Thursday. The 29^th of November. 2007. The strike was entering its twenty-fourth day and eyes on both coasts were glued to BlackBerrys, televisions, and old fashioned computer screens despite the early hour. Rumors had been running rampant on the internet for the past few days. One rumor said that the AMPTP (Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers) was bringing a deal in good faith to the table. Another said that nearly half of the showrunners, industry terminology for the behind-the-scenes folks responsible for the actual production of films and movies, had returned to work in expectation of the end of the strike. It was all rumor and guessing at this point. There was a media blackout in effect.

The media blackout left the roughly 12,000 film and television writers collectively known as the Writers Guild of America (WGA) wondering. They were left to wonder about when they put down their picket signs and return to work. They were left to wonder why they were treated differently than book writers and song writers when their materials were reproduced. And they were forced to wonder about the sudden slew of organized labor terms that suddenly had to be learned.

As with most disagreements, the origins of the 2007 WGA Strike are a bit hard to determine. Originally, television writers received no royalties from the shows which they worked on. Through the power of collective bargaining, that changed in 1949. The unions of writers began down a path to develop a contract that protected their creative rights, as well as protecting them later in life. Through several years of bargaining, a contract that technically leased a script to producers, rather than selling it to them, was developed. This meant that writers would receive royalties valued at a percentage of the original lease price. The contract was signed in 1953.

The idea to have one union to represent all writers for the three mediums of the day (radio, film, and television) was suggested in 1954 by the Screen Writers Guild. 1955 saw the dawn of the new union, the Writers Guild of America, and its talks with the three major television networks. The very first contract that the WGA signed included royalty rates for reuse of television shows, commonly known as the “rerun” as well as leaving all rights to the episode with the author. The contract was signed in 1956 and was a watershed point: television writers would now get paid for their work when it was re-aired.

In the 1980s, the AMPTP and WGA were once again in negotiation. This time, the AMPTP had to deal with a new medium, that of the home video market. Today, in 2007, it’s hard to understand that at one point, a household lived without as much as a VCR, but in the early 1980s, this was the case. The home video market was a precarious one, with the cost of hardware paired with the process of porting films to tape made the game expensive for everyone, consumer and producer alike. In order to help alleviate the risk on the studios’ part, the WGA agreed to take a massive pay cut on their residuals, falling to a reported 0.36% of the studio’s profits, with the agreement that one the market stabilized, the residuals would be returned to their pre-cut rates.

Two decades later, the rates have yet to return to their precut levels. The current residual that a writer earns on a DVD sale is a meager 1.5% on DVDs that return less than $5 million and 1.8% on those that return more. These percents usually work out to $0.04 per sold DVD according to the WGA, or $0.06 each according to the AMPTP. What the WGA would like is an increase to about $0.08 per sold disc. And they also do not want to make the same mistakes that were made in the 1980. Yes, again the AMPTP has a new distribution medium on their hands that is currently in its infancy – the internet.

Under the current contract, writers receive less than a penny (.6 cents) on a television show purchased from iTunes, current DVD rates on downloaded movies, and no money whatsoever on television and movies that are streamed over the internet, regardless of the money that the studios themselves make. The rub here is that, compared with the production and sale of DVDs, providing films and television shows over the internet has little-to-no overhead. This means that the studios are making a substantially greater profit thanks to removing several paid steps from the profit.

The AMPTP strategy seems to be two-fold. The first is to claim that the new market is untested, and that they have no idea how much money the future market holds. The second is to mark certain online distribution methods as promotional, and thus skirt any legal need to pay the writers, directors, actors, and industry people who participated in creating the film or episode. And the real rub? The studios are free to slap the “promotional label” on any online materials that they choose, regardless of on page, or in product advertising.

For television, the situation is only getting worse. A handful of the network flagship primetime shows, Lost and 24 in particular, are set to be aired without rerun in their upcoming seasons. However, these shows will be available on the internet, usually the following day. The math behind this move is quite simple for the writers – they lose roughly $20,000. The amount that the studio makes depends on the amount of advertising placed into the online program, and available on the page, but the current rate for writers is an established $0.00.

And this is only the dawn of the internet age when it comes to big content like television and films. The future undoubtedly holds the internet as a far more prominent tool for distribution, one which could potentially challenge cable, satellite, and over-the-air transmissions as data pipelines increase in capacity and televisions find themselves connected to the greater digital network. The writers see this. The producers see this. The writers only wish to be paid fairly for the work they produced.

The blackout lifted towards the afternoon on Thursday, the 29^th of November, 2007, and the light shown on to show that writers would not be returning to work anytime soon. The Pencils Down Means Pencils Down campaign was set to continue. The offer that the AMPTP had brought to the table was not one of good faith, but was actually one that took certain rights away from writers. In the parlance of organized labor, the offer was a roll back. The meeting would break for the weekend, with both parties returning to the table on Tuesday, the 4^th of December. The two presidents of the WGA (East and West) were not confident that Tuesdays talks would yield any results. The strike, which could have ended after only a month, was suddenly set to stretch on for much longer.

It’s no secret that subter is siding with the writers in this strike. Despite the fact that none of the staff are WGA members, we are siding with our fellow writers in the belief that a writer should be fairly paid for their work. To that end, we’re displaying our support for the WGA, and doing what we can to spread the message. To the right of this, and every subter and Shots article, there is a WGA support banner, the code for which you can find at the bottom of this article. Shots will also keep up with the strike.

Joss Whedon - the man behind Buffy and Firefly, gets vocal about the strike- “It’s always hard. Not just dealing with obtuse, intrusive studio execs, temperamental stars and family-prohibiting hours. Those are producer issues as much as anything else. Not just trying to get your first script sold, or seen, or finished, when nobody around believes you can/will/should… the ACT of writing is hard.” More.

Brian K. Vaughn - comic writer and scribe on Lost - “But basically, writers are looking to negotiate modest residuals and protections for use of our TV shows and movies on the internet, where most of us will likely be getting the majority of our entertainment from in the not-too-distant future.” More.

UnitedHollywood.com - the source for strike news

WGA.org - Writer’s Guild Offical Page

WGA.org Strike Home - Official Strike Page

HuffingtonPost - extensive writer’s strike news

Cut and paste the following to display the support link: <a href=”http://www.wga.org”> <img src= “http://www.wga.org/contract_07/supportwriters.gif” border=”0″ /></a>

Title image by ArminH

Other Posts

• The Great subter Litmus Test
• The Love Conspiracy… has been pre-empted
• From the Editor: It’s Guy’s Month
• Buffy at Ten
• I’m Wide Awake, It’s Spring – From the Editor

Whilst the world was still coming to terms with the Burmese government’s brutal crackdown against the so-called Saffron Revolution, another protest movement met with official barbarism in Asia all through November. Pakistani President, and fond ally of America, Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency that led to violent clashed between protestors and the police, the house arrest of his rivals, a media clamp down and a purge of the judiciary. Once again this fragile state could easily slide into dictatorship.

For those acquainted with Pakistan this latest round of protests should not really come as a surprise. Since its formation in 1947 the country has been plagued by dissidents and weak governments. Created by a British civil servant drawing lines across the map (indeed, in their wisdom they chose a man who had never visited the Raj to divide it between India and Pakistan), national unity is an alien concept, a costly war was fought in 1972 which led to the severance of Bangladesh from the nation, and a number of separatist movements have been active since then, most notably the Balochs, who have demanded freedom for their homeland of Balochistan, a province which incorporates 42% of the nation. The pressures of this internal disunity have combined with a fear of neighbouring India, a fear that has threatened to plunge the world into a nuclear war, to undermine governments and build the political power of the army. Since the state’s inception only two democratically elected governments have served their full terms without being ousted by a military coup. Indeed it was such a coup in 1999 that brought Musharraf into power, with him appointing himself President in 2001.

It was with the 2007 elections however that the most recent problems started. In the build-up to the election a legal challenge was launched to prevent Musharraf from standing, although this was not immediately successful, the Supreme Court forbade the electoral Commission from declaring a result until after the appeal had been fully considered. This order was disregarded by the Commission and Musharraf was elected by a College boycotted by all major opposition members. In the wake of this verdict a number of legal challenges were launched. The Supreme Court decided to reconvene on November 5^th, ten days before the end of Musharraf’s Presidential tem, in order to consider these appeals. But at 6.10 local time on November 3^rd, the government called a state of emergency.

Although publicly the state of emergency was instigated as a response to perceived terrorist threats, it has been widely seen by analysts both inside and outside Pakistan as a measure designed to prevent the Court ruling against the government. Protestors took to the street, the majority lawyers and other members of the educated classes, to be met with a brutal government response. Amnesty International and international news agencies reported that peaceful protesters were beaten by the army and police, with thousands arrested under the terms of martial law. Two weeks after the protests began, around 3,000 protesters were released, a testament to the numbers arrested. In Karachi supporters of former prime minister and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto exchanged gunfire, with two young boys being killed in the crossfire. The emergency decree was also used to crackdown on media outlets. Many national TV channels such as GEO TV and Aaj, who presented anti-Musharraf views were blocked on the grounds of “spreading discord”, BBC and CNN broadcasts were also restricted and three journalists from Britain’s Daily Telegraph were expelled from the country. But the most far-reaching consequence of the state of emergency seems to be the action taking against Pakistan’s lawyers and opposition leaders. Bhutto was placed under house arrest on November 8^th, the day before she was expected to attend and opposition rally, and although released on November 19^th the Pakistani press reports she has been threatened with prosecution for charges of corruption. Cricketer turned politician Imran Khan has been detained in prison, where he started a hunger strike in response, although he too was released. The Provisional Constitution Order that Musharraf passed following the declaration of emergency rule has been used, courtesy of a requirement that judges swear loyalty to Musharraf, to weed out judicial opposition, 12 Supreme Court judges refused to take the oath. The new Supreme Court has since threatened to withdraw the licences of any lawyer that does not recognise it, a move that aims to sway a legal profession that has been on strike since November 5^th, and has formed a large part of the opposition.

The international community has reacted with scorn towards Musharraf’s actions, but the president’s willingness to support the war on terror has limited their actions. The US government despatched John Negroponte to meet with Musharraf, calling for an end to emergency rule and the release of prisoners, however the close alliance between the United States and Pakistan means that the US is shying away from being overly critical, although president Bush is said to have had a “frank” conversation with the Pakistani president. Indeed, Musharraf’s aids have claimed that the US and Britain had advanced warning of the declaration of emergency. The Commonwealth has taken a firmer stance, suspending Pakistan’s membership in response. The Netherlands have also followed this stance freezing aid to Musharraf’s government, whilst other European countries have voiced doubts about continuing joint projects with Pakistan.

But we must be careful not to over stress this crisis. As I mentioned earlier, Pakistan has been no stranger to civil strife and more often than not some form of civilian government has soon returned. Musharraf still seems committed to hold the parliamentary elections that have been scheduled for January, although initially delayed indefinitely, he has taken steps to reinstate them. Furthermore, despite most polls indicating a majority of people want Musharraf to sep down as president, protests (and hence recriminations) have been limited to the urban middle classes, widespread violence has not been reported. Indeed in some ways Musharraf’s dictatorship is preferable to an inefficient democracy, his presidency has seen much growth in the Pakistani economy, and a reduction in the widespread corruption seen in the previous civilian governments. However, it cannot be denied that if this state of emergency continues, and democracy is further contained in Pakistan then the ramifications, both from a political and human rights point of view, could be very dangerous. Unless Pakistan is able to rescue itself from political instability the weak state will prevail, inviting more and more military coups. In turn this increased authoritarianism could, as a worst-case scenario, lead to rise of Islamic extremism and even civil war. But for the time being, we must simply keep our eyes on Musharraf and see what will develop.

Other Posts

• Can (and should) He Actually Do It?
• Hezbollah and Ensuring Peace in Lebanon
• This Land is Who’s Land?
• The World at Large - Prosecuting Black Water
• Where Do I Begin?

By David Bird

 

Does the Iraq War mark the end of America’s influence? With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 America was hailed — at least in the US — as the world’s only superpower and now, just sixteen years later, many wonder if it is choking on its own hubris.

This is not the first time a single event was used to mark the end of an imperial power. Back in 1956 the Suez Crisis brought an end to centuries of imperialism by Britain, France, and, by extension, Europe. That Crisis was sparked by the Egyptian government’s decision to nationalize the Suez Canal. There were specific reasons for this, but the 50s were a period when many governments were nationalizing strategic industries and resources, even in the West. The canal had been jointly run and controlled by London and Paris, who weren’t happy to see it go and weren’t content to let the situation stand. They conspired with Israel to get it back. Israel would launch an attack on Egypt, ostensibly in response to guerrilla attacks from Egyptian territory, and the two European partners would step in as peace keepers, separating the warring factions and in the process retaking control of the canal. They won the battle, but they lost the war. International condemnation, including from Washington, was swift and effectual. The Anglo-French troops were replaced by UN peacekeepers and the international balance of power shifted away from Europe and to the US and USSR.

But the end of European supremacy did not come about solely because of events in the Egyptian desert. The European powers had exhausted themselves in Second World War and were already divesting of many of their colonies even before Suez happened. If it was a humiliation for Britain and France, it was only because it forced them to accept their new reality. This is not a reality the America is facing. The US is still the most powerful and the richest nation… ever. Comparatively, though, it has been stronger. In 1945 it was the only major power whose cities and industries were not in ruins. It was the only nuclear power. Since then the rest of the world has grown much wealthier and many have often been compared to the US as though they were on an equal footing. Even now that is not strictly true. America’s GDP is over 13 trillion dollars. Russia’s is only 1.8 trillion, Germany’s 2.3 trillion, Japan and India’s are 4.2 each. China is closest with 10.2, but its per capita GDP is only $7,800, compared to America’s $43,800. The European Union’s is equal to the US, but that’s the combined GDP of 27 countries who, in spite of their burgeoning economic power, have not translated that wealth into political clout.

Now there are many who believe America’s economic well being is about to take a serious turn for the worse as well. The word recession is being bandied about with increasing frequency. And this may well happen. Housing starts, an important economic indicator, are going no where. Debt abounds, and may start impacting consumer spending - another important indicator. But there are other considerations to take into account. First, it should be remembered that the US economy has consistently defied the expectations of naysayers. Of course, the odds are against it doing so each and every time, but it would be foolish to ignore the recent past. Another wildcard to take into consideration is the new levels of globalization that exist. Until recently America was the engine of world economic growth. Now growth has decentralized, and smaller engines can be found across the globe. We don’t really know what this means. An example. Developing economies are responsibly for most of the new growth in oil demand, but America still consumes a quarter of the world’s supply. China, by comparison consumes eight percent. India three. If there is a recession and America’s demand for oil drops, can the new markets make up the loss? If they can, prices will remain stable. If not, prices should drop; though not as much as they would have before globalization. Other questions include: will the decentralization of the global economy speed or hinder America’s recovery? How will the lower dollar factor in? America has long enjoyed monetary bragging rights, but the lower value may tip the balance of trade in its favour and make outsourcing a less appealing option.

The new situation can be, in part, blamed on the policies of the current Administration - its policies have certainly damaged America’s credibility - but what is happening is the unfolding of trends that date back to the 1940s and have accelerated since the fall of the Soviet Union. Modernization, globalization, democratization, westernization. Call it what you will. At this point America still has the power to remain first among equals, even if its not uniquely so. If worse comes to worse and it is no longer retains the prestige it has enjoyed since 1945, what will happen? It will still be a prosperous, forward looking country. A magnet for immigrants from all over the world. Maybe its citizens will enjoy no longer feeling responsible for crises around the world. But for now, those who think America’s century - now only in its 62nd year - is over are getting ahead of events and, if the foreign and economic policies of the next Administration meet with success, America will put Iraq behind her very quickly.

Other Posts

• Leaving Iraq
• What’s Wrong With Fair Trade
• The World At Large - Another Perspective on Russian Nationalism
• The World at Large - Prosecuting Black Water
• The Road to Jamestown

David Bird

Imagine living in a country where tens of thousands of armed men, serving no one’s interest but their own, were at large and that these men had been granted immunity from any prosecution for any action whatsoever.

Like most people, I first learned of America’s extensive use of mercenaries in Iraq when an angry mob killed four of them in Fallujah in 2004. Of course, they weren’t called mercenaries. They were called ‘contractors’. You know, like the guy who built your patio. But for all the legalese and the spin, a soldier who fights for money is a mercenary and that’s what these guys are doing. They are not there to represent their nation or their nation’s interest. They are simply following the highest bidder. Washington’s reliance on these men reflects the lack of any real plan, other than the overthrow of Hussein, but their exemption from prosecution just staggers the mind.

It stems from an order issued by the, now defunct, occupational government that was put in place by the victors until an Iraqi government could be formed. The Coalition Provisional Authority’s Order 17 exempted all its employees from any actions taken through the Iraqi legal system. Whatever the CPA’s rationale, one has to wonder why the order is being interpreted so widely and why it is being upheld even though the body that issued it transferred all its power to Iraqi government three years ago.

As I write this, US lawmakers are rushing to place the mercenaries under US military control, with a view to policing future behaviour, but I want to raise two questions. The first is, why not leave them under Iraqi authority? Let Iraq prosecute these men. If a group of armed men had opened fire and killed seventeen people in the US, Canada, France, Thailand, or wherever, there would be no question as to who would prosecute them. Why isn’t Iraq the logical authority in this case? If the Americans cannot trust the Iraqis to prosecute the matter, how can they call their mission a success? If they have installed a credible government in Baghdad, then let it act to protect its own citizens.

The second question I want to raise is, why limit prosecution to future actions? Many governments and armies have issued orders that fly in the face of reason and morality, only to have the resulting actions hauled before the courts. When we first began to hold them responsible, at Nuremburg, there was no precedent, but now, across Latin America, Africa, and Asia former leaders and soldiers are finding that amnesties issued and immunities granted can be trumped by the need for the need for justice. Seventeen dead and many injured for no reason whatsoever. Someone needs to be held responsible. Criminally responsible.

*****

When putting this piece together I looked for a relevant quote and found one from Machiavelli’s The Prince: During his life time the use of private armies was widespread and its impact on the social fabric well known:

[I]f one holds his state on the basis of mercenary arms, he will never be firm or secure; because they are disunited, ambitious, without discipline, unfaithful; gallant among friends, vile among enemies; no fear of God, no faith with men; and one defers ruin insofar as one defers the attack; and in peace you are despoiled by them, in war by the enemy.

Other Posts

• Leaving Iraq
• The General and the Judges
• Canada is at War
• Saddam and Me
• Hezbollah and Ensuring Peace in Lebanon

Editor’s Note - On Thursday, 1 November, the Democrat Council in South Carolina voted 13 to 3 against letting Colbert run for their primary ticket. Numerous sources say that the internet is now pissed off.

On October 16, 2007 Stephen Colbert announced that he would seek the office of the President of the United States…in South Carolina. Desiring to run as both a Republican and Democratic candidate so that, in his words, he can “lose twice,” Colbert has, in many ways, shaken up the Presidential race with his announcement. (more…)

Other Posts

• The General and the Judges
• Leaving Iraq
• The Forgotten Dictator
• Paris for Album of the Year?
• 31 Years of Sex, Drag, and Rock n’ Roll: Rocky Horror Looks Back

(more…)

Other Posts

• The General and the Judges
• The World at Large - Prosecuting Black Water
• China and the One Child Policy
• The World At Large - Another Perspective on Russian Nationalism
• The Forgotten Dictator

David Bird

Welcome to the first edition of what I hope will be an interesting and informative monthly column. I have written on current events here before and I have learned to take a broader view of things. The period between my submission deadline and an article’s publication can mean that a column focussing on a too-current event may already be dated before anyone sees it. With that in mind I would like to kick things off with a look at the EU and the end of World War II. Bear with me, its not nearly as obscure as you might think. (more…)

Other Posts

• Remembering Other Genocides
• The World At Large - American Suez
• Cosmic Radiation
• Somewhere Between Spectator and Hooligan
• What’s Wrong With Fair Trade

Are recent government health initiatives really an assault on personal freedoms? John Oxley fights for your right to be unhealthy. (more…)

Other Posts

• New Years Resolutions You Don’t Have To Lie About
• Would Be Thanksgiving
• I Was Once an Angry Young Man
• China and the One Child Policy
• The World at Large - Prosecuting Black Water

For the majority of John Oxley’s life, Tony Blair has more-or-less been running the United Kingdom. Now in the final days of Blair’s time in office, Oxley takes a look back over what’s improved, and what has only gotten worse.

(more…)

Other Posts

• The Hand that Tests
• Global Warming: There Are Things You Can Do
• The Mog Great 501
• The Forgotten Dictator
• Love Again

David Bird examines the roles of both the President and the Congress with regards to the American war in Iraq and who should have the final say with regards to the conflict.

(more…)

Other Posts

• Canada is at War
• The World at Large - Prosecuting Black Water
• Hezbollah and Ensuring Peace in Lebanon
• Korea: What Say You?
• War of The Words