I have to admit it: I have a warm spot in my heart for unions –not for union leadership, nor for union politics, but for the unions themselves. I have been a member of a few unions in my lifetime, and like all members have complained and bitched about the dues, the corruption, etc. But when push came to shove the union was there to back up my brothers and I. There is an ineffable power to being in a union: I felt it when the Teamsters refused to cross our UAW line when we voted to strike against Phillips in the mid-80s; I felt it again ten years later when we in the IBEW refused to cross the line of our brothers in the Bricklayers and Mason’s Union. It is a sense of a shared struggle –a struggle to make everyone’s life better.
This is the primary reason conservatives despise unions as much as they do. Unions represent a shared burden and a shared goal. It is far more profitable to pit one worker’s salary and benefits against another then it is to deal equally and justly with all workers. It is easier to mistreat people if you can convince them that they are alone and isolated then if they stand together as a group. While conservatives love to proclaim that we all share a moral agency as Americans, to support the troops or support the president, or as Christians, to control women’s bodies, or discriminate against gays and lesbians, they loudly deny that we share any economic bonds. The ‘market’ they say should determine if you work 5 or 7 days a week; they market will decide if children should mine coal or not; the market will weed out unsafe workplaces, etc. The truth, of course, is that as a country, as a people, our shared economic interests far outweigh any trumped up culture war. It does matter if I buy tubesocks made in a sweatshop China versus those made in a union shop in South Carolina. One may be cheaper, but the other helps feed my neighbors, funds their schools, and pays their taxes.
A couple of months ago the Writer’s Guild of America (West) voted to strike over residuals for new media payments. Frankly, like many of my friends, I assumed the Guild would fold in less then 60 days –after all, we’d all watched as unions have broken over the past years, and had little hope for the WGA. But something unexpected happened: the writers fought back using the Internet, and they came to see themselves as a union of workers, linked with other workers. The issues surrounding the WGA strike are issues of basic fairness and pay, both StrikeTV, and United Hollywood, lay out the issues involved. The success of the WGA strike effects all of us — not simply because it save us from yet another tedious award show. The WGA is fighting for issues which will effect the future of media in this country; they are fighting for a living wage for their members; they are fighting for all of us, because we are all in this together.
FDL has a petition up where you can contact executives in charge of your favorite show and inform them of your support for the WGA. I urge you to sign it.
Last night on the Daily Show, Jon Stewart relayed how Brian Kilmeade on Fox & Friends had been scared as a child, transcript courtesy of C&L:
Jon: “Luckily for my pre-conceived notions about the FOX network, the conversation soon got back on the express to Crazy Town.”
Brown hair guy who’s not Steve Doocy: “Here’s the problem, though. In 1970 or ‘68, Barbara Eden lowered the bar by wearing that sexy outfit, traumatized me as a child, and then every kid wore the Barbara Eden outfit…”
Well, I too was traumatized as a child. Not by Barbra Eden (aka Jeannie) , but by Diana Rigg (aka Mrs. Emma Peel). And that trauma has left me scared with heterosexual tendencies throughout my life. But I didn’t realize just how deep my trauma had scared my until a few months ago when a friend mentioned to me that Diana Rigg is now the Chancellor of the University of Stirling, in Scotland. This explains such terrible traits as my love of books and learning, my questioning of the world around me, and, of course, the fact the I never watch Fox & Friends.
Last week Citizen Lab released a kind of everyman guide to circumventing Internet censorship. The guide is by no means exhaustive, but offers some well known and simple methods for bypassing Internet content control systems used by some of the most repressive governments in the world. It has been said that we now live in the information age. Certainly this is what governments around the world believe to be true. The desire to control citizen’s access to information and uncensored media has become prevalent across more then half the globe. In places like China, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and others direct filtering of political and social commentary is common. Most governments seem to believe it is necessary to ‘protect’ their citizens from certain ideas or types of content. Here, in the United States, arguments about COPA and CIPA have lead to numerous court cases — CIPA is currently under review to see if it can be extended to block sites like myspace.com and facebook.
As governments and corporations extend their power and influence, their need to limit access to ideas which contradict theirs will continue to grow. The ability to bypass Internet filters or hide one’s identity will become more and more essential. This guide offers a helpful start for everyone.
I have written several times in the past about AT&T’s questionable treatment of content in order to further their own business agenda. Now comes word that AT&T is officially enshrining their policies in their Terms of Service agreement with AT&T users. As Slashdot reported a few days ago, the updated ToS includes the following terms:
AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy; (b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws) or a violation of these TOS, or any applicable policies or guidelines, or (c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.
The breadth of this statement is amazing. As AT&T partners with the Chinese government, would it now be a violation of an AT&T service agreement to criticize the Chinese government? Could one have their DSL connection terminated for publicly questioning their telephone bill?
The AT&T apologists and defenders immediately jumped on this change of the ToS, claiming, once again, that this is obviously an over-reaching mistake by some middle manager, and that, under common-carrier laws, the ToS is unenforceable and would be struck down in court. My response to these people, the same one’s who claimed the Pearl Jam incident was simply an over-reaction by a middle manager, is to ask: how many of these anti-consumer actions does it take constitute evidence of a subtle or general anti-consumer corporate policy? one?, three?, twelve?, twenty? Let me know an I will assemble the requisite documentation. As to the issue of common-carrier regulations, commentators are correct that under those regulations AT&T must remain neutral to general content. However, it is most likely that should push come to shove that AT&T will claim itself to be a Media Organization not held to common-carrier standards. After all, no one would expect Viacom to carry content which damaged their brands, why should AT&T?
There are a number of people whom I respect who disagree with me on the issue of Net Neutrality. Most of them believe that market forces will respond and correct any anti-consumer moves by Internet providers. I believe this would be true, if there existed diverse competition in the marketplace. The problem remains that a very few number of large carriers control last mile access to the Internet. Among these carriers there is little geographic competition, except in major urban centers. Opponents of neutrality site RF distribution as a way to alleviate this problem. However, given the FCC’s recent rulings on the spectrum auctions it seems most likely that the same large companies which control hardline distribution will end up in control of the RF spectrum as well. As congress has done very little to mitigate media and telecommunications consolidation, and will certainly not address this issue in the near future, the only solution left is to impose a Network Neutrality law upon Internet carriers. It is the only solution left for an industry which appearing more and more monopolistic every day is not afraid to flex it muscles on content control.
Robert Greenwald has done a nice video summation of the push for war with Iran:
The media has been particularly lazy in trying to understand or present the complexities of both Middle Eastern and Islamic culture and politics. For instance, I am sure that you have not heard that Al Qaeda has been threatening Iran with war, but I am sure you have been given the impression that somehow the two are working together.
I’ve spent many days in NOCs trying to keep an ISP up and running through various local disasters, but the guys at directNIC.com in New Orleans are amazing. The amount of work and dedication these people have put in to keep their few remaining customers up and running is inspiring.
One of OPs is blogging his experience. His tale is pretty chilling: people looting, cops looting, general chaos in New Orleans. Very sad stuff. My thoughts are with all the people suffering in this tragedy:
It is a zoo out there though, make no mistake. It’s the wild kingdom. It’s Lord of the Flies. That doesn’t mean there’s murder on every street corner. But what it does mean is that the rule of law has collapsed, that there is no order, and that property rights cannot and are not being enforced. Anyone who is on the streets is in immediate danger of being robbed and killed. It’s that bad.
At Eschaton there’s a fascinating post about coverage of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina. Atrios shows two news photos of people gathering food to survive. In one the caption refers to the participants “finding” food, in the other the caption refers to the participant “looting” food. The only visible difference is the looter is black and the finders are white.
These people are trying to survive in an almost impossible situation, and that the theft of food for self preservation is a moral question which goes back thousands of years. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that the current media would find any excuse to exploit people’s suffering to create polarizing images and encourage racial stereotypes.
Yep, I guess you can’t trust those people — they have no moral fiber and are only concerned about their immediate needs; it’s no wonder most Americans don’t trust them — but what do you expect of the media.
I have to admit it: I have a warm spot in my heart for unions –not for union leadership, nor for union politics, but for the unions themselves. I have been a member of a few unions in my lifetime, and like all members have complained and bitched about the dues, the corruption, etc. But when push came to shove the union was there to back up my brothers and I. There is an ineffable power to being in a union: I felt it when the Teamsters refused to cross our UAW line when we voted to strike against Phillips in the mid-80s; I felt it again ten years later when we in the IBEW refused to cross the line of our brothers in the Bricklayers and Mason’s Union. It is a sense of a shared struggle –a struggle to make everyone’s life better.
labor, media, WGA
