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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I was planning on writing about this, but misseli beat me to it with the following fine summary (below in the Arial font).
The only reason why I'm not totally dismayed by this is not a done deal. It still needs to be ratified by the Australian Senate, which the Federal Government does not control. I'm sure that the Greens and Democrats will oppose most of this and the main opposition party, the Australian Labor Party has indicated it may oppose this as well. It's interesting how the electronic news media has portrayed the deal as being good for Australia, with the exception of the sugar industry. "It could have been a lot worse" is the main sentiment. True, at least the US is not yet forcing us to pay more for medicines, but if people knew more they'd realize that this is a lot worse than it appears.
Australia Joins the Mickey Mouse Club
Australia and the United States signed a Free Trade Agreement agreement on February 9 (Feb. 8, in this hemisphere). A lot of the press (here and abroad) is focused on opposition within Australia's agricultural sector (particularly sugar and dairy farmers) and the proposed benefits to its manufacturing sector.
However, warning bells have sounded regarding changes in copyright/IP laws and their effects on libraries. Like the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, Australia's copyright terms have been raised an additional 20 years. It's set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2005.
From The Age's article:
"The outcome is bad for libraries," said Colette Ormonde, copyright adviser for the Australian Library and Information Association. "It is bad for students. It is bad for researchers. It is bad for all information users."
The terms of the agreement seek to harmonize IP protections in regards to material, including digital formats ... which suggests that DMCA-type legislation is next on the agenda, if not already so.
Thanks for the 411 from /. and the chattylibrarians list-serv. [Confessions of a Mad Librarian]
Richard Poynder, "Fiddling while Rome burns?", InformationToday (Jan. 2004).
I drafted most of these comments in January, after reading this article in the printed version of InformationToday. I didn’t post it then mainly because there was no link to the full-text of the article. I thought that maybe in a month, InformationToday would publish the full-text. But they haven’t, even though they’ve put other articles from that issue on the web. I decided to finish this response to it anyway. Most librarians will access to a print copy of InformationToday or can easily get it via Interlibrary Loan.
First, a minor quibble about how this piece was presented. I think that this is more of an opinion piece than an investigative report. Yes, Mr Poynder has research behind his opinions, but the thrust of the article is very opinionated. The premise is that librarians have lost the plot and need to mend their ways. According to Richard Poynder, we need to cease fighting windmills like the USAPATRIOT Act and CIPA, and save our strength for true fight.
Mr Poynder does make some valid points. I agree with one of his major arguments that in practical terms, media consolidation and expanding and oppressive copyright laws are a greater threat to what libraries are about. I also agree that the way that the ALA has handled Cuba has been a complete debacle.
I disagree with the way that Mr Poynder belittles the role of librarians as protectors of intellectual freedom. I disagree with the logic which says that because a few librarians have been hypocritical about this issue, that we have all failed and must give it up.
I wonder if Mr Poynder would have written anything different had he wrote his article after the "almanac scare". He uses John Ashcroft's and the FBI's words that the FBI has no interest in tracking the reading habits of ordinary Americans. Then we learn that something as innocent and neutral as an almanac is viewed with suspicion by law enforcement.
My strongest criticism of his article is when he mentions that the word "library" does not appear once in the USAPATRIOT Act. This comes right out of the FBI's talking points. It doesn't matter if libraries, or booksellers or whatever is actually specified in the language of the Act. The wording is broad enough that it will apply to libraries and a lot of other organizations. Maybe the drafters of the legislation preferred the broad language so libraries could be the concealed target, allowing apologists like Poynder to play down its effect on libraries. Maybe the drafters wanted to be able to use the USAPATRIOT Act against anyone with any personal information that might be useful. Neither explanation is reassuring.
Mr Poynder says that librarians have been politicized to the extent that they are unable to differentiate between library issues and civil rights issues. I agree that not every library issue is a civil rights issue, and not every civil rights issue is a library issue. As a reference law librarian, I often had to help people who were fighting "on the wrong side" of a civil rights issue. I appreciate that sometimes professional ethics as a librarian will diverge from my own personal values. But Mr Poynder seems to be suggesting that there should be a dichotomy between the two.
I certainly don’t agree with the way that this article seems to deride librarians for conveniently and hypocritically latching onto the cause of intellectual freedom. This an insult to those of us who do view librarianship as more than just a comparatively low-paid job with low-prestige, but almost as a calling.
I view the current threats to libraries and open access to information as two-fold in nature. The threat of media consolidation and expanded copyright is like a physical threat. If we lose this fight, it will become more and more difficult to do our jobs and our patrons will eventually go elsewhere - if they can afford to. The USAPATRIOT Act is a different kind of threat. If we lose the fight for intellectual freedom, libraries will continue to function but they will have been corrupted. I say that we can't afford to lose either struggle.
Why is that that the American Right so often responds to criticism by saying something like, “if you don't like Bush or his policies, well then you're free to leave the country.”
As someone who did have a real choice about whether to live in the US or not, and ended up using that exit option, I have a few idealistic words to say about this.
It’s such a disingenuous thing to say- of course any American is free to leave the USA, but would they be let in anywhere else? Under international law, unless there are special circumstances, you only have the right to live in your country of nationality. You can’t demand to live in Canada, the UK or any other country for the rest of your days. You may apply and if you’re qualified or lucky they may choose to let you in, but you have no legal right. Although liberal American emigrants might sometimes feel oppressed by the political climate, this would not be enough to qualify for refugee status in other countries. Not unless things get a lot worse, and Ann Coulter's idea that Democrats are all traitors takes hold.
Even if there weren't these legal impediments for emigration, it is wrong to ask somebody to give up their home and go into exile just because they have a different political opinion. That reminds me of the gulag in Siberia.
It is no trivial thing to live in a different country - even when it concerns moving between Australia and the US, two countries with very close cultural and linguistic ties, at least when compared with other countries. Emigration still involves missing family and childhood friends and of course the land. It is wrong for people on the right to so flippantly and frequently call for such a sacrifice by their political opponents.
The real point is that American liberals has as much right to the USA as American conservatives. It is ludicrous to say that Conservative or Neoconservative values are the true American values and that everyone else are just interlopers, who live in the US only at the sufferance of the true Americans.
The answer is to challenge the implicit assumptions being made when a Conservative parrots something dumb like "America, love it or leave it." Do they really think that most important thing about the US are guns, military aggression, religious fanaticism, unbridled capitalism and wasteful SUVs? If that's what they care about, and not the democratic values expressed in the Constitution, how American can they really be?
How interesting, on the day that I flew back to Australia, the Melbourne Age published an article about Australians living overseas. There was also some mention of ex pats who return - why they do and the challenges they face. I expect that I'll have a lot more to say about this issue, that it will be a recurring theme. I am fully aware that my decision to return to Australia was not an economically rational decision or a particularly career-smart move. I for one agree with the reason mentioned in that article - this is about returning to my roots, my family and the actual country. For me it was also about leaving the US. To put it bluntly, the political situation there and the power of the Right was freaking me out.
I realize that I have a love/hate relationship with the French. In the mid-1990s, I hated them, like most other Australians, when they resumed their nuclear testing in the South Pacific. Their arrogance was so shameless and infuriating! It took me a few years to forgive them for that. Then last year, I decided to subscribe to the English language version of Le Monde diplomatique on the web. I greatly enjoyed reading that alternative perspective on world events. (This is hardly relevant, but I'll never forget watching Amelie in the cinema and being in a crowd that spontaneously clapped at the end of the film.) The high point of good feelings towards the French occured during those evil months just before the Iraq war, I was so proud of the way that at France and Germany resisted the US and the UK in the UN security council. The more that the Neocons hated the French, the more I loved them. When they childishly campaigned to have French Fries renamed as Freedom Fries, I developed a preference for Evian water and French wine.
But now things are changing again. I am absolutely appalled by the French Government's plans to ban the wearing of head scarves by Muslim schoolgirls. Do they think that this help French Muslims to be better integrated in French society? It will do the opposite, and will drive Muslims out of public schools into private schools.
I worry that the following is going to be a little controversial, but I'm a blogger, not a politician or journalist, so I'm just going to write what I'm thinking. ...
Continue reading "ranting against French secular fundamentalism" »
For a such long time I did not see rhyme or reason in any of the words coming out of the Bush Administration. But now I've learned to find the truth in them. It's so simple - just turn the words on their head!
Clear Skies = Dirtier Skies
Mission Accomplished = Mission not yet accomplished
No Child Left Behind = All Children Left Behind (as we create more unfunded mandates)
Prescription Drug Benefit for Seniors = Prescription Drug Benefit for Health Insurance Companies
I've done more for human rights than every other President = I've done less for human rights than any other President
I'm sure that there are plenty of other examples.
It was thinking about this which gave me the initial insight:
Bush said that the UN must allow the US to invade Iraq or the UN will fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society. In fact, only by rubber-stamping the US' every demand would the UN fade into history as an ineffective, irrelevant debating society.
I don't have anything new to say on the topic of almanacs, but I wanted to link to This Modern World's take on this absurdity.
It makes me wonder - by dignifying the suspicion about almanacs etc. with a response, am I playing into the hands of those who cast these aspersions? It's hard to know, but I think that one of the few defences against the Bush Administration's Big Lie tactic is for many people to challenge the falsehood early, loudly and unambiguously.
Wired News has another article about the stealth passage of elements of the Patriot Act II.
Continue reading "more about the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004" »
Jason Lefkowitz has also been following the story about how the Bush administration outmaneuvered opponents of the Patriot Act II by incorporating some of its elements into Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 2004 and so avoid public debate about its controversial changes. Jason hasn't just got angry about it - he's set up a fund to reward the 15 House Republicans who crossed the floor and voted against this legislation. He is using PayDemocracy host the $15 for Fifteen campaign.
With Republicans in control of the Presidency, Congress and Supreme Court (most of the time), it is important to realize that they are not a monolithic group and that not all Republican members of Congress are like Tom DeLay.
This business about almanacs being viewed as suspicious is quite surreal. I don't know whether to laugh at the stupidity of the idea or cry because they actually seem to be serious abut it.
There is good coverage of this at LISNews. But I first read about this in the LiveJournal libraries community.
Continue reading "so almanacs are dangerous books, are they?" »
Daypop is one of my favourite tools for finding information on really current topics. Because it crawls a smaller number of websites (just blogs and news sources), it can be more responsive than Google.
Anyway, I did a quick & dirty search on Daypop concerning the topic which I wrote about yesterday. Here's a digested version of my results, listed in loosely chronological order.
Wired News - November 28
Slashdot - November 28
Michigan IMC - December 16, contains URLs to the White House statement about the Act, legislator's comments and an AP report
The Daily Harrumph - permalinks don't seem to be working, but it's the third from the top posting of December 16
Seeing the Forest - December 26
Daily Rotten - I can't find a permalink, but scroll down to December 26
Queixa - December 28
Ron's Log - December 28
peerfear.org - December 28
Reason - Hit & Run - December 29
The Monster Limo Weblog - December 29
Easter Lemming - Liberal News - December 29
sf.indymedia.org - December 29
It's amazing that this story was first broken (and then slashdotted) on November 28. Well I guess that was around Thanksgiving and many people's attention must have been elsewhere.
This is truly frightening. The Red Pencil Diaries has reported, linking to a San Antonio Current article, that much of the dreaded Patriot Act II has been stealthily reconstituted into the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 2004, which was signed into law on the day that Saddam Hussein was captured.
"...it appeared that the Bush Administration was waiting for the start of the Iraq war to introduce Patriot Act II, and then exploit the crisis to ram it through Congress with little public debate.The leak and ensuing public backlash frustrated the Bush administration's strategy, so Ashcroft and Co. disassembled Patriot Act II, then reassembled its parts into other legislation. By attaching the redefinition of "financial institution" to an Intelligence Authorization Act, the Bush Administration and its Congressional allies avoided public hearings and floor debates for the expansion of the Patriot Act. [David Martin, "With a whisper, not a bang: Bush signs parts of Patriot Act II into law — stealthily", San Antonio Current (Dec. 24, 2003)]
This is so outrageous that I've tried to confirm it from other sources.
Here is a press release from Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) mentioning that he voted against the Intelligence Authorization Act for fiscal 2004, H.R. 2417. His main reason: "However, under this provision the FBI no longer needs a court order to serve a subpoena on a new and lengthy list of ‘financial institutions.’ With this legislation we eliminate the judicial oversight that was built into our system for a reason - to make sure that our precious liberties are protected."
I then looked up the Bill in Thomas.
I have not had time to thoroughly dissect the Bill, but sections 361 and 374, buried in "Subtitle E - Other Matters" look pretty suspicious.
Gary Price reports about an Illinois survey about FBI visits to libraries under section 215 of the USAPATRIOT Act
Here are my thoughts about this:
- these are the results for only 1 state
- there could be under-reporting of FBI visits because of section 215's gag-order
- even if John Ashcroft is not lying (and here's an interesting Salon article about the acceptance of lying in public life), and section 215 has not yet been used against librarians, this law is still a concern -
- it is based on a flawed & dangerous premise, that there is a connection between reading about certain things and acting on them
- even if the law is never used, while it's on the books, it has a chilling effect on how people use libraries - or purchase books
[update on 28 March 2005: This article has been followed-up on and partially retracted here]
Among constitutional scholars there was a big divide between those who think that the best safeguard of democracy and human rights is to have a strong written constitution - and those who prefer an unwritten constitution.
I tend to think that when things are going well, a good written constitution will almost always be better. It can help provide a good check on goverment by those without power. But any written constitution is only as strong as a nation's citzenry, courts, law makers, and law enforcement willingness to be bound by it, even when it goes against their immediate wishes. It is so easy for a written constitution to be misinterpreted and marginalized and ultimately ignored. There are numerous examples where a country's constitution's is not so much of a fundamental binding legal document, but a wish list. For example, look at Part II chapter one of the Sudanese constitition. Such a huge gap between the words and the reality! I worry that the US has started to head in this direction.
I could name countless examples , but I'll limit myself to three, concerning each of the branches of goverment. ...
Continue reading "will brute political power subvert the US constitution?" »
I'm going to be moving back to Australia, probably at the beginning of February 2004. I plan to continue working on this blog, although it's very likely that my focus will shift a little, so there will be more postings directly about Australian topics. But I certainly won't cease writing about those American issues which have ramifications for Australia and the other small countries (politically speaking) of the world. American domestic laws and politics, whether we like it or not, have a great effect on Australia. ...
This is a very helpful summary about the various issues associated with these two oppressive laws - and a guide to how librarians might respond to them.
It was interesting to read this article from today's New York Times. Here are a couple of thoughts about it:
- Had Diebold not cracked down in such an unethical way on their legitimate critics, this controversy would not have grown in the way that it has - and the New York Times certainly would not have printed today's story. In the same way that Fox's laughable lawsuit only served to boost the sales of Al Franken's book, Diebold's copyright cudgel has been a PR nightmare for them. When will people and companies learn not to make this mistake again and again?
- This ultimately comes down to constitutional law. Both copyright and freedom of speech are grounded in the US constitution. If I were a hard core DMCA supporter, I'd also be very mad at Diebold. Their actions are hastening a collision between the DMCA and the First Amendment. If the DMCA is going to be used in this manner to stifle legitimate debate about the heart of the political process (voting), there is a chance that it will be held unconstitutional. Maybe this is a slim chance, maybe not, but if I were one of the DMCA's beneficiaries, I'd be worried about this gamble. So long as the debate about the DMCA was framed as whether people should be able to download music for free - it was never really going to get anywhere. But this Diebold case is different - in the post Florida 2000 world, it's really struck a nerve.
I get more angry, every time I hear more about the way Diebold is attempting to stifle debate about the insecurity of its touch-screen voting machines. Even if I put aside the red flags about the idea of a company with very partisan leadership getting involved in the voting equipment business, and the fact that Diebold's software has a serious security flaw and does not allow for a paper trail of votes, I am amazed at their response to this criticism - rather than try to improve their software, they try to silence their critics with copyright law! Here's a copy of one Diebold's cease & desist notices, which I found at Chilling Effects. I am glad to see that at least one ISP is standing up to Diebold. I decided to do some research about the intersection between copyright law and freedom of speech - to see if Diebold is the right, and the law is a total ass. ...
Continue reading "Diebold's not the first to invoke copyright to censor important free speech" »
Take a look at Shades of Gray (not about the recently recalled Governor of California) and the follow-up.
He mentions O'Reilly's appearance on Fresh Air, Dave Winer's "funky RSS" comments, and takes the media to task for giving the Bushies a free ride over the most outrageous claims - and wonders why this might be. He uses the RIAA as an example of using the media to popularize outrageous claims.
I actually heard the interview and spat between Bill O'Reilly and Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air last night. This was not a hatchet job on O'Reilly. He wasted this opportunity for him to have a genuine dialogue with some of his critics on the left ...
Continue reading "Fresh Air fails O'Reilly's "fair and balanced" test" »
Well, I guess that they got off. I'm not too surprised. The idea that they have a conservative bias isn't what bugs me about them - it's that they claim to be "fair and balanced." Of course nobody takes that seriously any more, especially after the Franken lawsuit debacle. They need a new slogan that admits their bias - what about "NeoCon Mouthpiece of the Bushies"?
I wrote earlier about the unlikely story of how I first experimented with AOL. I’m surprised to say that I still use it from time to time – on a plan which gives me a very small number of dialup access hours. The reason is that now my iBook doesn’t seem to work well with any other dialup ISP. I would be tempted to think that this is something that AOL did to my computer, except that I remember that this problem predated the first time that I used AOL. It’s probably a hardware problem – but because most of the time I use a broadband connection without any problems on my iBook – I’m reluctant to send it in if it’s not really urgent.
My first use of AOL coincided with the beginning of the Iraq war. At the time I noticed a real pro-war bias in the way the war news was reported. It’s interesting to see how this has changed lately.
Last week, they reprinted Salon’s article about John Mellencamp and patriotism.
Am I paranoid to wonder if AOL Time Warner decided to pander to the government’s dogs of war in the lead up to the execrable FCC decision about media ownership, to show the Republicans in power that big media could be supportive of their interests? And that now the FCC rules have been released, AOL Time Warner can be a little more centrist (definitely not left-wing).
Postscript: Along with the Salon article, AOL had one of their ubiquitous polls. The question was along the lines of “Who is more patriotic? – a) the Left, b) the Right, c) Neither – each side is patriotic but they have different opinions.” My recollection of the result was that almost 50% answered “C” for neither, 40% answered “B” for the Right and a measly 10% chose “A” for the Left.
I chose the Neither answer – because I do think that many of the Right-wingers genuinely care for their country, even if their methods or goals are misguided. My reading of this poll – and be assured that I don’t put too much stock in its results – is that people on the left are more reasonable and are mature enough to admit that the other side might sometimes have a point, or at least a legitimate concern. Whereas people on the right (I choose not to call them Conservatives because they a radical agenda of tearing up long-standing social supports and threatening civil liberties) are more fanatical – and refuse to see any good in their opponents or flaws in themselves. I know, it’s kind of petty to be fighting over the high moral ground but it’s still legitimate point. What do you do against an opponent who refuses to play fairly? Do you to stick to your principles and lose (praying that someday the wrongs will be righted) – or adopt their rough-handed tactics in the hope of beating them at their own game?
ALA Aiding And Abetting Terrorists. Gerry writes "David Horowitz's FrontPageMag, dedicated to rooting out the fifth columns, left-liberals and hate-American conspirators among us, turns its withering gaze to LIBRARIANS.....
Please have some fun baiting true believers in the comments forum. "
At least they admit ALA librarians are not the quiet, unassuming stereotypes you see on TV and in the movies, but they go on to say while the ALA ostensibly wants to protect the First Amendment rights of all people to read what they want, they themselves seem to have not read the USA PATRIOT Act and its guarantees to protect First Amendment Rights. [LISNews.com]
Maybe it's my legal background, but I'm always interested in dissecting a controversy into the exact areas of disagreement. Although I heartily disagree with almost everything written in this article (authored by Paul Walfield), I find that it illuminates very clearly the differences in the two viewpoints.
Fox News facing investigation in Britian. Fox News is facing an investigation in Britian for providing biased coverage during the war.The Fox News Channel could be forced off the air in Britain if an investigation currently under way by the watchdog Independent Television Commission determines that... [different strings]
Recent Comments