming rather than serving self-interest, and self-confident enough to acknowledge it, and wise enough to reverse it, that is the summit of the art of government."  
        
             
                    

Few for Change -- A small but active NGO

If you're looking for a good place to send some holiday dollars -- perhaps as a present in the name of a friend or family member -- Few for Change is a wonderful choice.  The organization supports the educational needs of children of the indigenous Ngöbe-Buglé people in Panama.  As indicated the the not-for-profit organization's web page:

Our Mission: Our mission is to provide financial assistance — covering tuition, uniforms, transportation and books — to high-achieving middle and high school students who would not otherwise be able to continue their studies.

Our Vision: We envision a world where each child has access to basic education, regardless of race, ethnicity, location or socioeconomic status.

Our Values: We believe that education is a basic human right which can facilitate and sustain transformation for students and their communities. Education:

• expands horizons by inspiring and motivating individuals;
• builds social capital and lays a framework for community action and autonomy;
• empowers children to become leaders within their communities;
• provides the tools necessary for students to reach their full potential;
• enables people to break the cycle of poverty.

Our commitment is to keep 100% of the resources that we raise directed towards our scholars and their educations.

About $450 helps provide a child a middle school education and solid step out of the cycle of poverty.  My son, Brooks Winner, is one of the group's organizers and is still active in making it happen.  All of the money donated goes directly to the children.  The web site contains photos and brief bios of the girls and boys chosen to receive scholarships.
  

  

From "disability" to "functional diversity" -- The wheels of life

This cartoon, Las ruedas da la vida, "The wheels of life," nicely illustrates an interesting concept -- functional diversity -- that redefines the ideas, issues and theories often lumped together under the concept of "disability," "impairment" or of "people with disabilities."  The picture shows a baby/boy/man moving through life with changing capacities of mobility and changing needs for wheeled devices to help him move.  It's significant that it also shows the need for people who become helpers along this spectrum of mobility as well -- the woman pushing a baby carriage at the beginning and a nurse pushing an old man in a wheel chair at the end of the sequence.

The basic idea is that all human beings are situated a points along a spectrum of functionality (actually wide range of conceivable spectra of this kind) that reveals what they able to do.  In this way of seeing, the human community is composed of a innumerable kinds of diversity in functionality, circumstances that change for all individuals during their lifetimes.  Thus, the familiar notions of "diversity" that encompasses gender, race, ethnicity, social class, age, etc. can be broadened further to include "functional diversity," an alternative to understandings and labels that have often singled out particular kinds of physical traits and personal features as "defective," "abnormal," "undesirable," and the like.

To the best of my knowledge, the concept of "functional diversity" was first proposed in Argentina as an alternative to derogatory terms that describe the features of persons often discriminated against in societies around the world.   It now has a strong presence in philosophical and policy debates in Spain and Latin America.   Here is an explanation of the basic idea from the seminal article, "Functional diversity, a new term in the struggle for dignity in the diversity of the human being." by Javier Romañach and Manuel Lobato (2005).

We, women and men with functional diversity, are different from most of
the population, from the biophysical standpoint. Due to having different
characteristics, and given the conditions of the context generated by society, we
are forced to do the same tasks or functions in a different way, sometimes through
third parties.

Hence, a deaf person communicates through the eyes and by signs or signals, while
the rest of the population does so basically through words and hearing. However,
the function that these perform is the same: communication. To move around, a
person with a spinal injury customarily uses a wheelchair, while the rest of the
population do so using their legs: the same function, but in diverse forms.

For this reason the term “functional diversity” corresponds to a reality in which a
person functions in a different or diverse way from most of society. This term takes
into consideration the person’s difference and the lack of respect of majorities,
who fail to consider this functional diversity in their social and environmental
constructive processes.

I first ran across the concept of "functional diversity" during my stay at the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC) in Madrid in 2010.  My colleagues in the Institute of Philosophy there -- Francisco Guzmán, Mario Taboso and Melania Moscoso --  are developing this idea in fascinating, systematic ways and have taught me a great deal.  In fact, I am just beginning to grasp the significance and broader (highly useful) implications of their work for philosophy, social science, public policy, political activism, design, and engineering.  I plan to write about these matters in future postings here.

[Alas, I don't yet know the name of the person who drew the cartoon.]

 * * * * * * * * 
[Correction:   Francisco (Paco) Guzmán has written me with the following point, "...as far as I know, the first official reference of functional diversity appeared in 2005 in the article by Romañach and Lobato, both Spanish. The first book where it was mentioned was "el modelo de la diversidad" released in 2006, written by Agustina Palacios, Argentina, in collaboration with Javier [Bustamante?]."
Thanks, Paco!]
 


 
     
          

Foreclose on banks: turning point for Occupy movement

                Alfredo, outside his home in East New York, addresses Occupy supporters


Perhaps the eviction from Zuccotti Square and other encampments around the country will be remembered as a positive turning point for the Occupy Wall Street movement.  I've spent part of the afternoon watching streaming videos from East New York where crowds of demonstrators have marched to support families scheduled for eviction from their homes.  There's much positive energy,  good "mic check" speeches, and a coming together of people from diverse groups, which is as sign that, as one person there commented, "the color of the movement is changing."

I like the drums, small brass band, chanting, appearance of the OWS sanitation crew to clean the house, banners, house warming presents, little girl looking a the window saying, "They're waving to you, mommy!"

Meanwhile, the practical effects of the protests are more and more evident -- not just "change in the dialog," but substantial political changes that would not have happened otherwise.  Here's one, via the New York Times, from Albany today.

Cuomo Strikes Deal to Raise Taxes on the Wealthiest

By THOMAS KAPLAN

Pubished: December 6, 2011

ALBANY — Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and legislative leaders on Tuesday announced that they had reached an agreement to raise taxes on New York State’s wealthiest residents as part of a deal to overhaul the tax rates.

The leaders, seeking simultaneously to make the state’s income tax system more progressive and to increase tax collections during a down economy, announced their agreement as lawmakers began to arrive at the Capitol for an expected special session of the Legislature later this week. 

The tentative agreement would not only raise taxes for the wealthy, but also cut taxes for the middle class, by creating four new tax brackets and tax rates. The officials said the tax rate changes would generate $1.9 billion in annual revenue for the state.

“This would be lowest tax rate for middle class families in 58 years,” Mr. Cuomo said in a statement. “This job-creating economic plan defies the political gridlock that has paralyzed Washington and shows that we can make government work for the people of this state once again.”

*  *  *  *  *  *

Some observers might say, "It would have happened with or without Occupy Wall Street."  (Yeah, right...uh huh....sure it would....) 

Update: 
Evidently, another sign of this turn of events came in Obama's speech on inequality and fairness in Kansas today.  I have only read excerpts so far, but the tone and content seem extraordinary, given the cautious approach the President has taken during the past three years.  Here's a passage from Greg Sargent's story:

Obama’s speech went to great lengths to criticize inequality in this context, and his historical references were also designed to support that theme. He drew a direct line between today’s debate and the debate at the turn of the century between the forces of unregulated capitalism, which caused massive inequality and suffering, and Theodore Roosevelt's insistence on humane government intervention in service of the national good. 

“Roosevelt was called a radical, a socialist, even a communist,” Obama said, in a tacit reference to similar attacks on himself. “But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight hour work day and a minimum wage for women; insurance for the unemployed, the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax."                                                      
                                                            

If it's all about "public health and safety," why arrest a sink?

Under the guise of protecting "public health and safety," the arrest and removal of Occupy Wall Street protestors continues in several cities across the country.  To test the lame excuse that the encampments are not sufficiently clean, some clever folks at Occupy Boston introduced a sink for washing hands, dishes and whatever else needed cleaning.  The device was specially prepared by someone at MIT, using methods that transforms the runoff into "greywater" that can be harmlessly poured onto the lawn of a city park.  This is a civil liberties protecting, Lemelson Prize caliber, technological innovation of the highest order, a political artifact supreme.

The Boston Police were not amused.  During a crackdown of Occupy Boston last night they arrested demonstrators and confiscated the ingenious sink.  A news report from a local web site gives the details.

A standoff between Boston Police and occupiers ended with an arrest late Thursday night after officers apprehended a makeshift sink being delivered to Dewey Square.

According to police, Atlantic Avenue was temporarily blocked off and one protester was arrested for disorderly conduct and assault and battery on a public employee as members of Occupy Boston allegedly tried to keep police from removing the sink from the property.

Officers eventually hauled away the sink in a police vehicle. . . .

The sink, which cost the group roughly $200, was made so occupiers could address complaints city officials made in a court hearing earlier in the day in regards to sanitation and dirty dishes.  . . .

“It’s ironic that the city would complain in court about sanitation and in the same day remove a sink,” said B from Allston.

B, who wouldn’t give a full name, said campers are constantly working to improve the site at Dewey Square.

“When we try and get the sink, they then tell us we are being violent,” he said.

After the commotion settled, protesters began chanting “whose sink, our sink,” a play on words from one of their regular chants when marching through the streets of Boston.


 * * * * * *
One of the signs of the imagination and resourcefulness of the Occupy movement is to test the absurd reasons offered by governments at all levels for the suppression of citizen rights.  As incidents of this kind spread, the application of raw, arbitrary power is unmasked for what it is. 

The underlying message turns out to be:  "We're using police force to protect the interests of the oligarchy that has seized control of the U.S.A.  Don't ask about our justifications  Just bow your heads!"