Amy Alkon is a Dim Bulb (3rd Installment in an Irregular Series)

It has been a while since I'd stopped over at the "Advice Goddess" blog. Not much has changed ~ lots of huffing and puffing, the same casual attitude toward truth and accuracy, and a whole lot of "look at me! aren't I wonderful!"

Well I was unsurprised to find that the inimitable Ms. Alkon has jumped on the bash Robert Reich bandwagon. Here is her post from last week (23 January) in a nice cute mauve:

"The Best Person For The Job

(...As long as that person isn't white or a man.) Shockingly, Secretary of Labor Robert Reich is coming out against hiring white male construction workers. He writes on his blog a blog item charmingly titled "The Stimulus: How to Create Jobs Without Them All Going to Skilled Professionals and White Male Construction Workers." An excerpt:

And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most -- women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed -- will be shut out.

While I'm against government stimulus packages, and for government getting out of the way of business to kick-start our economy, if our tax dollars are going for a stimulus package and I don't have a choice in the matter, I'd really like to see the hiring done based on who's the best person for the job.

And, I don't know about you, but *I* sure don't hire the person who needs the job the most, and I sure don't want to patronize businesses that do."

Thanks to the nice literate folk at Media Matters, here is what Reich actually wrote:

"[I]f there aren't enough skilled professionals to do the jobs involving new technologies, the stimulus will just increase the wages of the professionals who already have the right skills rather than generate many new jobs in these fields. And if construction jobs go mainly to white males who already dominate the construction trades, many people who need jobs the most -- women, minorities, and the poor and long-term unemployed -- will be shut out."

This is pretty much Economics 101 which, apparently, Ms. Alkon either slept through or never took. What Reich was addressing was the danger of distributing funds from any economic stimulus plan in ways that simply line the pockets of workers with certain sorts of skills. He argued for a distribution of funds across sectors in a way that they might help (via job training, etc) the broadest number of people. This is clear in what he subsequently said in testimony before the House Democratic Caucus Steering and Policy Committee Forum:

"I have nothing against white male construction workers. I'm just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I'm certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be -- criteria can be set so that the money does go to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals."

Reich said that nearly two weeks before Amy produced her screed - which is precsiely what her post amounts to even gussied up in that cute mauve. Gee, Amy, I guess if you did a bit of research and stopped relying on the right-wing echo chamber, you might not have gotten things exactly wrong. But being accurate or truthful or correct wasn't much of a concern all along, right? For such an intrepid individualist it certainly is ironic how you take talking points and spew them like all the other unthinking reactionaries.

Amy Alkon is a Dim Bulb (Installment 2.5 in an Irregular Series)

I promised myself not to get carried away with the dippy Ms. Alkon. But she has now begun to denounce those who question her various racist pronouncements as "fascist thugs." This, of course, is a now common charge, leveled by those on the right against virtually anyone they disagree with or whom, god forbid, has the gall to speak out against them. See this earlier post, which, given her virulent Islam-o-phobia, probably applies to Ms. Amy too. Life is too short to work through all of her ridiculous blog posts.

In any case, there is a broader point to this post ~ "fascism" is a term, like most other words, with an actual meaning. It does not help to just make shit up. So, at the risk of suggesting something she likely will find wholly inconceivable, I will recommend a book to Ms. Alkon. Unfortunately, it is one not published by her preferred right-wing vanity presses (e.g., Encounter Books) and so will be beyond her standard repertoire.* The book I have in mind is Kevin Passmore's Fascism: A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2002) which is generally quite good. (Don't panic Amy dearest, it is "very short" and so should neither tax your cognitive abilities nor distract you from scurrying about feverishly ferreting out the IP addresses of those who dare voice any dissent in the comment thread of your blog. Indeed, you could probably get away with reading just the second chapter!) Passmore offers a useful, reasonably simple definition:

"Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party. Fascists are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of socialism and feminism, but are prepared to override conservative interests - family, property, religion, the universities, the civil service - where the interests of the nation are considered to require it. Fascist radicalism also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific demands of the labour and women's movements, so long as these demands accord with the national priority. Fascists seek to ensure the harmonization of workers' and women's interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or within a corporate system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the individual's national, political, and/or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist policy are suffused with ultranationalism." (page 31)

If the dippy Ms. Alkon is interested in civil dialogue (her claim, not my expectation), she might stop throwing around terms like "fascism" (which, as Passmore also notes, "has become and all-purpose term of abuse"). This would have the added virtue of making her look less ignorant, since I suspect none of the folks who've made her so furious is a nationalist in the required sense.
Tossing around the "F-word" just degrades language.

Now, Ms. Alkon might protest that she is concerned more with the thuggishness of her adversaries - even though she admits that no one has actually accosted her or her property, they've only posted comments on her blog and posts like this one elsewhere. And indeed she insists that "progressives" are egregiously and aggressively violating her personal cognitive space. This too, of course, is a common right wing response to criticism: paint those who disagree with you in terms of psycho-pathology. After all, one cannot deal with crazy people, one has no choice but to ban them from one's precious blog. This is why Amy relies so heavily on pop-psychology.

Here I'd recommend another book. (Don't panic Amy, it is short too!) I have in mind Norberto Bobbio's Left & Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction (University of Chicago Press, 1997). Bobbio makes clear that this distinction is not unidimensional. Yes, the left embraces social equality while the right embraces "natural" inequalities and the responsibilities that derive therefrom. But he also insists that that distinction is traversed by a second liberty-authoritarianism dimension mapping relative willingness to impose ones views or policies by force. Newsflash, neither left nor right has a monopoly on bad behavior! Representatives of both historically have opted for authoritarian strategies. And, to state the obvious, both should be condemned for so doing. But even here, Ms. Alkon concedes that no one has tried to force her to do anything. People are just talking back in the face of her inane pronouncements. And Amy doesn't like it when people disagree with her. Disagreement makes her very, very cranky.
__________
* I call these sectarian enterprises vanity presses because they publish only those who know the secret handshake and are compelled to rely on subsidies from various foundations like Scaife and Olin in order to publish their tripe.

Amy Alkon is a Dim Bulb (Second in an Irregular Series)

Last spring I had the unfortunate experience of crossing virtual paths with the deeply disturbed Amy Alkon (who was accompanied by a phalanx of hangers on, sycophants and lackeys). You can find the fallout from that encounter here, here, and here. I suspected that there was nothing personal in all that because Ms. Alkon was likely a serial harasser. I was right.

Now, it seems, the delightfully dim Ms. Alkon has set her sights on the gang at Sadly, No! because they had the temerity to suggest that some of the rantings on her blog are racist. Basically, Ms. Amy relies on character assassination and guilt by association as she comes to the defense of police officers in Lima, Ohio . The latter shot a 26 year old black woman dead in a drug raid. (Read the report in The New York Times here.) The Sadly, No! folks have rightly ridiculed the delightful Ms. Alkon for her racist ranting [1] [2] [3] and now are subject to her wrath. My condolences.

Ms. Alkon's political views seem to me cold, congealed porridge ~ vague, right-wing libertarianism served up with a generous dollop of extreme self-righteousness and really bad pop-psychology (is that last redundant?) Funny how her libertarianism gets tossed overboard when the police (reminder Amy, they are agents of the state whose actions should make a libertarian very suspicious) are shooting at poor black people.

(Thanks, Brendan!)
__________
P.S.: (Added a bit later) ~ I forgot to mention that in the course of her rant our darling Ms. Amy managed to excoriate the murdered woman for having produced a "litter" of kids. Well, first of all, I suspect the kids were born serially not all in one batch. But beyond that obvious inability to master the English language, Ms. Amy seems not to understand that comparing people to animals is, well, dehumanizing. Maybe that is why people think she is a racist, or at least talks like one. And the fact that Ms. Amy doesn't get the dehumanizing implications of her words suggests that it is not that she just talks like a racist.

Amy Alkon is a Dim Bulb * (First in an Irregular Series)

▓
Photo of the 'Advice Goddess' Withheld to Avoid
Wild Charges of Copyright Infringement

I've decided to add a new feature here at the blog.** It will consist in the irregular exercise of my god-given right to ridicule and more generally poke fun at the astoundingly dim "Advice Goddess," Amy Alkon. As you know from posts earlier this week [1] [2] I've had the privilege of making it onto the loathsome Ms. Alkon's enemies list. Why? I had the temerity to disagree with her over at her blog.

I figured that, given her celebrity status and syndication schedule, Amy could just move on. Apparently she simply can't and has continued to rant about my alleged mis-deeds even today. Now, Ms. Amy has decided that she is qualified to peddle "advice" to entire nations and religions, on which more below. Like me, photographer Tom White had the temerity to question one of her pronouncements. The intrepid Amy (who, as a joke, includes the label "journalist" in the header to her web page) tracked down this miscreant and discovered that on his blog Tom was a link to mine. Imagine Amy's outrage on discovering a vast virtual conspiracy out to question her precious judgment. (Another good reactionary criterion of assessment - "guilt" by association. The only problem is that neither Tom nor I are guilty of anything other than questioning some of Amy's inane pronouncements.)***

In any case, Amy seemingly had posted some typically insightful and well-informed advice on the looming threat of ISLAM to various Western countries including Britain, the U.S. and Canada. And she even generously explained to Muslims how they might most effectively "speak out" against slanderous attacks on their religion. I am certain they are grateful for the advice. I am not fan of any religion, but I try my hardest not to tell the religious how to go about their business.

Of course, Amy knows roughly as much about this topic as she does about copyright law ~ epsilon (Amy, that is just a really, really small number, OK?). Her ire had been raised by a story in the Moonie funded Washington Times regarding John McCain's propensity to identify terrorism with Islam. (Ooops, forgot about, say, Northern Ireland.) Fortunately for Amy, lack of knowledge is no obstacle because, of course, she can bring in experts to bolster any ignorant case she makes. You'll recall that on copyright law her expert was a photographer whose primary qualification was having lost a law suit over the "fair use" of one of his images. I'd sure be eager to rely on his interpretation of the relevant decisions and statutes!

In this case, the Advice Goddess has stumbled in a similar way, buttressing her case with a video rant from the sophomoric Robert Spencer, perpetrator of JihadWatch. Of course, Mr. Spencer is a crank as I noted here last fall. There are reliable sources - right, left, and center - on Islam, terrorism, Middle East politics, and so forth. Robert Spencer is not among them. Dim as she is, though, Amy could not discriminate in this case if her life depended on it. So, once more, she is piling it higher and deeper.
__________
* This may seem to be overly harsh. But I first stumbled across Amy after she wrote a post entitled "Rebecca Solnit is a Sniveling Idiot."

** I don't intend to comment on every inanity that Amy utters. There are not enough hours in the day to do that. And I have no interest in responding to the predictable howls of indignation and outrage that she and her coterie of admirers will unleash. I just think it will be fun to have a laugh every so often at Amy's expense. I'll restrict my comments to her more egregious utterances.

*** For the record, Tom and I have never met. I believe we may have exchanged an email or two on photography since I've been writing this blog. I did, however, drop a line to congratulate him on having apparently made Amy's enemies list.

Amy Alkon & Christopher Harris Redux ~ Considering the Actual Complexities of 'Fair Use'

Having endured repeated, unsubstantiated attacks by a nitwit (Amy Alkon) and her aggrieved consultant (Christopher Harris) yesterday, it seems that it might be useful to discuss the "fair use" exception to copyright in the United States. You can find a pretty detailed discussion here at the Fair Use Network (Brennan Center, NYU Law School). But here is the bottom line from the U.S. Copyright Office. I offer it because in all their ranting, neither nitwit nor the aggrieved managed to demonstrate any familiarity with any actual points of law.

"One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and;

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

Now, the bottom line is subject to interpretation on many dimensions. Indeed, none of these four factors is, alone, unambiguously dispositive in any given case. The burden is different for each of the different factors and any judgment or assessment must weigh them all. Neither the nitwit nor her aggrieved chum seem to grasp that commonplace. They were too busy yowling with outrage and self-righteousness. What is called for in all this is subtlety of interpretation and that is something that seems to be in short supply in their self-referential bubble.

So it may be helpful to think through some of the instances in which I post copyrighted images or text. We could do the same for nitwit's blog where she too regularly posts copyrighted materials. Life, though, is way too short. Let's take each factor in turn:

(1) I make not a dime from this blog. I do not post advertisements. I use copyrighted materials almost exclusively for purposes of comment or criticism in the course of a broadly educational undertaking. By that I mean education in a public sense not solely in a classroom sense. I rarely use an image without commenting on it or connecting it to some other or associating it with some text or idea that the photographer in all likelihood knows little if anything about. I use the blog for educational purposes by creating themes (indicated by the various labels attached to most posts) which would associate particular works with a variety of others.

(2) The nature of the original materials? Sometimes text, sometimes images. What seems to have gotten nitwit and her aggrieved pal really riled up is the use of images. Among the important factors here is whether the initial text or image is creative or factual. Try to draw that line clearly with even the most 'documentary' photography. What about portraits? Landscapes? Hopefully you get the point. One would have to argue the case either way in each instance. And although nitwit and the aggrieved fail to recognize the point, an assertion is not an argument. It is an assertion.

(3) So, let's think of what we mean by a "work." In the case of texts, an article or a book would, for instance, constitute the work. So we might use passages. and fair use would require not just word counts but an assessment of the centrality or otherwise of the quoted passage as well as the context in which it is quoted. In the case of photographs, almost never does a single image stand alone. Photographers present images as series or groups, whether they present them in books or exhibitions. (For example, think of Walker Evans's American Photographs, etc. as both book and exhibition.) Often even a single image comprises part of a larger work that also includes text of various sorts. So, when I use a single image it is at best an open question as to whether it alone would constitute a complete work. Usually it does not. And even if it might, I rely here on small jpeg images that hardly rival an actual size photo. (As an extreme example, consider any of the images of Burtynsky I have used here as compared to his giant prints.) So what counts as the substantial use of a work is, politely, subject to interpretation.

(4) As I state in my sidebar, I endeavor in each post to offer as complete an attribution for any non-original material as is available. This includes indicating copyright whenever I can determine it. Of course, it is a commonplace that such attribution is no substitute for obtaining permission if obtaining the latter is not obviated by fair use. Here an important issue is whether the use of copyrighted material undermines the actual or potential market value of the original. One has to wonder whether my critics really believe seeing a jpeg of a Burtynsky photograph on a blog undermines the value of the original. The jpeg is surely no substitute for the original and I, at least, would never pretend otherwise. Nor would any self-respecting photographer. Who knows? But I seek not only to identify the writer or photographer or artist or publisher and reassert his or her copyright, but also to discuss their work in a way that directs readers of the blog toward rather than away from it. I try whenever possible to link directly to whatever web presence the author or artist might have established. And in the case of exhibitions I try to link to the venue (e.g., museum, gallery, or whatever) homepage. And in light of what I've already said above, I try to place the original work in a broader artistic, political or intellectual context - all of which would work to enhance the market (economic or intellectual) of the work. even when I am criticizing some artist or writer or work, I try to prompt readers to attend to and think about the subject at hand, namely the artist or writer or thinker and their work. Perhaps nitwit and her accomplice are so busy trying to browbeat people into agreeing with them that they overlook the possibility that others might be trying to prompt readers to think for themselves.

I am sure there are many other issues at stake. But they call for thought. And while they were jumping up and down yowling with outrage, neither nitwit nor her aggrieved running buddy bothered to think through what I actually do around here. (In fact, to the best of my knowledge neither has spent more than a few minutes at this blog. And then they were searching out some imagined gotcha. That is the approach of the terminally self-satisfied.) Admittedly, it must be hard to think and yowl at the same time; at least I suspect it must be since I've not tried it myself.

Having written all that, it is important be clear about something. We should not follow nitwit and her pal in assuming that anyone who challenges "fair use" of copyrighted materials is a defender of virtue or the oppressed. That would be a serious error. Those who question fair use too often include writers and artists (and heirs or executors) out trying quite opportunistically to extort rents from other writers and artists - including, you guessed it, photographers and film makers. This eventuality, of course, is something that nitwit and the aggrieved entirely fail to consider. For their enlightenment, therefore, I recommend this comic book written by legal scholars and published by Duke University Press.

The world that nitwit and the aggrieved live in apparently is very simple and all black and white. Yet the actual world the rest of us inhabit is very different. In the real world what we need is judgment and arguments (not assertions) and attention to details. Neither our nitwit Amy nor the aggrieved Mr. Harris are up to living in the real world. It would require them to think. So I close the door on this exchange with a simple piece of advice. As my wise, now deceased grandmother used to tell me ~ "Use your head for something other than a hat rack!"

Christopher Harris ~ Snap Judgements

In the context of a comment thread on the blog of right wing ranter Amy Alkon, photographer Christopher Harris opined that I am a "jerk" and a "thief." Mr. Harris has not, as far as I know, done more than visit this blog on a recognizance mission. He surely has never met me. Neither, for that matter, has the "gutsy" Ms. Alkon (her adjective). The context of Harris's intemperate comments was a disagreement over what constitutes "fair use" of copyrighted images and text. We got there because Ms. Alkon had reverted to one of the staple tactics of a good ideologue ~ change the subject and try to blame someone who questions you for some alleged, but truly irrelevant failing. Can you understand the phrase "red herring"? Enough, though, of the genealogy.

What is astounding to me is the self-righteousness, outrage and self-certainty Harris expresses. He is sure about the intricacies of the fair use exception. Maybe because he has no law degree his view is more perspicuous than, say, the folks at the Brennan Center (NYU Law) who on their Fair Use Network page admit that "intellectual property, or "IP," law" is "a mass of confusion for artists, scholars, journalists, bloggers, and everyone else who contributes to culture and political debate." It must be very, very re-assuring to Harris that he possesses so clear a view of such a contested, confusing arena.

Unfortunately for him, Harris's self-certainty has not translated well into the legal arena. In 2006 he lost a case against The San Jose Mercury News for purported copyright infringement.* The newspaper had used one of Harris's photos in a book review without securing his permission. Their defense? Fair Use, of course. Now I am sympathetic to Mr. Harris's concern for his livelihood. And I might actively admire his willingness to fund this case himself. (The PDN story to which I link says he received no funding from major photography groups. Is that because he sought none, or because they thought his suit crackpot? It turns out that Harris is a serial litigant, having previously sued another newspaper. My admiration is contingent on the answers to those questions.) All that said, virtually none of the factors that Harris must've thought held against The News apply to the way I use images and text here. I'd be happy to talk about that if Harris is interested.

What is my point? In his correspondence with Amy Alkon, Harris suggests (referring to me) that "he does not value the very thing he claims to care about." But since he has never so much as spoken to me, Harris has no idea what I care about, and so he steps right in it. (To bad his clarity of vision doesn't help him navigate his immediate surroundings. His shoes must be a mess.) What I value is public debate about culture and politics. And in partaking in that debate here I rely on the conception of fair use that Harris apparently fails to grasp. Harris is a good photographer, although I dare not reproduce any of his work here for fear of falling prey to his litigious impulse. I link to his web page above. He is, though, seemingly a pretty poor source of legal advice. And while I may be a jerk, it seems that I am not alone. The way Harris reaches for epithets first - before bothering to figure out what he is talking about - suggests that he has a propensity to rant that threatens the sort of debate I care about. I would just remind Harris that, as one who himself photographs some in color, he should consider that just maybe the world is not all black-and-white.
__________
* By the way, Amy Alkon, erroneously reports the disposition of Harris's suit. He lost, Amy. That is characteristic of her terribly tenuous connection to the real world. She apparently cannot report even the most basic facts accurately. Given a 50-50 chance of being right Amy Alkon screws it up. That is frightening given her self-proclaimed status as "Advice Goddess."

~~~~~~~~~~~

P.S.: (Update later that day): I should have, but did not, make clear that I had never so much as heard of Christopher Harris prior to today when he sent his emails to Amy Alkon. At no time, for instance, have I posted or even mentioned any of his work here on the blog. So his diatribe is of the "principled" sort that only someone with absolutely nothing at stake here might offer. Ms. Alkon sought out Harris's expertise (such as it is) of her own accord and he replied in just the way she would want.