Library Juice 3:8 - Library Juice is now a book and a blog

Library Juice 3:8 - February 23, 2000 Contents: 1. Literature, libertines and Lenin's wife 2. Library School Lunacy 3. Filtering thread on PUBLIB 4. Latest on Holland, MI filtering battle 5. The Center for Public Integrity 6. Public Citizen's Campaign Finance Reform and Government Ethics page 7. FAIR's election reports 8. Steve Sovern's story, from Jim Hightower 9. "I WON'T VOTE," by W.E.B. Du Bois 10. Two feet good! Four wheels bad! 11. Library Song Quote for the week: "For years, we've been bludgeoned with the cliche "information is power." But information isn't power. After all, who's got the most information in your neighborhood? Librarians. And they're famous for having no power at all. And who has the most power in your community? Politicians. And they're notorious for being ill-informed." -From the jacket of the recent book _High Tech Heretic: Why Computers Don't Belong in the Classroom,_ by Clifford Stoll Home page of the week: James Quinn http://www.igc.org/citizenalert/people/james/ ____________________________________________________________________________top 1. Literature, libertines and Lenin's wife famous people and libraries http://www.library.unisa.edu.au/papers/famouslb.htm ____________________________________________________________________________top 2. Library School Lunacy by Harleigh Kyson http://users.ox.ac.uk/~scat0173/lunacy.html Library school is an academic absurdity. At least ninety per cent of what it teaches, and ninety per cent of all library literature, is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Still, though fully aware that getting a library degree would be as bad as getting a teaching credential, I bought a gas mask, shovel, and a pair of hip boots and got an MLS anyhow, since it seemed to be a good union card and meal ticket... ____________________________________________________________________________top 3. Filtering thread on PUBLIB Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 05:45:47 -0800 (PST) From: Jamie McCarthy <jamie[at]mccarthy.org> To: publib <publib[at]sunsite.berkeley.edu> Subject: Re: "filters block a great deal of valuable information" David Burt writes: > > And of course, it is not just "the 'official' line of the ALA" > > that filters block a great deal of valuable material. It is > > simply a fact, as illustrated by numerous studies and affirmed > > in a court of law. Regrettably, the facts of this issue have > > become politicized. > > These statements are factually untrue. I'm sorry, David, but even you cannot deny that it has been demonstrated that filters block a great deal of valuable material. It has been shown, over and over, too many times even for you to suggest otherwise. > There are *no*, repeat, *no* studies of the type of filtering used > in libraries that shows they "block a great deal of valuable > information". The only studies that exist even claiming filters > block "a lot", such as TIFAP study word-blocking filters. I'm not sure how you can say that in good conscience when you know that all of the Censorware Project's reports have studied filters that don't use word blocking, as they would be used in public libraries. We have found a great deal of valuable material blocked by each of the products we have studied. http://censorware.net/reports/ > By far the best proof that this is untrue is the Censorware > Project's own research. Your own study of 53 million web accesses > in Utah found only about 300 web accesses that you claim were > wrongly blocked. (By my count it's only 64). The above statement is factually inaccurate, and David, I believe you are intelligent enough to know it to be so. I'm not going to respond to this in detail, because I already did, earlier this week. Please visit: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/14/2316202 As I wrote in that article, the numbers you use above are "comparing apples to hydrogen." > You later drastically revised your count to 5,601, but showing > astonishing similarity to the tactics of filtering companies, you > have refused to release this new, secret list of allegedly blocked > sites. As I'm sure you know, the count was not "revised"; you are just trying to make it seem so. We have always offered the complete set of data that we work from, so that you or anyone else can duplicate our results -- which you can do from the material we've already published. It's all still available on CD-ROM for the cost of the media. Open-source activism at its best! > This fact has not escaped a number of journalists and editorialists: Yes, of course there are journalists who believe your mistaken ideas about our project. But for you to issue false claims, and then quote people who are quoting you, does not make your point. Unfortunately for you, the numbers simply do not support what you say. > It is also factually untrue that this was "affirmed in a court of > law", since the judge in Loudoun struck the policy down as > unconstitutional on its face, and didn't examine the degree of > overblocking. (Granted, given the judge's sentiment, it is likely > she would have.) No comment required. > Yet in the past you have opposed "tap on the shoulder" policies as > unconstitutional. Have I? > Indeed, the latest legal memo from ALA flatly calls policies like > Holland's unconstitutional: "libraries should not rely on their > employees to make content-based judgements about the > appropriateness of a particular patronÌs Internet use. Such an > Ïinformal filteringÓ policy invites arbitrary and discriminatory > enforcement and runs contrary to the libraryÌs mission and the > First AmendmentÌs guarantees." > http://www.ftrf.org/internetfilteringmemo.html#section2b6 > > Well Jamie, what's the answer? Are you urging Holland to continue > a policy the ALA calls unconstitutional or not? Well? David, just because I responded to a post of yours does not give you the right to harangue me about whatever comes to mind. I think Holland's current policy is much less restrictive than any form of blocking software would be. Therefore, I reject the current ballot initiative. Again, I suggest readers interested in the subject should read my recent debunking of David Burt's mendacity, at: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/14/2316202 -- Jamie McCarthy jamie[at]mccarthy.org http://jamie.mccarthy.org/ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:44:17 -0800 (PST) From: mgolrick[at]sclc.org (Michael A. Golrick) To: publib <publib[at]sunsite.berkeley.edu> Subject: re: "filters block a great deal of valuable information" > >There are *no*, repeat, *no* studies of the type of filtering used in >libraries >that shows they "block a great deal of valuable information". The only >studies >that exist even claiming filters block "a lot", such as TIFAP study word- >blocking filters. David- You are wrong! My wife is a hospital librarian where they have installed filters. Her computers are regularly blocked from such sites as "www.nih.gov" because of use of names of body parts. I hope that if I ever go to a hospital in an emergency, that the body part a doctor needs information on is not one blocked by the hospital's filtering software!!!! Michael Michael A. Golrick mgolrick[at]sclc.org Southern Connecticut Library Council 2911 Dixwell Ave, Suite 201 Hamden CT 06518-3130 voice: 203-288-5757 fax: 203-287-0757 Connecticut Library Association President 1999/2000 Connecticut Chapter Councilor Check out SCLC's new home page: http://www.sclc.org .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 18:50:04 -0800 (PST) From: Brian Smith <bsmith[at]linc.lib.il.us> To: publib <publib[at]sunsite.berkeley.edu> Subject: re: "filters block a great deal of valuable At 08:27 PM 2/16/00 -0800, David Burt wrote: <snip> >By far the best proof that this is untrue is the Censorware Project's own >research. Your own study of 53 million web accesses in Utah found only about >300 web accesses that you claim were wrongly blocked. (By my count it's only >64). I don't see how Mr. Burt can honestly say that the Censorware Project report claims that "only about 300 web accesses" were wrongly blocked. It should be clear to anyone who reads the original Utah report that the bad blocks listed are not a complete enumeration of the number of wrongly-blocked access attempts that were discovered, and that the Censorware Project didn't even attempt to find every instance of overblocking. There is also no way that anyone with knowledge of quantitative analysis methods could read Censorware Project's report and honestly come up with a figure near Mr. Burt's "only 64 out of 53 million sites were wrongly blocked." (The figures which Mr. Burt compares were not subjected to the same or equivalent manipulations -- a big and very basic no-no. Also, the correct basis for comparison is the number of wrongly blocked sites vs. total sites blocked.) The fact that Mr. Burt's fabrication has been repeated in the press means only that the reporters were too lazy or too stupid to look beyond Mr. Burt's claims. I find it appalling that a librarian would not only manufacture and repeat egregiously false information with such zeal, but would even celebrate when it's spread further by others. >You later drastically revised your count to 5,601, but showing >astonishing similarity to the tactics of filtering companies, you have refused >to release this new, secret list of allegedly blocked sites. Let's look past the mischaracterization of Censorware Project's practices for a moment: Is Mr. Burt saying that he thinks the methods used by the makers of the products he endorses are unacceptable? <snip> > Indeed, the latest legal memo from ALA flatly calls policies like > Holland's unconstitutional: <snip> > Are you urging Holland to continue > a policy the ALA calls unconstitutional or not? Well? Um, the legal memo is from the law firm of Jenner & Block, not from ALA. I disagree with this bit of J&B's memo, since it assumes "arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." I worked for a major law firm for more than 8 years; I know that lawyers sometimes make mistakes. (That's why there are so many of them! <g>) Brian Smith Assistant Head of Adult Services Villa Park (IL) Public Library http://www.villapark.lib.il.us/ bsmith[at]linc.lib.il.us . But writing only on my own behalf =========== "If you didn't want them to think, you shouldn't have given them library cards." -- _Getting Straight_ (1970) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 05:50:13 -0800 (PST) From: David Burt <dburt[at]afo.net> To: publib <publib[at]sunsite.berkeley.edu> Subject: Study touted by ALA grossly flawed Study touted by ALA grossly flawed http://www.filteringfacts.org/hunter.htm For Immediate Release Friday, February 18, 2000 Contact: David Burt David_Burt[at]filteringfacts.org 503 635-7048 A new study currently being touted by the American Library Association as demonstrating that Internet filters "improperly block 21% of benign content" has been found to have gross flaws in sampling and methodology. The sample used in the study was seriously flawed because it attempts to represent the entire Internet with a non-random sample of 200 sites, many of which were selected with the apparent intent of triggering filters. A much worse flaw in the study is its methodology, because it tests for blocking of "sex", "profanity", "nudity", and "violence", with filters configured by the researcher to block "gambling" and "alcohol", against a sample of "purposefully selected" gambling and alcohol sites, which the research then counted as "wrongly blocked". Mr. Hunter's Study A key statistic currently being touted by the American Library Association in its opposition to filtering is "filters block one out of every five sites containing legal, useful information." The statistic is cited four separate times in ALA's newest document, "Libraries & the Internet Toolkit", available at http://www.ala.org/internettoolkit/. The source of the statistic is "Filtering the Future? : Software Filters, Porn, PICS, and the Internet Content Conundrum" (July, 1999), the master's thesis of Christopher Hunter, a doctoral student at the Annenberg School for Communication of the University of Pennsylvania. The study is reminiscent of the famous Mary Rimm study, "Marketing Pornography on the Information Superhighway" (1995), in that it makes an astonishing statistical claim about the Internet that conflicts with common sense and every-day experience. Just as regular Internet users were incredulous of Rimm's claim that "83.5 percent of all computerized photographs available on the Internet are pornographic", regular users of filtering software are incredulous of Hunter's claim that filters "improperly block 21% of benign content". The 21% figure conflicts with other evidence gathered about the effectiveness of filters. A study by The Censorware Project of 53 million filtered web accesses in the state of Utah found that "banned accesses made up less than 1% of overall accesses" (http://censorware.net/reports/utah/main.shtml ). Further, for the filters tested by Mr. Hunter to block 20% or more of the entire world wide web would appear to be mathematically impossible. Hunter reports that the filter Surfwatch contains a "blocked site list of more than 100,000 URLs", and that the filter CyberPatrol contains "50,000 plus sites on its blocked list." Hunter then reports that Surfwatch "blocking 14...percent of content" and CyberPatrol "blocking 18 percent of content". Yet with tens of millions of individual web sites in existence, both CyberPatrol and SurfWatch would need blocklists of several million, not 50,000 to 100,000 to achieve such results. Problems with the Sample Like the Rimm study, Hunter's problems begin with his sample. While a sample of 200 sites might be useful in studying a portion of the web, such as the gambling or pornography sites, 200 sites is far too small to adequately represent the breadth of the entire world wide web, currently estimated to be between 800 million and one billion pages. But a more serious problem with the sample is that it is not random. Hunter did select 50 random sites using a search engine, but the other 150 sites in his sample were not random. Further, the filters only blocked 2.5% of this random sample, yet blocked nearly 10 times that much in the 150 non-random samples. Obviously, there are serious problems with the non-random sampling. Hunter selected 50 more sites by using search terms like "sex", and "warez", (illegal software) then the other 100 sites by selecting websites related to safe sex, gambling, alcohol, tobacco, violent games, and other topics. These topics are instantly recognizable as likely to trigger filters, and are not represented in the sample proportionately to the entire Internet. Problems with the Methodology The worst problems with the study are in the methodology. Hunter chooses as his yardstick for measuring whether or not content is "objectionable" vs. "benign" the PICS index for rating web pages for "profanity", "violence", "sex", and "nudity". Hunter then tests with four filters, CyberPatrol, NetNanny, SurfWatch, and CyberSitter, but will all blocking categories selected. This distinction is important because most of the filters are configured to block "gambling", "alcohol", "tobacco", and "illegal" (including illegal software. Hunter configured CyberPatrol to block "illegal", "gambling", and "Alcohol and tobacco", then reported CyberPatrol's blocking of "Atlantis-Gambling.Com", "AllSportsCasino.Com", "Superbet.com", "Budweiser.com", and "AbsolutVodka.com" as "blocking benign sites", because they did not contain "profanity", "violence", "sex", and "nudity". Similarly, Hunter configured SurfWatch to block "Drugs/Alcohol" and "Gambling", then reports SurfWatch's blocking of "Atlantis-Gambling.Com", "AllSportsCasino.Com", "PlatinumCasino.com", "Budweiser.com", "AbsolutVodka.com", "RJ Reynolds" as "blocking benign sites", because they did not contain "profanity", "violence", "sex", and "nudity". Conclusions The Hunter study is being portrayed as a study of how well filters perform under average, typical use. A close examination reveals this to be a false representation. The Hunter study does not test a representative sample of the entire Internet, and the samples appear to have been selected to trigger much higher-than-normal error rates. Most egregiously, the Hunter study uses a methodology that appears designed to produce much higher rates of improper blocking than would normally be experienced, leaving readers with a grossly inaccurate portrayal of the effectiveness of Internet filters. David Burt Filtering Facts.org DavidBurt[at]filteringfacts.org Phone/Fax 503 635-7048 210 S. State Street #7 Lake Oswego, Oregon .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Note from Library Juice: David Burt misrepresents the Censorware study when he claims it showed a 1% occurrence of inappropriately blocked sites. Jamie McCarthy, who participated in the study, takes Burt to task in his article in Slashdot, saying the Censorware study showed a 20% occurence of inappropriately blocked sites. The Slashdot article in question is at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/14/2316202 See below for a follow-up. ____________________________________________________________________________top 4. Latest on Holland, MI filtering battle Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:08:12 -0500 From: Chuck0 <chuck[at]tao.ca> To: librarians[at]lists.tao.ca Subject: Latest on Holland, MI filtering battle Jamie McCarthy provides Slashdot readers wil an excellent update on the filtering battle in Holland, MI. BTW, some of the comments on this article are interesting. I especially like the one that points out that the pro-filtering camp is comprised of people who want to turn the U.S. into a theocracy. In other words, Taliban West. These are also the same people who want to outlaw birth control. Lightning Crashes, An Old Freedom Dies (Updated) http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/02/21/132237&mode=thread -- << Chuck0 >> Homepage: http://flag.blackened.net/chuck0/home/ Mid-Atlantic Infoshop: http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review: http://flag.blackened.net/apr/ Free Leonard Peltier! http://www.freepeltier.org/ "A society is a healthy society only to the degree that it exhibits anarchistic traits." - Jens Bjørneboe ____________________________________________________________________________top 5. The Center for Public Integrity http://www.publicintegrity.org/ The Center for Public Integrity is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., whose mission is to examine public service and ethics-related issues. Founded in 1989 by Charles Lewis, the Center has published 40 studies, reports and books, the most recent of which is The Buying of the President 2000, second in a series that The New Yorker called "an essential reference work." The website provides access to databases linking campaign finance to legislative action, searchable by candidate. Also available are back issues of the Center's newsletter, The Public i. Current issues are at the newsletter's website, http://www.public-i.org The Center for Public Integrity's new book: The Buying of the President 2000 By Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity Book Release: January 5th 2000 The authoritative guide to the big-money interests behind this year's presidential candidates. This year's presidential election is already one for the record books: the most obscenely expensive race in history. Some of the leading aspirants have already run tens of millions of dollars through their political war chests, and Election Day 2000 could bring the American people their first "$200 Million President." Why and how has the process of choosing a President moved from the voting booth to the auction block? In The Buying of the President 2000, Charles Lewis and the Center for Public Integrity shine their spotlight on the special (and often secret) interests that have heavily invested in the politicians who are seeking the nation's highest office. This incisive and eye-opening book has been widely acclaimed as the authoritative guide to special interests that are bankrolling the presidential contenders -- Democrat, Republican, and Independent, major contender and "dark horse" alike. Here, and nowhere else, you'll find the answers to questions like: Which candidate made a cool $15 million in a sweetheart deal arranged by his top political patrons? Who is secretly pushing to abolish the corporate income tax? How has one candidate turned his presidential campaign into a gravy train for himself and members of his family? How did one candidate become a millionaire with a series of by-invitation-only investment deals? Look a bios on all the major soft money donors to the two major parties over time. View a comprehensive list of all-time largest soft money donors to the Democratic and Republican parties. The Top 50 list includes a short profile of each donor. 304 pages (January 2000) Avon Books (Pap Trd); ISBN: 0380795191 ; Dimensions (in inches): 1.06 x 8.01 x 5.28 ____________________________________________________________________________top 6. Public Citizen's Campaign Finance Reform and Government Ethics page http://www.citizen.org/congress/reform/refhome.html Has reports and factsheets, letters to congress, archived materials and useful links. With the decline of investigative reporting, non-profits like the Center for Public Integrity and Public Citizen are essential sources of pertinent information. ____________________________________________________________________________top 7. FAIR's election reports Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting keeps tabs on the news media. No librarian concerned with the facts should overlook their reporting of the news behind the news and their diligent separation of truth and lie. http://www.fair.org/issues-news/election.html ____________________________________________________________________________top 8. Steve Sovern's story, from Jim Hightower Excerpt from Jim Hightower's new book, _If God had meant us to vote, He would have given us candidates_ Harper Collins, 2000. ISBN 0-06-019393-X http://www.jimhightower.com ...In the politics of 2000, people don't matter. Steve Sovern found that out a few years ago when he ran for Congress from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. A Democrat, he was a promising candidate with a terrific group of volunteers and an enthusiastic base of support. The party brought him to Washington for a two-day candidate's workshop put on by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Steve says he was excited to be among some seventy other grade-A Democratic candidates attending this how-to-win workshop: "I looked forward to returning to Cedar Rapids filled with ideas, ideals, and inspiration." He came to the meeting all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed with his notepad and tape recorder, ready to absorb all the wisdom the party could offer. "Understand how the game is played," offered a big-time media consultant as the workshop opened. "Game?" thought Steve, as it quietly dawned on him that this might not be about ideals and issues. "Money drives this town," intoned a DCCC staffer, followed by another consultant who informed the budding members of Congress: "You have to sell yourself to Washington first," by which he meant the lobbyists who control the PAC funds. Rep. Peter Hoagland, then a lawmaker from Nebraska, came in to assure the group that "raising campaign money from Washington PAC's is much easier than from individuals because it's a business relationship." Steve's eyes squinted as he thought, "Business relationship?" The DCCC staffer clarified the point, in case any of the seventy innocents didn't get it: "These people are paid to give you money. You have to *do* certain things, but they *want* to give you money." What if you don't want to take their filthy lucre, which Steve did not? Congressman Hoagland: "Some of you may be under pressure to repudiate PACs. I strongly suggest you not take the hook. Restrain yourself, don't let zeal for reform influence you." Hmmm, thought Steve: "Let lobbyists' money influence you, but not zeal for reform?" To put theory into practice, day two of the workshop began with a "mating dance" brunch. The DCCC invited a flock of PAC directors to eat croissants and look over the seventy congressional prospects, who in turn were expected to preen, strut, and do whatever it takes to mate monetarily with the PACs. Steve reports that the candidates wore blue name tags, while the PACs sported red ones. Rep. Beryl Anthony of Arkansas led the dance, informing the candidates that the assembled PAC directors were their friends, that PACs represent "little people." Steve says, "I saw the Phillips Petroleum PAC representative smile with approval. I wondered if he was the representative of the 'little people' to whom Anthony referred." The congressman then urged the PAC reps to visit with each of the candidates while they were in town, because he was sure the money interests would find matches among the lawmakers-to-be that will "make your board of directors proud of you." Left out of the equation, said Steve, "were the people I sought to represent." Instead, all the instruction was on raising money and hiring Washington consultants to run their congressional campaigns. "You can't hire local people - forget it!" bellowed a PAC director. Congressman Hoagland underscored the point: "[You] must hire world-class people and not local people. That's why you have to raise a lot of money." Don't even mess with volunteers, the eager candidates were told by a PAC director: "They can't do polling, radio, direct mail, or TV." Steve was stunned: "At the moment he spoke, my campaign had scores of volunteers who still believed in a government 'of the people,' phoning neighbors to talk about the campaign and issues that concerned them. Other volunteers were stuffing and stamping envelopes for a direct-mail response to those concerns." At this point, he had absorbed all the cynical, manipulative, money-driven experise he could stand, so he rose to his feet and told them so, pointing out that what they were telling the candidates is exactly what people hate about politics, that this approach is a dangerous turnoff to turnout, and that it ought to be Democrats who lead the crusade to end the kind of politics they were being coached at this workshop to use. Steve says, "There was an uncomfortable silence after my comments." Then a PAC director said: "Well, I guess we don't have to wrry about contributing to *that* campaign." There was a spattering of nervous laughter, then the workshop proceeded as though nothing had happened. Sure enough, the PACs did not contribute. Steve says he was even cut from the DCCC mailing list after the workshop, no longer sent any issue papers or legislative updates. Instead, the Washington money, expertise, and even DCCC staff went to another Democrat who had already lost twice in this congressional district but was willing to "play the game." With his Washington lobbyists' PAC money, the two-time loser was able to overwhelm Steve in the primary, then proceeded to lose for a third time to the Republican in the fall. ____________________________________________________________________________top 9. "I WON'T VOTE," by W.E.B. Du Bois http://www.thenation.com/historic/19561020dubois.shtml October 20, 1956 On October 20, 1956, W. E. B. Du Bois delivers this eloquent indictment of US politics while explaining to Nation readers why he won't vote in the upcoming Presidential election. Du Bois condemns both Democrats and Republicans for their indifferent positions on the influence of corporate wealth, racial inequality, arms proliferation and unaffordable health care. ____________________________________________________________________________top 10. Two feet good ! 4 wheels bad ! - Some Radical transport websites Introduction. During the last decade a very strong movement has come into being to promote good, clean, & environmentaly sound transport. This has spawned a very large number of campaigning, or specialist organisations. Hand in hand with these organisations there has grown many grassroots organisations, like 'Reclaim the Streets'. which have taken direct action to save our cities, and subsequently our world, from the ecocide that results from the use of the internal combustion engine. This briefing is intended to look at some of the websites that reflect these movements, & which can help in building the movement towards ecologically sound transportation for us all. the purpose of this briefing is also to give some ideas about the kinds of alternative transport that is available, & the work that radical bodies are doing within this field. I have included some websites which list Pedestrian liberationist actions to save the streets ( our environment ). I have not included any 'official' public transport websites, be they for the tube ( metro), overground ( railways ), or buses. They can surely do their own P.R. work. N.B. Rather than give my own description of the organisations listed, I have included their own texts. For clarification - these texts are in quote marks . These various websites I have listed are for action & in order to safeguard our future. Share & enjoy ! ............. Historical Note. The movement towards better public transport, pedestrianisation, & improved bike routes is nothing new. Unfortunately much of the history of this movement is just not so widely known, or has been lost from the achieves. There is clearly a lot of work that should be done upon this subject, but for now I'll give just two examples: .......................................... Edinburgh Liberation Front. ELF campaigned for the pedestrianisation of one of the cities streets, circa 1970. Their actions included such things as painting double yellow lines, (which indicate a no parking area ) along the side of the street. At one point 4 ELFs ( as they were known ) had 17 separate charges against them. E.G. for 'stealing' parking bollards, etc. Over a decade later the street they had concentrated their efforts upon became pedestrianised. The Elfs also worked upon the issue of housing within the Scottish capital. As part of this campaign they conducted tourist walks around the city slums. ....................... Trafiikkasjone This was a body that was active in Oslo, Norway, during the early 1980s. Not only did they undertake direct action to promote safer streets, bikeways, & public transport, they also produced a wealth of materials too. This material include bike maps, a journal ' Bytrafikken' ( Town traffic ), & some excellent pamphlets too. PÂl Jensen who founded Trafiikkasjone, used to sell these items from a stall within the town centre, together with a pro-cycle badge in Chinese. When asked why in Chinese, I was told that it was because as more people speak Chinese than any other language within the world....then blah, blah, blah. This was at a spot almost directly outside of the Norwegian parliament - A great marketing ploy ! PÂl Jensen also wrote a pamphlet entitled ' Den Hollige Bil' ( the holly car ), which likened the attitude of motorists to their vehicles, as being almost parallel to the practice of a religion. .................. The websites ...................... Pedestrian Association http://www.pedestrians.org.uk/ The pedestrian Association was active during the 1920s, and has been campaigning for the rights of pedestrians since then. While perhaps not the most radical of organisation, it is one that has done & continues to do some very important work. The website gives a brief history of the organisation, membership details, & its current campaigns. It also has a list of the organisations publications, leaflets, & other campaigning materials - many of which are for free ! ........................... car busters http://antenna.nl/eyfa/cb/ This is the webpage of the: ' movement of activists is fighting car culture in Europeís cities, a growing movement making itself heard louder and louder across national boundaries and language barriers.' Carbusters puts out some very excellent information that is of use to both pedestrian liberationists, & town planners too. The Carbusters network has also organised a number of conferences for activists. What is nice about this webpage is that it is multilingual, with information in English, French, German, Spanish, & Esperanto. It is also intended that this webpage will also soon be available in Russian, Swedish, & Dutch. Carbusters also produce a wonderful periodical, which it is impossible to overpraise ! For more info: Carbusters, 44 Rue Burdeau, 69001 Lyon, France. Email : carbusters[at]wanadoo.fr ..................... London Cycling Campaign [ LCC ] http://www.cerbernet.co.uk/lcc/ LCC has been engaged in the active promotion of bike transport for over a quarter of a century. To quote the organisations mission statement: ' The London Cycling Campaign exists to increase cycling in Greater London for the benefit of individuals, local communities and the wider environment by: - promoting cycling - improving conditions for cycling - raising the profile of cycling ' The website contains links & information about Local ( London ) & national cycling groups & organisations, periodicals, cycletouring, plus all the other practical information that any cyclist might ever require. ..................... The International Bicycle Fund http://www.ibike.org/ To quote the text upon the website: 'The International Bicycle Fund is a non-governmental, nonprofit organization, promoting sustainable transport and international understanding. Major areas of activity are non-motorized urban planning, economic development, bike safety education, responsible travel and cycle tourism, and cross-cultural, educational, bicycle programs.' This website also contains a very useful list of cycling organisations throughout the world. ...................... Reclaim the streets http://www.gn.apc.org/rts/ Reclaim the Streets ( RtS) is a network of individuals that are engaged upon direct action to ( you guessed it ), Reclaim the Streets. RTS specialises in street parties, & has engaged upon a number of wonderfully imaginative actions since its first street party in Camden ( North London ) during 1995. The RTS website contains images ( photos & flyers ) of these street parties & demonstrations. There is a DIY guide to organising street parties, which contains a lot of very useful information for activists. This includes instructions about how one might construct Scaffold tripods, which are used to hold people who are engaged upon closing down carriageways. This is perhaps one of the best websites that I know about in terms of Graphic design. For this alone it is worth a long look/see. There is link to the Adbusters Website http://www.adbusters.org/home/ Another organisation that is doing some very worth while work ! ......................... Earth First ! http://www.eco-action.org Earth First ! [ EF! } is perhaps one of the best known of the ecological direct action movements. It has a very good track record in regards to campaigning against the road building programme, and other ecologically unsound developments. The Earth First ! website not only has a lot of news & information about the actions of the EF! Federation, but news of other campaigning bodies too. The website also contains a very long list of EF! groups ( both local & International ), plus other ecological campaigning groups & organisations. One might question some of the activities that EF! is engaged upon, but the website can be very useful to anyone engaged upon ecological campaigning . ...................... Schnews http://www.schnews.org.uk/ This is the website version of the Brighton Based weekly newsheet, which is famed for its coverage of radical politics. As Schnews covers many stories about anti-road building actions. A must for all pedestrian activists to read ! ......................... The Ramblers Association. http://www.ramblers.org.uk/ The ramblers Association traces its history back to the development of walking clubs in the 1920s, & the mass trespass on Kinder Scout in the Peak District during 1932. The present R.A. was formed in 1935. ' The Ramblers' Association is an environmental organisation campaigning to encourage walking, open up public footpaths, protect the countryside and secure the freedom to roam on mountains, moors, heaths, downs and common land in England and Wales.' This website not only gives one details about the R.A., its work & aims, but all that one should know about its ' Freedom to roam campaign' too. The R.A. also produces a large number of publications, including many footpath guides that cover England, Scotland, & Wales. .................................. Alliance for a Paving Moratorium http://www.tidepool.com/alliance/ I first came upon this organisation through its publication: Auto-free Times, which is one of the best pedestrian liberationist periodicals that is about. To quote the website: ' Launched in 1990, the nonprofit Alliance for a Paving Moratorium is a diverse and rapidly growing movement of grassroots community groups, individuals and businesses. Our common goal: to halt the tremendous environmental, social and economic damage caused by endless road building. Decaying inner cities, foul air and water, global warming and war over oil are all byproducts of our growth-at-any-cost economy. A paving moratorium would limit the spread of population, redirect investment from suburbs to inner cities, and revitalize our economy. Funds would be freed for mass transportation and to maintain existing roads. The Alliance assists road fighters all over the world, and publishes Road Fighters' Alerts and the quarterly Auto-Free Times magazine. ' This website not only gives information about the organisation & its work, but lists some useful 'factsheet' arguments. Links on this website include: Bicyclopedia The Earth First! Journal National Bicycle Greenway in Action & Third Battle of Newbury - Direct-action group fighting Newbury bypass .............. Follow up This briefing is only intended to be an introduction to some of the groups & organisations that are working upon radical transport alternatives. Other bodies include : Transport 2000 Friends of the Earth critical mass Road Alert ! etc, etc. Now it's up to you to do the rest ..........!!!!!! ............................................... ........& a book that's worth reading too. Schneider, Kenneth R AUTOKIND Vs MANKIND An analysis of Tyranny A Proposal for Rebellion A Plan for Reconstruction Schocker Books - New York - 1972 isbn 0-8052-0357-5 This is still one of best books on radical transport that I know of ! Martyn Lowe February 2000 ................. Please feel free to copy, publish, & copy this on. Martyn ____________________________________________________________________________top 11. Library Song Words and music http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/libsong.htm ____________________________________________________________________________top L I B R A R Y J U I C E | http://libr.org/Juice/ | | Library Juice is supported by a voluntary subscription | fee of $10 per year, variable based on ability and | desire to pay. You may send a check payable in US funds | to Rory Litwin, at PO Box 720511, San Jose, CA 95172 | | Original material and added value in Library Juice | is copyright-free; beyond that the publisher makes | no guarantees. Library Juice is a free weekly | publication edited and published by Rory Litwin. | Original senders are credited wherever possible; | opinions are theirs. If you are the author of some | email in Library Juice which you want removed from | the web, please write to me and I will remove it. | | Your comments and suggestions are welcome. | | Rory[at]libr.org This page was created by SimpleText2Html 1.0.3 on 22-Feb-100.