explodedlibrary.info

I won't be attending Information Online 2009

I won’t be attending Information Online 2009, even though it’s in Sydney and that’s where I work. I would have liked to, but it looks as if this going to be an extremely lean year, budget-wise. Information Online is quite an expensive conference too, so if work isn’t paying or contributing, then it’s out of my price range.

Looking at the bright side, maybe it’s just as well, because I wouldn’t know how to handle myself when Stephen Conroy opens the conference.

• Would I even give him polite applause?
• Would I turn my back on him?
• If he says something particularly outrageous, such as equating all opponents of his scheme for mandatory ISP filtering in Australia with advocates for child pornography, would I boo or heckle him?

It’s not for me to give advice about this to anyone who is attending Information Online. Unless this becomes an issue in the next election, this will probably be the first and only time that Stephen Conroy is in this situation - where he is in a room with a large number of members of the public and voters who oppose him on the mandatory ISP filtering issue.

photos of the APEC fence

Police backed on photo ban of APEC fence, Sydney Morning Herald, 3 September 2007

Tourists forced to delete fence photos, The Australian, 2 September 2007

flickr search on the APEC fence

Fortress Sydney, Digital Photo Gallery of Ted Szukalski

John Howard Readies Fortress Sydney, Stuff-Em-Up the hill backwards

© 2007 Bruce Phelan

music in sweatshops, music for sweating

An interesting co-incidence just happened. I had just finished reading Naomi Klein's book, No Logo.

"[A] select group of corporations has been attempting to free itself from the corporeal world of commodities, manufacturing and products to exist on another plane. Anyone can manufacture a product, they reason ... Such menial tasks, therefore, can and should be farmed out to contractors and subcontractors whose only concern is filling the order on time ... Headquarters, meanwhile, is free to focus on the real business at hand - creating a corporate mythology powerful enough to infuse meaning into these raw products just by signing its name. [Klein, N. (2000). No Logo: No Space, No Choice, No Jobs. London: Flamingo, p. 22]

This is one of the central themes of the book. It looks at how companies like Nike, to name one obvious example, positioned itself not just as a maker of shoes but as a sports company with a mission to "enhance people's lives through sports and fitness."

The book later explored how the inevitable consequence of this ideology was the development of sweatshop factories in developing countries. Naomi Klein describes the brand-name multinationals as:

[V]ery picky customers, with specific instructions about made-to-order designs, materials, delivery dates and, most important, the need for rock-bottom prices. But what they are not interested in is the burdensome logistics of how those prices got so low; building factories, buying machinery and budgeting for labor have all been lobbed squarely into somebody else's court. (p. 202, author's italics)

The book then reviews some of the sweatshop scandals which erupted in the late 1990s.  The strength of corporate brands was also its achilles heel which could be exploited by juxtaposing the brand's image with the conditions in which the product is made. How could a company supposedly dedicated to enhancing people's lives through sports and fitness charge $120 for a pair of shoes which cost them $5 in conditions such as these

Workers fined if they refuse to work overtime; overtime rate not paid; ... humiliation, screaming, some corporal punishment; arbitrary fining of pregnant women and older (25 years old and up) women; fines if talking at work; approximately 10 children in the sewing section; most workers have never heard of Nike's Code of Conduct. (p. 474)

Eventually most companies caught up in these scandals apologized, and enacted voluntary codes of conduct to stamp out these abuses. All along they have wanted to change the topic, to stop us from talking about how their products are made.

I think that to a certain extent, they succeeded. Sweatshops and abusive labour practices by these companies seems old news now. I wonder, is that because the problem has really been fixed, as I'm sure that the PR departments of these corporations would all claim, or did they eventually succeed in changing the topic of conversation back to why they're such cool companies and why we would want to buy their things.

Tonight's not the night for me to look into whether things really have improved or not, but I am definitely curious to explore more recent works on this topic. Now, to return to my coincidence.

I finished reading No Logo tonight on the train. Shortly after arriving home, I noticed the Nike swoosh logo in the iTunes Music Store~. Nike is making music for sports and exercise now.

Think of this 45-minute continuous electronic music mix as a soundtrack for sport. It follows the arc of a typical distance run, carrying you through an easy warm-up, increasing in pitch as you start to own the road, peaking with a high-energy pay off and then coming back down to earth for a well-deserved cool-down.

The interesting thing is that Nike is using a similar production model for its music as it does with its shoes. Commission somebody else to create the music and use the brand to sell it. In this instance, the artist is known - James Murphy / LCD Soundsystem. If this idea takes off, I'm sure that gradually the identity of the artist will become less important when compared with the brand.

Corporate-created music reminded me of something from my own experience of working in a multinational. During my time at the Vodafone call centre, the company introduced Radio Vodafone (if I recall the name correctly after these two years). It was a selection of upbeat songs intermixed with the occasional Vodafone ad and corporate propaganda. It played at an unusual volume. Not so loud that it would distract from phone conversations or that you would really start listening to it, but not so soft that you couldn't hear it at all. It was always there in the background. Later on I learned that it was designed to increase our productivity and morale.

what do libraries, landscaping, lighting and liqour have in common?

How interesting. While helping a student do some research on the Australian landscaping suppliers market, I discovered that there's another ALIA in Australia which has nothing to do with libraries. Unfortunately for them, the Australian Landscape Industry Association did not get any ALIA domain names.

My curiousity piqued, I then discovered that the Australasian Lighting Industry Association has the alia.com.au domain.

I mustn't forget the Australian Liquor Industry Awards, which are sometimes known as the ALIA awards, but mustn't be confused with these ones.

There's a school in Victoria called Alia Secondary College, although it's website seems to be down right now.

Finally, there's an Alia involved in an Australian scandal, although it's not actually Australian. It is the name of the company which was a front for the previous Iraqi regime. The Australian Wheat Board paid bribes to the Iraqi government through Alia. Well, that's still not as bad as enduring all the Symbionese Liberation Army jokes from a former co-worker whenever I attended an Special Libraries Association function.

proposed Australian electoral law prohibiting anonymity in political blogs

Another interesting article in the Australian Financial Review which I'm not going to link to.
John Quiggin, Let a hundred blogs bloom, Australian Financial Review (1 September 2005).

The good thing is that the author is an Australian blogger, and I was able to find the guts of the issue in the article in one of his posts, which was followed up here.

The issue is that the Australian government is wanting to expand section 328 of the Electoral Act so that online publications (including blogs) commenting on political issues would be deemed electoral material for the purposes of the Act, and be subject to the Act's disclosure rules. The big impact would be that it would be illegal to allow anonymous commentors to write about political issues in a blog.

As mentioned by John Quiggin, it's another instance where online speech would be less protected than other speech (e.g. print newspaper letters to the editor and talkback radio). It would be extremely difficult to enforce, particularly against bloggers who want to remain anonymous, but it would still create a chilling effect, especially for bloggers who use their names.

Of course, the Howard government in Australia is more concerned with preventing criticism than preserving freedom of speech.

embarrassed and ashamed by the Australian government’s continuing contempt for its human rights obligations

I’ve been meaning to write about this topic for a while, but the topic has proven quite overwhelming. Where to begin? Mandatory detention of refugees (including children) in detention centres which are effectively legal blackholes, Australia’s homegrown version of Guantanamo Bay. The threat to free speech and legitimate protest embodied in the Gunns 20 lawsuit against the Wilderness Society and other environmental activists. Australia’s ongoing disgraceful treatment of its indigenous population, including abolishing ATSIC and the NSW government’s urban renewal plans for Redfern, urban renewal being code for squeezing out the Aborigines.

Australia’s human rights record has once again been condemned by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (link to pdf of the Committee’s March 2005 report, CERD/C/AUS/CO/14).

To quote a portion of an article in today’s Sydney Morning Herald about this (David Marr, “Geneva v. Canberra,” Sydney Morning Herald, Mar. 28, 2005, at 13):

Canberra has learnt one lesson superbly. Instead of raging and complaining about Geneva's intrusion into Australia's domestic affairs, it's much better to shut up. The effort ministers put into denigrating the committee system the last time round only gave the issue more oxygen. After the latest verdict a little more than a fortnight ago, there was no thunder from Howard, Downer or Ruddock. Not even a press release. Silence effectively killed the story.

The Howard government is masterful in its ability to manipulate Australian public opinion and deflect all forms of criticism. But I really hope that they don’t get off the hook quite so easily on this one. To be fair to them, the Howard government isn't  causing the Gunns 20 lawsuit or the racist Redfern redevelopment plans, but they are still answerable to the international community for all human rights abuses which occur in Australia, whether committed by state governments or corporations.

By the way, I'm partially retracting some of the opinions I stated in a previous post which discussed the merits of written versus unwritten constitutions. No system is perfect, and every system can be manipulated by those in power. That said, if Australia had a written constitution with prohibitions against discrimination and guarantees of due process and freedom of speech, it is quite unlikely that these abuses would be happening in Australia today.

the Australian election result is NOT an endorsement of our involvement in Iraq

There will be pundits in the US who might suggest that the survival of Australia’s conservative John Howard (actually with increased support) amounts to an endorsement by voters of Australia’s involvement in Iraq. I want to make it very clear that this Australian election was fought primarily on domestic issues. Maybe if Mark Latham and the Australian Labor Party had made more of an effort to remind voters of John Howard’s dishonesty over Iraq and the shameful children overboard affair, there would have been a different result. Maybe, but the Australian electorate is very reluctant to vote a party out of office, especially when the economy is doing well. John Howard ran a very effective campaign, side-stepping the truth in government concerns, scaring voters that interest rates would rise under Labor and using lots of negative campaigning about Mark Latham’s experience. I have never seen as many negative ads in an Australian election campaign. Another of Mark Latham’s mistakes is that he didn’t do anything to counter those ads until the last week of the campaign, which was too little, too late.

I plan to write even more about my reaction to the result in ambivalenz.

is IP finally becoming relevant to the Australia-US FTA debate?

What an interesting development in the debate as to whether Australia should adopt the Australia-US FTA. The FTA has already been ratified by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. For a while it seemed depressingly certain that Mark Latham’s Labor Party (ALP) would capitulate to the Howard Government and the Bush Administration, passing the FTA against the will of the party’s Left, and its traditional supporters of unions and artists. Now it is now quite likely that the FTA debate won’t be resolved until after the next election and may become a real election issue in Australia. The development is Labor’s announcement that it will only support the FTA on two conditions, and that the Government has immediately rejected one of those conditions.

It is ironic that there is a chance that the FTA is being delayed by an Intellectual Property issue. I have been very concerned about the FTA’s adverse effect on Australian copyright laws (see this rather damning critique by Kim Weatherall) since the agreement was first reached. Those concerns have largely been overshadowed by some of the other ways in which this agreement is such a bad deal for Australia. It is infuriating that the copyright issue seems to get more attention in the US than in Australia.

The IP laws being debated now are patent laws. One of Mark Latham’s conditions for passing the FTA is that Australia’s patent laws must be changed, making it an offence for companies to lodge spurious patent claims. The concern is that without this change, American drug companies would be able to use “evergreening” tactics to delay drugs from becoming generic (and cheaper).

It is laughable that by refusing to budge on this issue, John Howard is acting as if he is the staunch defender of Australia’s IP laws. As reported in the Melbourne Age, he said “We are not willing just to provide a political fix for our opponents. We are not willing to turn the patent law of this country on its head.” Never mind that he is very happy to turn Australia’s copyright law on its head by supporting significant changes to implement the FTA.

Maybe John Howard is opposing these patent law amendments so that he can keep the FTA issue alive until the election, so that he can say that the ALP is divided and Anti-American about this issue.

I would be very surprised if either leaders back down now. Mark Latham is already in enough trouble with the ALP Left that he cannot afford to snatch back this bone which he has thrown them.

I for one am very glad that the FTA is currently a victim of this brinkmanship between John Howard and Mark Latham. This gladness is likely to be short-lived, because it is still very likely that the FTA will be passed, after the election if nothing else. But every day that we aren’t living under these laws is a good day. There is always the remote chance that Howard’s gambit of making the FTA an election issue will backfire on him. People don’t like being made criminals for doing common, socially non-controversial actions which most people don’t believe to be wrong.

why the Texas GOP party platform is required reading

It is true that through the looking glass of the Australian media, I find a different portrayal of the US. The view from here is less nuanced. If I relied wholly on Australian depictions of the US, and forgot my memories of living there and ceased reading American media, I would start to think that the USA was a very monolithic place, with most people behind the ruling Republican party. I would forget that almost half of the entire population is horrified at what George W. Bush is doing to their country and the world.

Sometimes I think that the Australian media would rather pander to these stereotypes of the US, rather challenge them, which would get too complicated, nuanced and boring.

On the other hand, in Australia we are also sheltered from some of the ugliness of the American Right. This is why Texas Republican Party Platform is so important. The Texas GOP currently has great influence on the national Republican leadership and on other states.

The have a very slick website and their party platform is posted there for all to see. I recommend skipping the short summary, which seems somewhat sanitized for the sensibilities of non-believers. Open up the pdf document. It's 24 pages and every one of those pages will shock anyone who cares about the future of democracy in the USA and the world. It is also proof that GOP "compassionate conversativism" is nothing more than a good slogan and sound-bite.

First, a few welcome surprises:
- The Party urges "review and revision of those portions of the USA Patriot Act, and related executive and military orders and directives that erode constitutional rights and essential liberties of citizens." (p. 2)
- The Party supports the "prohibition of internet voting and any touch screen voting or other electronic voting which lacks a paper trail" (p. 6)

But most of the platform rejects such moderation (please note, all the italics are my emphasis):
- "The Party strongly opposes all efforts to make the District of Columbia a state in the United States of America." (p. 3)
- "We oppose conservation easements on our natural resources administered by organizations unaccountable to taxpayers and voters. For example, the efforts of the Caddo Lake Institute to act as a surrogate for the UN in gaining control of water rights of Caddo Lake." (p. 4)
- "We oppose passage of any international treaty that overrides United States sovereignty, including the Kyoto Agreement and the Biodiversity Treaty." (p. 4)
- "We oppose the Endangered Species Act."
- "The Party calls on the Congress and the President to use their constitutional powers to restrain activist judges.
1. Impeachment - The Party calls on the Congress to exercise their authority to impeach and remove federal judges who abuse their constitutional authority or are no longer acting on good behavior.
2. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Congress should be urged to exercise its authority under Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution, and should withhold appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in such cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.
3. Refusal to Enforce –The Executive Branch is obligated to defend the Constitution by refusing to enforce judicial decisions that transgress the enumerated powers of the Article III Court. Congress should refuse allocating funding for the enforcement of any such unconstitutional decisions." (p. 5)
- "The Party understands that the Ten Commandments are the basis of our basic freedoms and the cornerstone of our Western legal tradition. We therefore oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue or other religious symbols." (p. 7)
- "The Republican Party of Texas affirms that the United States of America is a Christian nation, and the public acknowledgement of God is undeniable in our history. Our nation was founded on fundamental Judeo-Christian principles based on the Holy Bible. The Party affirms freedom of religion, and rejects efforts of courts and secular activists who seek to remove and deny such a rich heritage from our public lives." (p. 8)
- "The Party believes all Americans have the right to practice their religious faith free from persecution, intimidation, and violence. While recognizing one’s freedom from religion, this recognition should not limit others’ free expression of their religious beliefs. Our Party pledges to exert its influence to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State." (p. 8)
- "... marriage in the United States shall consist and be recognized only as the union of a natural man and a natural woman. Neither the United States nor any state shall recognize or grant to any unmarried person the legal rights or status of a spouse. We oppose the recognition of and granting of benefits to people who represent themselves as domestic partners without being legally married." (p. 10)
- "The Party supports legislation that would make it a felony to issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple and for any civil official to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple." (p. 10)
- "We call upon the Texas Legislature to rescind no–fault divorce laws." (p. 10)
- "The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable “alternative” lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should “family” be redefined to include homosexual “couples.” We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values." (p. 10)
- "The Party opposes the legalization of sodomy. The Party demands Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy."
- "We support the elimination of public funding for organizations that advocate or support abortion. We urge the reversal of Roe v. Wade. We affirm our support for the appointment and election of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life." (p. 11)
- "We unequivocally oppose the United States Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which would transfer jurisdiction over parental rights and responsibilities to international bureaucracies." (p. 12)
- "The Party supports raising the age of consent for consensual sex for all children to 18 years of age." (p. 13)
- "The Party supports amendment of the Americans with Disabilities Act to exclude from its definition those persons with infectious diseases, substance addiction, learning disabilities, behavior disorders, homosexual practices and mental stress, thereby reducing abuse of the Act." (p. 14)
- "build strong and lasting relationships, we support the requirement that schools teaching sex education must teach directive abstinence until heterosexual marriage with an uninfected person as the only safe and healthy means of preventing sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancies among unwed students. We believe programs should teach the physical and emotional risks of abortion specified in State law and rules. We oppose programs that advocate or legitimize pre-marital sexual activity, advocate condoms and birth control use by unmarried minors, advocate abortions, and condone homosexual, bisexual, and transgender acts and/or lifestyles, and elevate minors’ rights to make sexual and health care decisions equivalent to their parents. Sex education classes, if conducted, should be separated by sex." (pp. 15-16)
- "The Party supports the objective teaching and equal treatment of scientific strengths and weaknesses of all scientific theories, including Intelligent Design – as Texas law now requires but has yet to enforce. The Party believes theories of life origins and environmental theories should be taught only as theories not fact; that social studies and other curriculum should not be based on any one theory." (p. 17)
- "The Party believes that students should be taught flag etiquette and should be led in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Texas pledge, the national anthem and patriotic songs on a daily basis to ensure that the loyal and patriotic spirit of Texas’ and of America’s heritage is preserved and passed on to our children." (p. 17)
- "We further urge that the personal income tax, inheritance (death) tax, gift tax, capital gains, corporate income tax, and payroll tax be eliminated. We recommend the implementation of a national retail sales tax, with the provision that a two-thirds majority of the U.S. House and U.S. Senate is required to raise the rate." (p. 17)
- "The Party calls on our Texas legislators to resist any efforts to make Workers’ Compensation mandatory for all Texas employers." (p. 18)
- "The Party believes the Minimum Wage Law should be repealed and that wages should be determined by the free market conditions prevalent in each individual market." (p. 18)
- "We also call for the de–funding and abolition of the National Endowment for the Arts and the Public Broadcasting System." (p. 19)
- "In World War I, America had a strong grassroots civil defense system comprised of and administered by volunteers from each county’s citizenry. The Party supports the restoration of our civil defense system." (p. 20)
- We support "marking of all state driver’s licenses issued to non-citizens as “Non-Citizens”, to avoid voter fraud." (p. 21)
- "We urge the repeal of any international trade agreements that do not promote free trade, withdrawal from membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and cessation of further negotiations of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) agreement." (p. 23)
- "The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations." (p. 24)
- We oppose "placement of the UN flag and emblem on public property or in government facilities; payment of any debt allegedly owed to the UN" (p. 24)
- To make things crystal clear, "The Party urges Congress to evict the United Nations from the United States and eliminate any further participation." (p. 24)

First of all, this is not a joke. In the same way that the American Left is less visible in Australia, so can the Right. What's even more scary is that this is just the leading edge of the mainstream Right in the US. The people who wrote this are the sane ones, and probably had to do a lot of hard negotiation with the real crazies to finish this platform.

That's the tragedy of the US. The existence and success of its strong hard Right has dragged everyone else to the right - including the entire Republican party and a lot of Democracts. The result is that the American political centre is now way to the right of almost all other western democracies.

Australia-US election year convergence

The nature of the Australian-American alliance is becoming a domestic political issue in Australia, and one of the main differences between the two major parties. The actual differences are really quite minor, but in today’s political environment the differences have been magnified and become the things which elections can be fought over.

The Australian Labor Party (ALP) under the leadership of Mark Latham, who seems to have revitalized the ALP, is committed to the alliance, but wants it to be more of an alliance of equals, rather than the obsequious sycophantic relationship which John Howard has with George W. Bush. Before he was elected leader of the Opposition, Latham called John Howard an arselicker with respect to Howard’s behaviour towards the US. He called the governing Liberal / National coalition a “conga line of suckholes.” The citation to the offical Hansard record of this debate is: H.R. Deb. (5.2.2004) 10927; it's also on page 37 of the 180 page pdf version of the Hansard transcript.
[I been wanting to quote these choices phrases for a long time. I wonder if this will cause my blog to be blocked out by filtering software? That would be a novelty]

The main debate about the nature of the alliance with the US is focused around two main issues. First the presence of Australian troops in Iraq. Second (and less prominently, although having far-reaching ramifications), the proposed US-Australian free trade agreement (FTA). They are interlinked. The progress in the FTA is widely viewed as Australia’s reward for being such a staunch (I say sycophantic) ally to the US, being in lock-step with George W. Bush over Iraq.

As an Australian who lived in the US for over six years and has fond thoughts about the people and place, I certainly think that it makes sense for Australia and the US to be friends and allies. There is certainly a natural affinity amongst the peoples of both countries.

But if the two countries were true friends rather than being master and servant, our alliance would be strong and mature enough that we could disagree about things like Iraq. When the US chickenhawks became obsessed with Iraq, a true friend would have told them in no uncertain terms that it was a mad crusade which would only increase the risk of terrorism from the Middle East.

It’s also interesting that both Australia and the US are facing national elections this year. If Bush should win in the US (God forbid) and Latham in Australia, the Australia-US alliance will be strained somewhat. Not too much. Mark Latham has already toned down his rhetoric since becoming leader of the Opposition. He is first and foremost a politician and is not so stupid as to allow John Howard to mobilize Australia’s paranoia by being too controversial in the final stretch. But he will take out Australia’s largely symbolic contribution of troops in Iraq by the end of the year. Because of that pledge and because he has repeatedly criticized George W. Bush ("Bush himself is the most incompetent and dangerous president in living memory”, H.R. Deb. (5.2.2004) 10926; page 36 of the pdf version) Mark Latham will never be popular with the Bushies.

Of course, I am hoping against hope that both Latham and Kerry will unseat their respective conservative incumbents.

Should John Kerry win, but Howard gets back in Australia, I doubt there will be any problems with the alliance. Kerry is a centrist, not a left-winger – and certainly not by Australian standards. Besides, if there’s regime change in Washington D.C., John Howard will do his utmost to ingratiate himself with the new American President. That is one thing which he does very well.