michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 22, 2005 20:35:55 GMT 4
BANNED BOOKS WEEK September 24 - October 1, 2005 Launched in 1982, Banned Books Week is sponsored by the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression [ABFFE], the American Library Association, the Association of American Publishers, and the National Association of College Stores.FIRST AMENDMENT:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas. The First Amendment as written says nothing explicit about the right to read. However, this right is implicit in the 1st Amendment.
Nothing in the body of the Constitution or Bill of Rights says anything in terms about the freedom to read, or listen, or even to think. Yet we know that such liberties are there just as surely as if they were written into the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment involves not only the right to speak and publish, but also the right to hear, to learn, to know.
"Protecting" people, whether they be students or non-students from "objectionable" books by removing them from our libraries, in or out of the schoolhouse, does not reflect much confidence in those Americans who would be exposed to such literature. If a society is to remain free, citizens must be able to make their own decisions related to the books, magazines, and newspapers, [websites too!] they wish to read. Book censors deny us the freedom to choose for ourselves.
Books and ideas are the most effective weapons against intolerance and ignorance. So clearly, the most effective way to insure an increase in the number of obedient, docile men and women is to teach them, beginning with their schooling, that free inquiry is forbidden. That they do not have the freedom to read because authorities will decide for them what they can and cannot read.
Students, or anybody using a school or public library, have a constitutional right of access to ideas that will enable them to write and speak more effectively. Students and teachers shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door. Educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of constitutional freedoms for the individual if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.
Will we allow authorities to police the shelves of all our libraries, so that everyone from grade school on will learn only what is permitted to learn? The 1st Amendment does not tolerate laws, orders, or actions by high or petty authorities that cast a pall of orthodoxy over our libraries. In time, perhaps the writings of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson will be removed from the shelves because those writings are dangerous, even revolutionary.......Michelle2004 - 2005 list of Banned/Challenged Books: www.marshall.edu/library/bannedbooks/Index/titleindex2005.aspHandbook for a Variety of Activities: www.abffe.com/banned.htm
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 26, 2005 1:06:27 GMT 4
Reader Privacy Petitions Delivered to Capitol Hill Note: These petitions were delivered on Sept. 13, 2005. The info below is to inform you how the USA PATRIOT Act affects your right to read what you want:Petitions bearing over 200,000 signatures will be delivered to Congressional leaders in the fight to restore the safeguards for reader privacy that were eliminated by the USA PATRIOT Act, the Campaign for Reader Privacy announced. clk.about.com/?zi=1/XJ&sdn=classiclit&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abffe.org%2F The petitions will be presented to Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), author of the Freedom to Read Protection Act (H.R. 1157) and Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), co-author of the Security and Freedom Enhancement Act (S. 737). They will also be given to Senators who have been chosen as conferees on the legislation re-authorizing the expiring sections of the PATRIOT Act. "We are proud to present these petitions to Congress on behalf of the hundred of bookstores and libraries around the country who participated enthusiastically in the reader privacy petition campaign," Avin Mark Domnitz, the chief executive officer of the American Booksellers Association, said. Judge Lifts Gag Order on Connecticut Library Fighting FBI SubpoenaA federal judge in Bridgeport has lifted a gag order that prevented a Connecticut library from revealing that the FBI is trying to obtain the records of one of its customers. The judge ruled that the gag ordered violated the librarian's First Amendment right to participate in the current debate over the re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act and did not pose a danger of exposing the FBI's counter-terrorism investigation. Judge Janet Hall has temporarily stayed her order, allowing the government to appeal. Her decision is online at www.ctd.uscourts.gov/Opinions/090905JCH.DoeOP.pdf. The Connecticut library case came to light in August when the ACLU challenged a National Security Letter (NSL) that had been issued to the librarian to obtain records of a patron's use of the Internet during a visit to the library. The PATRIOT Act expanded the use of NSL's, which allow the FBI to obtain the names of Internet users as well as records showing what Web sites they have visited. The Campaign for Reader Privacy, which represents booksellers, librarians, publishers and writers, issued a press release last week pointing out that the Connecticut case underscores the importance of restoring safeguards for reader privacy that were eliminated by the PATRIOT Act. “The Connecticut case proves that despite the claims that the PATRIOT Act will rarely if ever be used to search reader records, the FBI is prepared to exercise its extraordinary power whenever it believes it is necessary. When that happens, it is critical that we have safeguards in place to ensure that this power is not abused,” Michael Gorman, the president of the American Library Association, said. The release is online, www.readerprivacy.org/news.jsp. For more information on this, refer to 'United States Affairs' on the board, thread 'Constitutional Law', reply #5, 'The FBI Fails [For Now] To Grab Subpoena Powers'.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 30, 2005 19:10:42 GMT 4
Banning and Censorship of Children's Books The Who and Why of Banning or Not Banning Books An Increase in ChallengesMany people think that book banning is something that happened in the distant past. That is certainly not the case. J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books, for example, came under strong attack in the 1990s and early 2000s. In its latest report, for Banned Books Week 2005, the American Library Association reported that of the books on the "Ten Most Challenged Books of 2004" list, compiled by the American Library Association (ALA) Office for Intellectual Freedom, three of them were challenged because of homosexual themes. ALA President Michael Gorman stated, “Banning books is an extreme disservice to our readers. Not only does it hinder tolerance and acceptance, it also limits the information exchange Americans hold dear.” Each year, the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom receives hundreds of reports on books and other materials that were 'challenged'or asked to be removed from school or library shelves. The ALA estimates the number represents only about a quarter of the actual challenges. 'Most Challenged' titles include the popular 'Harry Potter' series of fantasy books for children by J.K. Rowling." The ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom received a total of 547 challenges in 2004, up from 458 in 2003. Why Do People Want to Ban Books?When people challenge books it is generally out of a concern that the contents of the book will be harmful to the reader. According to the ALA, there are four motivating factors: Family Values Religion Political Views Minority Rights. The age level for which a book is intended does not guarantee that someone won't try to censor it. Though the emphasis seems to be on challenges to children's and Young Adult books, attempts are also mounted to restrict access to certain adult books. Most complaints are made by parents and are directed to public libraries and schools. The ALA also reports that book burnings still occur in the 21st Century. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Kids Fight Book Banning Through kidSPEAK [/br] Several new organizations have sprung up in response to concerns. When the Harry Potter books came under attack, a number of organizations joined together to establish Muggles for Harry Potter. Since then, the organization has decided to focus on being a voice for kids in fighting censorship in general. Muggles for Harry Potter is now known as kidSPEAK. Its sponsors are the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Association of American Publishers, Association of Booksellers for Children, Children's Book Council, Freedom to Read Foundation, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Council of Teachers of English, PEN American Center, and People for the American Way Foundation. KidSPEAK stresses, "Kids have First Amendment rights—and kidSPEAK helps kids fight for them!" PABBIS: Parents Against Bad Books in SchoolsPABBIS seeks to educate parents in Virginia and nationwide about some of the books being used in schools. The organization urges parents and to support "Upfront-Informed Parental Consent," which would require educators to notify parents of upcoming studies of books that might contain elements that the parents might find objectionable. However, that makes the teacher, in effect, the censor in that it requires him/her to make a judgement call about what parents would find objectionable. Summary: Banning and Censorship of Children's Books This is such an important topic that I have created a Censorship/ Banning Books directory of links to articles on the subject. The ALA's Banned Books Week site is an excellent resource. Banned Books Week is held annually the last week in September. ANother good resource is the Illinois Library Association's site, which includes specific information on "books challenged, restricted, removed, or banned in 2004-2005 as reported in the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom from May 2004 through May 2005." According to Free Access to Libraries for Minors, which is an interpretation of the ALA's Library Bill of Rights: Librarians and governing bodies should maintain that parents - and only parents - have the right and the responsibility to restrict the access of their children - and only their children - to library resources.clk.about.com/?zi=18/1B2/O5&sdn=childrensbooks&zu=http://childrensbooks.about.com/cs/censorship/a/censorship.htmHow do you feel about it? Share your opinion
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 3, 2005 13:29:25 GMT 4
Since censorship is such an important issue, we will continue to keep Banned Books on the board. Please contribute with any discussion, or share with us books you have read, particularly banned/challenged, political, or relevant works.
FYI: Great works of literature have been banned: "Ulysses," "Candide," "Fanny Hill," "Moll Flanders," "Canterbury Tales," "The Arabian Nights," "Leaves of Grass," "Civil Disobedience," "Frankenstein," "Call of the Wild," religious works like The Bible and The Quaran, and so many others.
Here's a book to start with: Nineteen Eighty-Four - 1984
"Nineteen Eighty-Four" is a novel by George Orwell. Orwell's "1984" is a dystopian novel about an authoritarian society. "1984" is a famous British novel. What happens in this book? And, why is the story so memorable? Test your knowledge about "1984." Q: In which year was "1984" published? 1984 1965 1949 1933 Q: With with work is "1984" often compared? Brave New World Don Quixote A Fable Crime and Punishment Q: "1984" is usually categorized in this genre? Utopian Romantic Cavalier Dystopian Q: What is the name of the main character? Wilson O'Brien Winston William Q: "War Is Peace" is an example of what? Big Brother Speak Doublethink Marketing Dystopian Speak Q: Where does Winston work? Ministry of Truth Ministry of Defense Human Resources Department Safety Division Q: What does Winston write when he commits a thoughtcrime? I hate Big Brother. I love Big Brother. Big Brother is insane. Kill Big Brother. Q: What evidence has Winston seen that proves that the Party is dishonest? A book. A photograph. A letter. A journal. Q: Children are encouraged to turn their parents in by this organization: The Boy Scouts Anti-Sex League Big Brother The Junior Spies Q: Where is Winston taken to be tortured? Room 101 Room 15 Room 19 Room 111 Q: What is Winston's greatest fear? Fire Water Rats Bugs Q: Where is the telescreen hidden? Behind a mirror. In the door. Behind a painting. Under the bed Q: Who really wrote the book that O'Brien gives to Winston? The Party Goldstein Charrington Blair Q: What happens at the end of the novel? Winston dies from his torture. Winston marries Julia. Winston escapes. Winston loves Big Brother. Q: What is the name of the woman, who becomes Winston's mistress? Mary June Julia Cindy
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Oct 7, 2005 5:34:12 GMT 4
Volume 7 No. 11 ABFFE UPDATE
IN THIS ISSUE PATRIOT Act Showdown Looms ABFFE Urges Supreme Court to Lift Connecticut Library Gag Banned Books Victory in Fayetteville, Arkansas
PATRIOT Act Showdown Looms
The battle over the re-authorization of the expiring sections of the PATRIOT Act is expected to conclude during the week of October 17, when conferees meet to reconcile the bills passed by the House and Senate. House conferees will probably be chosen late this week. Staff members will begin meeting next week to hammer out a compromise to be presented to the conferees for a vote the following week.
The Campaign for Reader Privacy continues to urge its supporters to call and write their representatives in Washington in support of the Senate re-authorization bill, S. 1389, which is more protective of reader privacy than the House bill. Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has been circulating a letter, to be presented to House conferees when they are named, urging them to adopt S. 1389. One hundred forty-two members of the House have signed the letter so far, including eight Republicans.
The search for Republican support for S. 1389 received a boost this week when eight national business groups, including the United States Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, endorsed the bill in a letter to the conferees. Their letter praised the Senate bill for strengthening safeguards for business records sought under Section 215. "We support the revision in the Senate bill that requires a statement of fact and some linkage between the records sought and an individual suspected of being a terrorist or spy," it read. The other signatories were the Association of Corporate Counsel, Business Civil Liberties Inc., the Financial Services Roundtable, and the National Association of Realtors.
ABFFE Urges Supreme Court to Lift Connecticut Library Gag
ABFFE this week urged the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a gag order that is preventing a Connecticut librarian from talking about the chilling effect of a National Security Letter (NSL) that seeks to compel the release of patron information. It joined the American Library Association, the Freedom to Read Foundation, and the Association of American Publishers in filing an amicus brief in support of an emergency motion to lift the gag that has been filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the Connecticut librarian. "Congress is only days away from final action of the re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act, including the section that expanded the use of NSLs to obtain patron records from libraries," ABFFE President Chris Finan says. "It is absolutely imperative that the librarian in this case have the opportunity to speak about the threat that NSLs pose to reader privacy."
The ACLU filed suit on behalf of the Connecticut librarian in early August, challenging the constitutionality of the section of the PATRIOT Act that expanded the use of NSLs and urging the court to lift the gag order so the librarian could participate in the debate over re-authorization of the PATRIOT Act. NSLs are a type of subpoena that the FBI can issue without court review to obtain the records of "electronic communications service providers," including a list of Web sites visited by a patron using a computer terminal in a library, bookstore, or other business that offers Internet access to the public.
On September 9, a federal judge ordered the gag lifted, rejecting the government's contention that publicly identifying the library would harm national security. The government appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which has refused to lift the stay until it holds a hearing. The ACLU decided to appeal to the Supreme Court when it became clear that Congress might re-authorize the PATRIOT Act before the appeals court rules.
The New York Times reported on September 21 that a Web site operated by the federal district court in Bridgeport, Connecticut, had inadvertently identified the recipient of the NSL as Library Connection, an association of 26 public and academic libraries based in Windsor, Connecticut, that share an automated library system. One of the arguments in the amicus brief is that the gag should be lifted because the identity of the recipient has been revealed already.
Banned Books Victory in Fayetteville, Arkansas
ABFFE and several other free expression groups won a banned books battle on September 15 when the Fayetteville, Arkansas, school board lifted restrictions it had imposed on three sex education books. The board voted, four to three, to drop its May 2005 requirement that students obtain parental permission to check out "It's So Amazing," "It's Perfectly Normal," and "The Teenage Guy's Survival Guide." The restriction prompted ABFFE, the Association of American Publishers, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the National Council of Teachers of English, and PEN American Center, to send a letter to Fayetteville Public Schools Superintendent Bobby New that "strongly urged" him to resist efforts to get the district to review books in school libraries and "to impose a parental consent requirement on all students."
In addition to the letter by the free expression groups, the Fayetteville board appears to have been influenced by its attorney's opinion that it would lose a legal challenge. He pointed to the 2003 decision in a case overturning a ban on Harry Potter books in the schools in Cedarville, Arkansas. ABFFE took the lead in filing an amicus brief in that case.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Nov 8, 2005 2:17:42 GMT 4
11/07/05 Librarians, especially in recent years, have been more heroic in defending the First Amendment than any other group, including journalists....... MichelleThe FBI's Secret Scrutiny In Hunt for Terrorists, Bureau Examines Records of Ordinary AmericansBy Barton Gellman Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, November 6, 2005; Page A01 The FBI came calling in Windsor, Conn., this summer with a document marked for delivery by hand. On Matianuk Avenue, across from the tennis courts, two special agents found their man. They gave George Christian the letter, which warned him to tell no one, ever, what it said. Under the shield and stars of the FBI crest, the letter directed Christian to surrender "all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person" who used a specific computer at a library branch some distance away. Christian, who manages digital records for three dozen Connecticut libraries, said in an affidavit that he configures his system for privacy. But the vendors of the software he operates said their databases can reveal the Web sites that visitors browse, the e-mail accounts they open and the books they borrow. Christian refused to hand over those records, and his employer, Library Connection Inc., filed suit for the right to protest the FBI demand in public. The Washington Post established their identities -- still under seal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit -- by comparing unsealed portions of the file with public records and information gleaned from people who had no knowledge of the FBI demand. The Connecticut case affords a rare glimpse of an exponentially growing practice of domestic surveillance under the USA Patriot Act, which marked its fourth anniversary on Oct. 26. "National security letters," created in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations, originated as narrow exceptions in consumer privacy law, enabling the FBI to review in secret the customer records of suspected foreign agents. The Patriot Act, and Bush administration guidelines for its use, transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies. Read the entire article: tinyurl.com/7tgmv
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 12, 2005 17:26:51 GMT 4
I've said it before and will again; "Librarians Rock!" Notice in the statement below where an FBI agent called them radical militants. Give me a break!....MichelleAt F.B.I., Frustration Over Limits on an Antiterror Law By ERIC LICHTBLAU Published: December 11, 2005 New York Times WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 - Some agents at the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been frustrated by what they see as the Justice Department's reluctance to let them demand records and to use other far-ranging investigative measures in terrorism cases, newly disclosed e-mail messages and internal documents show. Publicly, the debate over the law known as the USA Patriot Act has focused on concerns from civil rights advocates that the F.B.I. has gained too much power to use expanded investigative tools to go on what could amount to fishing expeditions. But the newly disclosed e-mail messages offer a competing view, showing that, privately, some F.B.I. agents have felt hamstrung by their inability to get approval for using new powers under the Patriot Act, which was passed weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. One internal F.B.I. message, sent in October 2003, criticized the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review at the Justice Department, which reviews and approves terrorist warrants, as regularly blocking requests from the F.B.I. to use a section of the antiterrorism law that gave the bureau broader authority to demand records from institutions like banks, Internet providers and libraries. "While radical militant librarians kick us around, true terrorists benefit from OIPR's failure to let us use the tools given to us," read the e-mail message, which was sent by an unidentified F.B.I. official. "This should be an OIPR priority!!!"The bureau turned the e-mail messages over to the Electronic Privacy Information Center as part of a lawsuit brought by the group under the Freedom of Information Act, seeking material on the F.B.I.'s use of anti-terrorism powers. The group provided the material to The New York Times. Congress is expected to vote early next week on a final plan for reauthorizing virtually all main parts of the law, including the F.B.I.'s broader power to demand records. President Bush, who has made renewal of the measure one of his top priorities, pushed again Saturday for Congress to act quickly. "Since its passage after the attacks of September the 11, 2001, the Patriot Act has proved essential to fighting the war on terror and preventing our enemies from striking America again," Mr. Bush said in his radio address on Saturday. While some Republicans and Democrats have attacked a brokered agreement reached Thursday because they said it does not go far enough in protecting civil liberties, the president hailed the agreement. "Now Congress needs to finish the job," he said. "Both the Senate and the House need to hold a prompt vote, and send me a bill renewing the Patriot Act so I can sign it into law." As part of the lawsuit brought by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a federal court has ordered the F.B.I. to turn over 1,500 pages of material to the privacy information group every two weeks. An earlier collection of F.B.I. documents, released by the group in October, showed numerous violations of internal procedure and sometimes federal law by the bureau in its handling of surveillance and investigative matters. In some cases, for instance, agents had extended surveillance operations and investigations for months without getting required approval from supervisors. In the most recent batch of material, an F.B.I. memorandum sent in March 2004 said the process for getting the Justice Department to improve demands for business records would be "greatly improved" because of a change in procedure allowing the bureau to "bypass" the department's intelligence office, which normally reviews all such requests. But officials at the Justice Department and the F.B.I. said they were unaware of any such change in procedure and that all bureau requests for business record were still reviewed and approved by the Justice Department. A separate e-mail message, sent in May 2004 with the subject header "Miracles," mockingly celebrated the fact that the Justice Department had approved an F.B.I. request for records under the so-called library provision. "We got our first business record order signed today!" the message said. "It only took two and a half years." In its latest public accounting of its use of the library provision, which falls under Section 215 of the antiterrorism law, the Justice Department said in April that it had used the law 35 times since late 2003 to gain access to information on apartment leasing, driver's licenses, financial records and other data in intelligence investigations. But the department has said that it had never used the provision to demand records from libraries or bookstores or to get information related to medical or gun records, areas that have prompted privacy concerns and protests from civil rights advocates, conservative libertarians and other critics of the law. Michael Kortan, a spokesman for the F.B.I., said the frustrations expressed in the internal e-mail messages "are considered personal opinions in what employees believed to be private e-mails not intended for large, public dissemination." Mr. Kortan added that "the frustration evident in these messages demonstrates that no matter how difficult or time-consuming the process, F.B.I. special agents are held to a very high standard in complying with the necessary procedures currently in place to protect civil liberties and constitutional rights when using the legal tools appropriate for national security investigations." A senior official at the Justice Department, who was granted anonymity because many aspects of the antiterrorism law's use are classified, echoed that theme. "For all the hand-wringing over potential abuses of the Patriot Act, what these e-mails show is that it's still fairly difficult to use these tools." But Marcia Hofmann, who leads the electronic privacy center's government section, said the e-mail messages "raise a lot of unanswered questions" about the F.B.I.'s use of Patriot Act powers and its relations with the Justice Department. Without fuller answers, Ms. Hofmann said, a reauthorization of the law by Congress "would seem premature." tinyurl.com/bjkut
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Dec 22, 2005 21:20:09 GMT 4
Dec. 22, 2005 Volume 7, No. 14 ABFFE UPDATE Reader Privacy Advocates Block PATRIOT Re-authorization Booksellers, librarians and other defenders of reader privacy last night won the biggest battle yet in their four-year fight to restore the protections for the privacy of bookstore and library records that were eliminated by the USA PATRIOT Act. Despite repeated statements by President George Bush that he would not accept a short-term extension of the expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, Republican Congressional leaders endorsed a six-month extension that will allow negotiators to continue their efforts to find a compromise between the House and Senate versions of the re-authorization legislation. So far, the House has rejected the Senate's insistence that searches of bookstores and libraries be limited to the records of people who are suspected of terrorism. Last night's victory was made possible by four Republican Senators. On Friday, Larry Craig (Idaho), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), John Sununu (New Hampshire) and Chuck Hagel (Nebraska) joined 43 Democrats in defeating a motion that would have allowed Republican leaders to end a filibuster and bring the re-authorization legislation up for a vote. The critics of the re-authorization bill immediately offered to extend the expiring provisions for three months. But the White House attempted to force them to reconsider by suggesting that it was willing to see the provisions lapse. Bush blamed Democrats for "killing the PATRIOT Act" and denounced the filibuster as obstruction by a "minority." However, the White House's effort to isolate the Democrats received a severe blow during the day yesterday when four Republicans who had not supported the filibuster urged their leaders to accept a three-month extension. With the support of Lincoln D. Chafee (Rhode Island), Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), and Michael D. Crapo (Idaho), the minority suddenly became a majority, and it was the White House that was isolated. Bush has promised to sign the extension. Yesterday's victory was hailed by leaders of the Campaign for Reader Privacy, a joint initiative of the American Booksellers Association, the American Library Association, the Association of American Publishers and PEN American Center. "We owe a special debt of gratitude for the unwavering support of Senators Feingold, Sununu, Craig, Durbin, Murkowski, and Leahy, and, of course, to our stalwart supporter in the U.S. House of Representatives, Bernie Sanders," Oren Teicher, the ABA's chief operating officer, said. "Despite the difficult odds, these members of Congress never gave up and continued to insist that a reauthorized Patriot Act needed to include greater protections for America's readers." ____________ ABFFE Update is published by the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the bookseller's voice in the fight against censorship, www.abffe.com.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jan 11, 2006 2:14:56 GMT 4
This just came to my attention. Although it's from a couple of weeks ago, I thought it interesting enough to post. Anyone have an old copy of 1984 they'd like to donate?.........MichelleFrom: www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/oped/ci_3337465Big Brother is watching12/23/2005 IT took 21 years longer than expected, but the future has finally arrived. And we don't like it. Not one bit. We are fighting a war with no end to create a peace with no defined victory. We occupy a foreign land that doesn't want us, while at home our civil liberties are discounted. We are told that it's better not to know what our government is doing in our name, for security purposes. Meanwhile, our government is becoming omnipresent, spying on us whenever it deems it necessary. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. George Orwell was right after all. In 1949, Orwell penned "1984," a dark, futuristic satire in which the totalitarian government used indoctrination, propaganda and fear to enforce order and conformity. His "Big Brother" — the face of this all-knowing regime — was never wrong, and to make sure of it, history was constantly being rewritten. Orwell wrote his book as a cautionary tale to underscore the insidious danger of slowly eroded individual liberties. His Thought Police may not yet be on the march, but it's not hyperbole to point out the eerie parallels with today's America. In America today, Big Brother is watching. He's watching because President Bush told him to. Shortly after 9/11, Bush secretly authorized warrantless wiretaps on U.S. citizens making or receiving international calls and e-mails. When it comes to fighting terror, Bush is totalitarian — remember, you're either with us or against us. Trust me to get it right, he says. Debate on the law is not only not needed, it's evil. "An open debate about the law would say to the enemy, 'Here's what we're going to do.'" Bush said recently. "The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy." Then there's the Patriot Act, also created in the days immediately after Sept. 11, 2001. The Senate and House of Representatives voted Thursday to extend the law by a month. President Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales insist it's an indispensable tool in the war on terror and want it extended permanently. "I'm as concerned about the privacy of American citizens as anyone, but we cannot allow libraries and use of libraries to become safe havens for terrorists," Gonzales said in July, defending one of the act's most controversial provisions. Remember, too, that we invaded Iraq primarily because we were told Saddam Hussein was an immediate threat with his weapons of mass destruction. Now the Bush administration acknowledges that wasn't so, but insists there were (are?) other reasons to invade. History is malleable. Orwell wrote of war without end; we're told the war on terror will last decades at least. Orwell wrote of a dumbed-down "Newspeak," and who could argue that our national discourse hasn't slumped? Orwell's "Ministry of Love" tortured dissidents real or imagined; our government decries Iraq's secret torture prisons while arguing over whether to ban torture. Meanwhile, we maintain our own secret CIA prisons. Bush is unapologetic. The president believes he has the legal authority to spy on American citizens without a warrant, and he plans to continue to reauthorize the program "for so long as the nation faces the continuing threat of an enemy that wants to kill American citizens." But when the enemy is poorly defined, who determines when the threat is over? In this case, the same government that secretly taps our phones. Turns out the truth is no stranger than fiction. We think it's time for Congress to heed the warning of George Orwell. To that end, we're asking for your help: Mail us or drop off your tattered copies of "1984." When we get 537 of them, we'll send them to every member of the House of Representatives and Senate and to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Feel free to inscribe the book with a note, reminding these fine people that we Americans take the threat to our liberties seriously. Remind Congress that it makes no sense to fight a war for democracy in a foreign land while allowing our democratic principles to erode at home. Remind President Bush that ours is a country of checks and balances, not unbridled power. Perhaps our nation's leaders can find some truth in this fiction and more carefully ponder the road we're traveling. Bring or mail your books to the Oakland Tribune, 401 13th St., Oakland CA 94612. Doors are open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on May 3, 2006 22:09:33 GMT 4
IN THIS ISSUEBookstores Host Reporters' Talks on Confidential Sources ABFFE Urges Supreme Court to Quash Reporter Subpoenas Gag Order Lifted on Librarian Who Received National Security Letter California Supreme Court Rejects Harassment Claim in "Friends" CaseMay 2, 2006 Volume 8, No. 3 ABFFE UPDATE Bookstores Host Reporters' Talks on Confidential Sources Some of the nation’s leading investigative reporters have begun appearing at bookstores across the country to discuss the dangerous increase in efforts to force journalists to reveal their confidential sources. The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE), the bookseller’s voice in the fight against censorship, and the MLRC Institute, a not-for-profit educational organization focused on the media and the First Amendment, are co-sponsoring a series of talks by reporters and media lawyers to explain the importance of confidential sources in uncovering stories like the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison and the domestic spying by the National Security Agency. The McCormick Tribune Foundation is supporting the reporters’ programs through a grant to the MLRC Institute. On April 20, Linda Deutsch, the chief legal correspondent for the Associated Press, spoke at Skylight Books in Los Angeles. Two reporters participated in a program at Books & Book in Miami on April 4--Susan Candiotti, a CNN correspondent and Jim DeFede, a TV reporter and commentator for the local CBS affiliate. Both events were well attended. Reporters have also spoken at bookstores in Berkeley and Sonoma, California, Blytheville, Arkansas, and Portland, Oregon. ABFFE and the MLRC Institute are continuing to arrange bookstore events. Interested booksellers should contact ABFFE President Chris Finan, chris@abffe.com. ABFFE Urges Supreme Court to Quash Reporter Subpoenas ABFFE has joined many of the country's leading news gathering organizations in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to recognize the importance of protecting confidential sources. They filed a brief on April 5 asking the court to review a lower court ruling that requires six reporters to reveal the confidential sources that provided them with information about Wen Ho Lee, a scientist at the Los Alamos nuclear research laboratory who was falsely accused of leaking secrets to the Chinese government. Lee has subpoenaed the reporters in connection with the lawsuit that he had filed against the government. If the Supreme Court does not agree to hear the case, the reporters could be sentenced to jail for contempt of court for refusing to turn over the information. Although many states have passed "shield" laws to protect reporters from subpoenas, the Supreme Court has never clearly recognized a "reporter's privilege." The brief argues that the right to use confidential sources is essential to all news gathering, particularly in the area of national security where almost all sources of information are classified and potential sources refuse to talk to reporters without a guarantee that they will be protected from reprisals. "A press without access to confidential sources could do little more than feed the public the official press releases that the government saw fit to issue--hardly the vigorous role that the Framers expected or that an informed public requires," the brief argues. Gag Order Lifted on Librarian Who Received National Security Letter ABFFE and other reader privacy supporters are celebrating the federal government's decision to lift a gag order that had prevented a Connecticut librarian from talking about the chilling effect of receiving a National Security Letter (NSL). The NSL sought information about the Web use of a library patron. The ACLU sued the government on behalf of the librarian and persuaded a judge to eliminate the gag and allow the librarian to participate in the debate over the re-authorization of the USA PATRIOT Act. ABFFE joined the American Library Association and the Freedom to Read Foundation in filing an amicus brief in the case. However, the gag remained in place while the government appealed, and the government's decision to lift the gag comes only after the re-authorization has already occurred. The librarian, who works for Library Connection, a consortium of libraries based in Bridgeport, Connecticut, has not been publicly identified yet. In explaining the decision to lift the gag, the U.S. Attorney in the case cited a provision of the PATRIOT re-authorization legislation that permits the government to lift gag orders that have been imposed in connection with the issuance of NSLs and Section 215 orders. He also said that the Justice Department is reviewing other gag orders to determine whether they should continue to be enforced. California Supreme Court Rejects Harassment Claim in "Friends" Case The California Supreme Court has thrown out a claim of sexual harassment filed by a woman who was hired to take notes during meetings of the writers of the TV show "Friends." Amaani Lyle said that the harassment consisted of crude jokes that were tossed around as the writers prepared scripts. While Lyle acknowledged that none of the jokes or other sexual remarks had been directed at her, she claimed that they created a hostile enviroment for female employees. An appeals court had ordered a jury to determine whether the sexual talk was a creative necessity, raising concern among media companies that the creative process could be subjected to the second guessing of juries, a prospect that would chill free discussion. The unanimous decision by the California Supreme Court did not reach the free speech issues raised by the case, although one judge said the suit violated the First Amendment and cited an amicus brief filed by ABFFE and other members of the Media Coalition. ____________ ABFFE Update is published by the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, the bookseller's voice in the fight against censorship, www.abffe.com. CELEBRATE BANNED BOOKS WEEK--September 23-30, 2006. SUPPORT ABFFE! Call(212)587-4025 or donate online at secure.groundspring.org/dn/index.php?aid=2055.
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 13, 2006 15:16:50 GMT 4
Librarians Who Challenged Patriot Act (Audio) Win Right To Speak Out Interview with George Christian, Executive Director of the Library ConnectionConducted by Scott Harris www.btlonline.org/christian061706.ram
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 22, 2006 9:07:44 GMT 4
Four Librarians from ConnecticutJune 21, 2006 Snip: Barbara Bailey, Peter Chase, George Christian, and Janet Nocek -- These are the four Connecticut librarians who bravely challenged the "National Security Letters" issued under the authority of the USA Patriot Act, which required the librarians to turn over patron records and prohibited them from even revealing that they had received the letters.Librarians rock! Read the rest:www.wingsofjustice.com/06/06/woj06025.html
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Jun 23, 2006 8:02:42 GMT 4
Criminally Subversive Terrorist Document #666/%%%From: Citizen NWO-778-49-2994 To: George Orwell September 22, 2084 Dear Mr. Orwell, On the 100 year anniversary of your novel called “1984,” I am writing to inform you that your literary efforts were completely in vain. I have been told that your book “1984” represented a nearly perfect model of our society as it exists today with the exception that it expressed a negative view of our very peaceful world order. Due to the passage of the “Subversive Materials Act” in 2023 I am unable to read any portion of the book but I understand that its predictions of how our society would change and improve over time were extremely accurate. Over the last 80 years as our leaders put the laws in place that have given us the peace and stability we now have, people who read your book would comment about how accurately you predicted these changes. It is unfortunate that your views were so negative. If you had written your book differently you might today be considered a hero of the state. At one point a large group of agitators even attempted to use your book to convince others that the revolutionary changes we were going through would perhaps lead to a loss of personal privacy and freedom of expression. This is what led to the Subversive Materials Act as well as our vast and unrivaled Re-educational System to save those who confuse the privileges reserved only for our leaders with their own responsibilities. Had you been alive today I’m sure the state would have allowed you to spend several years as a guest at one of the many collectives belonging to the Re-Ed System until you were able to appreciate living within your level of responsibility and evince pride of performing your duty to the state. Thank you, Citizen NWO-778-49-2994 Citizen NWO-778-49-2994 finished and saved this document at 6:20 p.m. 09/22/2048. The document was then automatically downloaded during the normal wide scan process by the Department of Personal Computer Protection at 6:30 p.m. on 09/22/2048. After a key word examination determined the presence of specified markers the document was transferred to and examined by the State Agency for the Development of Personal Thought and _Expression. It has been given a grade of 81-C and is deemed acceptable for sharing with 100% of population. The above document was criminally approved by agent Winston Smith, masquerading as Citizen NWO-778-49-2994Under direct orders from Lippmann Jones, Supreme Oveeseer of Citizen Right-Think, the document was re-scanned and found to have these criminally subversive terrorist elements: Satire (Menippean) Irony InnuendoSatire, irony, and innuendo are listed as criminally subversive terrorist elements by Protection of the Fatherland Edict #777/zzz*** All persons who inadvertently read the above criminally subversive terrorist document must undergo the counter-conditioning of studying this document for a minimum of two hours. www.hermes-press.com/2084a.htm
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 22, 2006 8:49:09 GMT 4
[glow=red,2,300] Banned Books Week Celebrates It's 25th Anniversary[/glow] This year, I plan to do something different. Rather than center on the United States only, I will be posting info from various countries concering banned books and censorship. Today's post is on Azad Kashmir. But first, some background info:
Banned Books Week - USA 2006 The American Libraries Association website has posted lots of interesting material in anticipation of the upcoming Banned Books Week in the United States.
It will be held September 23–30, 2006 and is intended to support the values of intellectual freedom.
It "celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them".
Read Banned Books They're Your Ticket to Freedom!..........Michelle"With Friends Like These...": Human Rights Violations in Azad KashmirIV. Restrictions on Freedom of Expression Tight controls on freedom of expression have been a hallmark of the Pakistani government’s policy in Azad Kashmir. This control is highly selective. Militant organizations have had free rein—particularly between 1991 and 2001—to propagate their views and disseminate literature. However, those supportive of independence for a united Kashmir, or otherwise critical of the Pakistani government, have faced continual repression. Loyalty oathNo person in Azad Kashmir can be appointed to any government job, including the judiciary, unless he or she expresses loyalty to the concept of Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan. The oath of office for the president, prime minister, speaker, member of the legislative assembly or the Azad Kashmir Council also incorporates the following statement: “I will remain loyal to the country and the cause of accession of the state of Jammu & Kashmir to Pakistan.”49 (The consequences of not taking the oath for persons seeking political office are discussed below, in Chapter V.) Print media and publishingThe Pakistani government has long limited dissemination of news in Azad Kashmir. There is no locally-based news agency. Azad Kashmir only has one daily newspaper and so people largely rely on local editions of Pakistani newspapers for news and information. The laws governing publications provide a partial explanation for this barren information landscape: in order to publish within the territory, newspapers and periodicals need to be granted permission by the Kashmir Council and the Ministry of Kashmir Affairs in Islamabad. These bodies are unlikely to grant permission to any proposed publication likely to be sympathetic to any discourse on Kashmir and its affairs other than that sanctioned by the Pakistani government. In any case, the publisher would have to sign the declaration of support to accession to Pakistan mentioned above. Technically, the same rules apply to the publication of books. Human Rights Watch spoke extensively to working journalists and writers in the major towns of Azad Kashmir. Members of the press complained of the intrusive and coercive policies of the Azad Kashmir government but particularly of the ISI and the Pakistani military. Almost every journalist interviewed described incidents of coercion, intimidation, threats and occasional violence against the media by the military, its intelligence agencies, and militant groups. Consequently, self-censorship has been as endemic as coercion. It is indicative of the climate of fear that pervades Azad Kashmir that while journalists were forthcoming in describing incidents off-the-record, virtually all interviewed by Human Rights Watch requested not to be quoted, even anonymously. Their rationale was that Azad Kashmir was a relatively small territory and they would be easily identifiable through the specifics of the incident described. One journalist explained his reasons to Human Rights Watch in these words: You will go away. We have to live and work here. Our families live here. The ISI is very powerful. It is also very unforgiving. The officer who presided over my beating is still serving. Even if he was not, he would inform his successor of the “disciplinary action” taken against me and to keep an eye on me. If they don’t want to be blamed themselves, they will instruct one of the jihadi groups to teach me a lesson. I know freedom of expression is important but not important enough to die for. At least not to me. Sometimes they just summon you for no reason at all. On some flimsy excuse. Someone with a similar name writes something unrelated to Kashmir in some part of Pakistan but the army or the jihadis decide it is you. They also force you to create and kill news according to what suits them. Things are bad. You have heard how bad from many of us. Just don’t mention my name, that’s all.50 Waheed Kiyani, a local journalist working for the Reuters news agency, was arbitrarily arrested by the ISI on July 10, 2003, as he was returning from the city of Rawalakot after covering a political meeting. For security reasons, Kiyani was unwilling to talk to Human Rights Watch. However, Human Rights Watch interviewed others including the organizers of the meeting who described what happened. Arif Shahid, chairman of the All Parties Nationalist Alliance (APNA, a conglomerate of nationalist Kashmiri parties) and JKLF secretary general, told us: On July 10, 2003, we held a conference titled ‘Kashmir Unity Conference’ at Khaigala where AJK and Gilgit Baltistan leadership was present. About three hundred delegates attended. We offered a form to all delegates. The form gave the options of independence, joining Pakistan or joining India. The answer was two for India, two for Pakistan and the rest for independence. Only one international journalist was present—the Reuters correspondent Waheed Kiyani. As soon as he stepped out [of the meeting], he was followed by the ISI and he was arrested at Rawalakot. He told me that they kept him blindfolded and his camera/photos were confiscated and he was taken to the ISI headquarters and torture cell near Rawalakot. We went to Rawalpindi in Pakistan and informed Reuters. Kiyani was released two days later, on July 12. On the same day we attended a seminar in Muzaffarabad. Kiyani covered the event. He was called on stage by General Anwar, the AJK President who told him in full public view to ‘forget it and be grateful you are alive,’ and ‘offer thanksgiving prayers.’ In this atmosphere of shameless open coercion, it is no surprise that Kiyani wants to put the incident behind him and is hesitant to talk about it now. This is the reality of press freedoms in AJK. And of course, the rest house where the delegates of the conference were staying was also raided on the same day, July 10. The owner ran away from the scene. The rest house was empty as we had finished and left according to schedule. 51 The Azad Kashmir government regularly bans books that it considers to be prejudicial to the “ideology of the state’s accession to Pakistan.”52 This includes all books that propagate or discuss the Kashmiri nationalist discourse with its emphasis on independence for a united Kashmir. Arif Shahid, quoted above, is himself the author of four books banned by the authorities. Muhammad Saeed Asad, a self-described Kashmiri nationalist, is the author of numerous books on Kashmiri affairs, and is employed as a social welfare officer in the Azad Kashmir Ministry of Social Welfare and Women’s Development when he is not under suspension for writing books to which the government objects. In 2002, he was suspended for writing a book on the Mangla Dam (see above) that questioned Pakistan’s right to water sources originating in Kashmir. Pakistan has banned three books written by Saeed Asad for being “anti-state and an attempt to promote nationalist feelings amongst Kashmiris.”53 These include Shaur-e-Farda, banned in 1996, which comprises letters written by Maqbool Butt to his friends and relatives over a span of two decades (Maqbool Butt, founder of the JKLF, is a central figure in the Kashmiri nationalist movement.)54 Saeed Asad’s book on the Mangla Dam controversy was banned on November 21, 2002, and a book on the Northern Areas (in the grip of unrest due to lack of rights and, as noted above, claimed by Kashmiri nationalists and India as part of Kashmir),55 was banned in June 2004. He told Human Rights Watch: Please use my name. We are ready to struggle, I am a man of words and so I will remain in the public domain. My books have been banned because they talk of Kashmiri rights and Kashmiri nationalism. I am a Kashmiri nationalist and why should I not be allowed to call myself such? I was suspended from my government job for writing on the Mangla Dam issue. The ISI called me upon publication of the book. It was a major in the ISI. He verified that I had compiled the book and had not been forced into writing it. The book represented the views of Kashmiris on Mangla and indicates that Pakistan was exploiting Kashmir for its own gains. Two weeks after publication, I had a three-hour-long meeting with Pakistan’s Military Intelligence. They told me that this was a sensitive matter and I should not have written about it. ‘The public does not know why you have brought this into the public domain,’ the officer said. I replied that people had a right to know what Mangla Dam was and who derived advantages from it. It was my national duty, as a Kashmiri, to bring this out. ‘This is precisely your crime,’ the officer said. The meeting had majors from GHQ Rawalpindi and officers from Military Intelligence. ‘You should avoid writing such books. We are placing you under surveillance’ one said. But, I made it clear to them that I would keep on writing and they could keep on banning my work. They keep giving me trouble by stopping pay raises, suspending me from the job periodically and posting me from district to district in order to make life difficult. But, I am determined to keep on writing and to keep on working. The government of Pakistan is willing to fund books and propaganda to the tune of millions of dollars to propagate its own views and stance. Why can’t we exert our individual efforts to disagree? They brook no dissent and want total and complete control. The Pakistan government just wants to suppress the Kashmiris. I have been repeatedly offered advancement if I support Pakistan. Endless youth in Kashmir who have masters and professional degrees are unemployed because the government knows they are pro-independence. This is how the Pakistanis, our so-called friends, treat us. We are at war with India so they persecute us. We are not at war here but they persecute us anyway. Would you like to have such friends? Would you want to live under such rule? No you would not. So why should we?56 The October 8, 2005 earthquake resulted in a considerable weakening of the Pakistani government’s ability to curb freedom of expression and information in the territory. The influx of international and Pakistani media into the territory in the aftermath of the earthquake was unprecedented. However, for freedom of expression to take root in Azad Kashmir, the external media presence must be systematized into permanent structures such as news bureaus and regional offices. Electronic media and telecommunicationsAs with the print media, prior to the earthquake the only radio station allowed to operate in the territory was the Azad Kashmir Radio, a subsidiary of the state-controlled Radio Pakistan. Typically, state-run radio and television news programs present news according to priorities of state protocol rather than newsworthiness—that is, a news bulletin will begin with the engagements and observations of the president of Pakistan and make its way down the official pecking order to the local level. The influx of and consequent competition from satellite channels has, as yet, not resulted in a change in the news culture of state-controlled media. Subsequent to the earthquake, the government allowed a private FM radio station to broadcast in the territory as long as the broadcast is limited to entertainment. (In November 2005, Pakistan’s government-run electronic media regulatory authority, PEMRA, stopped three local (Pakistani) partners of the BBC from broadcasting two daily thirty-minute “earthquake specials” produced by the BBC’s Urdu service. PEMRA officials, accompanied by dozens of armed policemen, seized equipment from one of the local partners’ Karachi offices and ordered two satellite television partners to stop running news content from the BBC. Pakistan’s information minister declined to comment on the incident when approached by the BBC. Though the “earthquake specials” resumed after an outcry by international organizations, including Human Rights Watch, the government of Pakistan appears unwilling to tolerate critical reporting of events in Azad Kashmir not just in the territory, but across Pakistan.57) Before the earthquake, telephone landlines were limited and strictly monitored in Azad Kashmir and only a limited mobile telephone service was operational. All telecommunications stations were controlled by the Special Communications Organization (SCO), which is a functional unit of the Pakistani army. Subsequent to the earthquake, the Pakistani government allowed private Pakistani mobile phone companies to operate in Azad Kashmir—but only after it was pointed out that the loss of life could have been lessened and the rescue effort made easier, particularly in the major cities, had victims buried under rubble been able to use mobile phones as they did in Islamabad and quake-affected areas in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province.58 Public protest Official repression of freedom of expression is not limited to controls and censorship specific to Kashmiri nationalists and journalists. Pakistani police used lahtis (canes) and rifle butts to break up a peaceful demonstration in Muzaffarabad on November 11, 2005, by approximately two hundred earthquake survivors protesting eviction from their makeshift camp. Witnesses told Human Rights Watch that police arrived early at the Jalalabad Garden camp that day and told the quake victims that they had to leave by sunset. Several protestors, including children, were injured as a result of police efforts to break up the demonstration. A Muzaffarabad journalist told Human Rights Watch that when he asked a senior administration official to order the police to stop the violence, the official responded, “What else do you expect the police to do? We can hardly tolerate this sort of behavior from these people. If they don’t behave they will get beaten of course.” Source: Human Rights Watchhrw.org/reports/2006/pakistan0906/5.htm#_Toc145923752Lest we forget the other side of the story, please refer to:Brad Adams, Executive Director of the Asia Division Meeting with Indian Security Forces: an acknowledgement of human rights abuses. Human Rights Watch’s press conference in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir, helped shed light on the recent abuses by the Indian army and paramilitaries, as well as by militants, many of whom are backed by Pakistan. Brad Adams, Executive Director of the Asia Division Adams discusses the new report, 'Everyone Lives in Fear': Patterns of Impunity in Jammu and Kashmir. Listen (5:22) hrw.org/audio/2006/english/kashmir/india14159.htm
|
|
michelle
Administrator
I have broken any attachments I had to the Ascended Masters and their teachings; drains your chi!
Posts: 2,100
|
Post by michelle on Sept 26, 2006 17:49:40 GMT 4
Banned/Challenged Books of 2005-2006 - Title List: United StatesBelow is the US 2005 - 2006 Banned/Challenged Books. You can go to the site and read why the books have been banned or challenged; just click on the title.A BANNED book has been removed from a library, classroom, etc. A CHALLENGED book has been requested to be removed from a library, classroom, etc. For this post, I wish to speak of Mark Twain's, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Has there ever been a time when it was not banned/challenged? Here is an example of a recent action:2005 Challenged in the Normal (IL) Community High School sophomore literature class as being degrading to African Americans. Pulled from the reading lists of the three Renton (WA) high schools after an African American student said the book degraded her and her culture. The Novel was eventually retained for classroom usage. This thinking, if you want to call it that, highlights the pinnacle of our society's cultural illiteracy. I have met a multitude of ill informed over zealous parents who make a statement about Twain's work. They say something similar to this, "You know, that Huckleberry Finn book; it's just awful." When I ask them how, they are unable to tell me or they mention racism. As I press further, most have not read the book, nor do they know a smidgen of what Twain was all about; how he was uncompromising in his stands against injustice and imperialism.
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a story of a battered but morally sound boy on the verge of manhood, an underdog, who in a setting of natural power and beauty, confronts human folly and violence, while he battles his own deformed conscience and the slaveholding society that deformed it, and wins.
The fixed morality of man is balanced against the fluent morality of nature in Huck's ponderings on the justice of a law that demands the return of Jim to his owner. It does not matter that the escaping slave had only to cross to the Illinois side of the river to gain his freedom, or that Miss Watson had died and set him free in her will; ignorance and error are more real than truth because they are shared by Huck and Jim. Huck finally wins for himself by rescuing his personal conscience, he wins for the black slave Jim, who has become his friend, and he wins for us all.
The complaints above from the African American student show us that our children are not being guided and engaged in their thinking towards great literature. Rousseau pointed out the facility with which children lend themselves to our false methods: "The apparent ease with which children learn is their ruin." Perhaps the true underlying reason for censorship of this great work lies not in complaints of racism, but in Huck's meditations during fogbound Mississippi nights and his ultimate deep revolt against being "sivilized"........Michelle[/b][/color] Banned/Challenged Books of 2005-2006 - Title List: United StatesThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain Alice on the Outside by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor Alice the Brave by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor Always Running by Luis J. Rodriguez America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction by Jon Stewart, Ben Karlin and David Javerbaum Am I Blue? by Bruce Coville Anastasia Again! by Lois Lowry Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress by Dai Sijie Bless Me, Ultima by Rudolfo Anya The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison Brideshead Revisited by Evelyn Waugh Bringing Down the House: The Inside Story of Six M.I.T. Students Who Took Vegas for Millions by Ben Mezrich Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger Dance on My Grave: A Life and Death in Four Parts by Adian Chambers Daughters of Eve by Lois Duncan Deal With It!: A Whole New Approach to Your Body, Brain, and Life as a Gurl by Esther Drill Deenie by Judy Blume The Devil's Storybook by Natalie Babbitt Don't You Dare Read This, Mrs. Dunphrey by Margaret Peterson Haddix The Drowning of Stephan Jones by Bette Greene Eat Me by Linda Jaivin Eight Seconds by Jean Ferris The Giver by Lois Lowry Good Moon Rising by Nancy Garden Hey Dollface by Deborah Hautzig Holly's Secret by Nancy Garden Horse by Juliet Clutton-Brock How to Make Love Like a Porn Star: A Cautionary Tale by Jenna Jameson and Neil Strauss I am the Cheese by Robert Cormier In the Time I Get by Chris Crutcher It's Perfectly Normal: A Book About Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex, and Sexual Health by Robie H. Harris The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan The Joy of Gay Sex by Charles Silverstein and Edmund White King and King by Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland Krik! Krak! by Edwidge Dandicat Life is Funny by E. R. Frank Like Water for Chocolate: A Novel in Monthly Installments, With Recipies, Romances, and Home Remedies by Laura Esquivel Marijuana Grower's Guide by Mel Frank and Ed Rosenthal Mick Harte Was Here by Barbara Park My Brother Has AIDS by Deborah Davis My Father's Scar by Michael Cart My Heartbeat by Garret Freymann-Weyr Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck On the Bright Side, I'm Now the Girlfriend of a Sex God: Further Confessions of Georgia Nicolson by Louise Rennison One Fat Summer by Robert Lipsyte The Perks of Being a Wallflower by Stephen Chbosky Peter by Kate Walker Pinkerton, Behave! by Steven Kellogg Rainbow Boys by Alex Sanchez A Raisin in the Sun by Lorraine Hansberry The Sissy Duckling by Harvey Fierstein The Slave Dancer by Paula Fox Stuck Rubber Baby by Howard Cruse To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee Walter the Farting Dog by William Kotzwinkle and Glenn Murray Whale Talk by Chris Crutcher What I Know Now by Rodger Larson What My Mother Doesn't Know by Sonya Sones Author List of Banned/Challenged Books Material for this page was obtained from the American Library Association's Office of Intellectual Freedom and 2005 Banned Books Resource Guide by Robert P. Doyle. On these pages, a BANNED book has been removed from a library, classroom, etc. A CHALLENGED book has been requested to be removed from a library, classroom, etc. Go to 2001 Banned Book List or 2002 Banned Book List or 2003 Banned Book List or 2004 Banned Book List or 2005 Banned Book List For more information contact Ron Titus Site last modified Auguast 8, 2006 Source: www.marshall.edu/library/bannedbooks/Index/titleindex2005.asp
|
|