The Church Secretary's comment about the lack of pro-labor voices in the mass media reminded me that there is an interesting experiment in labor radio available online. Check out the LabourStart labor news website (with the tag line, "Where trade unionists start their day on the net"). They have worldwide and multilingual news, and a link to Radio LabourStart.
Radio LabourStart has a mix of music, news and commentary. At the moment I'm listening to the "Summer Reading" program from the Kansas City Heartland Labor Forum. They're interviewing historian Leon Fink, author of The Maya of Morgantown. Before that there was an AFL-CIO screed against CAFTA. Next is an interview with LaborNotes editor Jane Slaughter talking about the new Troublemakers Handbook. Good stuff!
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Thursday, June 23, 2005
House Passes Patriot Act Revision
If you have not heard about this yet, it seems like good news.
Reprinted from the National Coalition for History Washington Update:
HOUSE HANDS BUSH A DEFEAT -- VOTES TO CURB PATRIOT ACT LIBRARY PROVISIONS
On 15 June 2005, in a stunning 238 to 187 victory for the library community, the House approved an amendment to the Patriot Act that bars the Department of Justice from using any appropriated federal funds to search library and bookstore records under provisions of the Patriot Act.
The amendment, remarkably similar to the "Freedom to Read Protection Act" that was attached to the House Science-State-Justice Subcommittee appropriations bill, was advanced by Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and endorsed by a curious coalition of some 38 House conservatives worried about government intrusion and about 200 Democrats concerned about personal privacy. One House aide referred to the victorious coalition as "the crazies on the left and the crazies on the right, meeting in the middle."
Far from being "crazies," the library community has long argued that certain provisions in Section 215 of the Patriot Act are draconian. When the Patriot Act was enacted in 2001 it granted broad new powers to the FBI to access what the law merely defined as "tangible things" from libraries, bookstores, and other records. All that was needed was a warrant issued by
the government's secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or "FISA" court. The effect of the provision was to make permissible what Patriot Act critics characterized as "fishing expeditions" by FBI agents who could investigate, among other things, what library patrons were reading.
The House passed measure mandates that security officials would need to obtain a standard court-ordered search warrant issued by a judge or a subpoena from a grand jury in order to seize records relating to a suspect's reading habits. In other words, the Sanders amendment restores legal standards and warrant procedures for investigations of library and
bookstore records that were in place prior to enactment of the Patriot Act.
Administration officials claim that national security officials have never invoked the provision against a library or bookstore; nevertheless, one administration official did not hesitate to declare that "bookstores and libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators." The House Republican leadership hopes to have the provision removed when a conference committee meets to work out differences between the House and Senate passed versions of the bill.
Reprinted from the National Coalition for History Washington Update:
HOUSE HANDS BUSH A DEFEAT -- VOTES TO CURB PATRIOT ACT LIBRARY PROVISIONS
On 15 June 2005, in a stunning 238 to 187 victory for the library community, the House approved an amendment to the Patriot Act that bars the Department of Justice from using any appropriated federal funds to search library and bookstore records under provisions of the Patriot Act.
The amendment, remarkably similar to the "Freedom to Read Protection Act" that was attached to the House Science-State-Justice Subcommittee appropriations bill, was advanced by Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and endorsed by a curious coalition of some 38 House conservatives worried about government intrusion and about 200 Democrats concerned about personal privacy. One House aide referred to the victorious coalition as "the crazies on the left and the crazies on the right, meeting in the middle."
Far from being "crazies," the library community has long argued that certain provisions in Section 215 of the Patriot Act are draconian. When the Patriot Act was enacted in 2001 it granted broad new powers to the FBI to access what the law merely defined as "tangible things" from libraries, bookstores, and other records. All that was needed was a warrant issued by
the government's secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or "FISA" court. The effect of the provision was to make permissible what Patriot Act critics characterized as "fishing expeditions" by FBI agents who could investigate, among other things, what library patrons were reading.
The House passed measure mandates that security officials would need to obtain a standard court-ordered search warrant issued by a judge or a subpoena from a grand jury in order to seize records relating to a suspect's reading habits. In other words, the Sanders amendment restores legal standards and warrant procedures for investigations of library and
bookstore records that were in place prior to enactment of the Patriot Act.
Administration officials claim that national security officials have never invoked the provision against a library or bookstore; nevertheless, one administration official did not hesitate to declare that "bookstores and libraries should not be carved out as safe havens for terrorists and spies who have, in fact, used public libraries to do research and communicate with their co-conspirators." The House Republican leadership hopes to have the provision removed when a conference committee meets to work out differences between the House and Senate passed versions of the bill.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
A new job. A new blog?
As some of my three hardcore readers know, I will soon be taking a new job. Yes we're leaving Chicago for the mild, smalltown charms of Champaign-Urbana. And I'm leaving behind the Newberry Library for the University of Illinois Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations where I will be a professor of Labor Education. I'll be teaching labor history, labor law, and other things to union members and other interested working people.
So what to do with Bughouse Square the blog? The distractions of negotiating the job offer, selling our apartment, and looking for a new home have been taking me away from my blogging duties, and Bughouse Square has been pretty lame since April. Also the name, concept, etc., are connected to Chicago, the Newberry and our free speech exhibit "Outspoken." Maybe the concept won't transfer to the new situation.
So the question is, should I retire Bughouse Square and start a new, more explicitly labor-themed blog? Or should I just keep going with "Bughouse Square" as the title and shift the content? Maybe fill out the blog description so readers with no Chicago connection will get the point of the title? Maybe invite some of you to guest post (on labor issues, no naughty nurses, Jeff) so as to recreate virtually a bit of the Bughouse Square of yore?
So what to do with Bughouse Square the blog? The distractions of negotiating the job offer, selling our apartment, and looking for a new home have been taking me away from my blogging duties, and Bughouse Square has been pretty lame since April. Also the name, concept, etc., are connected to Chicago, the Newberry and our free speech exhibit "Outspoken." Maybe the concept won't transfer to the new situation.
So the question is, should I retire Bughouse Square and start a new, more explicitly labor-themed blog? Or should I just keep going with "Bughouse Square" as the title and shift the content? Maybe fill out the blog description so readers with no Chicago connection will get the point of the title? Maybe invite some of you to guest post (on labor issues, no naughty nurses, Jeff) so as to recreate virtually a bit of the Bughouse Square of yore?
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
SEIU et al. form "Change to Win" coalition
In the run up to this July's AFLCIO conference in Chicago, five dissident unions (SEIU, Unite Here, UFCW, Teamsters, and Laborers) have formed the "Change to Win" coalition and formally threatened to split from the federation if their ideas are not accepted. This is a very interesting moment for Labor.
Read for yourself, commentary later:
"Skirting AFLCIO, unions form new federation," LA Times
SEIU Press Release
Change to Win coalition web site
An earlier statement on the SEIU's blog Unite to Win announced that the union's exec. board had authorized disaffiliation from the AFLCIO.
Read for yourself, commentary later:
"Skirting AFLCIO, unions form new federation," LA Times
SEIU Press Release
Change to Win coalition web site
An earlier statement on the SEIU's blog Unite to Win announced that the union's exec. board had authorized disaffiliation from the AFLCIO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
