I recently spent some vacation time at ALA. I took it as vacation so I could visit friends and family after the conference was done.

Like Walt Crawford before me, I thought Twitter had potential as a communications tool during ALA. He didn’t find it helpful, but I thought it was worth a shot. I had a wireless comm device (An XO laptop), a group of colleagues at conference who were also on Twitter.

So I sent out updates and tried to organize lunches through Twitter. But it didn’t work out. Why?

The first time I tried to set up a lunch via Twitter, I asked people to DM me if they wanted to have lunch. I figured if anyone responded, I could send them my cell number and we could connect. Someone did. But when I went to send my cell number, the convention center wireless went out. Valerie Glenn, I’m very sorry. Technically this wasn’t Twitter’s fault.

Today I simply tweeted that I’d be in a certain place around noon. I went to the appointed place and had the good fortune to find a non-Twitter friend to have lunch with. I asked him to wait while I checked Twitter for other lunch partners. Twitter apologized for being over capacity and showed me a flock of birds.

This wasn’t the first trouble I’d had with Twitter at ALA and I wasn’t the only Twitter enthusiast who had trouble. A friend speculated that ALA might be at fault for Twitter because so many librarians have latched onto it so coming to a conference brought a burst of tweets too much  for ol Twitter to bear.

Whatever the reason, Twitter doesn’t seem to scale well and I’ll be leaving It out of my conference toolbox next time.  At least until I see some documented conference success stories.

The National Religious Campaign Against Torture has a new Declaration of Principles they plan to present to both major candidates. These are principles not followed by the current administration but should be. Please read over the Principles and see if they seem like the right and American thing to do to you:

——————————–

Declaration of Principles for a Presidential Executive Order On Prisoner Treatment, Torture and Cruelty

Though we come from a variety of backgrounds and walks of life, we agree that the use of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment against prisoners is immoral, unwise, and un-American. In our effort to secure ourselves, we have resorted to tactics which do not work, which endanger US personnel abroad, which discourage political, military, and intelligence cooperation from our allies, and which ultimately do not enhance our security. Our President must lead us by our core principles. We must be better than our enemies, and our treatment of prisoners captured in the battle against terrorism must reflect our character and values as Americans. Therefore, we believe the President of the United States should issue an Executive Order that provides as follows:

The “Golden Rule.” We will not authorize or use any methods of interrogation that we would not find acceptable if used against Americans, be they civilians or soldiers.

One national standard. We will have one national standard for all US personnel and agencies for the interrogation and treatment of prisoners. Currently, the best expression of that standard is the US Army Field Manual, which will be used until any other interrogation technique has been approved based on the Golden Rule principle.

The rule of law. We will acknowledge all prisoners to our courts or the International Red Cross. We will in no circumstance hold persons in secret prisons or engage in disappearances. In all cases, prisoners will have the opportunity to prove their innocence in ways that fully conform to American principles of fairness.

Duty to protect. We acknowledge our historical commitment to end the use of torture and cruelty in the world. The US will not transfer any person to countries that use torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

Checks and balances. Congress and the courts play an invaluable role in protecting the values and institutions of our nation and must have and will have access to the information they need to be fully informed about our detention and interrogation policies.

Clarity and accountability. All US personnel—whether soldiers or intelligence staff—deserve the certainty that they are implementing policy that complies fully with the law. Henceforth all US officials who authorize, implement, or fail in their duty to prevent the use of torture and ill-treatment of prisoners will be held accountable, regardless of rank or position.

This initiative is coordinated by the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, Evangelicals for Human Rights, and the Center for Victims of Torture.

——————

If you believe the above principles are what America should be held to, please endorse the declaration yourself by visiting http://www.nrcat.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=158. Once you’ve endorsed the declaration, then blog about it or e-mail your friends about it.

If there is something about the principles outlined above that you think America should be NOT be bound by, I’d like to know why. Unless you say it’s because terrorists are evil, torturing killers. They are. But this is about us. Not them.

This week the Supreme Court made me proud of America by reaffirming the rights of prisoners and rejecting the Bush administration’s contention they could create a haven free of habeas corpus. The court took a step in the direction of the signers of the Declaration of Independence who asserted that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

I am also proud of Senator Barack Obama, who fully endorsed the decision in Boumediene v. Bush. He understands the concept of universal human rights, something America must support at home if we are to fight for human rights abroad. If you agree that it is God, and not the State, that bestows rights upon human beings, then I hope you will vote Obama in November.

In my last post I expressed my belief that electing Senator McCain would amount to a third Bush term, at least in terms of foreign policy and likely in tone i i.e. ‘You’re a supporter of the President’s policies or you hate America.’ This is a big reason why I am supporting Barack Obama for President.

But if being the UnBush was all I thought Obama could offer the US, I wouldn’t be so enthusiastic for him. Here are some reasons I think you should vote FOR Obama rather than AGAINST McCain.

1) Senator Obama is deeply committed to government transparency. He is the only remaining major party candidate to sign the Reason foundation’s “Oath of Governmental Transparency.” He himself has sponsored a number of disclosure bills.

2) Senator Obama started out as a community organizer. Many of our pressing social problems will only be solved if people are committed at a local level. Senator Obama understands this and will be well placed to get federal agencies working with local communities.

3) Senator Obama understands that to diminish Mideast power we must break the hold of petroleum. He will work with Congress to deploy current, proven alternatives and give meaningful funding  to research in other promising alternative energy resources. The energy of the future won’t come from a single magic source, but from many types of resources. But we can’t get there from here as long as we obsess over oil production. China and India will always be able to take more global oil than we can produce locally, driving up prices .

4) Senator Obama is gracious to his opponents and disciples his employees who are not. I think this is key to changing the tone in Washington — see opponents as people who have different ideas and not as evildoers with hidden agendas. Under an Obama presidency it will be clearly understood that dissent does NOT equal treason.

5) Senator Obama has expressed willingness to abandon the failed, bipartisan US strategy of attempting to ignore our enemies to death that has consistently failed to produce results since 1960 with Cuba and most of our major new adversaries since 1979. We need a president who really understands that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. If elected, Senator Obama promises to do different things and we will get different results.

I believe that if we elect Senator John McCain in November, the effect will be of giving President Bush a third term. If you are part of the 80% of this country that believes we’re on the wrong track, you should not vote for Senator McCain.

I beieve this because in every year since 2001, Senator McCain has voted in favor of President Bush’s positions at least 77% of the time and in 2007 voted the President’s way 95% of the time.

I believe that Senator McCain is a Bush third term because he supports the President’s policy in Iraq and will continue the occupation indefinitely. He talks about 2013, but no word on how we get there and winding down the occupation doesn’t take place in his first term. This sounds like Bush.

Senator McCain recently abandoned his commitment against torture by saying that the CIA cannot be bound by the same rules as the rest of the government. This is the Bush position.

Senator McCain believes the President can engage in secret warrantless wiretapping outside of statute by virtue of the President’s Article II power. This is the Bush position.

I could go on, but I rather turn the floor over to McCain’s supporters (or campaign staff) to explain how their candidate is different from President Bush.

I’d like you to accept this challenge:

Identify five current specific policies currently carried out by the Bush Adminstration and use statements or position papers from Senator McCain to demonstrate how a McCain Presidency would be substantially different from a Bush Presidency. If I’m convinced, I’ll put up a new blog entry letting people know I was mistaken.

The Administration policies must be current and McCain’s opposition to those policies and his proposed alternative must be not contradicted by more recent statements. For example, in December 2007 McCain was against non-FISA wiretapping and telecom immunity. This month his campaign has come out in favor of telecom immunity and believes that the President’s warantless wiretapping is legal under the so called inherent powers of Article II of the Constitution. He has done a similar unfortunate flip-flop on the torture issue as well. He fought hard against it, now says the CIA cannot be limited to the US Army Interrogation manual. This is an endorsement of Bush’s “anything goes” philosophy as typified in the torture memos of the Administration.

But perhaps you’ll find and document meaningful areas of disagreement.

I’ve been watching a lot of Mission Impossible lately, so I must conclude with “That’s your mission, if you decide to accept it. Good Luck.”

I am very happy to see Barack Obama clinch the Democratice nomination. I have already contributed my $50 to the campaign and hope you will too. My joy at this development will only increase tomorrow if Senator Clinton follows through on reports that she will endorse Obama Saturday. This will let the Democrats come together and defeat John McCain. The road will be hard because as Senator Obama points out, the Republicans have become fond of using religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon.

At this historic time in history, I’d like appeal to my fellow Obama supporters not to engage in personal namecalling attacks on McCain that focus on his age or perceived character. On some sites I’ve visited I’ve heard McCain called ‘gramps’ and the subject of ageist jokes. This should cease. Not only because it is the moral thing to, but because seniors are an important voting block. Seeing Obama supporters ridiculing McCain for his age will antagonize these voters and rally them around McCain. Not only that, but Senator Obama himself will be forced to take time from his message to answer accusations that he himself is ageist. Let’s spare him that pain.

Attacking McCain on his positions, even with nicknames doesn’t bother me. While I probably won’t use McSame or McBush to describe Senator McCain, I probably will refer to him as Bush’s third term. McSame and McBush become useful shorthand. McCain supporters may not find this fair and they’ll have a chance to refute me in my next blog post.

Today I realized I had a spare USB keyboard laying around. This now makes the XO Laptop an effective blogging tool for me. And I’m glad I figured this out. Wish I had a month ago. Why? Because Juneau is still in the grip of its power cost crisis. We’re currently paying 0.52/Kwh, although this is expected to go down next month as our hydropower is returning ahead of schedule.

But during that time, I intend to blog more from the XO because it lives up to its power efficiency claims. When drawing electricity from the grid it pulls 10 watts. Compare this to my living room computer that pulls 95W or my 2nd bedroom computer, which pulls 150W, more tthan my TV set and DVD player put together!

How do I know all these consumption figures? Because of a great device that someone lent me called the “Kill A Watt.” I’d heard about them a few years ago, but never thought about using them because we had 0.11 Kwh hydropower. You can learn more about the “Kill A Watt” at http://www.p3international.com/products/special/P4400/P4400-CE.html

So I’ll see about being an energy efficient blogger, at least for a while.

Mark Sanborn, author of the Fred Factor, asked an excellent question in his blog on April 28, 2008. He asked, “What kind of Hope?” in reference to the 2008 Presidential election. He starts off the entry by saying, “We hear much about our next president providing America hope…but what kind of hope.” He rightly, in my view, warns against simple “entitlement hope.”

His question and commentary set me to thinking and after a month, I think I’m ready to set some thoughts down. I have some specific hopes for the upcoming election and while no candidate is going to be perfect, I think Senator Barack Obama has the best promise to fulfill them.

– I hope for a President who will embrace government transparency. I want to see policy formulated in the open. Senator Obama is the only major candidate left to sign the Reason’s Foundation’s Oath of Presidential Transparency.

– I hope for a president who will break with the failed bipartisan policy of refusing to hold direct talks to America’s enemies. This hasn’t worked for decades and makes us look fearful and intransigent. Senator Obama has already rejected this policy and is taking heat for it.

– I hope for a president who will emphasize resiliency instead of fear. We can never reduce the chance of terrorism to zero. Rather than promoting fear about the danger, our government should be thinking about how we can go about bouncing back as quickly as possible. This will produce confidence and citizen empowerment in the face of danger. I consider the current climate of “Only the government can protect you and you must give up your privacy” to be a form of statism.

– I hope for a president who will make a real effort to shift us away from petroleum into other forms of energy. As long as oil is a valuable commodity, Wahabbist funding countries like Saudi Arabia will have a disproportionate amount of influence. If we were spending HALF of what we are spending on the Iraq Occupation subsidizing energy efficiency and deploying mostly proven alternative technologies, I believe we would be a long ways towards that goal. A number of good ideas can be found at http://www.nohairshirts.com/chap0.php. This isn’t an issue that any one person can change overnight, but if we had high-level leadership on this issue, we could be changing faster.

– Finally, as readers know, I hope for an end of the Iraq Occupation. I feel very confident that neither McCain nor Clinton will get us there. But based on his public statements AND his willingness to follow Iraq’s lead in talking to Iran and Syria, I think Senator Obama is the most likely person to start the process of ending the occupation.

So that’s what I hope for. What do you hope for?

Hi All,

From my WordPress stats, I can see that this blog gets somewhere in the neighborhood of 400 hits a month. So some people are reading and some of you *might* be wondering what I’m doing with myself since I haven’t posted anything here since May 11th.  I’ve actually been doing a good bit of documents and library related blogging, just not here.

Some folks read me for library stuff, and others actually read my other ravings. If you’re interested in the former, here’s where I’m currently blogging:

- Information Homestead - http://informationhomestead.wordpress.com/ - This is the group blog of the Alaska Library Association Government Documents Roundtable. It is just starting to get off the ground.

- Alaska Library Association blog - http://alaska-library-association.blogspot.com/ - This is another group blog and my contributions are oriented to continuing education and Alaska library news. Activity on this blog should increase as we get closer to the 2009 AkLA conference in Kodiak Alaska.

- State Agency Database Highlights - http://statedatabase.wordpress.com/ - Rebecca Blakeley and I highlight interesting databases created by state agencies that have been brought to light by the State Agency Databases Across the Fifty States project.

I hope to get back to blogging more regularly here too, but I need to find something to say. Lately I’ve felt like my take on current events is an echo of many others. But I have been reading some good books (David Story, Permafrost) and watch good DVD series (Mission Impossible, the Up Series), so maybe I’ll make some time to write about that. Then there’s Juneau’s power crisis.

Most people outside of Alaska have probably not heard of Lew Williams, retired publisher of the Ketchikan Daily News. He died May 3, 2008. Mr. Williams was well known inside Alaska and I *thought* I knew his public persona pretty well. But I was wrong.

In my nearly 10 years in Alaska, I knew Mr. Williams mostly as 1) Someone who never saw any development project he didn’t like and 2) often equated opposition to President Bush with anti-Americanism at best and treason at worst.  One example:

2/11/2007

“Then the Bush haters piled on, especially those, such as Biden, who are running for president in 2008. Other resolutions were offered against the troop buildup. None of them were binding, and none came to the floor of the Senate.

House members will try next to embarrass Bush and encourage our enemy.”
————

However, in the course of his obituaries, I learned that he was passionate about local ownership of newspapers and actually scorned at least one Outside offer to buy his Petersburg paper so that he could sell it to someone in town. As recently as 2006, he wrote about the importance of local newspapers. As I’m a big fan of local media, I have to salute his commitment to local news production and I mourn the loss of another voice for independent media.

God bless, Mr. WIlliams.