Liza [and others*] Memorabilia Auction:
A huge entertainment memorabilia auction, which will occur on eBay beginning December 1, 2005 (World AIDS Day) at 3:00 EST (Noon PST), with proceeds going to LIFEbeat, the music industry's AIDS fundraising and service charity. The auction lasts exactly ten days.
HOW DO I BID?
On December 1, go to eBay and do a search for "Bid 2 Beat AIDS." The items will come up once the auction starts! For information about the bidding process, click on "Bid" above.
other participants include: 311, 3 Doors Down, 50 Cent, Absurd Person Singular - Broadway Cast, Adam Pascal, Adrian Grenier, AFI, Alanis Morissette, Alec Baldwin, Al Franken, Alicia Keys, Alison Arngrim, All-American Rejects, Amerie, Angie Stone, Anita O'Day, Anna Chlumsky, Anthony Quinn, Anthony Rapp, Aqualung, Ashlee Simpson, Audioslave, Aventura, Avenue Q Broadway, Avenue Q Las Vegas, Backstreet Boys, Bam Margera, Barry White, Bea Arthur, Ben Jelen, Better Than Ezra, Billy Crudup, Black Eyed Peas, Bleu, Blue Note, Boston Pops, Bow Wow, Boyz ‘n da Hood, The Bravery, Brini Maxwell, Britney Spears, Brooke Shields, Busta Rhymes, Cameron Crowe, Carlos Santana, Carmen Electra, Carol Channing, Carrie Fisher, Celine Dion, Charles Busch, Chemical Boys, Cherry Jones, Cherry Monroe, Chita Rivera, Chopper, Chris Botti, Chris Connor, Chris Rock, Christina Aguilera, Christina Applegate, Christo & Jeanne-Claude, City High, Claire Danes, Clea Lewis, Clutch, Coheed and Cambria, Coldplay, Common, Crossroads, Cyndi Lauper, Da Brat, Daisy Fuentes, Dakota Fanning, Dance of the Vampires - Broadway Cast, Dan Savage, Darlene Love, Dashboard Confessional, Dave Matthews Band, David Anders, David Byrne, David Gray, David Mamet, Deana Carter, Deborah Harry, Denise Rich, Dennis DeYoung, Destiny's Child, Diana Ross, Dina Martina, Dick Cavett, Diddy, Dog Sees God - Off Broadway Cast, Doubt - Broadway Cast, Duran Duran, Edie Falco, Edwin McCain, Ellen Foley, Elton John, Elvis Presley, Eminem, Emma Bunton, Enrique Iglesias, Erasure, Eric Himan, Eros Ramozzotti, Eurythmics, Everybody Hates Chris - TV cast, Fantasia, Fatty Koo, Feist, Floetry, Foo Fighters, Frankie & Johnny in the Claire de Lune - Broadway Cast, Frankie J, George Lucas, Gloria Estefan, Godfrey, Godsmack, The Go-Go’s, Goo Goo Dolls, Gorillaz, Green Day, The Guiding Light - TV Cast, Guns ‘n’ Roses, Hanson, Harry Potter - Film Cast, Hawthorne Heights, Heatherette, Hedda Gabler - Broadway Cast, Hilary Duff, Hives, The, Hogan Family, Holly Woodlawn, Hoobastank, Idina Menzel, Iggy Pop, Jackie Beat, Jackie Collins, James Blunt, James Earl Jones, Jamie Foxx, Jay-Z, Jeffrey Gaines, Jeff Goldblum, Jennifer Lopez, Jennifer Love Hewitt, Jeremy Piven, Jesse McCartney, Jessica Alba, Jessica Simpson, Jewel, Jimmy Eat World, Jimmy Fallon, Joan Rivers, John Cameron Mitchell, John Lithgow, John Mayer, Johnny Knoxville, John Sayles, Joni Mitchell, Jordan Knight, Joss Stone, Judy Collins, Justin Timberlake, Kanye West, Karen Lynn Gorney, Kat and the Kings - Broadway Cast, Katie Couric, Kevin Connelly, Kid Rock, Kimberley Locke, Korn, Kyle Riabko, Kylie Minogue, Lance Bass, LeAnn Rimes, LeeAnn Womack, Lil Jon, Lil Kim, Lindsay Lohan, Linkin Park, Lisa Loeb, Liza Minnelli, LL Cool J, Lollapalooza, Loon, Los Lonely Boys, Loudon Wainwright, Low Millions, Ludacris, Madonna, Mamie van Doren, Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom - Broadway Cast, Mariah Carey, Marilyn Manson, Maroon 5, Martha Wash, Matchbook Romance, Meet the Barkers - TV Cast, Melissa Etheridge, Melissa Rivers, Metallica, Michael Musto, Moby, Modest Mouse, Molly Ringwald, Morningwood, My Chemical Romance, Nancy Wilson, New Kids on the Block, Noah’s Arc - TV cast, No Doubt, Norah Jones, NSync, Oasis, Olivia Newton-John, Orlando Bloom, Pamela Anderson, Parker Posey, Pat Metheny Group, Patrick Swayze, Patti Lupone, Paulina Rubio, Pet Shop Boys, Peter Tork, Pete Yorn, Phantom Planet, Pillowman, The - Broadway Cast, Pitbull, Pussycat Dolls, Rachel McAdams, Radiohead, Randy Jones, Raven Symone, The Real World - TV casts, Regis Philbin, Rent - Broadway Cast, Rent - Movie Cast, Richie Rich, Ricky Martin, Rob Schneider, Robin Byrd, Ronnie Spector, Rosario Dawson, Rue McClanahan, Rufus Wainwright, Ryan Adams, Samuel Jackson, Sandra Bernhard, Santana, Scrappy, Sevendust, Shakira, Shania Twain, Shawn Colvin, The Simpsons - TV cast, Slim Thug, Snoop Dogg, Sonic Youth, Sonny Rollins, The Sound of Music - Broadway Cast, Spamalot - Broadway Cast, Stacy Keach, Stanley Tucci, Steven Meisel, Studio 54, Styx, Sugarcult, Tab Hunter, Taye Diggs, Tego Calderon, Terrance McNally, Thalia, The Thoms, Tiffany, Tim McGraw, Todd English, Tom Cruise, Tony Bennett, Tony Hawk, Tony Kushner, Tool, Tori Amos, Tupac, U2, Usher, Village People, Vivian Green, Weird Al, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf - Broadway Cast, Whoopi Goldberg, Wicked - Broadway Cast, Wilshire, Wynonna Judd, Wynton Marsalis, Yellowcard, Ying Yang Twins, Yoko Ono, Young Jeezy, Zak Wylde, ZZ Top... and many more!!! Updated often!
Terrorist Bastards Down Under
As best that I can tell, the entire question of terrorism and how to defeat it has been derailed by a bad set of assumptions.
The guys and gals with the bombs are pretty spooky and the damage that they do is unforgiveable. Somehow, these wacky bombers seem to have become the raw material for a production line that produces angst and fear for the 'West' by the tankload. They feed the press who keep us scared by constantly reminding us to be scared. Our media willingly subject us to the message of what extreme danger we live under so mercilessly that already it has become a seemingly unquestionable trope. 'Us' must be afraid of 'them', the message is embedded in more places than CNN propagandists.
Every time that we lose another freedom the terrorists score a point toward to imposing their illiberal values on us. Our leaders have become enthusiastic collaborators because, after all, those Human Rights are pesky when one's trying to draft legislation.
It generally surprises the ordinary Australian to discover that we have no guaranteed freedom of speech and conscience. Even less understand the way in which what freedoms that we do have have evolved through the conventions of Magna Carte, the development of common law or through becoming voluntary signatories to unenforceable international covenants.
I despair as I watch the poulation hand back freedoms that are so fundmental that we will only truly realise what is gone when it's too late. Inevitably, somebody is going to be prosecuted for 'art crimes' under this legislation. This being Australia, nobody will be particularly concerned and the slow creep will face little or no resistance.
Very simply, we're teetering on the edge of enacting legislation that would make it a crime to say 'Queenie is a moo-cow and the Prime Minister pees his pants every day'. The range for discourse, dissenting or otherwise, has been significantly narrowed.
Welcome to the beginning of the end...
Sedition laws have been used to stifle dissent before. They must not be allowed to do so again, say leading Australian artists. [Sydney Morning Herald 29/11/2005]
Thomas Keneally, author
SEDITION laws are at best silly and at worst a catch-all clause for governments who want to bury dissent. My great-uncle, John Keneally, was sent on the last convict ship to Western Australia under a stitched-up 10-year sentence for sedition, that is, for promoting Irish independence. He became city treasury clerk of Los Angeles and a respected civic leader, demonstrating by his life that he had been the victim of bad law.
The silliness of sedition laws cannot be overstated: unlike murder legislation, on which there is wide and ancestral unity, all attempts to define and prosecute sedition become absurd with time. The Federal Crimes Act of 1914 sedition clauses threatened those who urged disaffection against the Government or either house of Parliament. As Philip Ruddock says, this needs to be amended, because since 1914 many Australians could be accused of having committed that crime with impunity, though some did go to jail under this broad umbrella.
To bring the sovereign into contempt or hatred is also listed as a crime, and on that basis the royal children should all be doing time. The impossibility of defining sedition in a liberal democratic society is shown up by Ruddock's defence of the proposals. Ruddock says they are "designed to protect the community from those who would abuse our democratic values and threaten our harmonious and tolerant society".
Does that include people who threaten our harmonious society by whipping up ethnic, sectional hysteria for political benefit? Does that include those who lie about the behaviour of unfortunate minorities to sow a sense of fear? If I were attorney-general, and these provisions were law, I'd certainly have my eye on you, Phil, and your proven, recidivist tendencies "to abuse our democratic values and threaten our harmonious and tolerant society".
Minister, if you do not intend further repression, may I ask you this? Why did agents claiming to be from the Attorney-General's Department visit the filmmaker Carmel Travers, who had on her computer a manuscript from whistle-blower Andrew Wilkie, and smash the hard drives of her two computers with hammers, a process they referred to as "cleansing"? Four other Australians, including Robert Manne, were similarly dealt with.
The victims were warned it was an offence to tell anyone what had happened, even their partners, a form of bullying which, being accustomed to the traditions of free speech, they ultimately ignored. Most absurdly of all, Wilkie's manuscript, Axis of Deceit, had already been published.
All this was done under existing authority. Are you surprised that writers and others do not want to give you more power? With your history you'll have to forgive us if we say with some certainty that the new sedition provisions will be Pythonesque in framing, and pernicious in effect.
Robert Connolly, filmmaker
THE following hypothetical film was recently presented to a gathering of filmmakers and artists concerned about the Government's sedition provisions in the anti-terrorism bill.
Imagine a film that shows Australian troops subject to orders from allies who are incompetent, arrogant and sometimes disorganised, regularly placing individuals at risk with dubious intent. The film would also show the enemy as brave fighters, loyal to their comrades and willing to risk their lives to fight an invading army. In contrast the Australian troops will appear disrespectful of authority and perhaps lacking respect for the culture in the Middle East.
The film would ask questions about the allies' ability to win the conflict, and the purpose of being in the Middle East in the first place.
Thankfully for the Howard Government, the revived sedition provisions will make sure filmmakers will think twice before making anti-war films like this that blatantly urge disaffection with the sovereign and encourage the enemy.
We are fortunate this film has already been made: Peter Weir and David Williamson's Gallipoli, one of Australia's greatest films.
While the Government will dismiss any danger to a film such as Gallipoli on the basis of their "trust our good intentions" defence of the sedition provisions, a recent trip to the Hawaii International Film Festival illustrates just how relevant this example is. The festival had planned an outdoor screening of Gallipoli on a military base, and even in the absence of active sedition laws, it was cancelled; the film was deemed inappropriately anti-war.
There is always a danger in times of national stress that governments will act in ways they will come to regret, overreacting to persistent dissent. The McCarthy era in Hollywood is one example of the impact of this on filmmakers.
It is no surprise that filmmakers and artists have rejected any comfort offered by the Attorney-General that his word is guarantee enough that the laws will not be misused.
Instead, filmmakers and artists have demanded absolute clarity of intention and application in laws that clearly affect freedom of speech and expression. Although the Government has marginalised filmmakers as elites to engage with a perceived populist demographic, defending freedom of speech does not play down party lines. Resuscitating these commonly acknowledged "dead letter" laws may turn out to be a significant blunder that will remain a thorn in the Government's side until the next election.
Rosie Scott, author
THE "crime" of sedition has always been used by totalitarian governments to stifle dissent and members of PEN, the association of writers, are only too familiar with what happens to writers charged with it. International PEN campaigns for writers (there are 900 at present) harassed and imprisoned in countries where totalitarian governments do not want embarrassing information published or dissenting views to become public. Writers in countries such as China, Cuba, Indonesia, Nigeria, Vietnam, Burma, Korea and Iran are routinely imprisoned for such "crimes".
What is so chilling about the Howard Government's proposed anti-terrorism legislation is that it would limit our right to freedom of expression in the same way. Under these sedition provisions you could theoretically be jailed for seven years for saying the military invasion of Iraq was wrong, or for supporting the Iraqi people. It is no longer a defence to say that stating a fact is not the same as intending to urge someone to violence.
We are being told to trust the Government; that it won't act on these sedition clauses. But we only have to look at the many shocking cases of people being illegally detained and mistreated in Australian detention camps to know what can happen behind closed doors in the name of national security.
In such a political climate writers and journalists as well as artists, musicians, actors, satirists, filmmakers and cartoonists become afraid to speak out and we are all the losers for it.
One of the most endearing qualities of Australians is irreverence - in the face of pomposity, pretension, self-importance and injustice. Writers from Henry Lawson, Patrick White, Oodgeroo Noonuccal, Judith Wright and Dorothy Hewett have carried on this tradition of lampooning sacred cows. Self-serving governments and business people, the destruction of the environment, the treatment of indigenous people, and plain stupidity and injustice in governance have all been their targets.
If the anti-terrorism bill (and in particular the sedition provisions) are allowed to become law, this proud tradition of free speech - the very basis of a democratic society - is in danger of being destroyed, and the damage to us, our nation, and all that is best in our culture would be incalculable.
Stephen Sewell, playwright
AT A time of national emergency, when it appears that liberties long cherished and fought for through many ancient battles must now be abandoned in the interests of defending ourselves against an enemy we are told is both wilful and barbarous, it is worthwhile thinking what those losses might mean to our way of life, and what the surrender of the freedom of speech and expression might mean to our cultural life.
The role of culture in society, especially when considered in a context of imminent threat and danger, is most likely seen to be secondary. The common view, put most bluntly by the German playwright Bertolt Brecht, is "Eats first, morals later", or - in our less principled world - "Eats first, Arts later". This succinctly puts the view that the arts are an optional extra, something nice to make things look civilised, but expendable when times get tough. An alternative view sees art as central to the human enterprise. According to this view, art and human life are virtually indistinguishable, and it is impossible to imagine life without art.
Art is not something to be tacked on once the fundamentals have been sorted out; art is fundamental. Nations can exist without armies, but they cannot exist without artists.
And so we now face a new challenge, and possibly a new dark age, as minds are tempted towards closure, and artists and writers told that we should mind our language and be careful what we say lest we provide solace and encouragement to terrorists. The real victim of any such curtailment of artistic freedom will be our own society as it retreats into the darkness, too frightened to ask itself questions and too feeble to raise its eyes above the muck.
Such a society, armed to the teeth and populated by cowards, is not strong or vibrant; it is weak and insular, and to contemplate this sort of retreat in the face of people who recognise artists as their primary enemy is to give up the one weapon we have to contest the anti-human philosophy the terrorists appear to espouse.
For it is not our wealth or power the terrorists want to destroy, it is our culture, the thriving, sceptical culture we have inherited from the questioners, non-conformists and seditionists of the past, and it is this culture which is our prize and principal protection against rigidity and dogma. And so, rather than telling the artists of the world they need to be careful about what they say, we should be encouraging them to question loudly and shout strongly the things in which they believe and the joy they have in believing them. For it is their strength and optimism which is the real strength of our culture.
The war on terrorism will not be won by policeman and soldiers, forever 10 steps behind the disciples of death, and in whose blundering wake new terrorists arise to avenge the real or imagined deeds of injustice perpetrated by our own agents. It will not be won by the punishers and the disciplinarians, but by the artists on both sides, the writers and poets and painters and sculptors, the composers and singers who lift their voice to sing the praise of life and joy against the dogmatists and executioners.
But they will only win it if they have the one thing that makes art possible, and that is freedom of expression. That is why these laws against sedition are so dangerous, and that is why they cannot be allowed to pass.
Martin Wesley-Smith, composer
SEDITION laws serve as a potential weapon for the state to use against people it wishes to silence. We value Shostakovich's 10th Symphony partly because it stands up against Stalinist repression. Yet we are discouraging - through the sedition sections of the anti-terrorism bill - composers from creating works that challenge our government's policies.
Peter Sculthorpe recently composed a string quartet sympathising with asylum-seekers in detention camps. Did he hope this work would cause in its audience alienation or disaffection towards ("urge disaffection against") the Government? If so, he could be accused of having "seditious intention".
If his next string quartet sympathises with an Iraqi man who lost his children to indiscriminate bombing by the coalition of the willing, say, and if by playing it musicians give moral support to the group of "insurgents" to which that man now belongs and which is "engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force", then Sculthorpe could go to jail for seven years.
He might plead that his intention was to provide "aid of a humanitarian nature", but the onus would be on him to prove that. It is unlikely he would be charged, but the possibility is there. He would be encouraged to find inspiration in a safer subject.
The Howard Government promises us these laws will not be used against artists. Is that a core or a non-core promise? And how do we know what future governments will do?
Still, I think the impact of the proposed sedition laws on "art-music" composition will be slight. Not many composers engage in political subjects, and any perceived offence would be difficult to prove.
However, the impact on music-theatre, songwriters and on audio-visual composition - where photographs, texts and video can be used with live and recorded music (or sound bites from politicians) - could be considerable. I recently created an audio-visual piece called Papua Merdeka that, in expressing concern for the plight of the West Papuan people, implicitly criticises the Indonesian armed forces for their brutality and the Australian Government for its support of Indonesia's "territorial integrity". From my layman's reading of the bill it seems that with this piece I'll be in the clear. But I'm not sure.
Performers won't be sure, either. Why should they perform this piece and risk prosecution when they could perform Beethoven instead? Performers will avoid contentious pieces.
Democracy demands dissent. Everyone in a democracy must be allowed, indeed encouraged, to express what they think: through a speech, a placard, a poem, a song, a sculpture, a painting, a novel, a video, an audio-visual work, participation in a demonstration and so on. Existing laws forbid inciting action that threatens the safety of citizens or the ability of governments to govern. Why, then, have sedition laws at all?
In order to save democracy, must we destroy it?
Garry Shead, visual artist
"THE most threatening thing about the sedition laws is, once you start having to fear that what you say could land you in trouble, it's going to affect all that you do," says Garry Shead. "And after what we've fought for - our freedom of expression - it's frightening."
Shead is not considered a political artist, even by himself. "But you can't isolate your ideas from contemporary issues and ideas. All artists through history have dealt with political issues - Goya, Picasso, all the best ones," he says.
Shead's painting style crystallised with a series he did in the 1980s based on the D. H. Lawrence book written in Australia, Kangaroo. "That book dealt with a fascist would-be leader," Shead says. "It was 1922, and [Lawrence] had just come from Italy where he'd seen the rise of Mussolini. Everything was in flux. He saw the beginnings of a right-wing movement in Australia, the very subject we are talking about now.
"The main character in Kangaroo, the leader - he wants to be loved, wants to be a father to the Australian people. Who does that sound like?"
What about the Prime Minister and Attorney-General's promises that the updated sedition laws will not be used to curtail criticism of the Government? "Let's say they have the best interests of everyone at heart and are really benevolent. And we've seen that before," he adds. "They gave their word on quite a few things that didn't prove to be true."
Shead is known for paintings depicting the incongruity of the monarchy in Australia. Sedition laws were meant to protect the monarchy from criticism, but he doesn't fear that such work would be targeted now. "I can't imagine it really. At the time it did seem I faced something imponderable … we'd had so many years of being brainwashed into believing this whole myth of royalty in Australia. It seems quite innocuous now.
"But now it will all depend on if our governors are in a good mood or not. You can only look at what they are doing. Will these laws make the state capable of putting people in jail? The laws will be there. It's not necessary to cause a revolution or incite violence [to be guilty of sedition under the legislation]. And once the law is introduced it's just available to anyone's interpretation. It begins slowly. It's how it all started in [pre-World War II] Germany. One after another freedoms are taken away."
He doesn't see the comparison as hyperbolic. His wife, the sculptor Judith Englert-Shead, came from communist Hungary. "She said what [such restrictions do] is just make people hold back, to censor themselves voluntarily. Everyone is conscious they could end up in trouble. It is stifling."
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 in Commentary, Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)