Our Allies Must Not Eclipse Us

From The New York Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/10/15/are-trans-rights-and-gay-rights-still-allies/our-allies-must-not-eclipse-us

Thomas Page McBee
October 15, 2013

Early this month, The Daily Beast posted an article about Frank Schubert, the opponent of same-sex marriage who has expanded his mean-spirited campaign into the world of transgender bathroom politics. The article — about homophobia morphing into transphobia — and the author’s choice to seek quotes from the Human Rights Campaign highlight what is becoming increasingly clear: the T in “L.G.B.T.” is no longer ignored, by friend and foe alike.

As a trans man, I find that gay and bisexual men and women have been some of my biggest champions. Our overlaps are as real now as they were in those heady days when the coalition was initially formed: many gays and lesbians experience gender less rigidly than straight counterparts, and a good number of trans people have spent time in L.G.B. communities. Our lives are entwined, but not identical. As trans people and trans issues become more visible in media, we are less likely to be eclipsed by a gay rights agenda. In the living rooms of average Americans, the tired narratives like “born in the wrong body” are on the wane, and there is more respect for the humanity of trans people. With that respect comes condemnation of bigotry like Schubert’s.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that the same media that raise our visibility can also entrench existing problems. As long as gay rights and trans rights are seen as so closely allied, some reporters will call the Human Rights Campaign instead of the National Center of Transgender Equality. Gay people will have more and more opportunities to represent trans people in this historic moment, just as we are best equipped to speak for ourselves. There is a risk that even as some of our issues become more visible, our stories won’t. The public needs to hear trans stories from trans people. We’ve been ignored long enough.

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Our Allies Must Not Eclipse Us

Trans Advocates Welcome Gay Allies

From The New York Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/10/15/are-trans-rights-and-gay-rights-still-allies/the-transgender-movement-welcomes-gay-allies

Susan Stryker
October 15, 2013

Let’s reframe the question. Historically, “gay” has been a big tent that includes a wide range of non-normative sexual subcultures and expressions of gender, and what we now call transgender has had a place there.

Remember that in 1969, rebellion and resistance by the queens and hair fairies of Christopher Street transformed a police raid at the Stonewall Inn into a defiant act of “gay liberation.” Twenty years later, “queer” politics included transgender as another version of what it called “antiheteronormativity.” The ’90s version of “queer” morphed into the L.G.B.T. community of recent years — an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender — and for transfolk, it was politically invaluable to be part of that coalition. It still is.

All along, however, many non-trans gays and lesbians considered transgender issues to be more marginal, more deviant, less respectable and less important. Some find us threatening to their own sense of self, express open hostility, and disparage us as weird, sick or misguided. The “T.” has thus had a fraught relationship with “L.G.B.,” never more so than in 2007, when a gay congressman, Barney Frank, stripped protections for transgender people from the proposed federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act. That was a divisive, short-sighted move that put Frank on the wrong side of history. After that slap, I and many others concentrated primarily on trans-specific issues, while welcoming any and all allies.

The trans movement has taken huge strides since then by putting its own particular concerns in the foreground. For example: influencing the removal of “gender identity disorder” from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association; overturning laws that require sterilization as the price of government recognition of gender change; and securing passage of protective legislation, like Argentina’s recent law establishing gender self-determination without requiring medical intervention.

Things have taken an interesting turn since the repeal of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and since the Supreme Court’s decision on the Defense of Marriage Act. To many gays and lesbians, transgender rights now seems to be the next big fight for equality, and these allies are jumping on our bandwagon. As long as we who actually live transgender lives determine the course of our own struggle, I applaud support from others in our movement.

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Trans Advocates Welcome Gay Allies

Considering Trans and Queer Appropriation

From Whipping Girl:  http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2013/10/considering-trans-and-queer.html

Julia Serano
October 1, 2013

Within the activist circles I run in, I routinely hear people accuse others of appropriation, or claim that certain behaviors or endeavors are appropriative. I myself have written about how certain people (e.g., cisgender academics and media producers) sometimes appropriate transgender identities and experiences (discussed more below). So I am certainly sympathetic to the concept.
At the same time, however, I have seen the concept of appropriation used (or misused) in order to undermine marginalized groups as well. For instance, cisgender feminists have long accused trans women of “appropriating female dress” or “appropriating women’s identities”—indeed, if you click the link you will see that this was part of the justification for why Sylvia Rivera was kicked off the stage at a 1973 Pride rally in New York City. On Cathy Brennan’s anti-trans-dyke website “Pretendbians” (which I refuse to link to), the byline at the top of the webpage says: “We don’t hate you, we hate appropriation”—the implication being that trans women cannot ever be actual lesbians, but rather we can only appropriate lesbian identities and culture.
Recently, on several occasions, I have heard trans people claim that cisgender people who perform drag, or who crossdress as part of a Halloween costume, appropriate trans people’s identities and culture. Such statements surprised me, in part, because they are so eerily similar to the aforementioned accusations of appropriation that trans-exclusive radical feminists have levied against us. But what struck me even more was how such claims represent a complete about face from the direction that transgender activism had been taking during the ’90s and early ’00s. During that era, we tended to celebrate binary-shattering activities. Trans activists didn’t merely discuss our own gender-non-conformity, but we emphasized the fact that most of us (whether trans or not) transgress gender norms at some points in our lives. Indeed, trans activists often encouraged forms of gender transgression in the cisgender majority, as it was generally believed that such expressions would help undermine binary gender norms throughout society.
And suddenly now in 2013, some trans people are essentially taking the exact opposite approach by discouraging cisgender people from transgressing gender norms (via accusations that such actions represent an appropriation of transgender identities and culture).
In the wake of all these claims, I have done a lot of thinking about appropriation over the last year. And I have come to the conclusion that the issue is way more complicated than the cut-and-dried “appropriation-is-always-bad” perspective that seems to predominate in activist settings. While we should be concerned about appropriation (especially certain manifestations of it), we should also be cognizant of some of the negative ramifications that can arise from the indiscriminate or overzealous use of the concept. In this essay, I will share some of my thoughts on this matter.
For the record, my main focus here will be accusations of appropriation with regards to gender and sexuality, and what they mean for transgender and queer (e.g., LGBTQIA+) communities and activism. Some of what I say may have import for thinking about other instances of cultural appropriation (e.g., with regards to ethnicity, class, religion, nationality, etc.). However, LGBTQIA+ identities and cultures are unique in a number of ways (which I will address toward the end of the piece), and this may limit the usefulness of applying what I say here to other such instances of appropriation.
What is “appropriation,” and why (or perhaps when) is it bad?
In the most general sense, appropriation occurs when we take something that somebody else has created and use it for our own purposes. For example, I can appropriate a certain chord progression others have previously used in order to create a new song. Or I could appropriate another person’s theory and apply it to a new problem. If I like your fashion-sense, I may appropriate your style. Humans beings are highly social animals: We are imitators, and we learn language, fashion, traditions, expressions, and ideas from one another. As the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun. Almost everything we create has its origins elsewhere—we are constantly adopting, adapting, and repurposing other people’s past creations and reconstructing them in novel ways. So appropriation—in the most general sense—is an everyday part of human life.
Within social justice movements, we typically use the word “appropriation” in a more specific sense: to describe instances where a dominant and/or majority group takes up some tangible or intangible aspect of a marginalized and/or minority community. Sometimes it is the marginalized/minority group’s identity that gets appropriated—for instance, members of the dominant/majority group may claim that identity for themselves, or create their own depictions of members of that group (which typically resemble the dominant/majority group’s assumptions and stereotypes rather than the marginalized/minority group’s lived realities). Other times, it is the minority group’s culture (e.g., their language, art, beliefs, religions, traditions, rituals, and fashions) that gets appropriated. Often cited examples include when Western countries appropriate art and artifacts from nations they have colonized, or appropriate their spiritual practices and traditions (as seen with the popularity of Yoga and Buddhism here in the U.S.). Or in how white America has historically appropriated musical styles that had their origins in African-American communities (e.g., jazz, rock-n-roll, hip-hop). And so on.

So if appropriation (in the most general sense) is a basic human tendency, why is it considered to be bad when dominant/majority groups appropriate from marginalized/minority groups? I would argue that there are at least three non-mutually-exclusive reasons why this is so:

Continue reading at: http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2013/10/considering-trans-and-queer.html

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Considering Trans and Queer Appropriation

Why Oprah’s Anti-Atheist Bias Hurts So Much

From Psychology Today:  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201310/why-oprahs-anti-atheist-bias-hurts-so-much

For millions, Oprah confirms negative image of nonbelievers

by Dave Niose

Unfair prejudice is most shocking not when it comes from expected sources—a KKK leader, for example, or a skinhead—but when it comes from a respected mainstream spokesperson who supposedly reflects enlightened contemporary values. Thus, brace yourself for Oprah Winfrey, as she disparages millions of atheists by telling her audience that, in her opinioin, atheists are incapable of awe.

In the interview she is chatting with endurance swimmer Diana Nyad, who recently swam from Cuba to Florida at age 64. Nyad unhesitatingly identifies as an atheist when asked about her beliefs, then adds that she sees no contradiction between her atheism and her ability to experience awe, or in her words to “weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity.”

Oprah, however, apparently found this description unsettling, for it seems that in her view atheists must be cold, emotionless rationalists. “Well I don’t call you an atheist then,” Oprah responded to Nyad’s disclosure. “I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery, then that is what God is.”

What is most alarming about Oprah’s revelation is that she doesn’t even realize its invidiousness. Atheists, to her, don’t feel that deep, emotional connection to the universe. She has drawn a circle that includes people of all faiths, but excludes atheists, thereby confirming negative attitudes toward nonbelievers.

To those among Oprah’s legion of loyal viewers who may have held anti-atheist prejudices, this now validates their bias. That’s right, those atheists just aren’t like the rest of us, they can now say, nodding their heads. While we religious people of the world are appreciating the wonder and awe of life, those atheists are just one big buzzkill!

Obviously, Oprah needs needs an education. At a minimum, she needs to add some Carl Sagan titles to her book club’s reading list. An outspoken nonbeliever, Sagan was known not just as a great scientist, but for inspiring wonder and awe. Many would agree that his Pale Blue Dot commentary is more profound than any religious broadcast. Or perhaps Oprah should consider the deep message behind the monologue of Julia Sweeney’s Letting Go of God. Atheism and awe are quite compatible.

Continue reading at:  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201310/why-oprahs-anti-atheist-bias-hurts-so-much

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Why Oprah’s Anti-Atheist Bias Hurts So Much

Who should judge whether Snowden’s leaked secrets are too sensitive to report?

From The Guardian UK:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/13/snowden-leaked-secrets-guardian-trustworthy

The Guardian’s critics say journalists cannot be trusted to judge what may damage national security. But the press’s track record shows it to be more trustworthy than politicians or spooks

The Guardian, Sunday 13 October 2013

In the last few days, two national newspapers – the Times and the Mail – have suggested that the Guardian has been wrong to publish material leaked by Edward Snowden on the specific grounds that journalists cannot be trusted to judge what may damage national security.

Ignore for a moment the vexing sight of journalists denouncing their own worth. Set aside too the question of why rival newspapers might want to attack the Guardian’s exclusives. Follow the argument. Who should make the judgment?

The official answer is that we should trust the security agencies themselves. Over the past 35 years, I’ve worked with a clutch of whistleblowers from those agencies, and they’ve all shared one underlying theme – that behind the screen of official secrecy, they had seen rules being bent and/or broken in a way which precisely suggested that the agencies should not be trusted. Cathy Massiter and Robin Robison, for example, described respectively MI5 and GCHQ pursuing politically motivated projects to spy on peace activists and trade unionists. Peter Wright told of MI5 illegally burgling its way across London “while pompous bowler-hatted civil servants in Whitehall pretended to look the other way”. David Shayler exposed a plot both lawless and reckless by MI5 and MI6 to recruit al-Qaida supporters to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi.

All of this was known to their bosses. None of it should have been happening. But the agencies in whom we are invited to place our trust not only concealed it but without exception then attacked the whistleblowers who revealed it.

Would we do better to trust the politicians who have oversight of the agencies? It’s instructive to look back from our vantage point, post-Snowden, to consider what was happening only two years ago when the government attempted to introduce new legislation which came to be known as the snooper’s charter. If the oversight politicians are as well-informed as they claim, they must have known that this was in part a cynical attempt to create retrospective legal cover for surveillance tools that were already secretly being used, but they said nothing. And when parliament refused to pass that law, clearly indicating that there was no democratic mandate for those tools, they still stayed silent.

Politicians fall easy victim to a political Stockholm syndrome which sees them abandon their role as representatives of the people in favour of becoming spokesmen for the spooks. It was there in the 1970s when the New Statesman bravely exposed security lapses and financial corruption in GCHQ, only to face a prosecution orchestrated by a Labour attorney general; there again with Jack Straw describing in his autobiography how MI5 had spied on him and his family since he was 15 but declaring that he was “neither surprised nor shocked – this was the world we lived in”; and there again, of course, in the foreign secretary William Hague’s bland presumption that “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” from the systems of mass surveillance exposed by Snowden.

Continue reading at:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/13/snowden-leaked-secrets-guardian-trustworthy

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Who should judge whether Snowden’s leaked secrets are too sensitive to report?

There’s an International Plan to Censor the Internet in the Works — Let’s Stop It in Its Tracks

From Alternet:  http://www.alternet.org/media/theres-international-plan-censor-internet-works-lets-stop-it-its-tracks

How the Trans Pacific Partnership making its way through Washington seriously undermines citizens’ rights to participate in a free and open Internet.

By Thanh Lam
October 14, 2013

One month.

That’s the time left before the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) could become a finalized agreement. For those who are drawing blank looks — and understandably so — the TPP is a highly secretive trade deal involving 12 nations around the Pacific Rim.

Described by experts Lori Wallach and Ben Beachy of Public Citizen as “one of the most significant international commercial agreements since the creation of WTO”, the TPP is more than a trade agreement – it’s an underhanded attempt by old industry interests to censor the Internet.

The lack of general awareness about the TPP is exactly what unelected trade officials and lobbyists hope for; the more covert the negotiations, the easier it is to usher in extreme new Internet censorship rules.

The TPP’s extreme Internet censorship plan

The changes proposed by the TPP could seriously undermine citizens’ rights to participate in a free and open Internet. We know from leaked drafts that these draconian measures could criminalize your everyday use of the Internet, force service providers to collect and hand over your private data, and give old industry conglomerates more power to fine you for Internet use. As opposed to fostering a global forum in which citizens can engage with one another, the TPP would stifle any kind of innovation within the Internet community.

TheElectronic Frontier Foundation underlines the dangers of the TPP:

“The copyright provisions in the TPP will carve a highly restrictive copyright regime into stone and prevent countries from enacting laws that best address and promote users’ interests. In this final stage, it’s time for us to demand that our lawmakers join those who are already denouncing this agreement. We must drag this out into the light and reject international laws that uphold corporate interests at the expense of users’ rights.”

Obama fast tracks the TPP, bypasses democracy

If it isn’t bad enough that these talks have occurred behind closed doors, President Obama is now taking this secrecy even further by attempting to “fast track” the deal through Congress.

This means that elected U.S. Congress members would be forced to vote on the agreement without the possibility of sharing, discussing, or amending its contents. Under such intense pressure from the President, it seems as though the most comprehensive and covert post-WTO trade agreement could be finalized by as early as the end of October. The urgency to wrap up this controversial deal is reaffirmed by the White House’s recent announcement that they’ll go ahead with the TPP — despite the current government shutdown.

Continue reading at:  http://www.alternet.org/media/theres-international-plan-censor-internet-works-lets-stop-it-its-tracks

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on There’s an International Plan to Censor the Internet in the Works — Let’s Stop It in Its Tracks

The double danger of the NSA’s ‘collect it all’ policy on surveillance

From The Guardian UK:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/10/double-danger-nsa-surveillance

Security agencies now sweep up such a giant haystack of data, infringing innocent citizens’ rights, that they can’t find the needles

theguardian.com, Thursday 10 October 2013

By now, most people are aware that the NSA collects massive amounts of information on ordinary Americans. NSA Chief Keith Alexander would tell you that the government must collect the entire haystack to find the needle. But what happens to the rest of the haystack – the information about law-abiding citizens that gets swept up under ever-expanding collection authorities? The answer might surprise you.

In theory, at least, some agencies are supposed to treat the hay differently from the needle. Since the Reagan era, the NSA has been required to be scrupulously careful with information involving Americans. US citizens and others in the United States may not be targeted without a warrant, and “incidentally collected” communications involving Americans may be kept or shared only under specified procedures.

In practice, the picture looks quite different.

Americans’ communications are supposed to be destroyed as soon as possible, but they can be kept for up to six years to see if they meet certain criteria, according to recently declassified guidelines (pdf). Metadata about nearly every phone call made within the United States, kept in another NSA storehouse, can be saved for five years. And a recent New York Times report revealed that the NSA keeps a wide range of information about Americans’ communications for up to five years in online databases and another ten years “offline for ‘historical searches'”.

In addition, many other government agencies retain information about innocent Americans, according to a new report from the Brennan Center for Justice. Take the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As its mission transformed after 9/11 from crime-solving to terrorism prevention, the bureau dramatically expanded its legal authority to gather information about Americans with no basis for suspicion. At the same time, few if any additional restrictions were imposed on its powers to keep and share that information.

Today, an FBI agent can open an intrusive investigation with no reason to suspect criminal activity, and any resulting information can be kept for 20-30 years, even if it has no relationship to the investigation. Similarly, the FBI keeps so-called “suspicious activity reports” that are determined to have no relevance to terrorism – but may reflect Americans’ constitutionally protected speech or other activities – for 30 years in a widely-accessible database.

Continue reading at:  http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/10/double-danger-nsa-surveillance

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on The double danger of the NSA’s ‘collect it all’ policy on surveillance

Health Care Hypocrisy

From Other Words:  http://otherwords.org/health-care-hypocrisy/

October 16, 2013
Reposted with Creative Commons permission

And now, Dr. Hightower offers this advice for improving your mental health: Don’t fume about the GOP’s lunatic effort to kill health care reform — just laugh at their farcical show.

Take Sen. Ted Cruz’s 21-hour blabathon, in which he said he would stop the Affordable Care Act in its tracks. Not only did the Texas Republican fail spectacularly, but senators voted 100 to zero against his crazy ploy. Yes, that means even he voted against it. What a hoot he is.

And he’s a shameful hypocrite too. While going to extremes to keep millions of Americans from getting vitally needed health coverage, Cruz repeatedly refused to answer whether taxpayers covered his health care. Finally, he piously responded that he was eligible for taxpayer coverage, but had nobly declined.

Such slapstick! It turns out that Ted was fibbing, for he’s covered by his wife’s policy. As a millionaire top executive at Goldman Sachs, she and her family are given gold-plated Cadillac coverage by the Wall Street giant. Goldman pays some $40,000 a year for her and Ted’s policy — a benefit-cost that the firm passes on to us taxpayers by deducting it from its corporate tax bill. Hilarious, huh?

Then there’s the comic twist that’s included in the government shutdown. While more than a million regular government workers are going without a paycheck, the Congress critters who forced the furlough continue to collect their $174,000 in annual pay. Some lawmakers are donating their checks to charity, but four out of five are happily pocketing theirs.

“Dang straight,” barked Rep. Lee Terry. “I’ve got a nice house and a kid in college,” the Nebraska Republican said. “Giving our paycheck away when you still worked and earned it? That’s just not going to fly,” Terry told his constituents.

And that’s your Congress at work. Laugh ’til it hurts.

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Health Care Hypocrisy

Why Won’t the Press Police the Radical Righties?

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Why Won’t the Press Police the Radical Righties?

World Food Day: Cook Organic, Not the Planet

From Common Dreams:  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/10/16-7

by Ronnie Cummins

“Here’s the single most important thing you need to know about the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report: It’s not too late. We still have time to do something about climate disruption. The best estimate from the best science is that we can limit warming from human-caused carbon pollution to less than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit – if we act now. Bottom line: Our house is on fire. Rather than argue about how fast it’s burning, we need to start throwing buckets of water.”—Michael Brune, Director, Sierra Club, Sept. 27, 2013

Michael Brune is right.  Our house is on fire. We’d better start throwing buckets of water.

Today, World Food Day, I urge everyone who wants to help put out the fire to take a close look at the food you eat. Where did it come from? How was it grown or raised? What did it take to get it from the farm to your table?

These questions are rarely part of the climate-change debate. Yet they should be.

Transportation, manufacturing and energy corporations are considered major greenhouse gas (GHG) polluters. Climate scientists agree that if we want to cool the earth, we have to build solar arrays and wind generators, instead of fracking wells and coal plants. We have to retrofit homes, homes, commercial buildings, factories, transportation and electrical grids. We need to walk, carpool, ride bikes, trains and buses, instead of mindlessly cruising the highways in gas-guzzling cars, trucks and SUVs.

But few people understand that the worst U.S. and global greenhouse gas emitter is “Food Incorporated.” The global food and farming system of today, with its intense dependence on biotechnology, chemicals and fossil fuels, is destroying the natural capacity of plants, trees and soils to sequester the excess greenhouse gases that are cooking the planet.

The fastest route to averting a climate disaster is to drastically reduce emissions from industrial agriculture and forestry, and start sequestering billions of tons of greenhouse gases in our plants, forests and soil.

This “Great Transition” must be driven by a mass consumer rejection of factory-farmed and industrial/genetically engineered food, coupled with mass demand for products that are organic, sustainable and climate-friendly.

Most serious threat ever faced by humans

As the most recent scientific report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) bluntly warns us, global warming and climate change now pose the most serious existential threat that humans have ever faced in our 200,000-year evolution.

At 395 parts-per-million (ppm) of CO2 (and 434 ppm of all GHG), and an additional 10 billion tons of carbon per year (36.7 billion tons CO2) in annual emissions from burning fossil fuels, non-sustainable agricultural practices and deforestation, we now have the most CO2, methane and nitrous oxide polluting the atmosphere that the Earth has experienced in the past three million years.

This excess of GHG pollution has already caused a significant increase in average global temperature, a rapidly warming and acidic ocean, a great extinction of countless living species, and an increasingly menacing disruption of “normal” weather patterns.

Continue reading at:  http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/10/16-7

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on World Food Day: Cook Organic, Not the Planet

Farm Families Pick Massive Corn Harvest As Prices Shrink

From NPRhttp://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/10/14/232270283/farm-families-pick-massive-corn-harvest-as-prices-shrink

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Farm Families Pick Massive Corn Harvest As Prices Shrink

Typhoon Wipha wreaks deadly destruction on Japan

From The Guardian UK:  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/16/typhoon-wipha-japan-izu-oshima

Japanese islanders die and homes damaged in mudslides but typhoon spares Tokyo and Fukushima nuclear plant

Agencies in Tokyo
theguardian.com, Wednesday 16 October 2013

A typhoon has killed 17 people in Japan, but largely spared the capital and brushed by the wrecked Fukushima nuclear power station.

More than 50 people were missing after typhoon Wipha roared up Japan’s east coast, including two schoolboys engulfed by waves on a beach; 20 more were hurt by falls or being struck by flying debris. About 20,000 people were told to leave their homes because of the danger of flooding and hundreds of flights were cancelled.

Sixteen people were killed on Izu Oshima island, about 75 miles (120km) south of Tokyo, as rivers burst their banks. The storm set off mudslides along a mile-long stretch of mountains.

Wipha sustained winds of 78mph (126km/h) with gusts up to 180km/h.

Television footage showed roads clogged with wreckage and houses with gaping holes smashed into them.

“I heard a crackling sound and then the trees on the hillside all fell over,” a woman on Izu Oshima told NHK television.

The storm brought hurricane-force winds and torrential rain to the Tokyo metropolitan area of 30 million people at the peak of the morning rush-hour.

The operator of the Fukushima nuclear plant, Tokyo Electric Power Corp, cancelled all offshore work and secured machinery as the storm approached.

The operator, known as Tepco, has been struggling to contain radioactive leaks since a 2011 earthquake and tsunami caused extensive damage and triggered the world’s worst nuclear crisis since Chernobyl in 1986.

A Tepco spokesman said Typhoon Wipha had caused no new problems at the plant, which is on the coast 130 miles (220km) north of Tokyo.

Continue reading at:  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/16/typhoon-wipha-japan-izu-oshima

Posted in Uncategorized. Comments Off on Typhoon Wipha wreaks deadly destruction on Japan