The Legacy of Sadako Sasaki

Earlier this evening I was trying to catch up on all the stuff I had recorded on my DVR, as I'm starting to run out of space.  Among the many things I had recorded was an NHK program entitled "My Small Steps from Hiroshima."  This program examined the role of Kaoru Ogura, a Japanese American, who devoted his life to bringing the story of A-bomb victims and survivors to the world.  He was, for many years, the director of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum and is also almost solely responsible for introducing the story of Sadako Sasaki to Japan and the rest of the world.

For those of you not familiar with the story, Sadako was two years old on August 6, 1945 when the atomic bomb named "Little Boy" was dropped from the B-29 "Enola Gay" on the city of Hiroshima.  Although Sadako survived the actual blast, ten years later she developed leukemia.  There was a significant increase in the incidence of leukemia among children after the bombing; a consequence of exposure to radiation from the bomb.  Sadly, many young children, especially junior and senior high school kids, were organized into special brigades tasked with clearing streets after bombings.  The idea was for them to clear the streets to allow fire and rescue crews to navigate damaged areas to fight fires and rescue survivors.  Unfortunately, many of these kids who rose to the occasion and did their jobs, were exposed to some of the highest levels of radiation and many died within days; others developed various cancers and they lived relatively short lives.  Anyway, I digress....there is a Japanese tradition that if you fold 1,000 paper cranes (tsuru in Japanese), you will be granted a single wish.  Putting her faith in this tradition, Sadako began to fold paper tsuru in the hopes of being cured of her leukemia.  She died October 25, 1955 at the age of 12.

Mr. Ogura was instrumental in getting not just Sadako's story out to the Japanese public and the world, but also the stories of countless other hibakusha (A-bomb survivors).  Many of these individuals have lived their entire lives suffering from scars; physical, psychological, and emotional, from that fateful day in 1945.  Although he has passed, his wife, Keiko Ogura, carries on his legacy by continuing to talk to school children across the world about her own experiences as a hibakusha.  The story of Sadako and the cranes is now very widely known and children across the world fold cranes in her honor.  Every year, thousands upon thousands of cranes are brought to Hiroshima to be placed at the statue commemorating Sadako or at the Children's Memorial.  It's very impressive to see all these tsuru from across the globe that continue to honor the legacy of Sadako.

After watching this show, I started to reflect on my own connection with August 6, 1945.  Although I'm a 4th generation American of Japanese ancestry, my parents were both in Japan during the war.  My mother is a Japanese national, but my father is a 3rd generation American of Japanese ancestry.  My grandfather moved the family back to Japan prior to the Second World War, so my father spent his formative years in Japan, before returning to the U.S. in 1955.  Both my parents and the vast majority of my relatives in Japan are hibakusha.  My parents rarely, if ever, talk to strangers about their wartime experiences, but I have been fortunate in that they have been very open with me about what they saw, experienced, and felt during that time.  Needless to say, their experiences have left a deep impression upon me. 

Even after seeing photos and visiting the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, it's still very hard for me to fully appreciate the horrors they witnessed.  My maternal grandfather was a naval officer and stationed near the famed Hiroshima Dome, the epicenter of the atomic blast.  We assume he was instantaneously vaporized; sadly, he was one of the lucky ones.  I lost other relatives whom I'd also never meet.  The unlucky were the ones who slowly died of burns, radiation poisoning, various forms of cancer, or other radiation-based diseases.  Countless thousands lived the rest of their lives with permanently melted flesh, deformities, or microscopic shards of glass embedded in them.  One of my mother's neighbors never wore long sleeved shirts, because if he did, the fabric would lightly snag on the tiny shards of glass embedded in his arms, which would cause him immense pain.  Sadly, he wanted to wear long sleeves to hide the significant scarring on his arms, where his flesh had essentially melted due to the intense heat of the blast.  Still others had to live with the stigma and discrimination of having been exposed to the bomb.  Single female hibakusha in particular found it impossible to marry, since it was thought that exposure to the radiation would result in their giving birth to deformed children, regardless of how healthy they were. 

Aside from my family's story, I never gave much thought to the legacy of Sadako Sasaki, aside from the poignancy of her story and the powerful message it conveyed.  However, it all came full-circle for me on May 29, 2016.  Many of  you know that I volunteer at the Japanese American National Museum as a docent and photographer.  May 29, 2016 was the opening reception for "Above the Fold," an exhibition about origami (Japanese paper folding) and it's role in art, science, and industry.  What was special about that reception was that the museum was to take ownership of one of the original tsuru actually folded by Sadako Sasaki.  Her older brother (Masahiro Sasaki), nephew (Yuji Sasaki), and the grandson of President Harry Truman (Clifton Truman Daniel), came to present the precious artifact to the museum.  These three have tirelessly worked to not just keep the memory of Sadako alive, but to also spread the stories of hibakusha and to speak out against the production and proliferation of nuclear weapons.  Only a handful of the tsuru are out in the public, let alone outside of Japan, so the museum was very honored to receive this artifact from the family.  The tsuru is on display at the Japanese American National Museum and as you can see from the accompanying photo, it's very small. 

Photo Credit:  Dr. Tsuneo Takasugi

I was one of the photographers that day, but I got a chance to meet Masahiro Sasaki and briefly talk with him.  I shared with him that my parents were hibakusha and that at some level, I understood what he and his sister went through and how much I appreciated his sharing his and his sister's story.  However, what struck me most was what he told me.  He encouraged me to convince my parents to talk about their experiences to the public (something I've not been successful at doing), but he also said it was more important for me to share my parents' story, especially after they pass.  While that was something that I knew and understood, there was just something about the way he encouraged me to do this, that made it seem even more important. 

So, after watching "My Small Step from Hiroshima," I recalled what Masahiro Sasaki told me.  I also started to think about Sadako, her cranes, and her legacy.  Here was a young girl who was an innocent victim of war, faced one of the most horrific weapons of war, put her faith in the story of a thousand cranes, and faced the challenges of fighting leukemia; a battle she eventually lost.  However, her friends, her classmates, children across Japan, and children across the world continue to fold tsuru in her name and in the name of peace.  In some real sense, the countless millions of tsuru folded over the decades form a physical link between August 6, 1945 and today.

The story of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are important today as they were over 70 years ago.  I know many will argue of the military necessity to end the war and the countless lives that were saved.  One could make that calculus and defend it and I don't mean to directly comment on its morality.  I just know that those who survived the initial blast did not deserve the horrors or the challenges they faced afterwards.  I am very fortunate that among all my relatives who survived August 6, 1945, none suffered from any long-term effects....at least to my knowledge.  Even my father, who was buried under rubble and had to dig himself out, was very fortunate to have not suffered any major injuries or long-term effects like others.  But members of my family are among the minority.  In this day and age when more countries are developing nuclear weapons, with some not adhering to or becoming signatories of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and with countries with unstable leadership, like North Korea, developing nuclear capabilities, it is important to remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Note:  All photos were taken by me, except the cover of the Sadako book and the credited photo by Dr. Takasugi.

Some Thoughts on the Health Care Battle

As I write this blog, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell is still trying to resurrect the Republican effort to repeal and/or replace the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), so-called "ObamaCare."  This post isn't intended to be a discussion of the health care debate per se nor my own views/positions on this issue.  There's enough opinion out there to keep people amused for a while.  However, I did want to make a few points that I think are being lost among the rhetoric from both sides of the argument.  Apologies, as this post may end up being a bit disjointed, given the complexities of the issue.

The first thing that comes to mind is that the ACA nor the American Health Care Act (AHCA) really has anything to do with health care per se.  This is an insurance debate, which under some conditions will improve the health care for some Americans, especially those who previously could not previously access affordable health care, but does next to nothing to actual tackle the problems of reducing the overall cost of health care nor actually improving the quality of health care.  So folks should not be under the illusion that either plan actually improves the quality of health care in this country.  While on this topic, it is important to emphasize that despite being the richest country in the world, the United States does extremely poorly in terms of actual health care for our citizens; we definitely are not ranked at the top.  That's extremely sad that a country so rich cannot ensure that its citizens can get adequate and competent health care at a reasonable price.

Since this does boil down to a discussion of insurance, access to insurance, and the cost of insurance, it's important to remember what insurance really is.  One side seems to think health care is a right and everyone should be provided health care.  The other side seems to think insurance is a product, should be treated as such, and therefore free market economics apply.  Sadly, both sides forget that insurance is about risk and managing risk.  Access to affordable health care (insurance) does not equate receiving adequate health care (actual care).  In order to provide affordable insurance for all, the risk has to be spread across all.  Therefore, if you want insurance to be affordable, you either need to do something about the actual cost of health care or you have to spread the risk across everyone.  Ideally, you want to do both.  Since Congress is very unlikely to want to regulate actual health care costs, that only leaves the option to spread the risk.  So, the argument that healthy people should not be forced to purchase health insurance only weakens any plan to provide accessibility to health insurance for all.  Look at the example of car insurance; not a perfect analogy, but sufficient to make a point.  In almost all states (I believe Virginia and New Hampshire are the exceptions) everyone who drives is required to have some form of car insurance.  It doesn't matter whether you've had an accident or not.  By doing this, the risk and subsequent cost of insurance is spread across all drivers. Yet, I'm not aware of loud protests of forcing "safe" drivers to have insurance.  In fact, since nobody knows if/when they'll have an accident, spreading the cost of the risk across all drivers makes sense.  The same is true of health care.  None of us knows if/when we're going to get sick or whether that illness will be something minor or major.  Can you imagine what car insurance costs would be like if "safe" drivers were exempt and only "unsafe" drivers were required to obtain insurance?  I fully support the idea of freedom of choice advocated by some, but if you really want everyone to have access to affordable health care, then some sacrifice to that freedom will be necessary, in the absence of going to a model of socialized medicine.

Which brings up the issue of cost.  There are those who would argue that free market economics should apply to health care and that competition will drive the market and reduce costs.  Sadly, these folks seem to forget that's what we essentially had prior to the ACA.  While the principle of free markets sound good, the health care market isn't like buying a car.  Pricing is hidden from the consumer and even if there was transparency in pricing, "shopping around" is made more difficult based on the fact that you're care is typically tied to a particular physician or health care plan.  Research shows two-, three-, and sometimes multi-fold differences in pricing for the exact same procedure across health care providers in similar geographic regions.  How can the same procedure, performed in nearly the same way, have such a large cost differential?  More importantly, how can competition drive pricing if you don't know what the prices are and health care systems are unwilling to reveal those prices?  Free market forces will only work in health care when transparency becomes more of the norm.  Yet those advocating for free markets are not likely to create legislation to make those markets more transparent for consumers.

Politicians always talk about what the American people want.  I've heard people on both sides of the aisle start their statements with "The American people clearly want blah, blah" and then justify whatever thing they're talking about.  You can usually find support on either side of an argument and depending upon which part of the country the politician represents, that statement can have some truth to it (although, they probably should say "Americans in my district" or "Americans in my state").  However, in terms of the health care debate and the AHCA, it appears that very few, if any, health care constituencies support the AHCA.  Overwhelmingly, insurance companies, health care providers, professional medical groups, public health advocates, disease-based non-profits, and other parties have all raised concerns about the AHCA at one level or another.  Clearly, those entities that need to be a major part of the AHCA don't think this piece of legislation is good for Americans.  Yet, the politicians don't seem to hear their views and keep talking about what "The American people want."  This is one issue where politicians need to be listening to the professionals.


I have constantly harped about political expediency and lack of political leadership.  Well, we're seeing a good example here in the health care debate.  The ACA was a reasonable attempt to improve access to health care in the US, but it was not perfect. But, rather than trying to fix and improve upon it, foes of the ACA chose to run on the idea of repeal.  While President Obama was still in office, there were multiple attempts to repeal the ACA.  These were politically expedient votes, because those against the ACA knew their votes could generate the appearance of a principled stance that had very little risk of any real responsibility, since President Obama would always veto the bill.  Now, that political expediency needs to morph into political leadership, these individuals are now finding their path to "repeal" or "repeal and replace" is fraught with all kinds of difficulties.  Rather than show leadership, govern, and fix the ACA, they are now trying to maintain their "repeal" positions while trying to come up with an alternative plan.  Why does there need to be an alternative?  Why can't these individuals work with others across the aisle to help Americans get what they need?  Why is loyalty to party more important than loyalty to country?  This issue should not be used as a political football, since peoples' lives and livelihoods are at stake.  However, what puzzles me the most is how these people, like members of the House, can stand there have big smiles on their faces, claim the alternative plans they've proposed are "better" when millions would lose health insurance and others would end up paying more.  Those millions are real Americans with real health care needs and they are not likely to get adequate health care and are at extreme risk for a short life span.  How can politicians justify playing with peoples' lives with a big smile on their face?  In fact, the extreme need to defend their own plans, however bad, leads to some to justify their vote in support by saying ridiculous things like Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) - "Nobody dies because they don't have access to health care."  The least they can do is admit coming up with comprehensive legislation for health care is difficult, look a little somber, and say they tried their best to meet the expectations of all their constituents, but that some will have to pay more for insurance or not be covered at all.  These smiles and claims of victory just show these people are not serious about the real-world consequences of health care legislation. Oh, and by the way, the claim that the ACA is "failing" or "is in a death spiral" or some of the other descriptors is really self-serving.  The reason for the turmoil in the exchanges has to do with one of the weaknesses of the ACA; it relies on funds to be approved by Congress.  Without those funds, plus the ambiguities of the future of health care legislation, both falling under the responsibility of the Republicans, the exchanges in some areas are teetering on collapse.  However, most of that would disappear if Congress votes to provide the subsidies or provide a clear vision for health care.  Thus, they are primarily responsible for the so-called "collapse" of the ACA and people having difficulties finding insurance or having to pay more for it.

In the end, legislating health insurance is difficult.  There are difficult choices and significant consequences for each choice made.  This is one issue where those on the extremes of the political spectrum, have to take a step back and allow for governing from the middle.  No legislation will be perfect and there will be losers.  But we cannot be passing legislation where anywhere from 16 to twenty-something million Americans will go without access to affordable insurance.  That can't happen in a country that is as wealthy as we are.  Yes, freedom of choice is important.  Yes, government shouldn't meddle in our personal lives.  Yes, being fiscally responsible is important.  But these all can't be accomplished by abandoning a large segment of our society as if they didn't matter.  These politicians are playing with real lives with real life or death consequences.  It's about time they take real responsibility and come up with a responsible health care plan for all Americans.

#LetsMakeAmericaBuenoAgain

The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!

In 1966, a movie called "The Russians are Coming! The Russians are Coming!" starring Carl Reiner, Eva Marie Saint, Alan Arkin, Jonathan Winters, and a bunch of others was released (Original movie trailer).  This film was a comedy that leveraged America's fear of the Communist USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for those of you born before 1991) at the height of the Cold War.  The Russian Federation that was established after the fall of the Soviet Union has gone through its share of ups and downs, but now seems to have achieved some form of stability (if you want to call it that) under the leadership of Vladimir Putin.  Hence, the old Cold War-type relationship between Russia and the United States has started to return.

The recent revelation that Russia attempted to intervene in the US Presidential election has generated all kinds of news over the last few months.  However, like many things these days, there seems to be more of a focus on partisanship than focusing on the issue at hand.  Democrats are too busy trying to tie Russian interference with members of Trump's administration or campaign.  While there seems to be evidence for this, it's hardly concrete and, quite frankly, distracts from the bigger issue.  Similarly, those on the far right are too busy trying to protect the Trump administration from the allegations of possible collusion with the Russians.  Sadly, their efforts seem to be based on the conspiracy theory that the "deep state" is trying to destabilize and discredit the Trump administration.  Republicans, in general, seem like a deer in headlights and can't seem to figure out how to respond.  They seem to be all over the map with some showing concern about the Russian interference, some trying to protect the Trump administration, and some sitting on the fence and waiting to see what happens next.

One major problem is that much of what the media is reporting has come from leaks.  Our President and his administration have rightfully complained about this and the FBI and Justice Department should be investigating this, as these leaks MAY have broken the law.  However, rather than being concerned about the leaks themselves and what might be motivating them, the administration seem to be more concerned about the impact it has on their positions.  Sadly, it's these leaks that feed the conspiracy theory about the "deep state" that concerns the far right.  However, these individuals must understand that the actions of the President and his administration seem to only feed the need to leak information to the public.  The distortion of facts and outright lies by our President and his administration have not helped his current situation.

On the other side of the fence, Democrats have been too eager to embrace these leaks to make their case about possible collusion between Russia and members of the Trump administration.  Sadly, leaks aren't facts, and need to be viewed with a suspicious eye until verified.  Also, these are only small tidbits in a wider and more complex web of events.  Taking these isolated reports and trying to build a wider narrative borders on irresponsible.  In fact, I'm guessing the Russians are sitting back and laughing at our response to their handy work.  These leaks are almost no different than rumor, a tool widely used in the history of warfare to confuse your opponent.  Sadly, partisanship has gotten so bad, both sides of the aisle are grasping at anything to support their claims, which simply falls into what the Russians probably want.

The thing that has gotten lost in this whole mess is the fact that Russia has tried to interfere with the US election.  We have yet to see evidence of how Russia did this (lots of speculation in the press based on leaks, but no hard evidence has been presented to the public) and we have yet to ascertain how this interference might have affected the election (despite what Hillary supporters might think).  Remember, the only we've been told in public testimony is that there is strong evidence the Russians have interfered and that the investigation is on-going.  Nothing more, nothing less.  All the other stuff circulating in the media has been from leaks, speculation, and basically fake news perpetuated by those trying to protect the administration.  We have also not seen any comments on how we might prevent any future interventions by Russia or any other party.  All the other stuff people are talking about is secondary to the main issue.  Did Russia interfere, if so, how, and how to we prevent it in the future.  The key thing here is the erosion of confidence in our elections.  We've already got Republicans, and mostly our President, talking about massive voter fraud; something that is not supported by any evidence.  We don't need our confidence to be further eroded by intervention by a foreign entity.  It's why I keep saying that Hillary has to stop partly blaming her loss on Russian interference.  There's no evidence to support that contention.  The evidence suggests the Russians did favor Trump, but as far as I'm aware, there's no evidence the Russians actually tilted the election in his favor.  This is the thing that we should all be concerned about....left, right, Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, or independent....how did the Russians intervene in the election and did it have an effect on the outcome?  Everyone should be concerned about this question and we should all be supporting the various investigations to answer and understand this question.  Besides, answers to all the other stuff is likely to come out of those investigations.

This is something all Americans should consider to be a serious matter that deserves a serious examination.  We should not be politicizing this, because the stakes are too high regardless of your political affiliation.  We keep telling other countries how they should be conducting elections and how elections should be free and fair.  It's very problematic when we have to start questioning our own elections.  Let the various investigations move forward in a fair and non-partisan manner to get to the truth.  Only then, can we stop worrying if the Russians are coming.  I grew up in the Cold War era where as kids, we had "drop drills" in case of nuclear attack, regular testing of warning sirens, and people digging nuclear shelters.  We don't need to go back to those days and we don't need our democracy to be destabilized by outside interference.  The last thing we need is something like this.

#LetsMakeAmericaBuenoAgain

The First 100 Days...

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt became President, he inherited a country that was in the throes of the worst economic crisis the country ever faced.  He proceeded to institute a flurry of Presidential Proclamations and Executive Orders and worked with Congress to pass legislation that implemented what he called "The New Deal."  This flurry of activity was then used by the media as some new benchmark all subsequent Presidents were held to.  Frankly speaking, this is a silly benchmark and quite unfair to any subsequent President, since economic conditions, political climate, and thousands of other factors differ from the early 1930s.

However, it is useful to examine the progress the first 100 days of any presidency as a benchmark for how a given presidency is shaping up.  If you were thinking I was going to now proceed to pick apart the first 100 days of the Trump administration, you'd be quite wrong.  The media and a plethora of pundits have spent plenty of time doing that, so I suggest you Google the info and parse the various opinions.  However, I would like to note a few, what I think are, unique things about the first 100 days of the Trump administration.  Apologies if this post comes off as a bit disjointed and rambling.  However, there's much to talk about and I'm going to try to limit things for this post and leave more for later.


First, my very first post on this blog commented on the increase in racist activity that I felt was partly fueled by the rhetoric of the 2016 presidential campaign ("Out of the Shadows").  The divisiveness of the country has gotten worse on multiple levels.  Trump's 100th day fell on the 25th anniversary of the so-called "Rodney King riots."  To me, we haven't moved forward from that tragedy and, in many respects, have actually regressed.  Sadly, our elected officials continue to ignore the signs and continue to show lack of leadership.  Our President has barely addressed the issue and his continued rhetoric and vitriolic behavior has continued to allow those with extreme views to come out of the shadows and claim the veil of legitimacy under the facade of political expression.  Maybe that's what he wants, since they obviously form a small percentage of his base.  If that were true, it's a sad comment on our society.  Sadly, the media has also decided this topic is not worth addressing simply because no political leader, is addressing it.  Our political leaders need to grow a pair and address the immediate aspects of this increase in racist activity.  It has serious implications for the near-term (and possibly long-term) future of our democracy.

Second, the media and some selected others have made a big deal about how the President has the lowest approval rating of any modern President.  Well, that may be true when one looks at the overall numbers, but a quick look "under the hood" is quite revealing (politico.com).  The President's approval rating among Trump voters is above 90% and that number only drops slightly to 80-something percent when looking at Republicans as a whole.  His approval rating among independents hovers around 40% and his approval among Democrats is around 10%.  Yes, some in the media have talked about this breakdown, but what the media has not been discussing is what these numbers truly represent; an America that is seriously divided even in the face of a national leadership that has revealed a cornucopia of flaws and weaknesses. The general level of politicization has reached unbelievable levels, but also our current President has steadily attempted to politicize every aspect of our government, even those institutions that are supposed to be non-partisan.  While I know many don't believe "non-partisan" exists, you might be surprised by the bureaucracy.  Those working in the "non-partisan" parts of our government actually take their jobs seriously and understand why they need to remain apolitical.  Sadly, our current President seems to think that if a particular branch of government disagrees with him or does something counter to what he wants, then he needs to play "Apprentice" and fire people and attempt to place his minions in those positions.  This is very dangerous for our democracy.  Those "non-partisan" entities must remain non-partisan and not subject to the whims of the President, legislature, or any other entity. 

This leads to my third point....the total lack of huevos among our representatives in the legislative branch of our government.  There are times I think they need to go back to school and take civics all over again.  This cow towing to your political party and its goals, rather than doing what might be right for the country just illustrates my point above.  Yes, we all have differences of opinion when it comes to what is "right" for the country.  But, as Americans, we should be able to discuss those issues and come to some compromise that works for everyone.  This digging in of heels that's done by both parties gets us nowhere.  When did "compromise" become a dirty and divisive word?  However, what's even sadder is that as we see a President who tweets bold-face lies, tries to mold history to his liking, and shows ever increasing levels of political inexperience and narcissism.  In the face of all that, the legislative branch of our government seems to have forgotten whole idea of "checks and balances."  Time to put some of the politics aside and start doing things that we should all be able to agree is for the good of the country, regardless of what the President wants.

Take the apparent interference of Russia in our recent election.  While it's not clear whether there was collusion between Russia and members of the Trump campaign and/or administration, our intelligence experts seem to all agree that Russia did attempt to influence our election in favor of President Trump.  In fact, it's become clear they have tried to influence other elections across the globe.  As Americans, Republican, Democrat, and Independent, we should all be very concerned about this.  Yet, Republicans seem to want to ensure the President and his friends are semi-protected from investigation, while Democrats scream for further investigation into rumors of collusion.  Really, the House and Senate committees should continue their investigations in a non-partisan way, ignore what all the vested parties want, and see where the evidence leads without trying to influence the outcome.  Yet, both sides seem incapable of doing that.  Without thoroughly investigating this and figuring out what we need to do to protect our electoral process, all future elections are going to be subject to suspicion, only feeds the false narrative of wide-spread voter fraud, and erodes our democracy.

Fourth, all of this polarization has spilled into public discourse.  It's sad to see people screaming and yelling at each other, without taking the time to understand the other side.  Frankly, we've all forgotten that we have free speech in this country and shouting down and/or threatening the other side from expressing their opinion does nothing to advance our democracy.  Lately, the left side of the country seems to be less and less willing to be tolerant of listening and has led to incidents of, what are basically, intolerance.  Yeah, the other side may be advocating ideas and policies that seem extreme and exclusive, but at the same time, they are thinking the same about you.  We all form our opinions and views based on our personal experiences.  The only way to understand the other side, is to learn more about their experiences.  My first point about the recent polls about Trump's approval illustrates this.  Trump voters still approve of his job, despite all the things those on the left think are too extreme and horrible.  He's doing exactly what they want him to do.  Why is that?  It's time for everyone to come out of each other's bubbles and start talking, instead of yelling.  You actually might find a real person on the other side.  It's also time for the media to come out of their respective bubbles and start engaging in a much broader conversation.  These partisan approaches to news and information again does nothing to advance our democracy.  I've always argued that the day the networks figured out they could make money off the news, is when the news dies.  But getting back to the original point, free speech applies to everyone.  It's one of the principles our Founding Fathers understood would be a cornerstone of our democracy.  It's sad that many Americans are forgetting what it means.

OK, so enough for now.  I can ramble on about more, but this post is already a bit too long.  FDR's "New Deal" was the right thing at a critical time for the country.  As I noted at the beginning, he achieved many of the goals of the "New Deal", because there was, for the most part, bipartisan understanding it was what the country needed.  Time for our elected officials to understand what our country needs now and start to reach across the aisle to move our country forward.


#LetsMakeAmericaBuenoAgain

75 Years Ago...

Recent Executive Orders (EO) by President Trump have large numbers of Americans upset.  Among those EOs, one stands out given the history of the U.S., the one entitled Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.  What some people are calling the "Muslim Ban."  I wanted to take a moment to talk about this EO in the context of our country's history.  At the onset, I will say that hindsight is, for the most part, 20-20 and whether this EO truly improves the security of our nation will only be determined in the future.  However, looking at our past can give us some sense of whether this EO is necessary and whether it will enhance our country's security.

In 1980, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) was established by Congress to review the facts and implications of EO9066, which was issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942.  For those of you unfamiliar, EO9066 facilitated the incarceration of people of Japanese, German, and Italian ancestry during World War II, with those of Japanese ancestry being mostly affected.  The EO essentially carved up America and its territories into military districts and gave local commanders of those districts broad authority to determine who could or could not be within the boundaries of those districts.  The Commission issued its final report, entitled "Personal Justice Denied," in December 1982 and concluded the wartime incarceration of persons of Japanese ancestry, two-thirds of them U.S. citizens, was a result of wartime hysteria, racism, and failure of political leadership.  The Commission's final report became the basis for the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.  Many Americans are unaware of the facts surrounding the wartime incarceration of people of Japanese ancestry and many myths from the 1940s persist to this day.  Here are some of the facts and how they parallel the current national dialog.

The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was a tremendous shock to the country.  Much like the Al Qaeda attacks on 9/11 shocked our nation in 2001.  The fact the attack occurred without a formal declaration of war only fed the already pervasive anti-Japanese stereotypes in the U.S.  Indeed, soon after the start of the war, Americans in Hawaii and along the west coast saw Japanese spies and saboteurs everywhere.  The Dr. Seuss cartoon on the right exemplifies this fear.  Another example is my mentor at the Japanese American National Museum.  He was a young teen when the war started.  One day, he and his brother were watching a train go by in their neighborhood.  Wartime mobilization had started and the train was carrying military vehicles, something that would pique the curiosity of any young teenage boy.  That evening, two FBI agents came to their home to investigate reports of two Japanese spies counting the number of military vehicles being carried by the train.  The fear of a fifth column among the population of people of Japanese ancestry was pervasive, but also reinforced by the government and media, much like today.

The fear of spies and saboteurs, plus his own prejudice, led the commander of the Western Military District, Lt. Gen. John DeWitt, to declare that people of Japanese ancestry were a threat to military facilities within his command.  Thus, under the authority given to him by EO9066, DeWitt requested that all persons of Japanese ancestry living within a specified geographic region within his military district be removed in order to protect his military installations.  DeWitt's request was granted and the people of Japanese ancestry living along the west coast were incarcerated into concentration camps operated by the War Relocation Authority (WRA).  I should note that while DeWitt issued similar orders for people of German and Italian ancestry, these individuals could apply for exception and avoid being removed from the designated zone.  Similar exceptions were not extended to people of Japanese ancestry.

Sadly, even before these events, people of Japanese ancestry were arrested and incarcerated into a series of camps operated by the Justice Department and other agencies.  These individuals were on a secret government list broadly known as the ABC List; a list of individuals targeted for immediate arrest if war with Japan broke out.  Who was on this list?  The three categories (A, B, and C) essentially listed out community leaders, so-called "less suspicious individuals" (I have no idea what that meant), and "Japanese language instructors, Buddhist clergy, and anyone who donated to a Japanese organization."  That last category was particularly onerous, since "Japanese organization" included things like your local clubs or churches.  This was all done under the banner of national security.  It should be noted that the ABC List was issued under a blanket Presidential warrant authorized under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.  This act was also used as partial justification for the USA Patriot Act of 2001 and its renewal.  I should also note that Presidential Proclamations 2525, 2526, and 2527 were issued using the Alien Enemies Act as justification.  These proclamations declared that non-citizens of Japanese (2525), German (2526), and Italian (2527) would be declared "enemy aliens" and was followed by Presidential Proclamation 2537 that required all these people to register with the State Department.  Hmm....sounds very much like the call today for a "Muslim registry."

During this time, the government attempted to project the image that the various things done to people of Japanese ancestry was not based on race, but again, on national security and only applied to those who were not U.S. citizens.  Yet, many things the government did during this time were done as if U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry did not exist.  Two specific examples.  One, when war broke out, anyone of Japanese ancestry serving in our military was eventually labeled 4-C and expelled.  4-C was military designation for "enemy alien," yet the majority of these individuals were U.S. citizen and some were even World War I veterans who had already honorably served in active duty.  Two, in all public declarations, U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry were referred to as "non-aliens"....what the hell is a "non-alien?"  Clearly, the government did not want the public to ask questions of how citizens were being treated.  Calling them "non-aliens" avoided the potential problem of people asking the question as to why citizens were being incarcerated and the more important question of don't citizens have rights?  Such treatment and terminology was not applied to people of German or Italian ancestry.

The cry of national security is used today just as it was 75 years ago.  But what was the national security threat in the 1940s?  Years after the war, it was revealed that despite all the fears of spies and saboteurs among the population of people of Japanese ancestry, the Federal government actually knew that no such thing existed.  This is evidenced by the Munson Report that was filed and discussed at the cabinet level months before the Pearl Harbor attack, which concluded that there was no need for mass incarceration of people of Japanese ancestry if we went to war with Japan.  The Munson Report was supported by an independent report by the FBI that came to the same conclusion.  Furthermore, all those reports of spies and saboteurs, like my mentor mentioned above, were known by the Federal government to be false.  Despite this, the Federal government allowed the specter of rampant spy and sabotage activity to perpetuate in the public and the government itself used this as the national security rationale for wartime incarceration.  It is interesting to note that in contrast to the population of Japanese ancestry in the U.S., the populations of people of German and Italian ancestry were 40-times larger in the 48 contiguous states, yet only a little over 30,000 people of German ancestry and less than 500 people of Italian ancestry were incarcerated during the war.  A little over 120,000 of the 127,000 people of Japanese ancestry living in the 48 contiguous states were incarcerated.  The other contrast is that along the east coast, there was active and documented espionage activity and Germany even landed several spies and saboteurs along the east coast (I should note the vast majority of these Germans were arrested within days of being dropped off).  Yet, there were no calls for mass incarceration of people of German or Italian ancestry.

One additional interesting piece of information that most Americans are unaware of is that the mass incarceration of people of Japanese ancestry occurred only within the Western military district commanded by Lt. Gen. John DeWitt.  Over 42 percent of the population of Hawaii was of Japanese ancestry at this same time, yet Lt. Gen. Delos Emmons chose not to do mass incarceration.  Of course, locking up 42 percent of the population would have devastated the Hawaiian economy.  But,  Emmons demonstrated multiple times that he felt that people of Japanese ancestry were loyal Americans or loyal to America.  Also, there is direct evidence showing Justice Department officials indirectly contacted Lt. Gen. John DeWitt to inform him that language he was using in his request to incarcerate people of Japanese ancestry was racist and to tone down his language because the Federal government could not come across as being racist.  They actually never asked him to stop being racist, just change your language.  This contrast further shows that racism, not national security, played a large role in the decisions regarding incarceration.  In fact, in his request to incarcerate people of Japanese ancestry within his command, Lt. Gen. John DeWitt is quoted as saying "A Jap's a Jap.  It doesn't matter whether the Jap's a citizen or not."  This quote alone shows our government knowingly took rights away from American citizens.


This and other evidence identified years after the end of the war supported the case that the incarceration of people of Japanese ancestry was based on the factors cited the CWRIC report; racism, failure of political leadership, and wartime hysteria. Today, Americans need to heed the lessons of what we did after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The current administration and others still cite the national security risk as the primary reason for restricting people from the 7 countries cited in the EO, calling for a "Muslim registry," and even calling for incarceration of people of the Muslim faith. Ask yourself the following questions:

1. What is the national security risk? As far as I am aware, there have not been any acts of terrorism or violence from refugees or others affected by this travel restriction. So why are these people a threat? Acts of terrorism cited by the administration have either been shown to not be direct acts of terrorism or mostly home-grown acts of terrorism. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, of large numbers of terrorist attacks or other terrorist-related activities perpetuated by refugees or others coming from these 7 countries.

2. What about the terrorist risk from other countries? There's ample evidence of radical Muslims from other countries, like the Philippines or Malaysia, that could pose just as easy a threat as those purported to come from the 7 countries cited. Why aren't we restricting their immigration? Aren't they also a threat? Why the focus on these 7 countries?....oh, and please don't tell me because Obama identified these countries as a threat. Another distortion of the truth.

3. Are we letting in people without any screening or security checks? The administration projects this perception, which the public has swallowed hook, line, and sinker....there are large numbers of terrorists exploiting our refugee program to enter our country to do us harm. The perception is that we are letting refugees into our country willy-nilly without any screenings or security checks. In fact, refugees undergo very detailed background checks, which is why they have to wait 2, 3, sometimes 5 years before they're allowed to travel the U.S. I can understand if the current administration feels there are problems with that screening process and want to alter that process, but don't try to portray these individuals as a whole as a grave security threat. The vast majority are just trying to flee war, famine, and persecution. Do we really think the small children among the refugees are a national security threat?

4. If individuals from these 7 countries are such a national security threat, then why don't we treat our actual internal security threats with equal concern? Over the last decade or so, we've had numerous acts of domestic terrorism perpetuated by people who were not Muslim or not from Middle Eastern countries. I would cite the most extreme example of the Oklahoma City bombing that was arguably the biggest act of domestic terrorism in our country's history. Did we decide to ban immigration of white Europeans? Did we call for incarceration of people who had similar views or was of the same religion as Timothy McVeigh? What about actual spies whose activities resulted in the loss of American lives? Did we react by calling for immigration bans for people from those counties? The bottom line question is are these people truly the national security threat that some would portray them as being? Is this not the same level of racism that existed in the 1940s?

There are a whole slew of questions people need to be asking themselves today as we deal with the real threat of terrorism and the consequences of our actions abroad. Don't get me wrong, I'm fully cognizant of the terrorist threat, what it means, and recognize that we do have to be diligent. But, at the same time, if we want to continue to be the democracy that we claim to be, we need to carefully balance national security with rights of both citizens and non-citizens in our country. This is the burden we bear for being the democracy that we are. We need to also appreciate and understand the diversity that makes America great and avoid the racism that we see today with this travel restriction and what we saw 75 years ago. I should remind Americans that the U.S. Supreme Court noted in the case of Endo vs. the United States that "...the Constitution is not a barrier to military desire to detain citizens on the basis of race...," which means we all need to be diligent. If this can happen to immigrants, it can happen to citizens.

Finally, it is important for all Americans to learn and understand what happened 75 years ago. Tomorrow, February 19, will be the 75th anniversary of the issuance of EO9066. Even today, many Americans don't understand the circumstances surround the incarceration of people of Japanese ancestry 75 years ago. They still believe this group was a national security threat and that the incarceration and restrictions placed on people of Japanese ancestry was a rational and reasoned approach to dealing with this national security threat. Unfortunately, such a threat did not exist and the people affected were mostly U.S. citizens. These lessons of the past are relevant today, have direct impact on our current national dialog, and inform us on how we can avoid making the mistakes of 75 years ago. "History repeats itself"....a phrase that is used ad nauseam, but true in many respects. It would make me very sad if Americans cannot learn from their own history.


#EO9066 #LetsMakeAmericaBuenoAgain

Why people need to be educated...

A recent opinion piece from the Tri-City Herald is making the rounds among Japanese Americans (JA) and JA-related groups on Facebook.  An associate professor of philosophy and political science at Columbia Basin College in the state of Washington wrote an opinion piece in which he states that "racism" was not one of the reasons for the incarceration of people of Japanese ancestry during the Second World War.  He cites evidence to support his position.  As I read this piece, I was saddened that an academic, whose expertise is supposedly in philosophy and political science, would present such a biased and poorly documented opinion piece.  In essence, he should know better.

Much of what he presents is one-sided, misleading, or just wrong.  I thought I'd just point out some examples.

•  He cites Japanese aggression, atrocities, and war crimes as part of America's prejudice against Japanese.  He notes this is not racist per se, but simply anger directed at Americans of Japanese ancestry, simply because of guilt by association.  However, this is actually racism.  It's also funny that some of the aggression and atrocities he cites occurred after the incarceration began, so those things could not have been a factor in the incarceration.
• He concludes a part of his opinion piece with "Before pontificating about American mistreatment in the relocation camps, critics should acknowledge the horrendous war crimes perpetrated by Imperial Japan."  First, most "critics" do acknowledge that what the Japanese did during the war was horrific and did constitute war crimes.  However, what do things Japan did during the war have to do with the way we treated our own citizens?  The statement he makes simply comes across as seeing just dark hair and slanted eyes.  Remember, two-thirds of the individuals incarcerated during the war were US citizens.  What others did should have no bearing on how we treat our own citizens, who were supposed to have rights.
• rticle129076019.html#storylink=cpy
  He presents numbers of individuals incarcerated from the "glass half full" perspective.  He notes the low number of individuals incarcerated in Hawaii, some left camps to attend college, others to work, and some served in the US military.  These statements show he does not understand Executive Order 9066 (EO9066) and its implications.  EO9066 essentially carves up America and its territories into military districts and give local military commanders the authority to decide who could or could not remain in these districts.  Essentially gave those military commanders carte blanche authority to do what they thought was necessary to protect their military installations.  Lt. Gen. Delos Emmons decides not to do mass incarceration of people of Japanese ancestry in Hawaii.  This accounts for the relatively low numbers of individuals who were incarcerated, mostly due to the ABC list and other secret govt. initiatives.  In contrast, Lt. Gen. John DeWitt of the Western Defense Command declares individuals of Japanese ancestry to be a threat and creates exclusion zones along the west coast.  DeWitt is quoted as saying "A Jap's a Jap, makes no difference if the Jap's a citizen or not."  I would say, that's a bit racist.  In fact, in many of his declarations, Lt. Gen. DeWitt included individuals of German and Italian ancestry, but also afforded those groups exceptions.  In all cases, he was careful to state that his declarations applied to "all persons of Japanese ancestry," meaning no exceptions were granted to them.  Again, I'd say that's a bit racist.  Also, the Federal Govt chose some of the camp locations with the intention of leveraging the camp populations for labor.  This was especially true in farm country like Wyoming, where the govt expected young men to leave either to join the military or work in war industries in the cities.  This would leave a labor gap, which the local farmers were happy to fill with the young men of Japanese ancestry at the nearby War Location Authority Camps.  These individuals didn't just get to leave camp, they had to be vetted and obtain a pass. 
• He cites the "thousands" of people of German and Italian ancestry that were incarcerated during the war.  This statement is only partly true.  The 1940 Census counted a little over 127,000 individuals of Japanese ancestry, two-thirds of them US citizens, in the 48 contiguous states.  Of those, approximately 123,000 were incarcerated in various camps.  The same census counted a little over 5.2 million individuals of German ancestry and about 4.6 million individuals of Italian ancestry.  Of those, approximately 12,000 individuals of German ancestry and less than 500 individuals of Italian ancestry were incarcerated into various camps.  I would say the glass isn't quite half full.  I should emphasize that EO9066 was not specific to people of Japanese ancestry nor did it specifically say people would be incarcerated.  However, EO9066 was issued to facilitate the incarceration of people for any reason.
• He cites spy activity as partial justification.  He cites the one Japanese naval officer assigned to the Japanese Consulate in Hawaii prior to the war who provided much of the intelligence on Pearl Harbor prior to the attack.  The US knew of this individual and one individual spy hardly constitutes the wave of spy activity cited immediately after the war began.  He also cites the Niihau incident, which arguably could be a case for locals aiding a downed Japanese pilot, but it's a complex story that tends to be diluted down to a locals being Japanese sympathizers.  Finally, he cites activities in the Philippines, which has little to no relevance to the situation in the US.  In fact, the US intelligence apparatus had a pretty good tab on what was going on in terms of spy and espionage activity and Japan's plans for these here in the homeland.  As cited in one govt report, "Japanese are hampered as spies and saboteurs, because of their easily distinguishable physical appearance."  There are govt documents supporting the notion that the govt knew there was no real concern for espionage activity.
• He cites that loyalties were "vetted" in camp and that some proportion essentially failed the test.  Yes, there were some who renounced their American citizenship, mostly because their country had abandoned them, not because they had an affection for Japan.  Yes, some of the Japanese nationals thought Japan would win the war and were supporters.  But, again, two-thirds of those incarcerated were US citizens.  The two questions he cites, known as questions 27 and 28, were the key questions in the so-called loyalty questionnaire.  Question 27 essentially asked if you'd be willing to serve in the US armed forces and defend American anywhere and anyhow.  Some took pause at this question, fearing they may be sent to the Pacific theater of war and could end up shooting at relatives on the other side.  So they would answer "no."  Question 28 was more complicated.  The phrase in the middle "...will you forswear any allegiance to the Japanese Emperor or any other foreign government or power?" was problematic.  Some answered "no," because they had no allegiance to the Japanese Emperor or other foreign power.  How could they forswear something they didn't have?  They were Americans.  Others were more cynical and thought if they answered "yes," then the govt would use that as justification to arrest them, since they would essentially be admitting to having an allegiance to the Japanese Emperor, which they didn't.  Sadly, the only correct answer to these two questions were "yes" and providing any other answer had serious implications.  I wonder how the writer of the opinion piece would handle such a questionnaire under similar circumstances?

As a final point, in the research conducted for the coram nobis cases of Minoru Yasui, Fred Korematsu, and Gordon Hirabayashi and for the reparations movement, previously private or secret govt documents became public.  Among them, the Munson Report, which concluded there was no need to incarcerate people of Japanese ancestry if we went to war with Japan, a draft copy of Lt. Gen. John DeWitt's request to exclude and incarcerate people of Japanese ancestry from his command that clearly showed his justification was mostly race-based, and other memos and documents showing the govt was careful not to look racist in its policy toward people of Japanese ancestry during the war.  In fact, there is documentation of a phone conversation between Lt. Gen. John DeWitt and Justice Department officials telling DeWitt to tone down his language in his request, because the Federal Govt could not appear to be racist.

So, I would like to invite the professor who wrote this opinion piece to visit the Japanese American National Museum here in Los Angeles.  I'm a volunteer docent at the museum and would be happy to give you a tour.  Learn about the Japanese American experience and learn why much of what you wrote is misinformed.  Learn that what happened 75 years ago is relevant to today's national dialog.  Just because politicians and national leaders supported the incarceration back in 1941 didn't make it right back then, and it doesn't make it right today.  In fact, the parallels with today are somewhat uncanny and are an embodiment of the phrase "history repeats itself."  At the end of the day, we can't just live in our bubbles and yell at each other.  Educating people is the most important thing, so we don't repeat that part of our history that was not the best of America.

#EO9066   #LetsMakeAmericaBuenoAgain 
 

Facts...

I was a huge fan of the TV show Dragnet when I was a kid.  Actually, I should more correctly state that I was a fan of the revival of Dragnet that featured Jack Web and Harry Morgan.  The original series ran before I was born and featured Ben Alexander as Officer Frank Smith, instead of Harry Morgan's Office Bill Gannon.  Most true fans of the show know the often quoted "Just the facts, Ma'am" was never uttered by Sgt. Joe Friday.  If you want to learn more about this, go see:  http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/dragnet.asp

Facts are an important component of life.  Yet, in this day and age, people seem to think that facts don't matter or facts are simply what they believe, true or not.  We see this more and more in the political realm, where politicians seem to quote tons of "facts" to the point where it seems if they simply state something (true or not), it's a fact.  I really get annoyed when a politician declares "The American people want blah, blah," when the facts show otherwise.  This phenomenon recently reached a new high with the most recent presidential election.  Spokespersons in all the parties spouted off all kinds of statements as "facts," when in reality most were just outright falsehoods or extreme distortions of facts.  The Trump campaign and the President himself are most guilty of this.  Interestingly, both the media and other "independent" groups have tried to "fact check" statements by politicians.  Sadly, even these groups find it difficult to be heard among the cacophony and have even been accused of being purveyors of distortions.  More disturbing is that it seems like the vast majority of Americans don't really want to know the facts.  Facts don't seem as important as what is being said.  It just seems like we can't have a reasonable conversation that relies on facts to guide us.  If someone challenges your statement with a fact, attack the messenger as a purveyor of lies.  Yelling down your opponent seems to be the order of the day, rather than having a civilized exchange.

With all these distortions happening at an even greater pace, I'm waiting for the moment when someone starts to tell me that 2+2=17, ignoring mathematical properties that say otherwise.  Well, they may just be presenting "alternative facts" to show how 2+2 really isn't 4...my bad.  People may argue that I'm living in a bubble and that I have unreasonable expectations of the world.  Maybe I'm turning into that old fart that I swore I'd never become after hearing stuff my parents and grandparents would say about my generation.  However, I remember a time not too long ago when people cared about these things and facts were facts.  Just the facts, Ma'am....even if Sgt. Joe Friday never uttered these words, these are words we should all try to live by if we want to move forward as a country.

#LetsMakeAmericaBuenoAgain