Uncategorized

Mis-Print

I knew about the proposed government database of all children, but I hadn’t realised it was happening already. WTF?

The Register:

Parents prepare to sue dabs grabbers

Schools to be challenged over biometrics

By Mark Ballard ? More by this author

Published Friday 6th October 2006 11:47 GMT

Parents are preparing a legal challenge to schools that have fingerprinted their children without their consent.

Janine Fletcher, a solicitor and concerned parent who instigated the legal response, said she became concerned when she learned that 70 schools in her home county of Cumbria had taken childrens’ fingerprints without seeking parental consent.

“It’s a breach of human rights,” she said. “Lots of parents are willing to take legal action. There’s a clear case.”

“We are trying to get a list of distressed parents together who are prepared to take group action,” she said. “Every child has a right to privacy.”

Richard Furlong, a barrister who has advised the campaign group Leave Them Kids Alone, which is co-ordinating the action, said: “Once the kids fingerprints are taken, the schools are obliged in law to disclose the fingerprint to the police if they are investigating a crime. All of a sudden, police have a huge database to query. But the police only usually have access to your fingerprints when you are arrested.”

“All of a sudden they’ve got this great database and in twenty years time they’ll have everyone’s fingerprints through the back door,” he said.

“People say, ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear’, I always say, well how much do you earn then?” he added.

Many schools put their fingerprint systems in over the school holidays and informed parents by letter on the first day of term, said Fletcher. Parents weren’t being given enough time to disagree with the scheme, let alone think through the ramifications of their children being fingerprinted.

The group are preparing to take a test case against a school that has fingerprinted children without parental consent.?

Actual Victorian child prison record from the Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies

Read more: UK Politics, Children, Education, Schools, Children’s Rights, Civil Liberties, Identity, ID cards, Biometrics, Fingerprints, Big Brother

OH NO SHE DI’N’T!

Amanda, Pam and jedmunds at Pandagon hit the Big Time and got listed by Playboy as one of the ten most influential US bloggers. Cool, sorta.

Maybe next time Amanda comes back to Amsterdam it’ll be on a Playboy assignment round the red-light district. I’m free if a tour-guide’s needed…

Read more: Internet, Feminism, Blogs, Soft Porn Mags, Playboy.

Badum, Tish!

From Atrios’ comments:

Q: Why don’t congressmen use bookmarks?

A: They prefer to bend the pages over.

Q: Why did the page get kicked out of school?

A: He wouldn’t do maf.

Thanks, you’ve been a great audience, I’ll be here all week. Try the chicken.

Read more: Foleygate, Jokes, Humour

Pony Blow, Constitutional Scholar

Read the following press conference exchange with White House spokesman and former Fox Anchor Tony Snow ( who has a gigantic head) on why he won’t answer questions about the House Page scandal. What can anyone say in the circumstances but aaaargh?

This takes irony round the corner and beats it to a bloody pulp with a lump-hammer.

[…]

Q Well, what about the question about whether or not the president thinks that this issue has been handled properly?

MR. SNOW: Again, we’re not getting into telling the House how to do its business. The most important thing to do right now, from our standpoint, is to talk about the important issues. And that’s what the president’s doing.

Q Well, the president’s — I mean, he’s the leader of the Republican Party —

MR. SNOW: But the president, as you — I believe you were there for the briefing on separate but coequal branches of government. And the president understands that — well, that’s — it was sixth grade. Maybe you skipped that day.

Q No —

(Scattered laughter.)

MR. SNOW: (Chuckles.) But in any event, you know, it’s when they did the — how laws are made and all that kind of stuff.

So it’s ‘Separate but co-equal’, now? The Bush administration must’ve been off sick that day in 6th grade too because that’s not what they’ve been saying so far. Elizabeth Drew in the New York Review of Books, June this year:

During the presidency of George W. Bush, the White House has made an unprecedented reach for power. It has systematically attempted to defy, control, or threaten the institutions that could challenge it: Congress, the courts, and the press. It has attempted to upset the balance of power among the three branches of government provided for in the Constitution; but its most aggressive and consistent assaults have been against the legislative branch: Bush has time and again said that he feels free to carry out a law as he sees fit, not as Congress wrote it. Through secrecy and contemptuous treatment of Congress, the Bush White House has made the executive branch less accountable than at any time in modern American history. And because of the complaisance of Congress, it has largely succeeded in its efforts.

This power grab has received little attention because it has been carried out largely in obscurity. The press took little notice until Bush, on January 5 of this year, after signing a bill containing the McCain amendment, which placed prohibitions on torture, quietly filed a separate pronouncement, a “signing statement,” that he would interpret the bill as he wished. In fact Bush had been issuing such signing statements since the outset of his administration. The Constitution distinguishes between the power of the Congress and that of the president by stating that Congress shall “make all laws” and the president shall “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Bush claims the power to execute the laws as he interprets them, ignoring congressional intent.

Read more: US Constitution, White House, Congressional Child Sex Scandal, Foleygate, Bush Power Grab, Hypocrisy

More Practical Politicking, Home Makeover Edition

I love a political scandal as much as the next person (“Ca-a-andy!” /Norbert Beaver ) and yes, I know that moral corruption, sex abuse, racism, wrecking the environment and vote-rigging are all heads of the same right-wing hydra, but while we’re getting carried away on our own lubricity watching the Right implode there’s some powerful writing on other subjects going on, not least on examining the beam in our own eye before pointing out the mote in others.

Like in this follow-up post from Donna at The Silence of Our Friends, on the the whole All White Clinton Lunch and Jessica’s Boobs Affair (I know, it seems a century ago already), in which a number of hitherto respected progressive bloggers showed that perhaps they weren’t quite so progressive after all.

As Donna says, talking about race seems to be the issue that really makes US progressive bloggers roll up in a defensive, privileged little ball so she’s produced these easy to understand ground rules.

“My advice for white people who wish to engage in conversations with POC ” [people of colour] “is that you must understand that you absolutely do have white privilege, and probably express that in racist ways on occasion. You are blind to it because it is built in to American society, this is what we mean by institutional racism. When many white people are told this, their first and sometimes last reaction is to scream, “I AM NOT RACIST! I AM NOT RACIST! I AM NOT RACIST!” They assume we are speaking about individual acts based on hate, but what we really mean is that while they understand that POC are disadvantaged in our society; they do not acknowledge that they have advantages that they take forgranted. I believe that some are willfully blind to white privilege, because the way to fight institutional racism means that whites must give up some of their advantages, affirmative action is one of these, hiring more minorities means there are less openings for whites. They do not want to give up their advantage, and so they deny the problem or derail the conversation. It’s not enough to sadly exclaim that racism is bad, you must be willing to take action, lip service doesn’t cut it.

One example is when discussing racially divisive issues a white person will pipe up that we should leave behind identity politics and concentrate our efforts on the greater good. But the greater good generally means that white people determine what issues are important and in our collective best interests, and this may be of very little service to POC. We think that the collective good should be working towards ALL of our interests, not just yours. You can not find out what we believe is in our interest if you aren’t even willing to listen to us, and instead dismiss us. This does not mean that we expect to only work on our issues, we expect to discuss and compromise; it is the white person who expects to only work on what they choose as important while we are expected to be quiet and go along to get along.

One other thing, when white people do recognize institutional racism many times they do not speak out. They think it’s not their problem and look the other way. This is why there was so much anger expressed over the Clinton blogger lunch by POC. Our allies abandon us when we need them. The bloggers there did not make it a priority to find out why diverse voices weren’t included and explain to their readers. And the blogosphere in general either did not see a problem, or were afraid of the reaction of their peers if they sided with POC, for instance by delinking or banning them.

The one thing I have to say to POC is to beware of assuming that a white person who questions you isn’t serious about understanding your stance. Because we are dismissed, demeaned, ignored, maligned, lied to, and lied about on a fairly regular basis it is easy to jump to that conclusion; but so much better to give clear and honest answers with as little sarcasm and animosity until you are certain what the other person’s motives are. First because we need as many allies as we can find, if someone has an open mind give him/her a chance. Second because it will appear to be like the person in my example who snarls at his friend for no apparent reason, without people knowing about the broken leg. In other words, if you are dealing with a racist idiot, lead him into the discussion to reveal that before you kick his ass; or you will look like you are unreasonable, hysterical, and lashing out unprovoked to others who were willing to listen and learn…we need as many allies as we can find.

posted by Donna @ 10:04 PM 7 comments links to this post “

Lather, rinse and repeat.

Read more: Internet, Blogs, Blogging, Race, Racism, Progressive blogosphere