Speaking about the unspeakable

There is quite some discussion going on at present about gender and sexuality related matters – and culture and violence.

There was again an acid attack – at the end of another “high ranking official”/young woman relationship where the relationship finally broke. As a result, the aunt of the young woman was attacked, because she was accused to have broken up the relation of her niece. Now the victim is in a hospital in Vietnam, her right eye and her right ear have been removed, there are more disfiguring scars on her body. – A typical case. Untypical is only, that the “high ranking official” is a woman, the deputy commander of the Military Police (who is abroad since the attack).

The case is mirrored more in detail in the Saturday 17.5.2008 edition of the Mirror, and I have written something more about it in the Mirror editorial of 18.5.2008, also about the next case, a sex video: about what is taken up for action – and what is disregarded.

Rasmei Kampuchea, the biggest daily Cambodian newspaper, had reported – 11/12.5.2008 – that a couple had directed their 7 or 8 year old daughter to take a video when they have sex. The video clip shows a kind of peaceful friendly family situation, although surely not a typical one. The daughter is reported to make some quite natural comments to her parents loving each other: “Papa seems to be exhausted – Mama seems to be relaxed.” The video clip is reported to be shared among mobile phone users. On one mailing list this newspaper report is taken up, especially out of concern for the right of the child, calling for a special discussion about this problem, saying that they “would like to appreciate for your sharing your idea, comment and suggestions on this matter.”

On 22.5.2008, there is a report in the English Cambodia Daily (surely also in some Cambodian papers) that a 4 year old girl was gang raped. Unfortunately, reports about the rape of children – under and above the age of ten – are frequently in the newspapers. I am not aware that this report or any similar reports have ever resulted in a public outcry or the call on a mailing list, to organize a discussion around the frequent reports about the rape of young children.

= = = = =

The people in the video clip mentioned above are not identified. The newspaper report is also not sure how this video clip made it to the public: Maybe the people who took it sold their phone and forgot to delete the video clip…

In October 2007, quite a different sex video caused a lot of public discussion in Vietnam – and it was also mentioned at that time in the Khmer press. The main actress of “Vang Anh’s Diaries” – Hoang Thuy Linh – was seen in a video clip having sex – and this video was sent around on the Internet.

She had a very popular show, in which she portrayed a “good girl,” a modern and stylish high school girl, but tidy, charming, and soft-spoken, being a good example for all students in Vietnam.

But this show was canceled, and she appeared a last time on TV where she was talked down, apologizing in tears: “I made a mistake, a terrible mistake. – I apologize to you, my parents, my teachers, and my friends.”

Some comments on blogs say that the sex video was really a very bad video – but bad in a specific sense: it seems to be a “trophy” video of the man who arranged it to show off. He turns and pushes her head several times around so that her face is seen, so that he can prove that he succeeded to have sex with the famous Thuy Linh. There is no sign of any human loving feelings to each other, no sweet words, no smiles. He talked her into agreeing to make something which is just a cheap porn video.

According to the many blogs which discussed this case, the public was strongly condemning Thuy Linh – because, according to Vietnamese culture, it was said, women have to be chaste until marriage and then stay true to one man – no matter how many times he cheats on her. “People will forgive him, but not her.” – “There is no way Thuy Linh will be forgiven.”

The following is a video from her last session on TV – where she is humiliated, where she apologizes, where she cries – and some of her former colleagues and friends also cry. But as for those in charge – there is no mercy.

I had to remember a similar scene from the distant past – where the guardians of tradition and culture brought a woman to Jesus, a woman whom they had caught in a not legitimized sex act, and now they brought it to the public – just like Hoang Thuy Linh’s case. I quote:

“They made her stand in front of everyone and asked Jesus, ‘Teacher, we caught this woman in the act of adultery. In his teachings, Moses ordered us to stone women like this to death. What do you say?’

“They asked this to test him. They wanted to find a reason to bring charges against him. Jesus – [surely sitting on the ground, maybe under a big tree as it would have been in a village in Cambodia] – bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.”

Silence.

“When they persisted in asking him questions, he straightened up and said, ‘The person who is without a sin should be the first to throw a stone at her.’ Then he bent down again and continued writing on the ground.

“One by one, beginning with the older men, the scribes and Pharisees left. Jesus was left alone with the woman. Then Jesus straightened up and asked her, ‘Where did they go? Has anyone condemned you?’
The woman answered, ‘No one, sir.’ Jesus said, ‘I don’t condemn you either. Go! From now on don’t sin.’

If only there were more such mercy today.

 

Testing to see if WordPress can render Chinese script

I am testing if WordPress can render Chinese script, especially, also the two main character types: “traditional” and “simplified” (since 1951), including the Pinyin phonetics. For example:

The president of the People’s Republic of China:

Hu Jintao (simplified Chinese: 胡锦涛; traditional Chinese: 胡錦濤; Pinyin: Hú Jǐntāo)

and the newly elected President of Taiwan, to be inaugurated on 20 May 2008:

Ma Ying-Jeou (traditional Chinese: 馬英九; simplified Chinese: 马英九; Pinyin: Mǎ Yīngjiǔ)

But I am aware that the fact that my input editor of WordPress displays it correctly on my computer, running under Linux SuSE 10.3, does not yet mean that every reader can also see it displayed correctly. I am not using graphics characters – so the rendering depends not only on the carrier – WordPress – but also on the software on the reader’s machines.

 

Goethe becoming a tourist

Goethe wrote in 1786: “Mit dem neuen Leben, das einem nachdenkenden Menschen die Betrachtung eines neuen Landes gewährt, ist nichts zu vergleichen. – Nothing can be compared to the new life a considerate observer of a new country gains.”

In 2003 I saw a painting of Goethe’s time in Italy in a nice restaurant in Rome.

And now, poor Goethe sits in the crowded, noisy Goethe-Bar in the transit area of Frankfurt Airport.

Anybody still feeling like Goethe?

“Nothing can be compared to the new life a considerate observer of a new country gains.”

Running from airport to conference hotel, and back to the airport – it seems often so difficult to make the time available, even when the opportunity is given in terms of travel. Transiting?

 

The Mirror – 1997 to 2007 – 500 weeks

The Mirror, an English language regular review of the Khmer language press, has been published for more than 10 yers already, with only one interruption in 2006, when designated funding was diverted, and I had to suspend the work from July to October. Since January 2007, I started to put it, in some liited form, onto the Web.

As I get sometimes questions about the history of this work, which requires to dedicate some time EVERY DAY, I put this interview up here at the time of the 500th week of publishing.

The Cambodia Daily – Phnom Penh, Cambodia – published an interview with me at the occasion of 500 weeks of publishing the Mirror. A scanning of this article can be found here.

The Mirror can be accessed here – (almost) every day something new. Monday to Saturday a translation of one original article, and of about 10 to 15 headlines, and on Sundays a reflective weekly editorial. The newest version is always here:

http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com

 

“6 shot after leaving Vegas school bus” – daily news from the USA?

Yahoo carries this story on 12.12 2007:

“LAS VEGAS – Assailants shot six young people Tuesday at a school bus stop, wounding two critically, in a midday attack that followed a fight over a high school girl, authorities said.

School police arrested three teenagers in the fight hours before the shooting in a working class neighborhood of northeast Las Vegas, Sheriff Doug Gillespie said. Investigators were still seeking two gunmen, who were believed to have fled on foot.

An 18-year-old man was in critical condition and a 17-year-old boy was upgraded to serious condition, both with gunshots to the torso, said Cheryl Persinger, a University Medical Center spokeswoman.

Four people, including at least two boys and a girl who are under 18, were treated for gunshot injuries to their arms and legs and released, she said. All four are students at Mojave High School, Gillespie said…”

My comments yesterday, about the “Second Amendment,” stand, and my surprise continues – unfortunately.

 

Shootings again

Yesterday some shootings in the USA – two people dead – today again a report about a shooting at a church – four people dead. Some days ago a shooting at a mall – some people dead. Before that: shootings at schools – and at other places.

And the news services report the surprised and shocked responses: “”Why would anybody want to hurt those kids?” What I always miss is the question: “How long is our society going to tolerate the arguments of the gun lobby?”

Most civilized countries have long ago made a clear distinction between the legitimate agents of law enforcement, where some of these units can carry arms, and the society at large, where nobody is allowed to carry arms, unless it is for very clearly and legally defined special exceptions – people transporting huge sums of money for banks, hunters etc.

The reason always given is the Second Amendment to the US Bill of Rights – the right to keep and bear arms. It says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

None of the recent shooters was identified as having their guns as part of a legally “well regulated Militia.” I never read any reference to this “well regulated Militia” clause.

How many more such shootings, in addition to the “normal” daily fatal criminal shootings, will happen before there will be real progress in abolishing the outdated “everybody-can-carry-a-gun” mentality in the USA?

 

Doris Lessing Wins Nobel Prize in Literature

Doris Lessing Wins Nobel Prize in Literature – more about her engagement with social and political issues is here: New York Times

The Swedish Academy praised the 87-year-old author for her “skepticism, fire and visionary power.”

“The inanities of the internet have seduced a generation, and we live in a fragmenting culture where people read nothing and know nothing of the world, the new Nobel laureate novelist warned yesterday.

Lessing, is described by the Nobel committee as ‘that epicist of the female experience…’ Her tone was profoundly pessimistic. Although she is still working hard at the age of 87, and she insisted the world would always need stories and storytellers, she also warned: ‘Writing, writers, do not come out of houses without books. We are in a fragmenting culture, where our certainties of even a few decades ago are questioned, and where it is common for young men and women who have had years of education to know nothing of the world, to have read nothing.’ ”

So let’s read more books again…

 

Six women programed the world’s first computer – ENIAC

“During World War II the [US] Army ran out of male mathematicians and turned to six women to program the world’s first computer – ENIAC. Historian Kathy Kleiman (left) has recorded oral histories of these women – now in their 80s – in her upcoming documentary film, ‘Invisible Computers.’”

More information is here.

A website on the Inventors of the Modern Computer does not mention anything about this, and ascribes the invention – “of course”? – to two males.

Thanks, Kathy, for your research.

 

Freedom of expression – concise

Francis Bacon said in 1620 about Aphorisms: “So there remaineth nothing to fill the aphorisms but some good quantity of observation: and therefore no man can suffice, nor in reason will attempt to write aphorisms, but he that is sound and grounded.”

Aphorisms are having a renaissance in Serbia, having a long tradition, using dark humor to come to terms with authoritarian rule.

Some people have formed the Belgrade Aphoristic Circle, meeting at a Boat-house cafés on the Sava River.
..

Some examples:

• “What I experienced in our brotherly union, I wouldn’t wish on my own brother.”
• “We will do our best not to have any more fratricide. We will stop being brothers.”

A more detailed report is here in the International Herald Tribune of  2 December 2007.

 

“Nineteenth century America was a major center of piracy.”

U.S. piracy in the 19th century
(see source at the end of the document)

Nineteenth century America was a major center of piracy. The principal target of U.S. pirates was the rich variety of British books and periodicals. The U.S. was a perennial headache among British authors and publishers, because foreign authors had no rights in America. American publishers and printers, led by Harpers of New York and Careys of Philadelphia, routinely violated British copyright and “reprinted a very wide range of British publications.”

James Barnes, who wrote an excellent book on this subject, said that the Americans were “suspicious about international copyright,” and were afraid that recognizing international copyright meant “exploitation and domination of their book trade.” Barnes noted that “as a young nation, the United States wanted the freedom to borrow literature as well as technology from any quarter of the globe, and it was not until 1891 that Congress finally recognized America’s literary independence by authorizing reciprocal copyright agreements with foreign powers.”

Throughout the 19th century, Barnes writes, a group of American authors and Anglophiles led a persistent but futile campaign to get a copyright treaty between the U.S. and Britain ratified, but their efforts were overcome by a much stronger lobby for free access to British publications. But time and again, the U.S. Senate rejected proposed laws or treaties that would have granted copyright to foreign authors in the United States.

As Barnes put it, “If Americans thought of the topic [i.e. copyright] at all they were concerned with protecting protecting domestic copyright and not the rights of foreigners. As a country, nineteenth century America was akin to a present-day underdeveloped nation which recognizes its dependence on those more commercially and technologically advanced, and desires the fruits of civilization in the cheapest and most convenient ways. Reprinting English
literature seemed easy and inexpensive, and so America borrowed voraciously.”

Barnes continued: “In 1831, ‘An Act to Amend the Several Acts Respecting Copyrights’ was signed. It extended the copyright term from fourteen to twenty-eight years, with the option of renewal for an additional fourteen. If an author died, his widow or children could apply for the extension. For the first time, the law allowed musical compositions to be copyrighted. But not a word on international copyright. In fact, foreign authors were explicitly barred from protection, which in essence safeguarded reprints.”

Even the U.S. president at that time, John Quincy Adams, was himself “strongly opposed to international copyright.”

In 1837, Senator Henry Clay introduced a copyright bill before the U.S. Senate. Within days, “a flood of negative memorials reached Washington,” and objections deluged both houses of Congress. The U.S. Senate’s Patent Committee rejected “the intention of the measure,” its reasons sounding very much like the justification today of Third World countries for their liberal attitude towards intellectual property. The Committee’s reasons were:

• “A copyright agreement would promote higher book prices and smaller editions. The point was driven home by comparing the retail prices of new books in England and America, for it was acknowledged that English books were disproportionately more expensive.”
• “A large portion of the U.S. publishers’ business “would be reduced perhaps as much as nine-tenths, certainly as much as three-fourths, if copyright be granted to foreign books.”
• “Many more English authors stood to gain by such a treaty because American authors rarely if ever received favorable publishing terms in Britain.”
• Copyright has never been regarded among nations as property standing on the footing of wares or merchandise, or as a proper subject for national protection against foreign spoilation.” Every government has always been left to make such regulations as it thinks proper, “with no right of complaint or interference by any other government.”
• British authors only want the U.S. Congress to pass an act which will enable them to “monopolize the publication here [in the U.S.] as well as in England, of all English works for the supply of the American market.”

The Committee also explained why international patents were acceptable but not international copyright: “American ingenuity in the arts and practical sciences, would derive at least as much benefit from international patent laws, as that of foreigners. Not so with authorship and book-making. The difference is too obvious to admit of controversy.”

In short, the Americans stood to gain a lot of benefits by recognizing international patents; and they likewise stood to gain a lot of benefits by not recognizing international copyright. It was purely a matter of national interest.

The U.S. printers advanced their own arguments for reprinting British publications without regard for international copyright:

• They were making available to the American people cheap books which would otherwise be very costly if they had to compensate foreign authors. It was generally acknowledged that the low prices of American books would inevitably rise after the passage of a copyright treaty.
• Access by the American printing industry to British works provided thousands of jobs.
• British authors and publishers would exercise “complete control over the publication of their works in the U.S.” Popular British writers “could then exact their own prices for their books when sold here [in the U.S.].” Thus copyright would not only enhance the profits of major authors, but at the same time protect and encourage second-rate foreign talent.
• International copyright “would also interfere with the laws of supply and demand because it encouraged monopoly which was never in the public interest.”
• Tariff duties might be appropriate for some industries, but they were never intended to confer a monopoly on a producer.
• Books are “unlike other commodities”; whereas it took the same amount of labor to create each new hat or boot, “the multiplication of copies of a book meant a saving on each additional facsimile.”
• Authors and publishers enjoy copyright “only by virtue of statute law;” copyright is not “absolute and natural ownership.” The right of individual property is subordinate to the public good which is “best served through competition and cheap reprints.”

Several bills were introduced in 1870, 1871 and again in 1872, but they were all opposed by American publishers and the printing unions, because they would “make English books more expensive, rarely benefit American authors as a class, and permanently injure the interests of book manufacturers.”

And so it went. In the early 1880′s, the copyright movement gained more strength, but not quite enough to overcome the more powerful forces that benefited from free and unrestricted access to foreign publications.

By this time, however, the U.S. had already accumulated a wealth of American-authored works which were themselves widely reprinted abroad. American books like Uncle Tom ‘s Cabin became quite popular in England. Also, U.S. authors and their publishers had acquired considerable political clout. The U.S. was ready to “protect” foreign authors, so that it in turn demanded protection for American authors abroad.
In July 1891, the U.S. Congress adopted the Chace International Copyright Act of 1891, establishing a framework for bilateral copyright agreements based on reciprocity. While the act granted copyright to resident and nonresident authors for a period of 28 years, renewable for another 14, it also set very difficult conditions, reflecting the interests of the U.S. publishing industry:

• A foreign book had to be published in the U.S. not later than its publication in its home country.
• All manufacturing of books, photos, chromos and lithographs to be done in the U.S. (This is the so-called “manufacturing clause,” which is today protested by the U.S., when Third World governments adopt it to ensure that a technology is actually worked in their own country.)
• Foreign copyrighted books in English, photographs, chromos, lithographs or plates could be imported for sale, but not more than two copies at a time could be imported for use, and these were subject to duty.
• Foreign works published before July 1, 1891 may not be copyrighted.

In 1952, the U.S. joined the Universal Copyright Convention (UCC), but not the Berne Convention, which was considered the “premier instrument of international copyright.” Under the UCC, the U.S. retained such protectionist as the requirement of manufacture in the United States.

In the meantime, the U.S. had been exerting tremendous pressures on Third World governments to adopt strict intellectual property laws and to strengthen their enforcement. By the late 1980′s, a number of governments, including Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and South Korea in Asia, had finally succumbed to U.S. pressure.

And so in 1989, the U.S. finally and belatedly acceded to the Berne copyright convention.

=
Source:

TOWARDS A POLITICAL ECONOMY OF INFORMATION
Studies on the information economy
by Roberto Verzola – rverzola@gn.apc.org

ISBN 971-847-24-0
Published by:
Foundation for Nationalist Studies, Inc.
38 Panay Avenue
Quezon City
Philippines
First Printing March 2004
Here: Part I, Section 3 (pages 19 – 24)

[This chapter based principally on the excellent book Authors, Publishers
and Politicians by James J. Barnes. John Tebbel's somewhat biased
account in A History of Book Publishing in the United States also details
the futile attempts in the 1870's and 1880's to pass U.S. legislation that
would protect the rights of foreign authors, and the developments that
led to the eventual adoption of the 1891 U.S. Copyright Act which
extended some protection to foreign authors.]