Year / 2005

by DrMabuse

San Francisco’s Supervisors Declare War Against Bloggers, Free Expression & Right to Privacy

It appears that a proposed San Francisco ordinance discovered by Michael Bassik hopes to crack down on free speech. It seems that here in my hometown, Supervisor Sophie Maxwell wants to issue an ordinance that, in Bassik’s words, requires any blog (under the title of “electioneering communication”) receiving more than 500 “local” hits a day (which would include this site) mentioning local candidates for office to register their sites with the San Francisco Ethics Commission and remain subject to “website traffic audits.”

The ordinance specifically goes after “electioneering communications,” which refers to “any communication, including but not limited to any broadcast, cable, satellite, radio, internet, or telephone communication, and any mailing, flyer, doorhanger, pamphlet, brochure, card, sign, billboard, facsimile, or printed advertisement that (A) refers to a clearly identified candidate for City elective office or a City elective officer who is the subject of a recall election; and (B) is distributed within 90 days prior to an election for the City elective officer to 500 or more individuals who are registered to vote or eligible to register to vote in the election or recall election. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that any broadcast, cable, satellite, or radio communication and any sign, billboard or printed advertisement is distributed to 500 or more individuals who are eligible to vote in or eligible to register to vote in an election for the City elective office soght by the candidate or a recall election regarding the City elective officer.”

This ordinance was drafted with the idea of holding pamphleteers accountable for their actions. Meaning that those highly annoying flyers that jam up your mailbox during election time would have a specific “Paid for by _________” so you can find out who originated these suckers and kvetch through the appropriate channels, if necessary.

This all sounds very noble and well-meaning. But there’s a problem with this, as the exclusionary provision for this term includes “news stories, commentaries, or editorials distributed through any newspaper, radio station, television station or other recognized news medium unless such news medium is owned or controlled by any political party, political committee or candidate.” (Emphasis added.)

So if an unrecognized “electioneering communication” spends more than $1,000 in a given year (or roughly around $83 a month, which would probably include most people’s web hosting and DSL bills), then they would need to file Kafkaesque paperwork and submit to the San Francisco Ethics Commission’s draconian policies. And if I am interpreting this correctly, this would apply to “unrecognized” weblogs, even if the weblog owner and operator never received a single cash payment from a candidate.

An unrecognized weblogger would have to prepare an itemized statement for how much they spend on their blogs, the full name, street address, city and zip code of who paid for it, a legible copy and/or transcript of all “electioneering communication” (a printout of the weblog in full?), and “any other information required by the Ethics Commission,” which essentially means everything.

So if the San Francisco Ethics Commission decides that edrants.com (or another San Francisco-based site) is “unrecognized” and I happen to take the piss out of Bevan Duffy or Tom Ammiano one day, then I will now have to provide my personal information to the San Francisco Ethics Commission. Further, I will now have to track all web traffic by location, singling out the potential 500 San Francisco-based readers who read this site.

The expected fees and crackdown make this proposal a fundamentally undemocratic approach to local free speech. It is contrary to the variegated opinions that have long subsisted within this City. Further, it sets a bad precedent, something that might be adopted in other cities. And if this isn’t in direct violation of Article I of the California Constitution (“the right to privacy”) and the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, it certainly skirts around it.

The Board of Supervisors is set to vote on this ordinance (what’s known as a “first passing”) on April 5, 2005 (Tuesday) at 10:00 AM. Beyond sending letters and emails to all of the Supervisors, I would also advise anyone who cares (and can make it) to attend this meeting at City Hall (the Legislative Chamber, Second Floor, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place). (Mapquest link) Under the agenda, there will be an opportuntiy for public comment, up to three minutes per person. So if Ordinance 041489 pisses you off, this is the time to voice your dissent. I should point out that even if the Ordinance is passed on first reading, the Ordinance can be amended to recognize weblogs and other online political sites to be excluded as an “electioneering communication.”

I plan to be there myself.

In the meantime, letters, phone calls and emails to all of the Supervisors are encouraged — preferably today, so that the Supervisors will get this input before their Tuesday meeting. Here is a complete list of San Francisco supervisors:

Jake McGoldrick
District 1
Phone: (415) 554-7410
Fax: (415) 554-7415
Email

Michela Alioto-Pier
District 2
(Note: Supervisor Alioto-Pier dissented when this Ordinance was drafted in committee. She might be our most vocal supporter against the Ordinance on Tuesday’s meeting, if we remind her of the overbroad definition of “electioneering communication.”)
Phone: (415) 554-7752
Fax: (415) 554-7843
Email

Aaron Peskin (Board President)
District 3
Phone: (415) 554-7450
Fax: (415) 554-7454
Email

Fiona Ma
District 4
Phone: (415) 554-7460
Fax: (415) 554-7432
Email

Ross Mirkarimi
District 5
Phone: (415) 554-7630
Fax: (415) 554-7634
Email

Chris Daly
District 6
Phone: (415) 554-7970
Email

Sean Elsbernd
District 7
Phone: (415) 554-6516
Fax: (415) 554-6546
Email

Bevan Duffy
District 8
Phone: (415) 554-6968
Fax: (415) 554-6909
Email

Tom Ammiano
District 9
Phone: (415) 554-5144
Fax: (415) 554-6255
Email

Sophie Maxwell
District 10
Phone: (415) 554-7670
Fax: (415) 554-7674
Email

Gerardo Sandoval
District 11
Phone: (415) 554-6975
Fax: (415) 554-6979
Email

[UPDATE: Chris Nolan has the backstory on this.]

by DrMabuse

Tanenhaus Watch: April 3, 2005

browniewatch5.gif

WEEKLY QUESTION: Will this week’s NYTBR reflect today’s literary and publishing climate? Or will editor Sam Tanenhaus demonstrate yet again that the NYTBR is irrelevant to today’s needs? If the former, a tasty brownie will be sent to Mr. Tanenhaus’ office. If the latter, the brownie will be denied.

Before we begin the tests, we should point to Lawrene V. Povirk’s letter. Povirk has canceled his subscription after twenty years, switching over to the Times Literary Supplement at twice the price. He says that the NYTBR has become “more like People Magazine, attempting at every turn to leverage itself on the celebrity of those it covers.”

Editor Sam Tanenhaus has no published response to give to poor Povirk. Like many of us out here, Povrik is saddened by what the NYTBR has become, hoping one day that the once mighty book review section will spawn a few brain lobes again. I should also note that Tanenhaus has failed to respond to any of the Tanenhaus Brownie Watches. Perhaps he will one day, should he ever win a brownie. Perhaps he’s being patted on the back for another disgraceful evisceration or he’s just simply a busy man. Who knows?

But I wish to point out that the fundamental difference between print media and the blogosphere is not, as the Times suggested last week, lists of lists or acts of counting versus responsible coverage. (Poor Golden Rule Jones was taken completely out of context in that regard.) If anything, the litblogs are longer, more passionate, more comprehensive, and more conversational.

With this in mind, I invite Tanenhaus or anyone writing for the NYTBR to offer their ripostes and responses on these pages. To use Povirk’s words, many of us out here are curious about why Tanenhaus & Co. are so content to make the NYTBR “flashier, more superficial and less respectful of its audience.”

And with that sentiment, we move forward to this week’s issue.

THE COLUMN-INCH TEST:

Fiction Reviews: 1 two-page review, 3 one-page reviews, 1 half-page review. (Total books: 5. Total space: 5.5 pages.)

Non-Fiction Reviews: 1 two-page review, 7 one-page reviews, 3 half-page reviews, 1 back-page roundup. (Total books: 19. Total space: 11.5 paes.)

Folks, this is about as pathetic as it gets. Although W.G. Sebald gets a nonfictional nod, not even in my kindest hour could Tanenhaus be granted so much as a crumb for such weak-kneed coverage of today’s fiction. Looking at the hideous ratios (a mere 32% of this week’s column inches is devoted to fiction, most of it comprising Walter Kirn’s Extremely Loud review, with only 5 out of 26 books that are actual fiction titles), one gets the sense that Tanenhaus has not opened a book of poetry, let alone an experimentalist along the lines of David Markson, for many years.

It’s bad enough that this week’s fiction is devoted to such obvious titles as Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, A.L. Kennedy’s Paradise and Andrea Levy’s Small Island — titles familiar to just about anyone keeping tabs on current literature. But even if it is the sublime Cynthia Ozick writing the review, was the two-page spread of Joseph Lelyveld’s Omaha Blues really necessary?

We all know that Gray Lady’s incestuous pats on the back rival the preternatural policeman-to-donut-shop ratio in any metropolitan area. But if this is Tanenhaus’ answer to the customary gold watch given at retirement, this masturbatory coverage, which curiously resembles a centerfold in both its scope and placement, of a memoir written by one of the Times’ own reporters feels as if it’s been placed to take the smoke off of Laurel Leff’s recently published Buried by the Times: The Holocaust and America’s Most Important Newspaper. The Times has yet to respond to the book’s claims (which involves how the Times undercounted and downplayed the Holocaust tolls). And Ozick both absolves herself while simultaneously maintaining the Times‘ hard line when she notes that Lelyveld (not Ozick) dismisses any efforts to undermine Zionism as “Jewish folk belief.”

Of course, I’m delighted to see Cynthia Ozick cover any book. But if the Lelyveld review is intended to evade the issue rather than respond to a very important question, one is surprised why Tanenhaus, who has repeatedly expressed a longing to stir shit up, would deliberately miss an opportunity for a a mature and responsible (even a thoughtful) response.

As to Walter Kirn’s cover review, I liked where he was going, but unlike my colleague, I think Kirn cuts too wide a swath to convince me. Certainly the postmodernism gimmick has become a certain crutch in today’s literature. But we’re supposed to assume that Jonathan Safran Foer isn’t aware that pomo’s old hat. It never ocurs to Kirn that this sophomore slump (if it is a failed experiment) might be a bridge between Everything is Illuminated and whatever JSF writes in the future. Kirn could have made his case had he shown that the Ukranian guy badgering JSF the character throughout Everything Is Illuminated might bear a remarkable resemblence to wisecracking Oskar (instead of just “a cunning combination of other narrators from the kind of books that his author wants to conjure with”).

The assumption here that “attention-grabbing graphic elements” are no longer capable of generating an emotional response because, to Kirn’s mind, one book fails to do so, is a sort of anticipatory post hoc ergo propter hoc of forthcoming pomo titles. While it’s good to see the NYTBR coming close to discussing this very seminal question, we still wish Tanenhaus had busted Kirn’s chops a bit more to get a more nuanced take.

Nevertheless, this modest plaudit (more of a “good job, but could use improvement” on Tanenhaus’ report card) can’t compensate for this week’s overwhelming disparity between fiction and nonfiction.

Brownie Point: DENIED!

THE HARD-ON TEST:

This test concerns the ratio of male to female writers writing for the NYTBR.

A total of six women have contributed to seventeen reviews. This seems a bit better than last week’s four to eleven, particularly when you factor in Ozick and Wonkette. But this is actually half a percentage point worse than last week. However, we do commend Tanenhaus on getting Diane McWhorter to write about The Confederate Battle Flag.

Even so, we’re still disappointed. Get someone like Maccers to write about dating. Not some turgid, well-groomed doctorate like Daniel Swift (who might want to bone up on Jonathan). “The great fear that dating and relationship manuals seek to soothe with their reassuring strategies is the fear of abandonment and humiliation: of being stood up at a bar or at the altar. This is a fear it is wrongheaded to assuage.” Indeed. The great fear I’m having right now is that Tanenhaus thinks these lifeless sentences actually pass for witty banter.

Brownie Point: DENIED!

THE QUIRKY PAIR-UP TEST:

We’re pleased to report that after striking 0-3 two straight weeks in a row, we’re delighted to give Tanenhaus a brownie point here. However, this is only because Tanenhaus has somehow managed to get Cynthia Ozick and Ana Marie Cox in the same issue. Cox’s examination of Ari Fleischer offers a breath of fresh air. I feel sorry for poor Daniel Swift, who clearly didn’t know any better and who is placed mercilessly across from Cox.

Brownie Point: EARNED!

CONTENT CONCERNS:

Neil Gordon promises an A.L. Kennedy takedown and claims that Kennedy’s novels are “unnecessary” and “collections of novelistic devices.” And that’s all you need to know, kids. Not a single example or a clarification of what he might mean. Metaphors? Similes? Irony? Allusions? Omniscient narration? Nope. Oh dear. Those are “novelistic devices” too. In fact, you can find these things in many novels. Could it be that Gordon is hoping to blow two paragraphs of contrarian wind because he can’t handle a novelist who demands that you read her again? The Magic 8-Ball says MOST CERTAINLY.

James McManus writing about poker books is an interesting idea. But I never thought I’d see the day when Doyle Brunson’s Super System 2 was reviewed in a major newspaper. What next, Sam? I’m OK, You’re OK? Suze Orman’s latest? I have to ask if there are truly any great contibutions to American letters to be found in the Barnes & Noble Self-Help section.

Liesl Schillinger has found some interesting ways to write within Tanenhaus’ cramped format, including a comparison to Christopher Isherwood and a meet cute moment. And this Grover Lewis overview was fun.

But the NYTBR‘s overwhelming aridity and lack of solid fiction coverage can’t compensate for the scant offering of strong items.

CONCLUSIONS:

Brownie Points Denied: 2
Brownie Points Earned: 1

brownieno.jpg

by DrMabuse

The Telltale Sign of a Despotic Maniac? Apparently, Femininity.

It was only recently declassified, and only recently nabbed the okay from author Henry Murray’s relatives, but The Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler, a psychological evaluation originally commissioned by the OSS, is now ripe and ready for public consumption. This report was written in 1943 and, unsurprsingly, contains considerable Freudistic takes on the man. There aren’t too many surprises here in this supposed barnbuster. We get the usual “Hitler has always worshipped physical force, military conquest, and ruthless domination.” Really? I had no idea.

But what’s of interest is the conclusion that Hitler was, apparently, “largely feminine in his constitution.” This latter judgment has been concluded because he was frail, not particularly athletic, was emotionally dependent on his mother, and “annoyingly subservient” to his superior officers. But it gets better: “His movements have been described as womanish — a dainty ladylike way of walking (when not assuming a military carriage in public), effeminate gestures of his arms — a peculiar graceless ineptitude reminiscent of of a girl throwing a baseball.”

What’s more, “Hitler is no healthy amoral brute. He is a hive of secret neurotic compunctions and feminine sentimentalities which have had to be stubbornly repressed ever since he embarked on his career.” (Emphasis in original.)

If this was the stuff of top psychologists at the time, then it’s little wonder why the OSS failed to understand Hitler’s mentality and why this report was kept under wraps for so many years. One wonders whether “femininity” is something the CIA still looks for in a potential international menace.

What’s interesting is that, as recently as last September, psychologists were investigating the “hyper-masculinity” of American politics. Have we truly evolved or is political potency all about the testosterone charge? And if that’s the case, where do women fit in?