I would have expected to have written more about the writers’ strike, because it involves two of my favourite things: industrial action and Joss Whedon. The Writers Guild of America have been on strike for over two months now, and there’s lots of information out there and good blogs by striking writers. There are also several websites set up by fans who support writers. There was a Mutant Enemy Picket day, where Joss and the writers and actors from Firefly, Buffy & Angel all picketed together. Some fans came from as far as England and Australia to join the picket.¹

The writing for the Golden Globes and the Oscars is usually done by WGA members. THe Guild has announced that it will refused waivers to allow these ceremonies to be written by Guild writers, and will picket the ceremonies if they go ahead without the writers.² Now actors, the sort of Actors who get nominated for Golden Globes and Oscars, have unanimously announced that they will not cross a picket line if the ceremonies are picketed. The first thing Katherine Heigl (to choose one random example, because I have an inexplicable fondness for her) said when she was nominated for a Golden Globe, was that she wouldn’t cross a picket line. Without stars there isn’t much appeal to an award ceremony. What I thought was particularly awesome, was that the actors apparently took this decision themselves:

SAG decided not to pressure its A-List actors about attending or not attending the WGA-struck Golden Globes on NBC. So I’m told the decision not to cross picket lines came from the thesps themselves. In fact, SAG leadership took a meeting with all of Hollywood’s publicists (with a similar collection in NYC via video conference) who told the union that the clients they represent will not cross the WGA picket line for the Golden Globes without exception.

Actors support has gone beyond not getting dressed in pretty gowns and telling their publicists to talk to their union, Actors have picketed, they’ve used their media pull, they’ve appeared in a video campaign.

The reason actors are doing this isn’t just because Hollywood is full of liberals (or radicals in a few cases). Even Patricia Heaton who thanked the troops when she won an Emmy in 2001 supports the writers. The reason the actors, who are all union members, do this is because it’s in their own best interests. The main issue that writers are striking over - payment for work broadcast over the internet is one that is as important for the actors as it is for the writers. If the writers lose then there’s no way the actors would get their residuals. The actors solidarity obviously make the writers stronger (the absense of the nominees for best screenplay wouldn’t torpedo an award ceremony.

In this case, the urgency of that solidarity is really clear. The contracts expire within months of each other and the issues are identical. But the principle of solidarity works the same way whether the workers are half a world away (solidarity of German dockworkers helped win the recent wharfie strike in Napier) or a completely different industry (wharfies helped win the Progressive lockout last year).

The concept of solidarity isn’t hard (it’d be unkind to suggest that if it was people who send their publicists to talk to their union probably wouldn’t be able to grasp it so I won’t), but often it can seem abstract. Which is why such a show of solidarity, even over an event as ridiculous as the Golden Globes, is pretty damn powerful.

On a less solid note, I’m was sad to see that The Daily Show and The Colbert report will be returning tomorrow without their striking writers. I understand that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are under contractual obligations; I understand that they have been very supportive of the strike, I understand that there are lots of other people employed by these show, but crossing a picket line is crossing a picket line.

I do want to say something about editors, grips, craft services, and all the other workers who are involved in making a television show. Those who worked on a television series that has stopped production because of the strike aren’t working and aren’t being paid.

The situation of those workers, while difficult, is not a stick to beat the striking writers with. It’s an obligation of solidarity. When the writers win they, and the actors, need to stand solid with the editors, grips and craft services. Those workers need to know that their picket lines will be honoured, that the actors and writers will stand on the picket line with them. Writers and Actors need to do that because solidarity is a mutal obligation, but also beause it’s in their own best interest. Unless solidarity extends across the industry the gains that are won with this strike will just temporary.

1. I’m more than a little jealous that, odds are, the only people who could afford a twelve hour flight to support a picket line with Joss, probably aren’t as into the picket line as much as they’re into the Joss. (back)
2. It’s a little more complicated than that, it’s always a little bit more complicated than that, but that’s enough to get the point. (back)

In February last year, I put forth my predictions for the top racial/ethnic trends in 2007. I want to revisit this before I post my top trends of 2007 and my predictions for the top trends of 2008.

So where was I right and wrong? The original post is up here. You can go there and read the details of the predictions, but for the purposes of this post I’m just going to list the subject headings for each prediction, and after the heading I’ll list whether or not I think my prediction was right or wrong.

1. Asia/Asians are Hip and Cool

Well, this was a little true, but I overstated it a little.

2. End of Voluntary Desegregation Plans

This was true to some extent, since the supreme court rule against the desegregation plans in Louisville and Seattle, but it is going to take a long time for these plans to be completely dismantled. The Supreme Court is in dire need of another moderate or liberal judge.  If a Democrat wins, this may happen.

3. Biological Notions of Race

Does this ever really go out a style? :)

4. Latinos Becoming White

I was wrong; just flat out wrong here.

5. Non-African American Blacks are Popular

I think this was by far my best prediction. There were numerous articles describing non-African American Blacks as model minorities.

6. Anti-Racism/Pro-Racial Equality Blogs Blow Up

I’m not really sure about this one. There definitely were more of these sites than in 2006, but I don’t know if they “blew up.” They did grow.

So what do you think about my 6 predictions?

I just received a phone call from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), who wanted to ask me an important poll question: “As a Republican, are you willing to cede the White House to Hilary Clinton in 2008?” I told them no.

The call also featured a recorded message from Representative Tom Cole. According to Cole, “True conservatives in Washington have been quiet for too long” when it comes to criticizing Hilary Clinton and the liberals, but they’re going to stop being so reticent in 2008, if I help by donating some money. It strikes me that Cole himself is a conservative, and he spends most of his time in Washington. Why does he need my money to cease being quiet — couldn’t he just, you know, start talking?

Also, Cole says Clinton intends to legalize gay marriage. I wish! Not for the first time, I find myself wishing that the fantasy Democrats conservatives argue against existed in real life, so I could vote for them.

“I want to make change but I’ve already made change. I’m not just running on a promise of change — I’m running on 35 years of change.”

–Hilary Clinton at tonight’s debate.

Update: It’s interesting to read the transcript. Edwards did the best, I think; if the press were willing to admit he existed he might do better. The end of the debate ended up being focused on economic issues, and that’s an area where Edwards really speaks with more passion and conviction than the other candidates. No idea if that would translate into more policy success, though.

Obama did next-best. Hilary came in third; I think her willingness to be driven by what the polls say (”mention the word “change” every sentence!”) was a little lame. Richardson came off as grumpy (”what’s wrong with experience?,” he complained).

Obama annoyed me with his discussion of health care.

We do have a philosophical difference. John and yourself believe that if we do not mandate care — if we don’t force the government to get — to — if the government does not force taxpayers to buy health care, that we will penalize them in some fashion. I disagree with that because as I go around town hall meetings, I don’t meet people who are trying to avoid getting health care; the problem is they can’t afford it. […]

[…] the reason that I mandate for children is because children do not have a choice. Adults do, and it’s my belief that they will choose to have health care if it is affordable.

So are we to take it that as Obama goes around town hall meetings, he meets parents who are trying to avoid getting health care for their kids?

If you don’t have a “mandate” of some sort, some people won’t buy health insurance, for whatever reason: Because they’re young and healthy and don’t know that they’ll be diagnosed with diabetes or hit by a bus next year, because they’re cheap, because they hate big corporations and big government, whatever. Obama recognizes that when it comes to insuring children; some parents won’t “choose to get health care” for the kids “even if it is affordable,” which is why Obama favors a mandate. But it’s duplicitous to recognize this fact when talking about insuring kids, but pretend that this fact has gone away while talking about insuring adults.

Now, there is an honest argument against mandates, which isn’t “there’s no need for a mandate, because everyone wants insurance if they can afford it” but “we shouldn’t have a mandate, because we should let people be uninsured if they don’t want insurance.” But Obama didn’t make that argument. By attacking “mandates,” however, he certainly is helping to legitimize Republican talking points against Clinton’s and Edwards’ plans.

By the way, I’m for mandates. The large majority of those who choose not to buy affordable health insurance are those who believe they’re never going to be sick (or at least, not for years to come); and when those uninsured people get sick, or get into accidents, they’ll be left with no choice but to draw on a health system they haven’t been paying into. Like social security, decent health coverage has to be universal, because it only works if everyone pays into it.

As for the claim that the government will “will penalize them in some fashion,” referring to those who don’t get mandated health insurance — the phrase is a scary one, and one I’m sure the Republicans will be using a lot. A more specific statement, that would have actually helped the voters understand the issue, is that under a mandated health insurance plan, those who don’t enroll in a health insurance plan will be enrolled in one by the government, and they’ll have to pay for it just like every other American does. Everyone pays a little more, in exchange for universal health care. That’s what universal health care is; it doesn’t work if we give some people the right to be free riders, benefiting from the system but not contributing to it.

Update the second: By the way, we just had a debate with the four leading Democratic nominees — and only one is a white man.

Some interesting language news (hat-tip to blueheron):

Street term ‘Yo’ is being used by kids as a gender-neutral replacement for ‘he’ and ’she’, according to researchers.

Language experts in the US say since at least 2004 students have been saying “yo” as a substitute for gender specific pronouns and the trend is growing.

After previous attempts to introduce a gender-neutral pronoun failed, researchers suggested “yo” could become commonly used.

Experts said the growth of the word’s usage in this way was remarkable as it was a “grass-roots phenomenon”.

The study, published in this week’s New Scientist, found middle-school and high-school students in Baltimore, Maryland, used the word in sentences such as, “Yo put his foot up” and “Yo looks like a freak”.

There have been several attempts to create gender-neutral pronouns from trans activists and from feminists, but none of them has had much success; deliberate attempts to change English usage almost never work (although the example of “Ms.” is pretty inspiring). There might be more hope for “Yo,” because it’s creation seems more grassroots.¹

In the article, “feminist scholar” Brenda Wrigley criticizes “yo” for sounding “crass and disrespectful.” Boo on feminist scholar Brenda Wrigley! As BlueHeron notes,

“crass and disrespectful”, which can clearly be translated as both “I’m not used to people speaking like that” and “kids these days have no respect for language”, both of which are ultimately foolish and useless concerns and do nothing to stop the adoption of new words.

I really hope this use of “yo” spreads and flourishes.

1. ”Grassroots” isn’t really the word I want to use, but I’m not able to think of what word it is I’m looking for. (back)

Because I think I may have just read the winner.. Brownifemipower at La Chola riffs on the use and misuse of Audre Lorde’s famous comment that “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.” I’m not certain I agree with everything BFP says,¹ but I agree with a hell of a lot if it.

BFP also gets at something I’ve been thinking about lately; the use of “we” on the left. Can Hugo and BFP — or BFP and I, for that matter — really be considered part of the same movement at all? I don’t think so; I’m too comfortable here in the house, drawing my comics. I might say supportive things about BFP’s movement, and hope she’s right and her movement wins in the end, but I won’t really join it.

Hat tip: The Silence Of Our Friends.

UPDATE: Just came across this post on Anxious Black Woman:

As the late poet Audre Lorde once wrote: “The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. It may allow us to temporarily defeat him at his own game, but it will never bring about real change.” And that’s the real issue, isn’t it? What exactly is our long term goal here? Is it simply to ensure that black women have a seat at the table of power? One of us is already there (always looking at you, Condi!) yet here we are, pretty much in agreement that black women collectively are in a sad state when it comes to our political power. So, what has such tokenism done for us? Should our goal be to include as many of us at that table (which is why I’m all about how we can increase our numbers to begin with and why I would even bother with meaningful dialogue to raise the consciousness of those whose consciousness needs raising)? Or do we need to set up a different kind of table?

1. I’m never sure what people mean when they refer to “the market,” for example — would a mixed-market economy like Sweden used to have be considered “the market,” for instance? (back)

Although I don’t often link to it — its focus is mainstream politics and foreign policy, subjects I don’t often blog about — one of my most frequently read blogs is Obsidian Wings. One of the co-bloggers at Obsidian Wings, Andrew Olmsted, who posts — posted — as G’Kar, is a soldier (as well as a considerable Babylon 5 fan). He was killed in Iraq this week.

A man of foresight, G’Kar had written a post to be published in the event of his death. That’s panache.

In his post, G’Kar requests his death not be used as ammunition in either pro-war or anti-war arguments; please respect that if you leave any comments, either here or at Obsidian Wings. And please think some good wishes at his family, his friends, and his co-bloggers.

So why am I posting this link? Well: the man was a blogger, after all. He’d want his last post to get a hell of a lot of linkage.

Clinton came in third (neck and neck with Edwards). I would rather Clinton got destroyed — she’s really the worst of the three major candidates, from a progressive point of view — but a solid loss is good, too. Her biggest advantage has been her air of inevitability; now she’s lost that.

Although Obama has many flaws, on foreign policy I think he’s the best of the three Dem frontrunners, and for that reason I’m hoping he wins. He’ll bring in people who weren’t part of the “invade Iraq” consensus into the Washington establishment, and — considering the appalling tragedy our invasion of Iraq has been, and how willing the hubristic clowns who are our “serious” foreign policy establishment are to repeat their mistakes — bringing in people who haven’t been horribly, tragically wrong about foreign policy is arguably the single most important thing a new president can do.

As for Huckabee, I’d hate him as president, but that’s what I think about all the Republican hopefuls. Meanwhile, I’m delighted by how horrified the Republican establishment is of Huckabee’s climb. Plus, he can produce zingers; asked why he thinks he’s beating Romney, he quipped “I think it’s because people want to vote for someone who reminds them of the guy they work with rather than the guy who laid them off.”

A lot of smart people are now predicting that Huckabee won’t be able to win the primary — but how many thought he had even an outside chance of winning Iowa, if you asked them six weeks ago? I’m going to continue smugly making no prediction.

Anyhow: Iowa. Elections. Discuss.

Is there any question that waterboarding is torture? Someone at the “Straight Dope” forums decided to investigate this question by waterboarding himself:

I am incredibly fit and training for a 100 mile endurance run. The main thing about such an event is ability to tolerate pain. I am good at this. I am trained.

I also have experience with free-diving from my college days. I once held my breath for 4 minutes and two seconds. Once, while training as a lifeguard I swam laps without breathing until I passed out, so that I could know my limits.

First he tried out “simple” waterboarding, and then tried it with a wet rag preventing him frmo breating through his mouth:

I can see where this would get very unpleasant if you lost control, but still, not terrible, not torture, per se in my book. It wasn’t as bad as my vasectomy or last root canal…

Then he tried it the way the pros do it, with saran wrap:

Next up is saran wrap. The idea is that you wrap saran wrap around the mouth in several layers, and poke a hole in the mouth area, and then waterboard away. I didn’t reall see how this was an improvement on the rag technique, and so far I would categorize waterboarding as simply unpleasant rather than torture, but I’ve come this far so I might as well go on.

Now, those of you who know me will know that I am both enamored of my own toughness and prone to hyperbole. The former, I feel that I am justifiably proud of. The latter may be a truth in many cases, but this is the simple fact:

It took me ten minutes to recover my senses once I tried this. I was shuddering in a corner, convinced I narrowly escaped killing myself.

Read the whole thing.

But remember, Republican attorney generals just can’t tell if it’s torture or not.

Maia pointed out this webpage to me. Brilliant. Plus, it allows me to choose “Buffy” and “Elections” as categories for the same post, which I might not have done before.

Feel free to use this thread to post anything you’d like. Linking to your own stuff is encouraged.

From NPR:

The nasal spray is a drug called naloxone, or Narcan. It blocks the brain receptors that heroin activates, instantly reversing an overdose.

Doctors and emergency medical technicians have used Narcan for years in hospitals and ambulances. But it doesn’t require much training because it’s impossible to overdose on Narcan. […] New data compiled for NPR by researcher Alex Kral of the consulting firm RTI International show that more than 2,600 overdoses have been reversed in 16 programs operating across the nation. […]

But Dr. Bertha Madras, deputy director of the White House Office on National Drug Control Policy, opposes the use of Narcan in overdose-rescue programs.

“First of all, I don’t agree with giving an opioid antidote to non-medical professionals. That’s No. 1,” she says. “I just don’t think that’s good public health policy.”

Madras says drug users aren’t likely to be competent to deal with an overdose emergency. More importantly, she says, Narcan kits may actually encourage drug abusers to keep using heroin because they know overdosing isn’t as likely.

Madras says the rescue programs might take away the drug user’s motivation to get into detoxification and drug treatment.

As Quirkybird comments, “Yes, because extreme compulsion is easily overcome by the thought that something bad might happen. That’s why people no longer have sex or commit crimes!”

This is an example of how the “war on drugs” — as well as the moral absolutism of the conservative movement (”drug users baaaad!”)– has undermined mercy, compassion, and common sense. Trying to make it more likely that people will die of an overdose, in the hopes that the threat of death will make them seek treatment, isn’t just incredibly ignorant of how people actually work; it’s a disgustingly callous indifference to human life.

By the way, according to the article, studies have found that the Narcan program makes it more likely that addicts will seek treatment. But even if the Bush administration wasn’t wrong on the facts, they’d still be wrong on the morality.

(Anyone else reminded of the conservatives who opposed the HPV vaccine on the grounds that if women have a lower chance of getting cancer they might have more sex before marriage?)

I was going to post a couple of long quotes I found via Theresa at Making Light. But then I would have had to write my own introductory sentences, and it turns out I’m too lazy for that. So not only am I swiping her choice of quotes, I’m swiping her introductory sentences. But you should probably check out Theresa’s post as well, since she also extensively quoted two other interesting discussions of copyright which I am not quoting here.

1. You should read Thomas Macaulay’s speeches on copyright.

These were conveniently quoted by SF writer and firebreathing blue-collar intellectual Eric Flint in Prime Palaver #4. Here’s Flint’s introduction:

These are two speeches given by Thomas Macaulay in Parliament in 1841, when the issue of copyright was being hammered out. They are, no other word for it, brilliant—and cover everything fundamental which is involved in the issue. (For those not familiar with him, Macaulay would eventually become one of the foremost British historians of the 19th century. His History of England remains in print to this day, as do many of his other writings.)
I strongly urge people to read them. Yes, they’re long—almost 10,000 words—and, yes, Macaulay’s oratorical style is that of an earlier era. (Although, I’ve got to say, I’m partial to it. Macaulay orated before the era of “sound bytes.” Thank God.)

But contained herein is all wisdom on the subject, an immense learning—and plenty of wit. So relax, pour yourself some coffee (or whatever beverage of your choice) (or whatever, preferably not hallucinogenic), and take the time to read it. The “oh-so-modern” subject of “electronic piracy” contains no problems which Macaulay didn’t already address, at least in essence, more than a century and a half ago.

I should note that Macaulay’s position, slightly modified, did become the basis of copyright law in the English speaking world. And remained so (at least in the US) for a century and a half—until, on a day of infamy just a few years ago, the Walt Disney Corporation and their stooges in Congress got the law changed to the modern law, which extends copyright for a truly absurd period of time. Which—those who forget history are doomed to repeat it—is a return to the position advocated by Macaulay’s (now long forgotten) opponent in the debate.

2. Packbat boils down Macaulay.

Packbat has summarized Macaulay’s speeches on copyright as five bulleted points:

• The copyright is not an innate right, but a creation of human government.
• A copyright is a form of monopoly, and therefore effectively a tax on the public—thus, it should be restricted to precisely as long a term as would make equivalent the harm done to the public by monopoly and the good provided by encouraging the creation of new works.
• The prospect of income from a property a long time after one’s death is no incentive whatsoever to the creation of new works.
• The probability that the persons for whom the author might have concern will own the copyright a long time after one’s death is minute.
• The probability that the copyright owner might suppress the works, for whatever reason, is great.

Do make sure you read Packbat’s surrounding material.