« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »

September 30, 2006

"Pink Ribbons, Inc.: Breast Cancer and the Politics of Philanthropy"

pinkribbons.gif

From the publisher's website:

In Pink Ribbons, Inc., Samantha King traces how breast cancer has been transformed from a stigmatized disease and individual tragedy to a market-driven industry of survivorship. In an unprecedented outpouring of philanthropy, corporations turn their formidable promotion machines on the curing of the disease while dwarfing public health prevention efforts and stifling the calls for investigation into why and how breast cancer affects such a vast number of people. Here, for the first time, King questions the effectiveness and legitimacy of privately funded efforts to stop the epidemic among American women.

Pink Ribbons, Inc. grapples with issues of gender and race in breast cancer campaigns of businesses such as the National Football League; recounts the legislative history behind the breast cancer awareness postage stamp—the first stamp in American history to raise funds for use outside the U.S. Postal Service; and reveals the cultural impact of activity-based fund-raising, such as the Race for the Cure. Throughout, King probes the profound implications of consumer-oriented philanthropy on how patients experience breast cancer, the research of the biomedical community, and the political and medical institutions that the breast cancer movement seeks to change.

Highly revelatory—at times shocking—Pink Ribbons, Inc. challenges the commercialization of the breast cancer movement, its place in U.S. culture, and its influence on ideas of good citizenship, responsible consumption, and generosity.

NYU Free Culture Club Protests DRM at Big Apple Store

DRM Protest on September 30th 2006 - a photoset on Flickr/

Brilliant Analog Mash-up

Rick Miller peforms Bohemian Rhapsody

Man vows to fight garden gnome arrest threat

gnome090906_228x356.jpg

A man vowed to keep a glowing garden gnome on display today in defiance of a police notice. Gordon MacKillop even faces possible prosecution over the offending ornament.

He was woken in the night by two police officers who warned him that the solar-powered gnome, dressed in full police uniform, was offensive to his neighbours.

They served him with a notice under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 for "placing a garden gnome with intent to cause harassment to Mr John McLean".

Read the rest here.

"The ACLU Has a Blog. Who Knew?"

That's the name of a post by Mithras at Fables of the Reconstruction, and his criticism of the ACLU's failure to use its blog to communicate more effectively with its membership is spot on.

September 29, 2006

The Stephen Colbert "On Notice Board" Generator

colbert.jpg

Make your own here. Feel free to mock law professors!

Hey, Instapundit, read the Constitution, will ya?

Instapundit claims:

I've seen some people calling this an abolition of habeas corpus, but as I understand it, habeas is suspended only with regard to non-citizens. This removes a key danger of abuse, since the potential politically-motivated abuses that are most worrisome involve U.S. citizens, not aliens. And Congress quite explicitly has the Constitutional power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, though whether this counts as a "suspension" of the writ is open for debate.

Ok. For the record, this is from Article I, Sec. 9:

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

That's in the section that limits the powers of the legislature. Duh.

And BTW, that 14th Amendment, the one that grants equal protection before the law? It covers "persons," not "citizens." Here is the passage: "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Man, why don't they test law professors on the Constitution before they give them jobs?

Scientists and Engineers for America: Join Now!

SEFORA

... The principal role of the science and technology community is to advance human understanding. But there are times when this is not enough. Scientists and engineers have a right, indeed an obligation, to enter the political debate when the nation’s leaders systematically ignore scientific evidence and analysis, put ideological interests ahead of scientific truths, suppress valid scientific evidence and harass and threaten scientists for speaking honestly about their research.

We ask every American who values scientific integrity in decision-making to join us in endorsing a basic Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers. Together we will elect new leadership beginning in 2006, and we will continue to work to elect reasonable leadership in federal, state and local elections for years to come.

America needs your help. Will you join us?

How the President will break the law and get away with it (and probably already has)

Jack Balkin analyzes the Military Commissions Act:

... First, the MCA puts the President in an interesting position: the U.S. is still bound by Geneva, but there is no way for individuals to enforce violations of Geneva (except that grave breaches of Common Article 3 can still be prosecuted under the War Crimes Statute). However, Geneva's status as the law of the land (under Article VI) was not altered by the MCA. The United States has not withdrawn from the Geneva Conventions, and this fact was quite important to selling the bill to the public. So if the President orders procedures that are inconsistent with Geneva, he is still acting contrary to law even though there may be no way for an individual to enforce the law directly.

Second, the President remains bound by the prohibitions against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment found in the McCain Amendment, and the substantive tests of the Fifth, Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments, whether the conduct occurs in the United States our outside of it. Indeed, the MCA reaffirms these substantive standards and makes them applicable throughout the world. If the President violates these standards, or directs others to do so, he violates the law. That means if the President interprets these standards narrowly and tendentiously to permit certain interrogation practices, he also violates the law. There is just no judicial remedy for the violation.

Let me repeat what I have just said: The MCA continues to recognize that certain conduct is illegal, but attempts to eliminate all judicial remedies for such violations. That means that if the President violates the MCA, he still fails to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, which is his constitutional duty under Article 2, section 3 of the Constitution. (And in case you are wondering, he might well be guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor, but don't hold your breath.) The President wanted it this way: He wanted to be able to say that he was following the law, but, just in case he wasn't, he didn't want to be held to account for it in any court proceeding. But the fact that the courts can't offer a remedy doesn't mean, I repeat, that the President has no duty to obey the law. And although he now has virtually conclusive authority to interpret non-grave breaches of Geneva, he does not have virtually conclusive authority to interpret either the Bill of Rights or the McCain Amendment.

Third, although the MCA attempts to eliminate judicial review, and in particular the writ of habeas corpus, it is by no means certain that it has succeeded. The suspension of habeas may be unconstitutional. Any such suspension must be consistent with the Suspension Clause of Article I, section 9. I won't get into all the details now, but the Supreme Court's decision in Rasul v. Bush, and, perhaps most ironically, Justice Thomas' dissent in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, suggest a few reasons why the habeas stripping provisions of the MCA might not be fully constitutional. (I will leave this tantalizing point as an exercise for you to figure out. I'll get back to it later on). In addition, it is by no means clear that the MCA can successfully eliminate rights that detainees have under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. ...

How the Mighty Have Fallen

I have decidedly mixed feelings about the announcement in the New York Times from a few minutes ago that Congressman Mark Foley will be stepping down after allegations that he wrote inappropriate e-mail to a male page still enrolled in high school. His once elaborate campaign website is now totally stripped bare and displays nothing more than his three-sentence apology and resignation. The Republican Foley had been outed years ago by activists, but it took an electronic smoking gun that exposed his hypocrisy about online predators to drive him from office. The incriminating e-mails to the teenager are supposed to be posted at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. (As of this writing, the server is overloaded.)

On one hand, I will admit to feeling a certain amount of Schadenfreude that so many digital rights opponents, who have used "child safety" as an excuse for obtrusive regulation of the Internet and electronic media, have found themselves in trouble in the midterm elections. For example, now struggling Child-Safe Senators Lieberman and Santorum were listed as trusted advisors on the MPAA-recommended parenting with media site Pause Parent Play, which claims to encourage intergenerational dialogue and play, but really advocates the same old ratings and blocking technology formula.

There is some poetic justice in the fact that Foley made minority user behaviors of marginal populations who consume online pornography his chief campaign and legislative issue to justify a broader tendency to criminalize other kinds of digital community. He also had a poor record on network neutrality and Internet privacy. But it's such an unsavory case with so many possible victims that it's difficult to crow about his downfall.

Furthermore, I worry that such scandals involving e-mail divert attention from how electronic genres can function productively in both everyday communication and public rhetoric. I would argue that e-mail should serve as a powerful proactive agent for political change on behalf of constituents and revive the function of petition, but instead it largely works as evidence of the private foibles of policy makers. Mass e-mail campaigns from grassroots groups get remarkably little media attention. As a rhetorician, I'd like to see e-mail do more in the public sphere than act out its "gotcha" role.

Update:
It turns out that it is IM rather than conventional e-mail at issue in this case. ABC News has posted an instant message session in which Representative Foley inquires about masturbation with a teen. Foley is famed for saying, ''We track library books better than we do sexual predators." Don't you love what he says should be equated?

My Copyright article in the Columbia Journalism Review

CJR September/October 2006: The Copyright Jungle

Please check it out and post comments.

Columbia Journalism Review
COPYRIGHT JUNGLE

By Siva Vaidhyanathan

Last May, Kevin Kelly, Wired magazine’s “senior maverick,” published in The New York Times Magazine his predictive account of flux within the book-publishing world. Kelly outlined what he claimed will happen (not might or could — will) to the practices of writing and reading under a new regime fostered by Google’s plan to scan millions of books and offer searchable texts to Internet users.

“So what happens when all the books in the world become a single liquid fabric of interconnected words and ideas?” Kelly wrote. “First, works on the margins of popularity will find a small audience larger than the near-zero audience they usually have now. . . . Second, the universal library will deepen our grasp of history, as every original document in the course of civilization is scanned and cross-linked. Third, the universal library of all books will cultivate a new sense of authority . . . .”

Kelly saw the linkage of text to text, book to book, as the answer to the information gaps that have made the progress of knowledge such a hard climb. “If you can truly incorporate all texts — past and present, multilingual — on a particular subject,” Kelly wrote, “then you can have a clearer sense of what we as a civilization, a species, do know and don’t know. The white spaces of our collective ignorance are highlighted, while the golden peaks of our knowledge are drawn with completeness. This degree of authority is only rarely achieved in scholarship today, but it will become routine.”

Such heady predictions of technological revolution have become so common, so accepted in our techno-fundamentalist culture, that even when John Updike criticized Kelly’s vision in an essay published a month later in The New York Times Book Review, he did not so much doubt Kelly’s vision of a universal digital library as lament it.

As it turns out, the move toward universal knowledge is not so easy. Google’s project, if it survives court challenges, would probably have modest effects on writing, reading, and publishing. For one thing, Kelly’s predictions depend on a part of the system he slights in his article: the copyright system. Copyright is not Kelly’s friend. He mentions it as a nuisance on the edge of his dream. To acknowledge that a lawyer-built system might trump an engineer-built system would have run counter to Kelly’s sermon.

Much of the press coverage of the Google project has missed some key facts: most libraries that are allowing Google to scan books are, so far, providing only books published before 1923 and thus already in the public domain, essentially missing most of the relevant and important books that scholars and researchers — not to mention casual readers — might want. Meanwhile, the current American copyright system will probably kill Google’s plan to scan the collections of the University of Michigan and the University of California system — the only libraries willing to offer Google works currently covered by copyright. In his article, Kelly breezed past the fact that the copyrighted works will be presented in a useless format — “snippets” that allow readers only glimpses into how a term is used in the text. Google users will not be able to read, copy, or print copyrighted works via Google. Google accepted that arrangement to limit its copyright liability. But the more “copyright friendly” the Google system is, the less user-friendly, and useful, it is. And even so it still may not fly in court.

Google is exploiting the instability of the copyright system in a digital age. The company’s struggle with publishers over its legal ability to pursue its project is the most interesting and perhaps most transformative conflict in the copyright wars. But there are many other battles — and many other significant stories — out in the copyright jungle. Yet reporters seem lost.

Copyright in recent years has certainly become too strong for its own good. It protects more content and outlaws more acts than ever before. It stifles individual creativity and hampers the discovery and sharing of culture and knowledge. To convey all this to readers, journalists need to understand the principles, paradoxes, licenses, and limits of the increasingly troubled copyright system. Copyright is not just an interesting story. As the most pervasive regulation of speech and culture, the copyright system will help determine the richness and strength of democracy in the twenty-first century.
...

What Can You Do With $2 Billion a Week?

Rox Pop lists some options here.

So Many Ways To Die

According to this Wired News article:

Comparing official mortality data with the number of Americans who have been killed inside the United States by terrorism since the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma reveals that scores of threats are far more likely to kill an American than any terrorist -- at least, statistically speaking.

In fact, your appendix is more likely to kill you than al-Qaida is.

With that in mind, here's a handy ranking of the various dangers confronting America, based on the number of mortalities in each category throughout the 11-year period spanning 1995 through 2005 (extrapolated from best available data).

dangerchart.png

September 28, 2006

How Much is that Doggie in the Window Able to Do about Copyright?


Meet "Lucky" and "Flo," two Labrador Retrievers in the media spotlight. Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times in "Hollywood's Latest Weapon" reported that the MPAA has trained these dogs in the art of DVD-sniffing in the hope of sussing out possible pirated goods among imported merchandise. Apparently a DVD has a distinctive odor, just like prohibited food items or illegal drugs. The story was also picked up by the Washington Post, which reported that the pair was trained by a master who had previously prepared his charges for bomb-sniffing duties in Northern Ireland. Of course, the dogs can't distinguish between legitimately produced DVD shipments and ones that contain illegal goods. A dog-fancier website reveals that the canine duo should have their tails between their legs, since they have been working at a Federal Express shipping center in the UK, where -- to the chagrin of their handlers -- they have succeeded in having several packages unnecessarily opened but have yet to catch any actual copyright offenders.

Top 176 Star Wars Lines Improved By Replacing A Word With "Pants"

Channel your inner child here, because: "It is pointless to resist the power of the dark pants..."

This is why Weird Al is still alive!

Smells Like Nirvana:

See also Amish Paradise:

Barbara Boxer Laughs at Fox News

Watch it here! Or here:

September 27, 2006

Right-wingers attack Fake News course

Sivacracy friend Joe Cutbirth was singled out by a right-wing critic of academia. Here is the story:

Class on fake news provides real info

by Nicole Keller
Staff Writer

September 26, 2006
A course taught by an NYU professor is one of the 10 most moronic courses in America, according to one critic.

Professor Joe Cutbirth’s course, “Media & Society: Fake News, Politics & Public Policy,” was ranked No. 5 on “Stupid Studies” in a story on Radaronline.com, along with several other unconventional courses. The article, written by Piper Weiss, nominates the top 10 after the website’s staff “studied hundreds of college catalogs to uncover the 10 flimsiest classes offered by America’s best (and worst) universities.”

“That’s great news,” Cutbirth joked. “It’s not every day a slow white guy gets on a list with Tupac,” referring to a University of Washington course on the list called “The Textual Appeal of Tupac Shakur.”

Cutbirth, who is currently working on his doctorate in fake news at Columbia University, first brought the course to NYU this past summer after trying it out at The New School last fall. He said he had limited success, however, and had to revamp it before teaching it there again. NYU offered the course at NYU for the first time this past summer, and Cutbirth says he hopes NYU offers it again.

Despite the potentially comical subject matter, Cutbirth takes the material very seriously.

“We don’t just sit around and crack jokes like we are at a bar or something,” he said.

In the class, he allows students to choose between watching “The Daily Show,” “The Colbert Report” or the Weekend Update segment of “Saturday Night Live” for homework. Also, required reading for the course includes texts from Sigmund Freud, Joan Didion and Plato.

“Just because it’s fake news doesn’t mean it’s an easy course,” Cutbirth said. “Humor is a very specific type of communication with many different ramifications.”

Students read Freud because he explains how jokes work and why they work, Cutbirth said. Freud says that a joke is told to neutralize disappointment, a point that Cutbirth uses in lectures about talk show hosts Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

Cutbirth’s students said they realize the importance of studying stories such as “The Emperor’s New Clothes.” In the story, it is the village idiot who yells out that the emperor is naked.

“Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are similar to this literary archetype because they act like village idiots or fools,” CAS sophomore Jared Markowitz, a politics major, said. “Yet they are the only ones screaming out the truth as they make fun of the way the media operates.”

Some students from last summer’s class said they ended up there by chance but stayed because of the subject matter and the depth of the information.

“I accidentally walked into his class on the first day of my travel class,” Tisch senior and former WSN weekend editor Eric Kohn said. “[But I] saw how serious he was about this fascinating topic that most people wouldn’t treat with the proper degree of intellectualism.”

One of the questions that Cutbirth said he asks his classes on the first day is whether Jon Stewart is an enemy of democracy.

“And the whole class said that was such a tired and predictable response from the media,” he said.

Overall students really enjoyed the class and gave it rave reviews at the end of the semester, Cutbirth said.

“I enjoyed having long discussions about the way fake news results from the public’s desire to refurbish the way they receive information,” Kohn said. “Also, attending ‘The Colbert Report’ was fun.”

Other courses on the “Stupid Studies” list include “Super Smash Brothers Theory and Practice” at Oberlin College and “Pornography: Writing of Prostitutes” at Wesleyan University.

This semester, Cutbirth is teaching “Advanced Reporting: Campaigns 2006” in the journalism department.

September 26, 2006

Meaningless Songs In Very High Voices

Hilarious Bee Gees parody, via Pen-Elayne.

Stick Another Ribbon...

Asylum Street Spankers Video. NB: Cuss words. Via Creek Running North.

Congratulations to 2006 IP3 Award Winners!

Sivacracy friends Yochai Benkler and Jessica Litman were announced today as winners of the 2006 IP3 Awards by Public Knowledge. Blake and Jason Krikorian of Sling Media also won this year.

This was an outstanding slate of selections. I served as a judge for this award for two years. This is definitely the best year ever.

For Immediate Release
Sept. 26, 2006

Public Knowledge Presents Third IP3 Awards to Benkler, Krikorians and Litman

Public Knowledge President Gigi B. Sohn announced that PK’s 2006 IP3 awards will be presented to Yale University Law Professor Yochai Benkler, technology entrepreneurs Blake and Jason Krikorian and to University of Michigan Law Professor Jessica Litman.

Awards are given to individuals who over the past year (or over the course of their careers) who have advanced the public interest in one of the three areas of “IP” - Intellectual Property, Information Policy and the Internet Protocol. The awards will be presented Oct. 19 in Washington, D.C.

Yochai Benkler, a professor of law at Yale Law School, is the winner for his work on Information Policy. His most recent book, “The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom,” which was also published as a Wiki on his web site, examines how decentralized production of information has brought revolutionary changes to the economy. Benkler is known as a prolific writer and commentator on the nature of the information commons.

Blake and Jason Krikorian are the winners in the Internet Protocol category. Their company, Sling Media, has revolutionized the television industry through the Slingbox device, which allows consumers with a broadband connection to watch home-town TV from anywhere in the world. More than their technical achievements, however, the Krikorians have shown a willingness, unique among new companies, to engage in the technology policy world.

Jessica Litman, law professor at the University of Michigan, is winner in the Intellectual Property category. She is one of the country’s foremost scholars on the topic of copyright. Her most recent book is “Digital Copyright.” She is a forceful advocate for protecting consumer rights to personal use of media and for drawing limits on the policies of media companies that encroach on those rights.

Judges for this year include former IP3 award winners Rep. Rick Boucher and Gary Shapiro. Also on the panel are Mark Lloyd, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress; Rob Frieden, professor of telecommunications at Penn State University; Jenny Toomey, musician and executive director of the Future of Music Coalition, and June Cross, documentary filmmaker and assistant professor at Columbia University.

IP3 winners in 2005 were Dr. David P. Reed for his seminal work on Internet architecture; Dr. Victoria Hale, for founding the Institute for One World Health which uses donated intellectual property to create medicines for the Third World; and Gregory Maguire, for his transformative use of public domain material in creating new works of art, such as his novel, “Wicked,” based on the “Wizard of Oz.” Gary Shapiro, president of the Consumer Electronics Association, received a special award.

September 25, 2006

Do The Four Part Trick

See this cartoon character, who is vaguely reminiscent of the Hamburger Helper factotum? It's "Henry the Hand."
henry.gif
Click here to hear his retro "Four Part Trick" theme song! Try not to giggle when the narrator says "Number two," because that would be very immature. Did you know that December 3rd-9th, 2006 was "National Handwashing Week"? Henry The Hand has a job! It is reflected in his eponymous website's mission statement:

To propagate Henry the Hand's 4 Principles of Hand Awareness throughout the United States and the world, if we have enough resouces, just for the health of it.

1) WASH your hands when they are dirty and BEFORE eating.

2) DO NOT cough into your hands.

3) DO NOT sneeze into your hands.

4) Above all, DO NOT put your fingers into your eyes, nose or mouth!

Anything else you want to do with your hands, however, is just fine.

Update: You can also listen to "Doin' the Handwash" which is a musical abomination that rhymes "dirty" and "wordy" to the tune of "Willie and the Hand Jive." Frankly I think Johnny Otis has a cognizable legal claim here, if not for copyright infringement than surely for defamation.

The Good, The Bad, and The Not Fabulous


This week, I'll be in New York for the following panel to which Sivacracy readers are -- of course -- invited:

Selling Us to Ourselves: Is Social Marketing Effective HIV Prevention?
Tuesday, September 26th 6:30 - 8:00PM
LGBT Community Center
208 West 13th Street (btwn 7th/8th aves.)
New York City
Free and open to the public

A lot of political progressives support social marketing efforts unconditionally, but I am often skeptical about using conventional advertising techniques for social change, particularly when the whole industry of commercial persuasion is so invested in certain strategies that support dominant ideologies about consumerism, gender, sexuality, and race. See here for my basic argument.

It should be a lively exchange about public rhetoric and communicative action. I will be showing many images from the HIV campaigns from other countries, such as the above images from the European blog Houtlust, as well as pictures from U.S. disease-prevention efforts, such as those archived in the Visual Culture and Public Health Posters exhibit at the National Library of Medicine. Nedra Weinreich of the social marketing blog Spare Change provides more context for the event and explains some of the controversies about HIV campaigns here. The creator of the "Stay Negative" or "Not Fabulous" campaign will also be there to join in the debate.

September 24, 2006

Does This Mean I Can Vote at a Hotel Minibar?

Check out this video and be glad that today's New York Times article, "The Big Gamble on Electronic Voting," is reporting that election officials are finally reacting to concerns aired in a voting study done by the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University. Kudos to Professor Edward Felten of the EFF advisory board and the Freedom to Tinker blog, who has made a compelling case for paying attention to security vulnerabilities in the machine that could be exploited in a voting booth by easily concealed devices like hotel minibar keys and commercially available memory cards. Videos of Professor Felten's Mission Entirely Possible scenario, along with the center's correspondence with Diebold, have been widely distributed on the Internet from the links on the voting study's page. I like the fact that Felten's hypothetical election is between "George Washington" and "Benedict Arnold."

"The Strange Case of Edward Einhorn v. Mergatroyd Productions"

Nancy McClernan is a playwright who has a blog, Heavens to Mergatroyd. She got embroiled in an interesting lawsuit when the former director of one of her plays, Tam Lin, claimed that his staging directions constituted a copyrightable work. NYT coverage of the suit is available here. Here is an excerpt from the NYT article:

United States copyright law is notoriously complicated and open to interpretation. Though concepts and ideas, because they are not "fixed" in a tangible way, are clearly not protected by copyright, photography and choreography, for instance, are. Mr. Shechtman, who is married to the director Lynne Meadow, argues that direction can be seen as an amalgam of the two: the creation of stage pictures and movement. Mr. Sevush, of the Dramatists Guild, all but scoffs at the idea that a director, though he may be creative, is creating anything. He described the director's work as "moving around the copyrightable contributions of others."

Mr. Weidman [President of the Dramatists Guild] who worked with Mr. Mantello on the recent Broadway revival of "Assassins" — and who, in gratitude for his directorial contributions to the show, offered him a share of the authors' royalty, which Mr. Mantello declined — is more diplomatic. The director is an interpretive artist, he said, often doing brilliant work. For his work to be systematically copied by someone else, he agrees, is "manifestly unfair."

But that does not mean, he argued, that the director owns his work, any more than an actor does. Not everything creative is copyrightable. The repercussions, he said, would be too dire. If each director's staging of a relatively new play had copyright protection, very soon there would be no staging options left. The play would become so encumbered with licenses, or the risk of lawsuits, that it would be impossible to produce — a net loss to the culture. Even classic works like "Romeo and Juliet" might gradually be removed from the public domain, thus perverting the aim of copyright law, which is to increase the flow of ideas and artwork by providing an incentive to their creators. "If Leonard Bernstein had been in a position to copyright his interpretation of Mahler," Mr. Weidman asked, "would another conductor who thought that interpretation was right, and then conducted Mahler in the same way, be stealing from Bernstein?"

Nancy prevailed (as well she should have, IMO), and recently published an account of the lawsuit in the latest issue of The Dramatist, the magazine of the Dramatists Guild, entitled "The Strange Case of Edward Einhorn v. Mergatroyd Productions."

In addition, Dramatists Gulid President John Weidman is giving a public lecture at Brooklyn Law School on Oct 25th called "Art Isn't Easy: Protecting the American Playwright" that might be of interest to copyright geeks in the NYC area. You can learn more about that here.

September 23, 2006

Another 9/11 "Documentary"

If we had a government with more credibility, would there be an audience for this? Someone put a lot of time and money into making it, that's for sure.

Where is the "Research" in Reading, Riting, and Rithmatic?

With the start of classes, there's a lot happening on campuses this Fall, from teach-ins on the war to litigation on behalf of the fair use rights of students and teachers. As a university writing program administrator, who has helped designed curricula for thousands of students, I'd like to add a few choice words about the execrable "A Test of Leadership: Charting the Future of U.S. Higher Education," otherwise known as the "Spellings Commission Report," which applies the Bush administration's doctrine of standardized testing from the No Child Left Behind Act to college learning environments and praises "for profit" institutions and "distance learning."

It's an obviously punitive document, intended to scold the supposed bastions of liberalism in the academy for allegedly sloppy standards in educating young people. The American Association of Colleges and Universities has already posted an eloquent rebuttal that targets the report's emphasis on quantity not quality, "disdain for faculty," and incoherent "cafeteria plan" for curricular reform. As a rhetorician, I have to say how much I hate the way that the word "leadership," which is featured in the report's title, now functions as a code word for private sector hierarchies of arbitrary authority. I also thought the opening sentence in praise of my undergraduate alma mater, as a place founded "to train Puritan ministers" might say a lot about how vocational education and conservative values are emphasized in the rest of the document.

Even more important, given Siva's manifesto on Critical Information Studies, is the total absence of "information literacy" in the Spellings report, either in word or deed, as an objective for effective college curricula. Although the word "research" appears fifty-one times, it never has anything to do with the intellectual activities of undergraduates. "Research" is only something to be done on students; it is never anything that students themselves might actually do, according to the commission. "Technology" is a big buzzword in the document, but it only appears as a tool -- like a blackboard -- never more fully represented in its wide range of materials, beliefs, and practices about which there might be policy debates, interpretive disagreements, or competing histories.

For better ideas for reform in higher education than the Spellings plan for corporate downsizing, check out the still relevant Boyer Commission Report on "Reinventing Undergraduate Education" for a call to make "research-based learning" the standard or the upcoming Modern Language Association volume on first-year courses, which will feature a bomb-throwing essay that I wrote with UC Irvine Associate Executive Vice Chancellor Professor Michael Clark about how even college freshmen can capitalize on the current information and communication revolution.

Guantanamo: How Should We Respond? - a national teach-in

David Silver writes:

"During the 1960s, teach-ins on college campuses were common. the reasons for this were many, and one is that the times were extremely chaotic and violent. the teach-ins, organized despite harassment, intimidation, and sometimes violence, reminded us that college campuses were important and relevant spheres of democracy.

"On October 5, 2006 there will be a national teach-in around the theme:

Guantanamo: How Should We Respond?

"The teach-in takes place at seton hall law school in newark, new jersey and will be broadcasted to over 200 participating campuses in 44 states."

Learn more at silver in sf

Make Your Own Poster!

abstinence.jpg

I'm applying for Abstinence Only funding for this one! Make your own here, once again via Pen-Elayne.

Banned Books Week Virtual Panel Discussion

2006 BBW; Read Banned Books: They're Your Ticket to Freedom

From the all-seeing, all-knowing, hard-working Don Wood at ALA -

Banned Books Week Virtual Panel Discussion http://www.magpi.net/programs/bannedbooks.html

Date: Monday, September 25, 2006
Time: 10:00 a.m. EDT - 11:30 a.m. EDT
Target Grade Levels: 9-12, Higher Education

A celebration of intellectual freedom and access! Join frequently banned authors, Chris Crutcher and Sonya Sones, and American Library Association Intellectual Freedom Expert, Kent Oliver, for this unique videoconference event. Participants will hear about Sonya and Chris' experiences as frequently banned authors, come to understand the history of book banning in the United States, and examine contemporary issues in intellectual freedom and access to information.

This event will include discussions/presentations by each panelist, followed by an interactive question and answer session. There are two ways to get involved: as an interactive videoconference site OR as a live webstream observer. Spaces for interactive videoconference sites are limited and will be available on a first-come, first-serve basis. Interactive videoconference sites must have Internet2 connectivity and H.323 videoconferencing equipment.

There is no need to register for the program if you'd like to observe the live stream. This event is sponsored by MAGPI and The American Library Association.

September 22, 2006

Warning Signs

warning-sign-generator.php.gif

warning2.gif

warning3.gif

Create your own here! Via Pen-Elayne.

The SC Gubernatorial Race

Here in South Carolina we have a Republican Governor, Mark Sanford who is incompetent to such a stunning degree that he may actually be somewhat vulnerable to the challenge being mounted by ostensible Democrat Tommy Moore, who is ingratiating himself to SC voters by accepting public support from Hootie Johnson, the guy who practically devoted his life to keeping women out of the Augusta National Golf Club, and by dissing the NAACP.

September 21, 2006

Mental Illness

Information and related videos here. Her blog is here.

Silly Halloween Costume Ideas

chickmagnet.jpg

More here.

Google Earth Maps Nude Sunbather

See for yourself, you know you want to.

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

Today all nine Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee refused to endorse the latest scare document, Al-Qaeda: The Many Faces of an Islamist Extremist Threat, which draws terrorist networks across the U.S. map and emphasizes the danger of prisons and universities as recruiting grounds.

(Yipes! I certainly hope that Congress is planning to shut down those dirty, dangerous universities before they get all of us killed!)

What was my favorite section of this generously illustrated government report? I think it was the section about how the "Islamist extremist threat" will continue to grow, thanks to the "exploitation of the Internet" by nefarious groups. Of course, the primary purpose of the Internet is described as being a "key enabler" of terrorism that has "radicalized" many. "Easy access" and "lack of regulation" apparently increase the "allure" of relying on computers for jihadists.

What is especially amazing is that the footnotes to this report cite testimony from the embarrassing Sonic Jihad hearing before this same Intelligence Committee, in which fan footage of videogame play with a parody soundtrack was shown to congressional representatives as deadpan evidence of the menacing nature of this new Islamist technological threat.

September 19, 2006

We Have A Tech Guy With This Tie

attititde.jpg

Funny Tattoo

tattoo.jpg

From here.

No Shoes, No Shirt, or No Airline Service

And while you're trying to figure out what can and can't be taken on an airplane these days -- like highly dangerous wrinkle cream or baby formula -- play and rate the painfully funny online newsgame Airport Security, also from Bogost's studio. For example, prohibited items of clothing can include shoes, pants, shirts, hats, and chastity belts.

Killing Me Softly


My pal Ian Bogost of Georgia Tech has been in the spotlight a lot recently answering allegations that violent videogames could be linked directly to last week's terrible college shooting in Montreal. (My SIGGRAPH co-panelist International Game Developers Association President Jason Della Rocca has also fielded questions from the media.)

Luckily, Bogost has also been getting attention for his work with super-cool Alternate Reality Game developer Jane McGonigal in the launch of Cruel 2 B Kind, a "game of benevolent assassination" played with mobile phone technology. The game is played out in public with "assassins" working in teams of two. At the start of the game, a text message arrives with information about each team's secret "weapon" and secret vulnerability. Names and photographs of players are not disseminated, so total strangers may find themselves involved in the action.

The switcheroo? Opponents battle with what seem to be charming and spontaneous acts of kindness, such as compliments, proffered posies, blown kisses, and sentimental serenades. Passers-by may be confused by the evasive maneuvers of potential recipients facing the overtures of would-be urban Samaritans, but they are also likely to be impressed by the sudden outbreak of public civility and romance. This game should be interesting for anybody who digs Habermas, Latour, or subversion of conventional approaches to violence and gaming. Check out the rules for yourself.

Citizens of New York City can try the game for themselves during the Come Out and Play Festival this coming weekend.

Next: Incompetence of men as Ivy League presidents: Innate limitations or stunning arrogance?

The Chronicle:

National Academies Panel Blames Biases for Women's Underrepresentation in Science and Mathematics

By PIPER FOGG

Women are underrepresented in academic leadership positions in science and mathematics not because they are innately less capable than are men but because of biases, discrimination, and outdated institutional structures, according to a report issued on Monday by a panel convened by the National Academies.

The report, "Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering," says that despite making up an increasing proportion of science and engineering majors at all institutions, women continue to be a small portion of the faculty members in those fields at research universities. And they typically receive fewer resources and less support than their male colleagues, the report concludes.

Women are underrepresented in top positions in academe, professional societies, and honorary organizations not because of "a lack of talent," the report says, but because of "unintentional biases and outmoded institutional structures that are hindering the access and advancement of women." The report rejected the idea that the gap may be attributed to innate differences in ability, as proposed last year by then-President of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers. Mr. Summers's suggestion sparked a wave of protest, eventually resulting in his resignation.

At a news conference announcing the report, the panel's chairwoman, Donna E. Shalala, president of the University of Miami and a former U.S. secretary of health and human services, called the situation "troubling and embarrassing" and described the report as "a call to action."

The panel noted that, after an exhaustive review of the scientific literature, including studies of brain structure and function, it could find no evidence of "any significant biological differences between men and women in performing science and mathematics that can account for the lower representation of women," according to its report.

Rather, the panel blamed environments that favor men, continuous questioning of women's abilities and commitment to an academic career, and a system that claims to reward based on merit but instead rewards traits such as assertiveness that are socially less acceptable for women to possess.

In the report, the panel recommended that:

* Trustees, university presidents, and provosts be leaders in changing the culture at their institutions to recruit, retain, and promote women.

* Deans and department chairs and their tenured faculty members take steps to minimize the effect of biases in recruiting, hiring, promoting, and granting tenure.

* Professional and higher-education organizations promote equal treatment of women and men, and start by collecting data on the numbers of women at various levels in math and science. The groups should also work to invite a diverse group of keynote speakers at their meetings, and ensure adequate representation of women on editorial boards.

* Federal grant-making agencies ensure that their practices and rules support the participation of women by providing workshops to minimize gender bias, collecting data on grant applications, and creating ways to finance professors who take leaves of absence to care for children.

* Federal agencies and Congress enforce antidiscrimination laws at institutions of higher education.

The report can also be purchased in book form, for $57.95 plus shipping charges. Ordering information is available on the Web site of the National Academies Press.

The law says "multiple copies for classroom use"

The Chronicle:

Cornell U. Creates Guidelines on Electronic Reserves to Avoid Copyright Problems

By JEFFREY R. YOUNG

To avoid potential legal action by the Association of American Publishers, Cornell University issued guidelines for professors this month on how to place materials on electronic reserve without violating copyright law.

The guidelines were jointly written with officials from the publishing group in a process that began in April, after the group sent a letter to the university complaining that it suspected widespread copyright violations on the campus.

"The university has sought to resolve this matter in a manner that protects the faculty's legitimate interests while averting the threat of litigation," the university's provost, Biddy Martin, wrote in a memorandum to academic deans. The letter, dated September 6, asks the deans to distribute the guidelines to professors.

Allan R. Adler, vice president for legal and governmental affairs at the publishing association, said the group had complained to Cornell after it became aware of practices by some professors there that the group felt violated fair-use provisions of copyright law.

"There seemed to be a very general sense that when you were dealing with materials in an electronic medium, you didn't really need to treat them the same way you did if they were in hard copy," Mr. Adler said.

He said that professors making articles available to students over the Web must use the same rules that apply when putting the articles in printed course packs. "We were able to work out a set of guidelines that have that premise," Mr. Adler said.

Patricia A. McClary, associate university counsel for Cornell, said she believed that the university is no different from others when it comes to putting articles online. "I don't know really that we're relying on electronic distribution any more heavily than our peer institutions are," she said.

She also said she felt the university was typical in terms of professors' awareness of copyright law. "Some people have, I think, a very solid grasp of copyright law, and for other people that may be something that's newer -- we have people here who come from a very wide range of backgrounds."

To help professors determine what they can freely put online or what they would need to pay a royalty to use, the university has also developed a checklist for "conducting a fair-use analysis."

Ms. McClary said that she did not anticipate that the guidelines would have a significant impact on the use of electronic distribution of articles but added that "it's something we're certainly going to look at."

Meanwhile, the publishing group hopes to work with other universities to craft similar guidelines. "We think it's a widespread problem," Mr. Adler said.

Cornell posted the guidelines and the fair-use checklist on its Web site.

September 18, 2006

Government by Acclamation

Last week Senator Joseph Lieberman's pet legislation CAMRA or the Children and Media Research Advancement Act was approved by the Senate. Normally, I'm all for federal funding of scientific research in the name of advancing knowledge, but I'm afraid that this legislation designed to pour money into the supposedly exceptionally harmful effects of video games is a just another politically motivated example of pork barrel politics, because it will benefit "parents" front groups, which are more like corporate astroturf than populist grassroots organizing, and lobbying organizations for cultural conservatives affiliated with both sides of the aisle. In particular, I'm worried that the upcoming National Summit on Video Games, Youth and Public Policy, hosted by political insiders at the National Institute for Media and the Family, which brought you the Hot Coffee scandal, is a strategy session for how to divert money that should be going to genuine media scholarship into impressive-sounding but utterly circular number crunching that seeks to prove its own conclusions.

I was particularly concerned to see that during the testimony phase academics who have done research about the benefits of participation in digital culture by the young, such James Paul Gee, Henry Jenkins, Kurt Squire, Constance Steinkuehler, and danah boyd weren't even represented.

I will grant that the fact that the APA (American Psychological Association) appeared in support of the legislation gave me pause, given that it is certainly an organization with a long history in the academy and in the public sphere of advocacy for tolerance and the social safety net. However, I would still say that aligning themselves with a ratings-oriented system is a fundamental mistake, because such systems have a history of enforcing restrictive social norms and obstructing frank cultural conversations about both heterosexuality and homosexuality, as film-maker Kirby Dick has shown -- even if the ratings board for videogames is more culturally diverse than the MPAA, as President Patricia Vance explains:

ESRB game raters are recruited from one of the most culturally diverse populations in the world – New York City. The raters are all adults and are not required to be gamers themselves; a gamer-only rating system would likely bias rating assignments as they would surely bring a different sensibility to content than the pool of raters we have always used. Typically, our raters have some experience with children, and have no ties to the entertainment software industry. They are specially trained by ESRB to rate computer and video games and work on a part-time basis, attending no more than one 2-3 hour rating session per week. The ESRB strives to recruit raters who are demographically diverse by age (must be at least 18), martial status, gender, race, education and cultural background to reflect the U.S. population overall.

Of course, I'm a feminist and a pacifist, so I don't like the cultural messages in many of these videogames, but I'd rather see legislators working on keeping guns out of the hands of children rather than keeping them away from videogame controllers.

Why should legal scholars care about this legislation? Pay attention to the especially creepy testimony of Michigan State University's Kevin Saunders, since he was arguing that videogames -- like pinball machines -- aren't covered by first amendment protections. Given that many games are used to tell complicated stories, and that some have political or aesthetic agendas outside the limited metaphor of a primitive arcade game, Saunders' claim is troubling for an electorate in which more media consumption time is taking place in the form of games. Even more important, Constitutional scholars should be very alarmed by Saunders central argument that violence could be added to the category of obscenity, so that first amendment rights could be trumped in ways that might even make coverage of the current war in Iraq subject to censorship.

Here's another important fun fact about this legislation: although there would be serious arguments against it in a country with many game-players, it passed unanimously. So I'd like to take this opportunity also to point out a disturbing trend in legislation governing digital culture in which unanimous approval takes the place of real debate. Check out this vote count on CAMRA. Otherwise worthwhile legislation that sets fines so that downloading songs is equated with downloading child pornography while also giving the DOJ unprecedented surveillance powers over citizens' online activity also passed without a single dissenting vote.

Cross-posted at Virtualpolitik

Homophobic “Dykes On Bikes” Trademark Opposer Held To Lack Standing Because He Pees Standing

Michael J. McDermott, who describes himself as "a Male Citizen of the United States and a fourth generation native son of the City of San Francisco," filed an opposition to a trademark application filed by the San Francisco Women's Motorcycle Contingent for the phrase "Dykes on Bikes." He alleged, in pertinent part:

...[M]y opposition falls in to[sic] two broad categories, reflecting the dual nature of the Harm from pandering to such "Dykes", whether on motorcycles or not.

1. The Ongoing Criminal and Civil Rights Violations committed by "Dykes on Bikes" and All Dykes who participate in the annual illegal Anti Male hate riot/takeover of public lands culminating in the illegal "San Francisco Dyke March";

2. The attempt to have the USPTO act as Political Agent of the Misandry Lobby, by granting approval to their uses of the term "Dyke", so as to provide them with Government Backing for Thought & Speech Policing throughout America....

The Endorsement by the Government of a Politically Correct definition and usage of the term "Dyke", and a corresponding disfavor for all other accurate if unflattering usage, is a clear political goal of this Trademark application....

The term "Dyke" has long acknowledged the Misandry of those who choose to wear that title, and the deep obsessive hatred of Men and Male Gender traits that go with it. The attempt to use this Trademark to further the goals of Separatist/Neo Exterminationist Misandrists ... as well as Sadists and Sado-Masochistic Bondage and Flogging Fanatics such as "Dykes on Bikes" leader Vic Germany, is a shameful abuse of the trademark process.

Happily, he failed in his efforts to leverage homophobia to derail the trademark registration process. Humorously enough, he was found to lack standing to oppose the mark under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act in part due to the fact that he himself is not a lesbian. On September 13th the TTAB ruled:
Opposer has failed to allege that he possesses a trait or characteristic that is inherently implicated by applicant's applied-for mark -- that is, that he is a "lesbian" or "dyke." Rather, as opposer alleges in the beginning of his notice of opposition, "I am a Male Citizen of the United States and a fourth-generation native son of the City of San Francisco." Applicant’s mark is therefore only subjectively offensive to opposer. Thus, ... the opposer in this case must resort to the second method for demonstrating the reasonableness of his belief of damage. In this regard, opposer has failed to make a sufficient leading. ...

September 17, 2006

Better Than the Real Thing?

Check out these haikus from Drunken Volcano written to summarize the content of the New Yorker each week. See the following lines for a sample:

A Critic At Large: Surveillance Society
By Caleb Cain

Mass observation:
Taking notes on normal lives.
Nice thought; didn't last.

September 16, 2006

Human Interest Story

Yesterday, the always excellent NPR reporter David Folkenflik reported on how the FCC had quashed its own report on media consolidation, because the study it commissioned -- contrary to the administration's pro-business claims -- showed that local news coverage was negatively impacted by corporate ownership of multiple media channels in the same regional market. According to the Los Angeles Times article "FCC Lawyer Says TV Study Was Hushed," no one at the FCC seems eager to take responsibility for burying the results that demonstrated a statistically significant effect from media consolidation, measured in the loss of about five minutes of local news coverage in a typical broadcast once the corporate giants take over.

The original 2004 report is now posted on the FCC website. The charts and graphs at the back leave something to be desired, but the basic information design of the report makes the point pretty clearly. The Chairman's apology for the cover-up, addressed to Senator Barbara Boxer, which is also on the FCC site, is a remarkably tepid document and seems about as sincere as the apologies issued by telecommunication companies and Internet Service Providers after they've forced their customers to endure endless waiting for shoddy service.

(Take that Verizon, Earthlink, Time Warner, and all of the carriers who have made blogging this month a nightmare. I'm not going to post audio clips or video clips, like other dissatisfied customers, but I'm pretty tempted to use this forum for the purpose of complaining about the farce that passes for broadband service in the United States. See the muckraking of the New Networks Institute to learn how we are all actually paying for the privilege of monopolistic abuse with our taxpayer dollars. Lucky us!)

Math Based Humor

Really!

September 15, 2006

Joe Cutbirth Remembers Ann Richards

My buddy Joe Cutbirth was a reporter with me back in the day. He later went on to work for Democratic campaigns in Texas and is now working on a book and his dissertation at Columbia University. Here is his best memory of Ann Richards, who grew to be a dear friend to Joe:


Ann Richards: Putting your hand in the ewwww
By Joe Cutbirth

Ann Richards touched and changed many lives during her time in public service, and I am fortunate to have known her. I traveled with her and covered her 1990 campaign for the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram and worked for her in the 1994 loss to George W. Bush.

This story has stuck with me for 15 years, and I often remember it when the going gets a little tough.

Labor Day is a special weekend in Texas. A lot of folks know someone who has a ranch or some property in the country, and there are all types of parties and gatherings where men traditionally go Dove hunting. Wives and girlfriends generally stay back at the house and clean the birds and socialize. There’s lots of beer, barbecue and music; it's a long weekend dedicated to hunting and good friends.

Ann was down about 17 points on Labor Day 1990. Things looked grim. Her opponent was a multigazillionairre cowboy oilman from Midland named Clayton Williams. He was able to write a personal check to fund a $10 million campaign budget, which was unheard of in those days. Everyone knew there was no way in Hell a liberal female Democrat could raise that kind of money.

Ann had to compete in the daily news columns in the mainstream media, what campaign insiders call "earned media."

Williams won the Republican primary that spring without a runoff, based largely on a massive television ad that featured teenagers working in a rock quarry. Williams introduced himself to Texas voters by walking into the quarry and promising to lower crime in Texas. He was going to do that, he pledged, by teaching juvenile delinquents “the joys of busting rocks.”

The race quickly was billed as “Claytie vs. The Lady.”

Richards’ media consultant, the late Bob Squier, had a different take on things. He promised that during September the contest may look like John Wayne v. Lucille Ball, but by November he would use Ann’s iron constitution and mainstream news reports to reframe it as Barbara Stanwyck vs. Gabby Hayes.

That is precisely what happened. But along the way Ann walked through a living hell.

Williams had coasted through his primary, but Richards narrowly prevailed after one of the nastiest three-way contests in state history. One of her opponents, the attorney general of Texas, publicly exposed her in the statewide media as an alcoholic. (She had been sober more than a decade, and it wasn't any real secret in Texas political circles.) He implied in published reports that she may be unstable, and that Texans might want to think twice before they turn over the state to someone who could relapse into a blackout at any moment.

As the general election began that summer, sadly but predictably, a not-so-subtle whisper campaign emerged about her sexual orientation. Soon, the Republican smear machine was pushing the idea of a drug-addicted lesbian on her way to the statehouse.

Ann Richards was a grandmother for God sakes and former school teacher. There is no way to gauge or report the toll this all took on her as her grandchildren and elderly parents heard the things that were being said about her openly in nearly every media market in the state.

But Ann was no quitter.

Then came the anti-gun stuff. Of course, the smear machine contended, what else would this drug-addicted, feminist do, if elected, but take away Bubba’s guns. So, on Labor Day 1990, capital press corps in tow, Ann Richards trekked into East Texas to a lease rented by a state senator to put everyone's mind at ease by killing some birds.

It was a charade, and everyone including Ann knew it. But she never complained. She was in the race to win, and she embraced it every day, one day at a time. Whatever came her way, she did what she had to do.

I wasn’t along on that trip, but it has been recounted hundreds of times. Celia Morris gives a great recap of it in her book, “Storming the Statehouse: Running for Governor with Ann Richards and Dianne Feinstein.”

The hunt was successful, meaning Ann actually fired the gun and didn’t shoot anyone; she wore the appropriate clothes and refrained from doing anything too feminine like giggling. The Dallas-Ft. Worth and Houston television stations showed film of the trip, and the statewide papers wrote it up dutifully.

Later in the day, something much more important happened. Something that told many of us much more about how tough Ann Richards was than whether she could fire a gun. A woman who later became a judge in Dallas County told me about this much later in casual conversation.

The last stop Richards made that day was at a mega flea market near the tiny town of Canton. Ann and the group were drawing a crowd that kept growing as they walked though the cars and tables shaking hands with voters.

As always, young girls flocked to see her. At one point she stopped to talk to them. Ann told the girls – about a dozen of them, all grade school age - that she had been Dove hunting; and that afterward, she had cleaned a few birds. One of the girls asked, “Cleaned the birds?”

Ann said something like, “Yeah, after you kill the birds, you have to pluck out all the feathers. Then, you cut them under their rib cage and stick your hand in there and pull out all the guts, so you can cook them.”

The girls let out a near simultaneous cry of “EWWWWWWWWWWWWW. EWWWWW. EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.”

Then came the Richards magic, as always at the most unexpected moment. Dropping to one knee, looking them in the eye, Ann responded. “EWWWWWWWW???!?! EWWWWWW?????!?”

She paused. Then, the silver-haired, bee-hived grandmother in hunting fatigues told these girls something she wanted them to remember all their lives. Ann wasn’t sure if she was going to win that race, so she wanted every moment to count.

“Well," she said slowly, lovingly, "if you can’t put your hand in the EWWWWWW, you can’t be governor.”

And she stood up, put her arms behind two of the girls and kept walking. Right into the history books.

How big is fair territory?

Mistake by the Lake Sporting Times, a blog devoted to the lowly Cleveland sports scene, has deduced that fair territory for Jacobs Field extends to all of the Earth's surface, if the lines hug the surface of the Earth. That's because, Corey from MBTLST concludes, someone on the Indians might circumnavigate the Earth with a home run and thus the lines would encompass the rest of the surface of the Earth.

... Of course, this entire discussion is pretty ridiculous, you have to admit. After all, any spot on Earth is technically in Jacobs Field fair territory. Take Buffalo, NY. On the Great Lakes regional map above, it appears to be in foul ground, just a little bit too far to the right. However, a Travis Hafner home run could land in Buffalo if it were hit down the left field line hard enough to travel about 24,500 miles, almost orbiting the Earth once. ...

He made this Google map for us.


fair territory global.jpg

But here is my problem with his claim. If the lines hug the surface of the globe, they must -- at exactly a quarter of the way around the globe from the endpoint of Jacobs Field's home plate -- start to converge again. They would meet again twice -- half way around the world and again at the back corner of the plate.

Take a ball and draw a straight line around it. Then draw another straight line around the same ball, but at a 90-degree angle from the original line. The first spot of convergence is half way around the world from the home plate. The second spot of convergence is home plate. You have outlined a space on the ball that constitutes one half of the surface of the ball and shaped like an hour glass.

So a home run hit around the world would most likely land in foul territory. Fair territory gets very small very fast as the ball approaches its starting point. Lesson: don't hit a ball around the world. It's a much better deal to hit it a quarter or three-quarters as far instead. That's where fair territory is widest. Maybe choke up a bit on the bat.

But consider this: A ball hit hard enough to orbit the Earth does not travel in a straight line. It travels in three dimensions. Hit it hard enough and it escapes the gravitational pull of the Earth and enters space, shooting off at a strange tangent (probably dipping a bit along the way as gravity bends its trajectory).

It's not clear from baseball rules, but what if the foul lines are not supposed to hug the surface of the Earth? What if they are supposed to be actual lines in three-dimensional space rather than borders on the Earth? That would mean that they would slowly rise from the Earth as the Earth curves. Imagine fair territory as a plane that sits at a tangent to the globe, shooting off straight from Cleveland into space, expanding infinitely, and thus encompassing one eighth of the universe!

Dude.

If that were the case, a ball hit from Cleveland that hugged the earth and thus orbited it (like Bugs Bunny's line drive in that cartoon does, coming back with stickers from around the world), would in fact be a foul ball almost as soon as it left Jacobs Field.

That means -- think about it -- when Barry Bonds hits a home run out of Pac Bell Park (or whatever they are calling it these days) and it lands in the San Francisco Bay, BELOW the level of the field, he has actually hit a foul ball.

I think it's time Major League Baseball clarify its rules about fair and foul territory in infinite space. Hank Aaron's record hangs in the balance.

Molly Ivins on the passing of Ann Richards

Molly is one of my all-time favorite people. I used to work with her in the Austin Bureau of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. She was always a joy and a kick. I wish I could toast Ann's life with her this week.

Remembering Ann Richards

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet
Posted on September 15, 2006, Printed on September 15, 2006

Austin, Texas - She was so generous with her responses to other people. If you told Ann Richards something really funny, she wouldn't just smile or laugh, she would stop and break up completely. She taught us all so much -- she was a great campfire cook. Her wit was a constant delight. One night on the river on a canoe trip, while we all listened to the next rapid, which sounded like certain death, Ann drawled, "It sounds like every whore in El Paso just flushed her john."

She knew how to deal with teenage egos: Instead of pointing out to a kid who was pouring charcoal lighter on a live fire that he was idiot, Ann said, "Honey, if you keep doing that, the fire is going to climb right back up to that can in your hand and explode and give you horrible injuries, and it will just ruin my entire weekend."

She knew what it was like to have four young children and to be so tired you cried while folding the laundry. She knew and valued Wise Women like Virginia Whitten and Helen Hadley.

At a long-ago political do at Scholz Garten in Austin, everybody who was anybody was there meetin' and greetin' at a furious pace. A group of us got the tired feet and went to lean our butts against a table at the back wall of the bar. Perched like birds in a row were Bob Bullock, then state comptroller, moi, Charles Miles, the head of Bullock's personnel department, and Ms. Ann Richards. Bullock, 20 years in Texas politics, knew every sorry, no good sumbitch in the entire state. Some old racist judge from East Texas came up to him, "Bob, my boy, how are you?"

Bullock said, "Judge, I'd like you to meet my friends: This is Molly Ivins with the Texas Observer."

The judge peered up at me and said, "How yew, little lady?"

Bullock, "And this is Charles Miles, the head of my personnel department." Miles, who is black, stuck out his hand, and the judge got an expression on his face as though he had just stepped into a fresh cowpie. He reached out and touched Charlie's palm with one finger, while turning eagerly to the pretty, blonde, blue-eyed Ann Richards. "And who is this lovely lady?"

Ann beamed and replied, "I am Mrs. Miles."

One of the most moving memories I have of Ann is her sitting in a circle with a group of prisoners. Ann and Bullock had started a rehab program in prisons, the single most effective thing that can be done to cut recidivism (George W. Bush later destroyed the program). The governor of Texas looked at the cons and said, "My name is Ann, and I am an alcoholic."

She devoted untold hours to helping other alcoholics, and anyone who ever heard her speak at an AA convention knows how close laughter and tears can be.

I have known two politicians who completely reformed the bureaucracies they were elected to head. Bob Bullock did it by kicking ass at the comptroller's until hell wouldn't have it. Fear was his m.o. Ann Richards did it by working hard to gain the trust of the employees and then listening to what they told her. No one knows what's wrong with a bureaucracy better than the bureaucrats who work in it.

The 1990 race for governor was one of the craziest I ever saw, with Ann representing "New Texas."

Republican nominee Claytie Williams was a perfect foil, down to his boots, making comments that could be construed as racist and sexist. Ann was the candidate of everybody else, especially for women. She represented all of us who have lived with and learned to handle good ol' boys, and she did it with laughter. The spirit of the crowd that set off from the Congress Avenue Bridge up to the Capitol the day of Ann's inauguration was so full of spirit and joy. I remember watching San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros that day with tears running down his cheeks because Chicanos were finally included.

Ann got handed a stinking mess: Damn near every state function was under court order. The prisons were so crowded, dangerous convicts were being let loose. She had a long, grinding four years and wound up fixing all of it. She always said you could get a lot done in politics if you didn't need to take credit.

But she disappointed many of her fans because she was so busy fixing what was broken, she never got to change much. The '94 election was a God, gays and guns deal. Annie had told the legislature that if they passed a right-to-carry law, she would veto it. They did, and she did. At the last minute, the NRA launched a big campaign to convince the governor that we Texas women would feel ever so much safer if we could just carry guns in our purses.

Said Annie, "Well, you know that I am not a sexist, but there is not a woman in this state who could find a gun in her handbag."

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

Friday Afternoon Sacreligious Procrastination Link

fsm_1.jpg

Flying Spaghetti Monster - The Game. Via Pen-Elayne.

UN Deploys All-Women Peacekeeping Force

peacek.jpg

The all-female members of the Central Reserve Police Force are Indian, and they are being deployed to Liberia. BBC coverage is here. The BBC article notes several times that many of the women in the unit are married, and that the leader is a "39-year-old mother of two." A competing account by "DNA India" focuses instead on how tough and prepared the women are, and also notes:

India is a longtime contributor to UN peacekeeping missions and has sent women as part of earlier units. But the UN this month described India's move to deploy female officers in policing as "unprecedented."

"We applaud it and think it is extremely timely and relevant to the policing needs in the years ahead," UN police advisor Mark Krocker said.

Female peacekeepers are seen as bringing a different style to international policing by appearing less threatening and more approachable for women and children.

"Since the (Liberian) president is a woman, we think we would be able to send a message to the Liberian women to come forward to help rebuild their nation," added [battalion commander Sunita] Dhundia.

Bill Clinton Meets With Bloggers

Story here. Comments appended to a related write-your-own-caption photo post at the Republic of T note the appalling lack of racial diversity. I have to admit with some shame that my first reaction to the picture was "Hey, cool, look at all the women!" See also: Culture Kitchen.

September 14, 2006

Political Muscle

Here in California, candidates are preparing for a contentious gubernatorial race that has dramatized the ethical dimensions of netizenship for opposing sides. The big story this week concerns who owns and rightfully has access to mp3 files from private conversations that were posted on the governor's public site. Amazingly, a clip in which the Governator talks about legislator Bonnie Garcia as "hot" and attributes what he characterizes as a fiery temperament to a mix of "black blood" and "Latino blood" was actually posted, probably to a .gov site, based on the fact that the California Highway Patrol is investigating this breach of the "safeguarding" of "state property."

The Los Angeles Times, which broke the story, has reported that the files were leaked by Democratic operatives working for challenger Phil Angelides, who worked backwards from a link e-mailed to the press to a root directory with a treasure trove of recorded material. Today the Governor's claim that the clips were password protected and must have been "hacked" was disputed by a prominent L.A. area DJ, who has accessed the clips himself many times in the past, according to "Radio Station Disputes Gov.'s Claim Speech Website Was Hacked." This isn't the only case where a conservative incumbant has accused a liberal opponent of digital dirty tricks, and the accusation has been subsequently denied: the recent Lieberman-Lamont race, in which allegations of denial of service attacks were bandied about, presents another example of the phenomenon.

You can listen to one of the incriminating conversations here . (The clip runs better in Explorer.) Be prepared to be stunned.

Despite his stumble in cyberspace, so far it seems that the telegenic former moviestar and incumbant Republican front runner has been successfully using the incident to widen his lead among an electorate more suspicious of hackers and identity thieves than public officials using racial stereotypes on the job.

What I find ironic is that Schwarzenegger has such a proprietary attitude about the use of his voice, given that sound bites from Schwarzenegger dialogue have become widely available in an informal creative commons, because digital files of the actor's audio, such as this and this are push-button ready for old school prank phone calls.

While you're thinking about left coast digital politics, check out this online news game from the nurses' union that helped to thwart the Governor's attempts to change pension rules for state employees. You might also want to look at the Schwarzenegger campaign's official site, which unlike most electioneering sites, doesn't use traditional red, white, and blue. Unfortunately the governor's official ring tones aren't yet available.

Women murdered with impugnity

All over the world, women are brutalized and killed without any hope for justice nor deterrent against further violence. It's such an overwhelming problem that our news organizations can't or won't make sense of the problem. If it's one missing rich American girl, everyone worries and talks about her for weeks. If it's thousands of poor women in Bosnia, China, India, Iraq, or Kenya, no one cares.

Matthew Yglesias hips us to an accutely bad situation in Guatemala. According to Amnesty International:

More than 2,200 women and girls have been brutally murdered in Guatemala since 2001. Up to 665 cases were registered in 2005; 527 in 2004; 383 in 2003 and 163 in 2002. In 2006, 299 cases have been reported between January and May -- a faster pace than in 2005. . . .

According to Guatemala's Human Rights Ombudsman, up to 70 percent of murders of women were not investigated and no arrests were made in 97 percent of cases. In the few cases that are investigated, the process is usually flawed -- forensic evidence is not properly gathered and preserved, few resources are allocated to each case and witnesses are denied protection.

Remembering Ann Richards

Like Catherine and many others who had the pleasure of living in Austin in the 1980s and 1990s, I saw Gov. Richards with some frequency. She was Austin's first citizen, much like Lance Armstrong is now. She stood for gumption, courage, humor, and heart. She was an amazing and powerful woman.

Even after becoming governor, she would be out and about town. She was full of energy. She really loved her job. You could always find her at a Lady Longhorns' basketball game or walking along Town Lake in the morning. She always had time to chat up old friends and make new ones. She was the sort of politician who was in the game for all the right reasons: she loved Texas and Texans.

One encounter stands out for its fame quotient: I once rode up 10 floors in an elevator with Gov. Richards, Lily Tomlin, and Carol Channing. It was a kick even for a straight man!

And she did my family a lovely favor once. For my father's 60th birthday, she appointed him an Admiral in the Texas Navy. He now outranks three of his brothers, two of his brothers-in-law, and his father-in-law.

Gov. Richards was a lot of fun. She did a lot to improve life in Texas, especially for those less fortunate. And she inspired many people to serve the public. She was one of a kind. I miss her already.

Here is the Burnt Orange Report tribute to Gov. Richards.

UPDATE: Here is a veteran Texas reporter remembering Richards.

ann.jpg

After the jump you will find Ann Richards' 1988 Democratic National Convention Keynote Address.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, very much.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Buenas noches, mis amigos.

I'm delighted to be here with you this evening, because after listening to George Bush all these years, I figured you needed to know what a real Texas accent sounds like.

Twelve years ago Barbara Jordan, another Texas woman, Barbara made the keynote address to this convention, and two women in a hundred and sixty years is about par for the course.

But if you give us a chance, we can perform. After all, Ginger Rogers did everything that Fred Astaire did. She just did it backwards and in high heels.

I want to announce to this Nation that in a little more than 100 days, the Reagan-Meese-Deaver-Nofziger-Poindexter-North-Weinberger-Watt-Gorsuch-Lavelle-Stockman-Haig-Bork-Noriega-George Bush [era] will be over!

You know, tonight I feel a little like I did when I played basketball in the 8th grade. I thought I looked real cute in my uniform. And then I heard a boy yell from the bleachers, "Make that basket, Birdlegs." And my greatest fear is that same guy is somewhere out there in the audience tonight, and he's going to cut me down to size, because where I grew up there really wasn’t much tolerance for self-importance, people who put on airs.

I was born during the Depression in a little community just outside Waco, and I grew up listening to Franklin Roosevelt on the radio. Well, it was back then that I came to understand the small truths and the hardships that bind neighbors together. Those were real people with real problems and they had real dreams about getting out of the Depression. I can remember summer nights when we’d put down what we called the Baptist pallet, and we listened to the grown-ups talk. I can still hear the sound of the dominoes clicking on the marble slab my daddy had found for a tabletop. I can still hear the laughter of the men telling jokes you weren’t supposed to hear -- talkin' about how big that old buck deer was, laughin' about mama puttin' Clorox in the well when the frog fell in.

They talked about war and Washington and what this country needed. They talked straight talk. And it came from people who were living their lives as best they could. And that’s what we’re gonna do tonight. We’re gonna tell how the cow ate the cabbage.

I got a letter last week from a young mother in Lorena, Texas, and I wanna read part of it to you. She writes,

“Our worries go from pay day to pay day, just like millions of others. And we have two fairly decent incomes, but I worry how I’m going to pay the rising car insurance and food. I pray my kids don’t have a growth spurt from August to December, so I don’t have to buy new jeans. We buy clothes at the budget stores and we have them fray and fade and stretch in the first wash. We ponder and try to figure out how we're gonna pay for college and braces and tennis shoes. We don’t take vacations and we don’t go out to eat. Please don’t think me ungrateful. We have jobs and a nice place to live, and we’re healthy. We're the people you see every day in the grocery stores, and we obey the laws. We pay our taxes. We fly our flags on holidays and we plod along trying to make it better for ourselves and our children and our parents. We aren’t vocal any more. I think maybe we’re too tired. I believe that people like us are forgotten in America.”

Well of course you believe you’re forgotten, because you have been.

This Republican Administration treats us as if we were pieces of a puzzle that can’t fit together. They've tried to put us into compartments and separate us from each other. Their political theory is “divide and conquer.” They’ve suggested time and time again that what is of interest to one group of Americans is not of interest to any one else. We’ve been isolated. We’ve been lumped into that sad phraseology called “special interests.” They’ve told farmers that they were selfish, that they would drive up food prices if they asked the government to intervene on behalf of the family farm, and we watched farms go on the auction block while we bought food from foreign countries. Well, that’s wrong!

They told working mothers it’s all their fault -- their families are falling apart because they had to go to work to keep their kids in jeans and tennis shoes and college. And they’re wrong!! They told American labor they were trying to ruin free enterprise by asking for 60 days’ notice of plant closings, and that’s wrong. And they told the auto industry and the steel industry and the timber industry and the oil industry, companies being threatened by foreign products flooding this country, that you’re "protectionist" if you think the government should enforce our trade laws. And that is wrong. When they belittle us for demanding clean air and clean water for trying to save the oceans and the ozone layer, that’s wrong.

No wonder we feel isolated and confused. We want answers and their answer is that "something is wrong with you." Well nothing's wrong with you. Nothing’s wrong with you that you can’t fix in November!

We’ve been told -- We’ve been told that the interests of the South and the Southwest are not the same interests as the North and the Northeast. They pit one group against the other. They've divided this country and in our isolation we think government isn’t gonna help us, and we're alone in our feelings. We feel forgotten. Well, the fact is that we are not an isolated piece of their puzzle. We are one nation. We are the United States of America.

Now we Democrats believe that America is still the county of fair play, that we can come out of a small town or a poor neighborhood and have the same chance as anyone else; and it doesn’t matter whether we are black or Hispanic or disabled or a women [sic]. We believe that America is a country where small business owners must succeed, because they are the bedrock, backbone of our economy.

We believe that our kids deserve good daycare and public schools. We believe our kids deserve public schools where students can learn and teachers can teach. And we wanna believe that our parents will have a good retirement and that we will too. We Democrats believe that social security is a pact that can not be broken.

We wanna believe that we can live out our lives without the terrible fear that an illness is going to bankrupt us and our children. We Democrats believe that America can overcome any problem, including the dreaded disease called AIDS. We believe that America is still a country where there is more to life than just a constant struggle for money. And we believe that America must have leaders who show us that our struggles amount to something and contribute to something larger -- leaders who want us to be all that we can be.

We want leaders like Jesse Jackson. Jesse Jackson is a leader and a teacher who can open our hearts and open our minds and stir our very souls. And he has taught us that we are as good as our capacity for caring, caring about the drug problem, caring about crime, caring about education, and caring about each other.

Now, in contrast, the greatest nation of the free world has had a leader for eight straight years that has pretended that he can not hear our questions over the noise of the helicopters. And we know he doesn’t wanna answer. But we have a lot of questions. And when we get our questions asked, or there is a leak, or an investigation the only answer we get is, “I don’t know,” or “I forgot.”

But you wouldn’t accept that answer from your children. I wouldn’t. Don’t tell me “you don’t know” or “you forgot.” We're not going to have the America that we want until we elect leaders who are gonna tell the truth; not most days but every day; leaders who don’t forget what they don’t want to remember. And for eight straight years George Bush hasn’t displayed the slightest interest in anything we care about. And now that he's after a job that he can’t get appointed to, he's like Columbus discovering America. He’s found child care. He’s found education. Poor George. He can’t help it. He was born with a silver foot in his mouth.

Well, no wonder. No wonder we can’t figure it out. Because the leadership of this nation is telling us one thing on TV and doing something entirely different. They tell us -- They tell us that they're fighting a war against terrorists. And then we find out that the White House is selling arms to the Ayatollah. They -- They tell us that they’re fighting a war on drugs and then people come on TV and testify that the CIA and the DEA and the FBI knew they were flying drugs into America all along. And they’re negotiating with a dictator who is shoveling cocaine into this country like crazy. I guess that’s their Central American strategy.

Now they tell us that employment rates are great, and that they’re for equal opportunity. But we know it takes two paychecks to make ends meet today, when it used to take one. And the opportunity they’re so proud of is low-wage, dead-end jobs. And there is no major city in America where you cannot see homeless men sitting in parking lots holding signs that say, “I will work for food.”

Now my friends, we really are at a crucial point in American history. Under this Administration we have devoted our resources into making this country a military colossus. But we’ve let our economic lines of defense fall into disrepair. The debt of this nation is greater than it has ever been in our history. We fought a world war on less debt than the Republicans have built up in the last eight years. You know, it’s kind of like that brother-in-law who drives a flashy new car, but he’s always borrowing money from you to make the payments.

Well, but let’s take what they are most proudest of -- that is their stand of defense. We Democrats are committed to a strong America, and, quite frankly, when our leaders say to us, "We need a new weapons system," our inclination is to say, “Well, they must be right.” But when we pay billions for planes that won’t fly, billions for tanks that won’t fire, and billions for systems that won’t work, "that old dog won’t hunt." And you don’t have to be from Waco to know that when the Pentagon makes crooks rich and doesn’t make America strong, that it’s a bum deal.

Now I’m going to tell you, I'm really glad that our young people missed the Depression and missed the great Big War. But I do regret that they missed the leaders that I knew, leaders who told us when things were tough, and that we’d have to sacrifice, and that these difficulties might last for a while. They didn’t tell us things were hard for us because we were different, or isolated, or special interests. They brought us together and they gave us a sense of national purpose. They gave us Social Security and they told us they were setting up a system where we could pay our own money in, and when the time came for our retirement we could take the money out. People in the rural areas were told that we deserved to have electric lights, and they were gonna harness the energy that was necessary to give us electricity so my grandmamma didn’t have to carry that old coal oil lamp around. And they told us that they were gonna guarant[ee] when we put our money in the bank, that the money was going to be there, and it was going to be insured. They did not lie to us.

And I think one of the saving graces of Democrats is that we are candid. We talk straight talk. We tell people what we think. And that tradition and those values live today in Michael Dukakis from Massachusetts.

Michael Dukakis knows that this country is on the edge of a great new era, that we’re not afraid of change, that we’re for thoughtful, truthful, strong leadership. Behind his calm there’s an impatience to unify this country and to get on with the future. His instincts are deeply American. They’re tough and they’re generous. And personally, I have to tell you that I have never met a man who had a more remarkable sense about what is really important in life.

And then there’s my friend and my teacher for many years, Senator Lloyd Bentsen. And I couldn’t be prouder, both as a Texan and as a Democrat, because Lloyd Bentsen understands America. From the barrio to the boardroom, he knows how to bring us together, by regions, by economics, and by example. And he’s already beaten George Bush once.

So, when it comes right down to it, this election is a contest between those who are satisfied with what they have and those who know we can do better. That’s what this election is really all about. It’s about the American dream -- those who want to keep it for the few and those who know it must be nurtured and passed along.

I’m a grandmother now. And I have one nearly perfect granddaughter named Lily. And when I hold that grandbaby, I feel the continuity of life that unites us, that binds generation to generation, that ties us with each other. And sometimes I spread that Baptist pallet out on the floor, and Lily and I roll a ball back and forth. And I think of all the families like mine, like the one in Lorena, Texas, like the ones that nurture children all across America. And as I look at Lily, I know that it is within families that we learn both the need to respect individual human dignity and to work together for our common good. Within our families, within our nation, it is the same.

And as I sit there, I wonder if she’ll ever grasp the changes I’ve seen in my life -- if she’ll ever believe that there was a time when blacks could not drink from public water fountains, when Hispanic children were punished for speaking Spanish in the public schools, and women couldn’t vote.

I think of all the political fights I’ve fought, and all the compromises I’ve had to accept as part payment. And I think of all the small victories that have added up to national triumphs and all the things that would never have happened and all the people who would’ve been left behind if we had not reasoned and fought and won those battles together. And I will tell Lily that those triumphs were Democratic Party triumphs.

I want so much to tell Lily how far we’ve come, you and I. And as the ball rolls back and forth, I want to tell her how very lucky she is that for all our difference, we are still the greatest nation on this good earth. And our strength lies in the men and women who go to work every day, who struggle to balance their family and their jobs, and who should never, ever be forgotten.

I just hope that like her grandparents and her great-grandparents before that Lily goes on to raise her kids with the promise that echoes in homes all across America: that we can do better, and that’s what this election is all about.

Thank you very much.

Google gets more Evil

Google has hired one of the sleaziest and meanest Republican lobby/pr/campaign/ratf**king firms in DC. Josh Marshall has the info.

Governor Ann Richards Has Died

annrichards.jpg

I was extremely sad to learn this evening that Ann Richards has died. I'm sure that Siva will share his memories of her. Here's mine: I first met our then-Treasurer in the original Whole Foods on Lamar Blvd. in 1985 while she was grabbing lunch. A mutual friend introduced us and I proceeded to run in to her several times over the next few years, while walking around Town Lake, eating at TexMex dives in South Austin, and attending fundraisers for various unsuccessful democratic candidates. She was always the most gracious person, and she had that special skill of remembering everyone (or, more likely, appearing to) and seeming totally interested in whatever it was you were discussing at the moment.

September 13, 2006

Madison on the future of legal scholarship

madisonian.net :

... So: Can we talk? Have a real conversation about the future of legal scholarship? I don’t know. But there have to be some ground rules that don’t put the law review genie in the bottle.

First, we’d have to agree to stop debating whether something is “scholarship” or not, and instead start talking about where and when and how different types of writing and speaking and presenting engage each other.

Student-edited law reviews aren’t going away. But neither are blogs. Or wikis. Or novels. Or comic books. What do we do with the amicus briefs filed by academics? Don’t forget monographs, book chapters, casebooks, legislative testimony, and a lot of other stuff that is increasingly showing up online. Each of these can carry on in its own little bubble, or the profession can try to figure out ways to connect their content. Blogs speak to journal articles speak to wikis speak to comic books speak to law reform projects speak to del.icio.us. Or something like that. I have no idea what the end result of this process might actually look like.

Second, not only would we have to bear in mind obvious interdisciplinary issues, but also the fact that there are legal academics in other countries who are interested in this discussion. And how about the practicing bar? Remember our former students? There’s a real opportunity for the Future of Legal Scholarship to break down the insularity of the American legal academy.

Third, no one would have to forget the fact that the cynical game here is all about prestige and reputation and role and hierarchy. Some of what I’ve written, here and elsewhere, may come across as early-Internet-idealism, but I’m as cynical as the next guy; I know about tenure and promotion committees. But substitute “rigor” for “scholarship” in the “is blogging scholarship?” debate, and eventually reputation takes care of itself. The fact of the conversation, in other words, would have to be separated from the rigor of the work. ...

I'm not sure the exact same issues work the same ways on my side of campus. One major distinction between those of in the humanities and social studies (my preferred term) and my colleagues in the law school is that we must publish in peer-reviewed journals. The peer review is usually poor and useless. But it is part of the process. It's part of our pretentions toward rigor. Law reviews tend not to be peer-reviewed.

So the status quo for my folks is peer review. The insurgent forms of scholarly communication (which may or may not be scholarship) is rarely peer-reviewed in the traditional manner. But most of the insurgent forms of legal scholarship we see flowering are ways to make legal scholarship MORE rigorous and MORE peer-reviewed: blogs, wikis, draft circulation via conferences and SSRN, etc.

To the future of legal scholarship seems to be very different from the stuff over here. At least that's one thought. I could be wrong.

USC's profoundly stupid copyright policy

Cory Doctorow explains:

... More disturbing was the universal experience of USC students as reported in my self-selecting sample: All of the students I heard from who'd gotten into trouble for using P2P were unable to appeal the charges, no matter how reasonable their use of the network had been. I heard from Aram Sinnreich, an Annenberg School for Communication lecturer and doctoral candidate who had been censured by USC for using P2P on campus. Sinnreich had been called upon to testify in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on the use of P2P networks, his area of study. Another student had been punished - by being cut off from the Internet - for downloading a copy of Lawrence Lessig's freely redistributable watershed text, "Free Culture." Both students asked the administration to reconsider their punishment; neither student heard back from the school. ...

Kinky Friedman is a crazy, dangerous man

Everyone in Texas has been getting a big laugh about country singer/mystery writer Kinky Friedman's run for governor as an independent. The problem is, in his old age he has decided to become racist and nativist. He has made horrifying statements about Mexican Americans.

And now he is dissing the best thing Texas has done for America since giving us Stevie Ray Vaughan:

“The musicians and artists have mostly moved back to New Orleans now. The crackheads and the thugs have decided to stay. They want to stay here. I think they got their hustle on, and we need to get ours,” Kinky said.

It seems Kinky's campaign is telling lies about how Katrina folks have increased violent crime in Houston and how bad the deal was for Texas. Amazing.

Democrat Chris Bell might otherwise have a chance to defeat stupid Aggie Gov. Rick Perry if Kinky were not in the race. Alas, Kinky is going to ensure Perry has another term, even though no one likes him or respects him.

Note: Perry did handle the Katrina situation extremely well. He also worked well with Houston Mayor Bill White throughout the emergency. He deserves credit for that.

Kinky, go back to writing. Please.

Bush in Big Bully Mode

Check out this Today Show clip

Support Public Knowledge!

If you get a chance, please click through this link to Public Knowledge. PK is a wonderful organization that has for years been supporting public access to knowledge, information, and culture. In many ways, it is the strongest voice for the public interest in Washington on matters of copyright, technology, Net neutrality, and other important issues. The amazing Gigi Sohn runs the show. Please give it some love ... and money.

Blackboard's war on open source and education

The NOSE: Information Technology in Higher Education:

... Blackboard's war against the open source menace is following Fabius' strategy: Avoid direct engagement and erode the enemies' strategic vulnerabilities over time. Open source software's strategic weaknesses are twofold and Blackboard will exploit them ruthlessly: a) the lack of legal protection or indemnification for end users; b) the necessity of creating an ecosystem of commercial partnerships around the core software. Blackboard's patent litigation simultaneously strikes at both, cleverly and indirectly.

By using open source software your organization exposes itself to legal liability. Blackboard doesn't have to say it. Your legal counsel knows it. Commercial software is usually accompanied by an intellectual property contract provision ("indemnification") which protects the end-user against third-party infringement and misappropriation claims. ...

For those of us in the Higher Ed industry, Blackboard is a nightmare. It almost has a monopoly on commercial "course management software." It has broad, nasty patents that stifle reasonable competition. Mostly, it makes really bad, cumbersome software.

Many universities have developed their own courseware, much of it open source. But they are having trouble spreading it. Blackboard is just too aggressive.

What can we do about this? I am at a university that foolishly decided to adopt Blackboard a decade ago. Any advice?

September 12, 2006

Vintage Drug Ads

drug1.jpg

drig2.jpg

Many more here.

Law Professor Prerogatives

If any students wear these shirts to class, I am going to call on them mercilessly.

September 11, 2006

What did in Juan Cole at Yale?

Yale Alumni Magazine: From the Editor

From the Editor
September/October 2006
by Kathrin Day Lassila '81

Do those who live by the blog die by the blog?

In April, Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, was turned down for an appointment at Yale in contemporary Middle Eastern politics. This kind of event doesn't ordinarily stir up excitement in the wider world. But it became a hot topic in the blogosphere, because Cole himself is an eminent blogger. "Everyone who is anyone reads his blog," writes NYU professor Siva Vaidhyanathan in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Apparently, everyone who reads Cole's blog thought Yale rejected him because of it.

Politics are strictly disallowed as criteria for hiring at Yale. But academics are human.

Cole has an impressive c.v. He has written, edited, or translated 14 scholarly books, many of them for prestigious academic presses. But on his blog, Informed Comment, he is an unrelenting critic of the war in Iraq and the Bush administration, and several conservative bloggers were outraged that Yale would consider him for tenure. The blog Little Green Footballs called Yale's interest "almost unbelievable." John Fund of WallStreetJournal.com called Cole "hotheaded" and "intolerant."

The faculty of two departments voted to hire Cole. But at Yale, senior tenure decisions must pass three levels of committees. Cole failed the second level: the Tenure Appointments Committee in the Humanities, composed of two deans and nine tenured faculty, voted him down. Now it was the liberal bloggers' turn for outrage. "Neoconservative zealots . . . screwed professor Juan Cole out of a job" (Majikthise). "This reaction reeks of fear" (Whiskey Bar).

There's no way of knowing if those who reviewed Cole were influenced by their political views. Politics are strictly disallowed as criteria for hiring at Yale. But academics are human. It would be surprising if nobody on those committees was influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by feelings about Cole's outspoken stands. It would be surprising if nobody at all wondered about the consequences of hiring a controversial public figure.

But bloggers on both left and right misread critical elements. First, Juan Cole is an outstanding scholar. It's hardly "unbelievable" for Yale to consider him; arguably, Yale would have been remiss if it hadn't. Second, contrary to the assertions of some liberal bloggers, Yale's tenure appointments committees aren't rubber stamps. The humanities committee rejects departmental recommendations rarely -- sometimes just once a year -- but regularly. Committee deliberations are confidential, but two factors likely weighed against Cole. One was the fact that Yale was seeking a scholar in contemporary politics, but the bulk of Cole's academic work to date has been on the nineteenth century. The other factor was the history faculty vote, which was close and controversial; a tenure appointments committee will always probe a close departmental vote. Charles Long, deputy provost for the university, says neither of these factors is dispositive for a leading scholar. But they probably came into play.

The Cole affair may help push academia to define how it feels about blogs. Cole's blog is opinionated but erudite; he translates Arabic and Persian sources and comments on theology. But academics haven't reached consensus on how to weigh blog posts in evaluating scholarship. (It's not clear how, or whether, Yale's committees assessed Cole's blog.) As more and more academics engage in blogging, universities will have to decide whether blogging matters.

Back when the Cole roundtable appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Ed, my dean wrote me a nice note and asked what I think of "counting blogs as scholarship." Here is what I replied to her:

Dear Mary,

Thank you very much for that note.

My short-answer response is that blogs should not generally work into the T&P [tenure and promotion] mix.

There might be exceptions, but those would have to be for blogs that related exclusively to one's scholarly area. So I would consider Jay Rosen's blog, Pressthink, to be an example of a very rare blog that works to enhance and expand Jay's scholarly work.

Mine, on the other hand, has too many pictures of my dog and cheap shots at the president to qualify as scholarly in any way. I did not mention my blog in my file and preferred to keep it out of the mix. It is about as scholarly as a Manhattan cocktail party, but with fewer stuffed grape leaves.

As far as op-eds, interviews, and various other media appearances that relate to one's scholarly field (in my case, fortunately, media studies itself), I think they should contribute only in the realm of service. I do such work to raise my profile and thus NYU's profile. My scholarly subjects are necessarily public, fluid, and of interest to lay audiences (especially students). So it works for me. I would never claim that anything I wrote for The Nation or Salon counts as scholarship. I would hope no one else would, either.

There is a continuum among my blog posts, op-eds, magazine articles, teaching, journal articles, Amicus briefs, and books. I only put my ideas down in books once they have been "battle tested" in one or more of the other forums. So I try to pursue synergy among my various roles. And when it all comes down to deadline time, writing is writing. Not writing is not writing. And writing is better than not writing.

I fear that public work gets sometimes gets misinterpreted as a substitute for scholarship. Instead, the school should consider the extent to which work extends and -- yes -- markets real scholarship. Marketing matters more every day in this industry.

...

I do like to think that my appearance on The Daily Show sealed my tenure application. :)

Sincerely,

Siva

'The Path to Mickey'

Mickey Mouse, 9/11 Co-conspirator:

This is what I wrote five years ago

The Chronicle: 10/5/2001: An Entire Semester of Knowledge in One Day:

By SIVA VAIDHYANATHAN


What would you die for, and what would you kill for?" I asked the first class of the semester, a class about globalization. That was the Thursday before the Tuesday. On that quiet day, the Thursday before September 11, I thought my question merely academic.

I ask this question every semester that I teach about globalization, as a way to get my gifted, privileged students to see that other people have made sacrifices -- for better or worse, good or evil -- that have enabled Americans to attain an unbelievably high standard of living.

We live so well in this nation because others (not just Americans) have died. And we live so well because others have killed. From that starting point, I hope to get my students to know the price of everything, while seeing the value of everything as well: the labor that went into their sneakers, the fossil fuels that brought them to campus, and the credit system that keeps their closets and cupboards full. That is the only way I know to teach a class on globalization. You are part of the globe, snared in the World Wide Web of humanity, whether you acknowledge it or not.

It's been my deep suspicion, and my concern, that Americans -- especially Americans on the liberal side of things -- take their privileges for granted, imagining them to be natural rights. Conflicts in the recent past, justified or not, involved minimal or no sacrifice from the American people at large.

And for most Americans, for most of my short life, warfare has been like sports. At least in American sports, we get to see the damage we do to each other's bodies. War has occurred at a distance. Those few, proud American families with members in the military have felt the real threat of combat. But most of us have just moved on with our days while our planes drop smart bombs on cities we can't quite find on a map.

By the second class session, the following Thursday after that dark Tuesday, I sensed I did not need to make my case any more. My students understood. It was as if an entire semester of knowledge had come spewing out of their television sets in one day.

We had read two excerpts of books that many people will revisit in the coming weeks: Samuel Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations and Benjamin Barber's Jihad vs. McWorld. Huntington argues that the world is divided into stable, self-contained, and distinct "civilizations" -- like Confucian, Judeo-Christian, or Muslim -- that differ so much in vocabulary and worldview that "clashes" are inevitable. Barber posits dialectic ideological flows -- one hypermodern and commercially powered, the other traditional and fearful -- that feed off each other. Not only do most nations contain elements of both processes simultaneously, he argues, but even groups and people can exhibit aspects of Jihad and McWorld without contradiction. For instance, a fundamentalist religious group or antiglobalization campaign might use the Internet to organize and communicate across increasingly permeable borders.

In previous years, I had had to prod students, generally reluctant to challenge the professoriate or the printed word, to see that both of those explanatory models of the world are attractive yet insufficient -- and that Huntington's is dangerously wrong. This time, the students showed no mercy to the texts.

Once someone is forced to recognize the essential interconnectedness of all human beings, one finds it harder to see "clashes" or oppositions as given or necessary. The world of my students was suddenly, painfully, in flux. At least Barber spoke to them of fluidity and change. But my students demanded more contingency. No model of world affairs conjured before September 11 will fit well afterward. We are now on our own. We have to remake our intellectual worlds from scratch. To mistake today's conditions for yesterday's is to tempt failure. That's the sober realization my students were facing.

One of the issues in flux today, for example, is patriotism. People who would not have been caught waving a flag in 1968, 1974, or 1991 now proudly display them. So I asked the class: What manner of patriotism are we forging this time?

It could be a patriotism of love, embedded in a sense of humanity, one that sees the United States as a democratic beacon, an imperfect process with an articulated ideal. Patriotism of love springs from openness and pluralism, and stretches far beyond the shores of the United States. It could glow with the best energy of the American people and inspire others.

Or patriotic fervor could be a patriotism of lust. The class was concerned about the attacks on Arab-Americans in the wake of September 11. About the harassment of U.S. mosques and Arab students, cab drivers, and women wearing traditional Muslim veils.

I proposed that there are signs that American passions could flower into a patriotism of solidarity and duty. Americans have lined up by the thousands to give blood and donate work gloves for the efforts in New York. While we prepare for war, the spirit of the heroes of this conflict is already rising from the dust and smoke of the World Trade Center.

Finally, I asked my students to think about the differences between patriotism and therapy. Sometimes, we wave a flag or wear a ribbon to feel better about ourselves while others are risking their lives and doing the hard work. There is no duty, no sacrifice attached to therapy. It's all about "healing," so we can get back to our little lives. No patriotism with an explicit goal of some illusive condition called "closure" can lead a nation through troubled times.

Most of my students were wary of any kind of patriotism, having grown up seeing the flag as the virtual property of those who could express their belligerent political will no other way. But this trauma has left us all inarticulate, so waving a flag seems all we can do. It can mean much more than provincial jingoism: It can stand for solidarity, fortitude, unity, hope, and sorrow.

I usually try to disguise my opinions in the classroom, preferring to ask disquieting questions from multiple points of view. But this time, I was too moved, too shocked, too numb for that.

For two of the best years of my life, I lived in a downtown Manhattan apartment with a panoramic view of the skyline. The Twin Towers were my nightlight, my southward compass point, my constant companions. Their given name embodies New York City and its place in the United States: World. Trade. Center. Monuments like that have ways of keeping good people humble.

Just weeks ago, I packed up my belongings and left Manhattan for good. Now I live in a quiet, beautiful, safe place called Madison, Wis. I still wear my Yankees cap around town, but I am glad to be here. This lovely town is now my safe Midwestern home. In the days following September 11, though, we were all New Yorkers.

MSNBC fires Alterman

Altercation:

P.S., I’m Fired…

First, the bad news: I’m fired. MSNBC.com has decided to end its support of “Altercation,” and indeed, all of its association with yours truly as of this Friday.

Ok, now, the good news: My friends at Media Matters for America have decided that the cause of continuing “Altercation” in its current, politically independent form to be worthy of their support. So we’re not dying, just moving. Our new URL will be www.MediaMatters.org/Altercation and I will also become a MM Senior Fellow.

I am genuinely saddened to leave MSNBC.com. I was hired before the 1996 launch by both the Web site and the cable station, and while the latter association ended in 1998, I have been here at MSNBC.com for ten straight years, writing a column until 2002 and “Altercation” every day, ever since. Permit me to point out that with the help of my contributors and co-Altercators, I’ve probably contributed more words to this site than any other person, including full-time staff. Well, ten years is a good run at anything. It was the philosophical Beatles who said “all things must pass.” I’m profoundly proud of what we’ve accomplished here, particularly the creation of a community of writers and readers who share a sense of commitment, conscience, and one hopes, consciousness. We’ve kept to the standards I outlined here four and a quarter years ago—in sadly, the only thing I’ve ever written that has ever been compared to Proust and I don’t think it was a compliment. In any case, I like to think we —the Altercation community— set a standard of discourse that requires no apologies, explanations nor caveats, which is something, dare I say it, rare and beautiful in the mainstream media. As for MSNBC.com, I want to say that my experience working with my editors, past and present, has been an unbroken and unblemished blessing. When MSNBC.com asked me to start a blog, I had no perfect precedents to guide me. Josh and Mickey, and yes, Andy, had struck out bravely on their own, but no mainstream news organization had its own blogger and let’s face it, MSNBC made a less than perfectly safe choice in picking me. I was able to create Altercation with plenty of support but no interference, personal, political, commercial or otherwise. It may sound amazing in the context of the online world for the entire time I did Altercation, I had no idea whatever how many hits this site received. Nobody ever asked me to deal with a topic, much less to stay away from one. And of course, all mistakes were my own.

Whether my termination is, in fact, a product of a political decision at GE/NBC, which according to reports I read and gossip I hear, has lately taken a much firmer hand in guiding the content of both MSNBC and MSNBC.com, I have no way of knowing. I have never even spoken with the Web site’s current editor-in-chief, nor has anyone communicated with me beyond my immediate circle of editors. Outspoken liberals in the MSM have long been an endangered species. (From the beginning, a Wall Street Journal editorial page writer attacked the site for "conferring mainstream legitimacy on Eric Alterman.”) Even less common, I suppose, are Web sites that feel free to criticize their corporate parents, the pollution they cause, the lying, incompetent, ideologically extremist and corrupt presidents they coddle, and perhaps most especially, the all-but incomprehensible choices they make when doling out cable TV news programs. It would surprise no one if this site caused some discomfort at 30 Rock, if and when they happen to notice it. But speculation is not the same thing as evidence, and the good folks at MSNBC.com and GE/NBC can, I’m sure, give you good reasons why dumping Altercation is the right thing to do from a business standpoint —though the natural speculation that arises is a damn good argument against the kind of media concentration that allows a company like GE to own NBC in the first place. And few decisions in life have only one inspiration, alas. All I can say for sure is that I remain profoundly grateful for the opportunity they gave me and depart with nothing but feelings of warmth and gratitude for my colleagues who made it possible.

Again, beginning a week from today, we can be found at www.MediaMatters.org/Altercation. (Bookmarkers, permalinkers, please note.) As far as I’m concerned, nothing at all will change insofar as the site’s content is concerned, and I’m hoping my fellow Altercators will feel the same way. (Maybe Pierce will even come back…) Right or wrong, left or center, Altercation will always be the right room for an argument. Come up and see us sometime.

P.P.S. I haven’t been fired by The Nation or the Center for American Progress um, yet…

September 10, 2006

How to Create a Riot

As though you didn't already see enough condensed xenophobia on the Planet of the Arabs montage, the website of The Path to 9/11 has a sickening clip called "How to Create a Riot" on its video menu.

You can learn about the village in Morocco, Ouarzazate, that Hollywood relies upon to produce its cultural clichés and the three generations of extras who inhabit the place. Its history on celluloid apparently goes back to Lawrence of Arabia! This documentary by Ali Essafi tells you more.

Call Me A Tin Foil Hat Wearer

Anyone else see not only this Path to 9/11 abomination (which is going to make a lot of lawyers rich) but also falling oil and gas prices as linked to the upcoming election?

September 9, 2006

If You Can't Make It To Church On Sunday, You Could Always Listen To This Song Instead

It's a little twangy, but at least no collection plate will pass. Not work safe, damn it all to hell. Via Nancy at Heavens to Mergatroyd.

"The Walt Disney Company Standards of Business Conduct Illustrated"

Yowza! Check out this remarkable post at Discourse.net.

I Don't Own Tee Shirts, Or Any Other Garments, That Say: "You Cum Like a Girl"

And I probably won't be buying any in the future. You might be wondering: "Why do I need to know that?" Read on!

cum.jpg

I'm not a big fan of people trying to propertize speech by trademarking words or phrases that are used decoratively rather than as source identifiers in commerce. Law Profs Stacey Dogan and Mark Lemley wrote a great paper explaining why this is problematic called "The Merchandising Right: Fragile Theory or Fait Accompli?" It can be downloaded here. To greatly oversimplify: if you buy a tee shirt at Target that you know from the tag was manufactured by Russell Athletic Sportswear, the "Coca Cola" logo on the front is functioning as a decoration, rather than as a trademark. Stacey and Mark explain why this is interesting and important as a matter of trademark law.

Meanwhile: Section 1052 (a) of the Trademark Act (a.k.a. Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act) prohibits the federal registration of a trademark that "consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter..." This accords Trademark Examiners a lot of interpretive discretion. One consequence is that certain kind of marks, such as those referencing homosexuality, may get rejected for registration at a disproportionately high rate. Feminist Law Prof Llew Gibbons has written an excellent article discussing this phenomenon in an article entitled "Semiotics of the Scandalous and the Immoral and the Disparaging: Section 2(A) Trademark Law after Lawrence v. Texas." It can be downloaded here.

And now we get to the trademark dispute animating this post. According to this article in the LA Weekly, standup comedian Cathy Carlson has as a signature line in her act, “You cum like a girl,” which she "has emblazoned ... in pink letters on tank tops, T-shirts and spanky pants, which she sells at outdoor street fairs and via her Web site (www.youcumlikeagirl.com)." She tried to obtain federal trademark registration, but her application was rejected on Section 2(a) grounds. Here is an excerpt from the article:

Citing Section 2 (a) of the Trademark Act, Carlson’s application to register the phrase “You cum like a girl” had been refused on the grounds of being “scandalous” and “vulgar,” with the phrase’s offending verb defined as a “vulgar slang term for ejaculation at the time of orgasm.” Shanahan provided examples of similar rejections and explained why other attempts to register phrases with “cum” passed muster and Carlson’s didn’t. He also suggested why the word “orgasm” might make a suitable PG-13 replacement.

Even more problematically, to illustrate why he thought the word "cum" was inappropriately vulgar for trademark purposes, the Trademark Examiner e-mailed her an extensive series of pictures depicting women covered in ejaculate. Back to the article:

Carlson discovered the unusual gift of porn one morning two months ago when she found four separate pieces of correspondence from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in her personal e-mail account. In each were literally dozens of photographs of women covered in ejaculate and no letter of explanation.

“What does this have to do with my shirt?” Carlson remembers thinking.

Maybe, she thought, the sender — Patrick Shanahan, the examining attorney in charge of her case — had mixed up his prepositions. “It’s not ‘You cum on a girl’s face,’ it’s ‘You cum like a girl,’ you know?” says Carlson. “He’s completely missed the point of this shirt. So something that’s harmless and funny, he’s linked it to pornographic images? I don’t have photos on my shirt. I don’t have pictures of girls being ejaculated on their faces.”

Carlson is correct that Shanahan's inability to conceptualize "cum" in any way other than a male ejaculating on a woman is disturbing, especially since cumming like a girl suggests an absence of semen altogether.

So, to recap:
1. Allowing people to trademark phrases they will use for merchandising rather than trademark purposes is problematic, but;
2. If people like Jeff Foxworthy are going to be permitted to do it, Carlson ought to be able to do so as well, because;
3. Section 2(a) accords too much discretion to Trademark Examiners who may excercise it in ways that are unfair, not to mention sexist and/or homophobic.

Here's why I won't be buying any of Carlson's tee shirts, though:

...her merchandise — she’s expanded her minibrand to also include “I cum like a girl” — is now being sold at Hustler Hollywood, a somehow fitting touch, given that the 12-store chain is owned by First Amendment–rights pioneer Larry Flynt.

And I'll be damned if I will knowingly enrich Larry Flynt in any way.

Please note that while the First Amendment is certainly relevant to this case, there is nothing about the denial of federal trademark registration that precludes Carlson from using her phrase on clothing, or for any other purpose.

Cross-posted at Feminist Law Professors.

September 8, 2006

How to find confidential reports with Google?

Per Boing Boing, if you Google the phrase "Confidential do not distribute” you will find some interesting things you probably aren't supposed to see.

Planet of the Arabs

planet of the arabs.jpg

It's a video montage illustrating Hollywood's relentless dehumanization and vilification of Arabs and Muslims. You can view it here or here. Powerful and disturbing.

September 7, 2006

Ronald Reagan: Saddam's best friend

This is essential reading.

"Please Call And Report This Copyright Thief!"

That's the title of a post by Amp at Alas, A Blog that discusses some interesting events related to the film This Film Is Not Yet Rated, which Liz Losh talked about here.

Bad First Days of Teaching

The Chronicle:

Welcome Back (to Bad First Days)

By SAM KEAN

In some ways, Kristél P. Kemmerer's first day of college teaching five years ago was great. Thinking she was still on summer vacation, she didn't bother to show up for class.

"I had just switched universities," she laughs, "and I missed the e-mails" about the semester's beginning. "I started teaching a week after everyone else." She did, however, notice something amiss. "I thought a lot of students were floating around campus for that time of year."

Ms. Kemmerer, now acting dean of students and undergraduate studies at Albright College, spent her off day preparing lesson plans, but she was the one who learned a lesson: No amount of preparation prevents a bad first day.

The opening of a semester can be hard enough — three years ago, after dressing in the dark, Ms. Kemmerer spent the day with her dress inside-out, tags and inseams visible. But truly memorable gaffes require the combination of nerves and overeagerness that only the first day at a job can bring about. On Day 1 of her teaching career, at a high school, Ms. Kemmerer glued her mouth shut.

"I was so excited to prove myself a wonderful teacher that I jumped to help this student. And you know how you put the Super Glue cap in your teeth?" she asks. "My lips were stuck. I was melded into one big blob." She spent the rest of the day in a dentist's chair having her teeth scraped clean.

Other bad first days aren't the result of clumsiness, but of careful plotting. After a sweaty day of teachers' meetings that preceded his first job 23 years ago, Gregg Lee Carter, now chairman of the department of history and social sciences at Bryant University, carried his dress shirt on a hanger to class and changed in a men's room. Wanting to make a nice first impression, he had also done the wash the night before. But in a laundry mishap worthy of a freshman, he discovered his shirt had shrunk.

"From a size 17 neck to about a size 14," the 6-foot-2-inch, 205-pound Mr. Carter recalls. Not wanting to cancel his sociology class or wear his wet, ragged undershirt, he decided to wrench the buttons shut and fess up.

"I promptly told the whole nightmarish story to my students — who got a real hoot out of it," he writes in an e-mail message. "We ended up having an immediate personal connection. It wouldn't take several class sessions to begin seeing me as a fellow flawed human being rather than big-shot professor."

Not that students have trouble seeing professors as flawed. In his "first executive decision" as dean of the business school at Saint Joseph's University, in Pennsylvania, Joseph A. DiAngelo shifted 25 undergraduates in an overcrowded accounting class to a different section with a less popular professor. That morning, after a pleasant hello in the hallway with a few students who had been moved, he turned a corner, only to hear one say: "That's the new dean. He's a real S.O.B."

At least Mr. DiAngelo knew what he had done to make himself unpopular. Some teachers find themselves judged before they open their mouths. On her first day in front of a class in 1969, Martha Sloan, a professor of electrical and computer engineering at Michigan Technological University, had a student walk in, do a double-take, walk back out, check the room number, and mutter, "I didn't know Tech had hired any females."

"I was teaching a course [on magnetic circuits] that I'd never taken," she says, "So that already put me off on not the best foot." But instead of shrinking, she immediately asked for the student's name. The class cracked up, and he slunk to the back row and shut up.

In knotty first-day situations, defusing tension with a laugh is often the best tactic. And as on New Year's Day, one can always resolve to improve. After the Super Glue, the no-show, and the inside-out dress, Ms. Kemmerer swears, "I've gotten my act together."

September 6, 2006

A new way to market books

A movie trailer for a novel

And the movement grows ...

Inside Higher Ed :: Momentum for Open Access Research


When the Federal Public Research Access Act was proposed this year, scholarly society after scholarly society came out against the legislation, which would require federal agencies to publish their findings, online and free, within six months of their publication elsewhere. The future of academic research was at stake, the societies said, and both their journals and the peer review system could collapse if the legislation passed.

It is increasingly hard, however, to say that those societies reflect the views of academe on the issue. In July, the provosts of 25 research universities came out in favor of the legislation, saying that the current system of research publishing leads to outrageously high journal costs that are harming libraries and making it impossible for people to follow research. Now the presidents of 53 liberal arts colleges — at the behest of their librarians — are issuing a joint letter backing the legislation. And while it is unlikely that the bill will pass this year, the new letter that was released Tuesday is part of a broader effort by open access supporters to place higher education in a new position when the debate is renewed next year.

...

I Love What You've Done with the Place

Check out the website of the National Counterterrorism Center in McLean, Virginia, where you can get a spiffy counterterrorism desk calendar to remember all your favorite jihadists' birthdays or where you can acquire yet another National Strategy report. (This one has nifty red highlighting, in addition to its bullet points!)

The NCTC also has the absolute worst kids page on a government website that I have ever seen, which is saying a lot. Why are the Statue of Liberty and the American Eagle winking? Is the wink supposed to signify to the American people that our clever government has already outsmarted the terrorists? Or is the wink supposed to indicate a disregard for the rule of law?

September 5, 2006

I Don't Often Covet Articles of Clothing

But I want this Sock Monkey Dress!

monkey-dress.jpg

Big Scoop: David Corn reveals Valerie Wilson ran the search for WMDs before Iraq war

What Valerie Plame Really Did at the CIA:

... Though Cheney was already looking toward war, the officers of the agency's Joint Task Force on Iraq--part of the Counterproliferation Division of the agency's clandestine Directorate of Operations--were frantically toiling away in the basement, mounting espionage operations to gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have. The JTFI was trying to find evidence that would back up the White House's assertion that Iraq was a WMD danger. Its chief of operations was a career undercover officer named Valerie Wilson.

...

Valerie Wilson was no analyst or paper-pusher. She was an operations officer working on a top priority of the Bush Administration. Armitage, Rove and Libby had revealed information about a CIA officer who had searched for proof of the President's case. In doing so, they harmed her career and put at risk operations she had worked on and foreign agents and sources she had handled. ...

Wow. No wonder Cheney et al set out to destroy her and her career, even at the risk of national security and breaking the law! She was in charge of the very desk that had shown them that Iraq posed no threat whatsoever to the United States or anyone else. These guys hate truth so much they risked everything to crush a lifelong patriot and public servant.

Well bowled, fellas.

How we make sure the terrorists win

Schneier on Security:

...
I'd like everyone to take a deep breath and listen for a minute.

The point of terrorism is to cause terror, sometimes to further a political goal and sometimes out of sheer hatred. The people terrorists kill are not the targets; they are collateral damage. And blowing up planes, trains, markets or buses is not the goal; those are just tactics. The real targets of terrorism are the rest of us: the billions of us who are not killed but are terrorized because of the killing. The real point of terrorism is not the act itself, but our reaction to the act.

And we're doing exactly what the terrorists want.

We're all a little jumpy after the recent arrest of 23 terror suspects in Great Britain. The men were reportedly plotting a liquid-explosive attack on airplanes, and both the press and politicians have been trumpeting the story ever since.

In truth, it's doubtful that their plan would have succeeded; chemists have been debunking the idea since it became public. Certainly the suspects were a long way off from trying: None had bought airline tickets, and some didn't even have passports.

Regardless of the threat, from the would-be bombers' perspective, the explosives and planes were merely tactics. Their goal was to cause terror, and in that they've succeeded. ...

Great Colloquium in Chicago, Nov. 5 and 6

Chicago Colloquium on Digital Humanities and Computer Science: Call For Papers

What to Do with a Million Books: Chicago Colloquium on Digital Humanities and Computer Science

Sponsored by the Humanities Division at the University of Chicago and the College of Science and Letters at the Illinois Institute of Technology.

Chicago, November 5th & 6th, 2006
Submission Deadline: August 31st, 2006

The goal of this colloquium is to bring together researchers and scholars in the Humanities and Computer Sciences to examine the current state of Digital Humanities as a field of intellectual inquiry and to identify and explore new directions and perspectives for future research.

In the wake of recent large-scale digitization projects aimed at providing universal access to the world’s vast textual repositories, humanities scholars, librarians and computer scientists find themselves newly challenged to make such resources functional and meaningful.

As Gregory Crane recently pointed out (1), digital access to “a million books” confronts us with the need to provide viable solutions to a range of difficult problems: analog to digital conversion, machine translation, information retrieval and data mining, to name a few. Moreover, mass digitization leads not just to problems of scale: new goals can also be envisioned, for example, catalyzing the development of new computational tools for context-sensitive analysis. If we are to build systems to interrogate usefully massive text collections for meaning, we will need to draw not only on the technical expertise of computer scientists but also learn from the traditions of self-reflective, inter-disciplinary inquiry practiced by humanist scholars.

The book as the locus of much of our knowledge has long been at the center of discussions in digital humanities. But as mass digitization efforts accelerate a change in focus from a print-culture to a networked, digital-culture, it will become necessary to pay more attention to how the notion of a text itself is being re-constituted. We are increasingly able to interact with texts in novel ways, as linguistic, visual, and statistical processing provide us with new modes of reading, representation, and understanding. This shift makes evident the necessity for humanities scholars to enter into a dialogue with librarians and computer scientists to understand the new language of open standards, search queries, visualization and social networks.

Digitizing “a million books” thus poses far more than just technical challenges. Tomorrow, a million scholars will have to re-evaluate their notions of archive, textuality and materiality in the wake of these developments. How will humanities scholars, librarians and computer scientists find ways to collaborate in the “Age of Google?”

Ben Vershbow on The Showtimization of Google's Library Project

Ben from if:book has this to say about the Google plan and its likeness to the evil Showtime/Smithsonian deal:

The parallels to the Google library project are many. Four of the six partner libraries, like the Smithsonian, are publicly funded institutions. And all the agreements, with the exception of U. Michigan, and now UC, are non-disclosure. Brewster Kahle, leader of the rival Open Content Alliance, put the problem clearly and succinctly in a quote in today's Chronicle piece:

We want a public library system in the digital age, but what we are getting is a private library system controlled by a single corporation.

He was referring specifically to sections of this latest contract that greatly limit UC's use of Google copies and would bar them from pooling them in cooperative library systems. I vocalized these concerns rather forcefully in my post yesterday, and may have gotten a couple of details wrong, or slightly overstated the point about librarians ceding their authority to Google's algorithms (some of the pushback in comments and on other blogs has been very helpful). But the basic points still stand, and the revelations today from the UC contract serve to underscore that. This ought to galvanize librarians, educators and the general public to ask tougher questions about what Google and its partners are doing. Of course, all these points could be rendered moot by one or two bad decisions from the courts.

Bravo, Ben. This is what I have been saying for more than a year. Glad more voices are joining me here.

Our sincerest condolences ...

... for Joshua Micah Marshall's loss.

Bad Report Card

The White House has issued yet another red, white, and blue official report in their series of documents in the "National Strategy" genre, which follows the National Strategy for Victory in Iraq and the National Security Strategy in its ham-fisted information design. Tellingly, at least one of these Bush reports was type-set in "Minion, semi-bold," according to font maven Ellen Lupton.

There are two things to notice about the "National Strategy for Combating Terrorism" from a digital rhetoric standpoint:

1) It uses much of the same PowerPoint corporate-speak that got a similar administration document slammed by Paul Krugman in his editorial on "Bullet Points Over Baghdad." Of course, this booklet is a little more subtle: it only uses bullet points, boldface, and italics . . . not bullet points, check marks, arrows, boldface, italics, and underlining like the visually chaotic Iraq document that Krugman takes apart. But it is exactly the kind of stunted prose that has caused Edward Tufte to declare that "PowerPoint is Evil."

2) It harps on how terrorists use the World Wide Web for propaganda in ways that anyone who remembers the Sonic Jihad fiasco should be skeptical about. (If you don't know what the Sonic Jihad debacle in Congress was, you can watch this Nightline episode or read my longer analysis of what went wrong when a Battlefield 2 fan film with a joke Team America soundtrack was mistakenly shown to the House Intelligence Committee as evidence of jihadist cyber-recruiting techniques.)

Note that the "Internet" is mentioned eight times as an avenue for nefarious plotting. As you can see from this sample passage, these web-savvy jihadists are used as justification for both more surveillance and more taxpayer-funded digital propaganda.

Cyber safehavens. The Internet provides an inexpensive, anonymous, geographically unbounded, and largely unregulated virtual haven for terrorists. Our enemies use the Internet to develop and disseminate propaganda, recruit new members, raise and transfer funds, train members on weapons use and tactics, and plan operations. Terrorist organizations can use virtual safehavens based anywhere in the world, regardless of where their members or operatives are located. Use of the Internet, however, creates opportunities for us to exploit. To counter terrorist use of the Internet as a virtual sanctuary, we will discredit terrorist propaganda by promoting truthful and peaceful messages. We will seek ultimately to deny the Internet to the terrorists as an effective safehaven for their propaganda, proselytizing, recruitment, fundraising, training, and operational planning.

Right now the government is apparently accepting bids for public relations efforts in Iraq on behalf of the U.S. Government. Perhaps there could be another successor to the astonishingly inept Lincoln Group after the secretive Rendon Group also choked on this public diplomacy job!

You can see how far we've come from the 2003 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, which at least paid lip service to the role of "underlying conditions" in the promulgation of terrorist ideology.

Privacy, at least from search-engine profiling?

My colleague Helen Nissenbaum helped create this cool Firefox extension called TrackMeNot.

How It Works

TrackMeNot runs in Firefox as a low-priority background process that periodically issues randomized search-queries to popular search engines, e.g., AOL, Yahoo!, Google, and MSN. It hides users' actual search trails in a cloud of 'ghost' queries, significantly increasing the difficulty of aggregating such data into accurate or identifying user profiles. TrackMeNot integrates into the Firefox 'Tools' menu and includes a variety of user-configurable options.

*Note: TrackMeNot employs a static list of search terms from which it is can generate millions of unique queries. While a sizeable #, it is unlikely to deter serious data-profiling by those aware of the system. As a first step toward addressing this concern, the current version of TMN allows users to supply their own query lists. Future versions are likely to include larger (distributed) query databases, dynamically generated and/or web-harvested queries, as well as grammar-generated natural-language queries. Suggestions for other ways of improving TMN are always welcome!

Why We Created TrackMeNot
The practice of logging user search activities and creating individual search profiles – sometimes identifiable – has received attention in mainstream press, e.g. the recent front-page New York Times article on AOL's release of collected data on individual searchers; also this front-page New York Times Business Section article describing the User-Profiling Practices of Yahoo!, AOL, MSN & Google.

We are disturbed by the idea that search inquiries are systematically monitored and stored by corporations like AOL, Yahoo!, Google, etc. and may even be available to third parties. Because the Web has grown into such a crucial repository of information and our search behaviors profoundly reflect who we are, what we care about, and how we live our lives, there is reason to feel they should be off-limits to arbitrary surveillance. But what can be done? ...

UPDATE: As Derek Slater points out in the comments, Bruce Schneir has already offered his strong criticism of this attempt to protect your privacy:

... Let's count the ways this doesn't work.

One, it doesn't hide your searches. If the government wants to know who's been searching on "al Qaeda recruitment centers," it won't matter that you've made ten thousand other searches as well -- you'll be targeted.

Two, it's too easy to spot. There are only 1,673 search terms in the program's dictionary. Here, as a random example, are the program's "G" words:

gag, gagged, gagging, gags, gas, gaseous, gases, gassed, gasses, gassing, gen, generate, generated, generates, generating, gens, gig, gigs, gillion, gillions, glass, glasses, glitch, glitched, glitches, glitching, glob, globed, globing, globs, glue, glues, gnarlier, gnarliest, gnarly, gobble, gobbled, gobbles, gobbling, golden, goldener, goldenest, gonk, gonked, gonking, gonks, gonzo, gopher, gophers, gorp, gorps, gotcha, gotchas, gribble, gribbles, grind, grinding, grinds, grok, grokked, grokking, groks, ground, grovel, groveled, groveling, grovelled, grovelling, grovels, grue, grues, grunge, grunges, gun, gunned, gunning, guns, guru, gurus

The program's authors claim that this list is temporary, and that there will eventually be a TrackMeNot server with an ever-changing word list. Of course, that list can be monitored by any analysis program -- as could any queries to that server.

In any case, every twelve seconds -- exactly -- the program picks a random pair of words and sends it to either AOL, Yahoo, MSN, or Google. My guess is that your searches contain more than two words, you don't send them out in precise twelve-second intervals, and you favor one search engine over the others.

Three, some of the program's searches are worse than yours. The dictionary includes:

HIV, atomic, bomb, bible, bibles, bombing, bombs, boxes, choke, choked, chokes, choking, chain, crackers, empire, evil, erotics, erotices, fingers, knobs, kicking, harier, hamster, hairs, legal, letterbomb, letterbombs, mailbomb, mailbombing, mailbombs, rapes, raping, rape, raper, rapist, virgin, warez, warezes, whack, whacked, whacker, whacking, whackers, whacks, pistols

Does anyone reall think that searches on "erotic rape," "mailbombing bibles," and "choking virgins" will make their legitimate searches less noteworthy?

And four, it wastes a whole lot of bandwidth. A query every twelve seconds translates into 2,400 queries a day, assuming an eight-hour workday. A typical Google response is about 25K, so we're talking 60 megabytes of additional traffic daily. Imagine if everyone in the company used it.

I suppose this kind of thing would stop someone who has a paper printout of your searches and is looking through them manually, but it's not going to hamper computer analysis very much. Or anyone who isn't lazy. But it wouldn't be hard for a computer profiling program to ignore these searches. ...

Two Links With Nonobvious Linkage

This is sort of fun. But this isn't.

September 4, 2006

Some Labor Day Links

"Sucking the hope--and the life--out of Indian farmers" at Pinko Feminist Hellcat.

"On Women and Paid Work," at Echidne of the Snakes.

"Trampling Out the Vintage: Reflections on John Steinbeck and "The Grapes of Wrath"" at Rox Populi.

"21st Century Employment: For Many, It's All Work, No Benefits" and "Where Are The Women Redux: Supreme Court, Office 2.0 Lacking Women," both at the wonderful Sour Duck.

"The Brilliance of Labor" at Labor Blog.

September 3, 2006

Are weed-killers turning frogs into hermaphrodites?

This Harper's article suggests so. You can probably guess how seriously the current government is taking scientific findings to this effect. Do note that the hero of the story hails from Columbia, South Carolina, y'all.

This Looks Kind of Fun

Of course, as I type this I am eating ravioli that came out of a can.

“On The Prowl” the Trademark for Playboy’s New Menswear Line

Read all about it here.

See No Evil

If you live in a large, metropolitan area, try to catch This Film is Not Yet Rated while it is still in theaters. Much of the film's subject matter may not be a surprise: the way that the ratings system operates in secrecy with a board of supposedly typical parents, the fact that in practice this system discriminates against gay and lesbian film-makers and censors portrayals of homosexual life and female pleasure, and the generally poor historical record of the MPAA on civil liberties, collective bargaining, economic competition, free culture, and the prevention of violence, particularly against women.

What's original about the film is the literal detective work done to reveal the identities of the MPAA's shadowy group of "mainstream" moralists, which is led by a registered Republican and Jack Valenti appointee. I thought the resourceful PI hired by the documentary-maker is really the heroine of the film. Hilarity also ensues when director Kirby Dick submits his film to the MPAA to be rated, and the board discovers that their names and images have been leaked to the public. Although the section on "piracy," isn't well integrated into the film, there's also some good Lawrence Lessig footage as well. Unfortunately, the MPAA's own unauthorized copying of this critical documentary didn't make it into the cut I saw.

If you're still in a hating mood about censorship, you can also check out the much cruder FCC FU video that was plugged this week on IP Democracy.

September 2, 2006

If You Laugh At This You Are A Terrible, Horrible Person, Like Me

A man on the way to Turkey with his mother allegedly told airport security officials that his penis pump was a bomb, rather than have his mom hear what he was actually toting:

Cook County prosecutors say a 29-year-old man traveling with his mother desperately didn't want her to know he'd packed a sexual aid for their trip to Turkey. So he told security it was a bomb, officials said.

Madin Azad Amin, 29, of Skokie, was stopped Aug. 16 at O'Hare International Airport after guards found an object in his baggage that resembled a grenade, prosecutors said. When officers asked him to identify it, Amin said it was a bomb, said Cook County Assistant State's Attorney Lorraine Scaduto.

He later told officials he'd lied about the item because his mother was nearby and he didn't want her to hear that it was part of a penis pump, Scaduto said. He's been charged with felony disorderly conduct, said Andrew Conklin, a spokesman with the Cook County state's attorney's office.

Amin's attorney told a Cook County judge Wednesday that Amin whispered that the component was a "pump." The guard misunderstood, and thought he said "bomb," according to defense attorney Eileen O'Neill-Burke.

"He told her it's a pump," O'Neill-Burke said. "He's standing with his mother. Of course he's not going to shout this out."

However, Judge Gerald Winiecki decided there was sufficient evidence for the case to move forward after the female security guard testified that she heard Amin "clearly" say the word bomb. Amin is charged with felony disorderly conduct, which could bring a three-year prison sentence if he's convicted. Amin is due back in court Sept. 13. He told the Chicago Sun-Times after the hearing that security officials did not give him a chance to explain the misunderstanding, that he would never use the word "bomb" while going through a security checkpoint, and does not consider a penis pump an unusual object to own.

"It's normal," he said. "Half of America they use it."

Via Blackfeminism.org.

Colbert (Correctly) Mocks Georgia About Its Inferior Peach Production

From The State:

Stephen Colbert struck another blow for truthiness on “The Colbert Report,” this time in defense of South Carolina peaches.

On his Aug. 24 Comedy Central show, Colbert dissed Georgia for laying claim to being “The Peach State,” as South Carolina consistently outproduces its neighbor when it comes to the peach crop.

Colbert, a Charleston native and sharp satirist, described National Peach Month, which is in August, as “30 days of simmering resentment” because of “the fraud perpetrated by Georgia.”

An amused South Carolina Department of Agriculture Commissioner Hugh Weathers appreciated Colbert’s biting wit in defending South Carolina’s status and for quoting the ag department on the state’s peaches in which “the sugar level is superb.”

Weathers admitted Georgia got the jump on South Carolina “when it came to marketing. Georgia got the label (‘The Peach State’) years ago.”

Weathers considered the possibility of issuing some kind of challenge or wager to Georgia, but he pointed out that Georgia’s Secretary of Agriculture, Tommy Irvin, is “a big guy. He’s about six-foot-six. But I think I could still take him.”

South Carolina is the country’s second top producer of peaches behind California — a state that makes many claims but does not often brag about peaches.

South Carolina Department of Agriculture spokeswoman Becky Walton said South Carolina occasionally falls out of second place as a peach producer (and possibly behind Georgia) if weather conditions and marketing are off. But she quickly recovered South Carolina’s honor by acknowledging, “We do have the tastier peach.”

Colbert suggested Georgia change its license plate motto to: “The Burned To The Ground By Sherman State.” Perhaps South Carolina might consider dropping “Smiling Faces, Beautiful Places” for “The Tastier Peach State.”

"gimmyabreakopoloy"

satisfectellent_lg.png

Ruminations on the new ad campaign of The-Product-Which-Shall-Not-Be-Named at Everyday Life.

Competing Claims: Artist versus Museum

As this NYT story explains, Dina Gottliebova Babbitt, an artist who survived the Holocaust, and the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum in Poland are in a bitter sounding dispute about the ownership of art works she created while she was held prisoner in several concentration camps. Below are excerpts:

"...The Auschwitz museum, which considers the watercolors to be its property, has argued that they are rare artifacts and important evidence of the Nazi genocide, part of the cultural heritage of the world. Teresa Swiebocka, the museum’s deputy director, wrote by e-mail that the portraits “serve important documentary and educational functions as a part of the permanent exhibition” about the murder of thousands of Gypsy, or Roma, victims. The portraits, she added, “are on permanent exhibition, although they have to be rotated to preserve them, since they are watercolors on paper.”

"She added that “we do not regard these as personal artistic creations but as documentary work done under direct orders from Dr. Mengele and carried out by the artist to ensure her survival.”

"In a statement issued in 2001, she noted, the memorial’s international council asserted that six of the original watercolors had been purchased by the museum in 1963 from an Auschwitz survivor, and that the seventh was acquired in 1977.

"Mrs. Babbitt’s case is unusual among the property disputes to emerge from the Holocaust because it involves artwork created under the duress of Nazis, not property confiscated by the Nazis. ...

"Dina Gottliebova was a 19-year-old art student in Prague in 1942 when she first went to a concentration camp. In September 1943 she and her mother, Johanna, were moved to Auschwitz, where she tried to cheer the imprisoned children by painting a mural of a Swiss mountainside and “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.”

"The work drew the attention of Mengele, whose experiments sought scientific evidence to support Nazi racial theories. Frustrated that photographs did not accurately depict Gypsy skin tones, Mrs. Babbitt said, he wanted her to paint them.

"Mengele singled her out, Mrs. Babbitt recalled, in March 1944, on a day when thousands of other prisoners were being taken to be exterminated. She said that she demanded of Mengele that he also spare her mother or she would commit suicide by touching an electrified fence. She and her mother were among the 27 Czechoslovak Jews to survive from their group of more than 5,000.

"Her first subject was a Gypsy woman named Celine, who had recently lost her newborn to starvation. Celine is shown with a scarf covering her shaved head and one ear protruding, Mrs. Babbitt said, because Mengele linked the shape of Gypsy ears to inferiority.

"After two months of painting — she believes that she did 11 portraits — all of the camp’s Gypsies were killed. Then she was forced to paint medical procedures for Mengele. Mrs. Babbitt and her mother survived internment in two more concentration camps before liberation in May 1945. ... "

It's hard not to feel a lot of sympathy for Babbitt's position. At the same time, though, personal selfishness, as well as a few more high minded concerns about preserving cultural artifacts, makes me want the paintings to stay with the museum, where I might get a chance to see them some day. It doesn't sound from the article like this is a dispute that can be settled with money. I wonder if there is a way for the museum to grant Babbitt special access to her works, and maybe temporary possession as well, while still keeping them accessible to the public in the long run. I hope so. Below are two of the portraits Josef Mengele ordered Dina Babbitt to paint, to "document Gypsy features." The NYT story notes: "After two months of painting — she believes that she did 11 portraits — all of the camp’s Gypsies were killed." They live on through the paintings, though, and more people can see them and remember them if their portraits are in a museum.

babbitt.jpg

September 1, 2006

UB Wins! UB Wins!

I am a University at Buffalo faculty brat. I grew up on that campus, the coldest place on earth. In the 1970s and 1980s, it had no culture, no attractions, no fun. It had a great library and faculty. But it was perhaps the least interesting major university campus in the United States ... except for Stonybrook and Albany. At least UB is in Buffalo!

So throughout my high-school years, I looked for ways to escape to a completely different environment. I feared ending up at UB (although I would have received an outstanding education for almost no money). So I headed to the University of Texas, fully expecting to celebrate a series of NCAA football championships. As it turned out, I only got one. I am still flying high on it. Melissa wonders if it's a good idea for a big man to wear so much orange. But hey, how often does said big man get to brag to the world of an undefeated championship season?

Anyway, back to UB. When I was growing up, UB was not Division I. It played its games on a run-down field surrounded by rotting bleachers. Then in the early 1990s the university decided to be big-time. After all, it was in the greatest football town in the country. Why not have a decent football team, or at least decent competition once in a while? So it built a huge, beautiful stadium on its campus in Amherst, New York.

Well, things did not get better soon. That is, until yesterday!

Buffalo 9, Temple 3:
...
It was the Bulls' first season-opening victory since 1997 when they were a Division I-AA program. It also marked the first time Buffalo has had a winning record at any point in a season since opening the 1998 season 4-3.

There was much attention placed on Buffalo this season since Gill was hired in December. The former Nebraska star quarterback and Heisman Trophy finalist took over the troubled Mid-American Conference program that has been among the nation's worst, going 10-69 since jumping to the Division I-A ranks in 1999. ...

Gill-251216-027w.jpg

Congratulations Bulls! Let's hope this is the start of some fun on that cold, dreary campus!