President Obama has appointed two more members of CPAC, Nina M. Archabal and Barbara Bluhm-Kaul. See
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/30/president-obama-announces-more-key-administration-posts
According to the White House Press Release,
Dr. Nina M. Archabal, Appointee for Member, Cultural Property Advisory Committee
Dr. Nina M. Archabal is the Director Emerita of the Minnesota Historical Society, having recently retired after 23 years of service as its Director and State Historic Preservation Officer. She has served as Chair of the boards of the American Association of Museums and of the United States Committee of the International Council of Museums, and is on the board of the International Committee for Museums and Collections of Archaeology and History. Dr. Archabal received the President�s Award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Humanities Medal. She has been an overseer of Harvard College, a member of the National Council on the Humanities, and received the Harvard Medal for Extraordinary Service to the Harvard Community and the Outstanding Alumni Achievement Award from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Archabal received an A.B. and M.A.T. from Harvard University and a Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota.
Barbara Bluhm-Kaul, Appointee for Member, Cultural Property Advisory Committee
Barbara Bluhm-Kaul is a trustee of The Art Institute in Chicago and the Aspen Art Museum. She is a benefactor of the Bluhm Family Terrace at the Modern Wing of The Art Institute as well as of the Bluhm Seminar Room. Ms. Bluhm-Kaul has sponsored art exhibitions at The Art Institute, the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago, and the Aspen Art Museum. She has loaned works from her collection to many major museums throughout the world including the National Gallery of Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Whitney Museum, the Kunstmuseum in Basel, and the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris. Ms. Bluhm-Kaul received her Bachelor of Arts from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
It is unclear whether the new members will be assigned to museum or public slots. It should be noted however that Ms. Bluhm-Kaul does not appear to have direct experience with the types of artifacts that are subject to CPAC's deliberations, and that Ms. Archabal's background suggests sympathy for the archaeological position in the cultural property debate.
CPAC is supposed to provide the President's designee at the State Department with useful advice that reflects the interests of collectors, dealers, museums and archaeologists. So far, however, President Obama's picks seem more geared to ensuring that CPAC "doesn't make waves" when asked to impose the broadest import restrictions possible than anything else.
Crying Wolf
UNESCO has issued an alarm that Libya's cultural heritage has become the target of looters and a Russian journalist is claiming that the Museum in Tripoli has been sacked and that NATO warplanes have bombed important cultural sites. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/libyas-cultural-heritage-_n_938405.html and
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2406278.ece
Not so fast. In fact, the museum in Tripoli appears to be under rebel guard. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/letter-from-tripoli And there have been no credible reports about either extensive looting of archaeological sites or attacks by NATO aircraft.
Indeed, to the extent Libya's cultural heritage has gone missing, isn't it more likely to have happened due to the sticky fingers of Libya's former ruler and his family?
Under the circumstances, perhaps we should not jump to conclusions.
Addendum: Andrew Lawler has also written an article, entitled "Claims of Mass Libyan Looting Rejected by Archaeologists," Science Magazine (Sept. 1, 2011). See http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/09/claims-of-mass-libyan-looting.html?ref=hp
http://www.thehindu.com/news/international/article2406278.ece
Not so fast. In fact, the museum in Tripoli appears to be under rebel guard. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/letter-from-tripoli And there have been no credible reports about either extensive looting of archaeological sites or attacks by NATO aircraft.
Indeed, to the extent Libya's cultural heritage has gone missing, isn't it more likely to have happened due to the sticky fingers of Libya's former ruler and his family?
Under the circumstances, perhaps we should not jump to conclusions.
Addendum: Andrew Lawler has also written an article, entitled "Claims of Mass Libyan Looting Rejected by Archaeologists," Science Magazine (Sept. 1, 2011). See http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/09/claims-of-mass-libyan-looting.html?ref=hp
ACCG Board Authorizes Appeal
The ACCG Board has authorized an appeal of Judge Blake's dismissal of the ACCG test case. See
http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Board_Authorizes_Baltimore_Appeal.aspx
And appeal or not, concerns about how the State Department and US Customs treats collectors, the small businesses of the numismatic trade, and institutions that collect coins won't go away, and indeed will likely only increase as more and more collecting areas become largely off limits to all but the wealthy who can afford to purchase the few coins with established collecting histories.
http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Board_Authorizes_Baltimore_Appeal.aspx
And appeal or not, concerns about how the State Department and US Customs treats collectors, the small businesses of the numismatic trade, and institutions that collect coins won't go away, and indeed will likely only increase as more and more collecting areas become largely off limits to all but the wealthy who can afford to purchase the few coins with established collecting histories.
Facebook Campaign to Repatriate de Valette's Sword-- But to Where?
A Maltese history buff has started a Facebook campaign to seek the return of de Valette's ceremonial sword from France to Malta. See
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110824/local/Facebook-campaign-for-return-of-de-Valette-s-sword.381580
The sword has an interesting history. As the article explains,
"The sword and a matching dagger had been given to the Grand Master by the Holy Roman Emperor Philippe II of Spain in 1565 [better known here for his effort to invade England], to mark the Order�s victory in the Great Siege in the same year, which had led to the retreat of the Ottoman forces.
In 1798, while on his way to Egypt, Napoleon landed in Malta. He captured the islands with the loss of only three Frenchmen. The knights had lost their fighting spirit and although the Maltese forces offered to resist the occupation, Grand Master Ferdinand Von Hompesch surrendered.
In his Facebook page, Bring Back The Sword of La Valette to Malta, Mr Bugeja says: 'This sword was unfortunately taken from us by Napoleon�s soldiers when they invaded Malta and is now on display in the Louvre Museum in Paris. This sword rightfully belongs to the Maltese people and should be in a Maltese museum and not in Paris.'"
But, even if the French would accede to such a request, should the de Valette sword really be sent back to Malta? Or, is its proper place at the headquarters of de Valette's "Order of Malta" in Rome, particularly when his knights continue to maintain many of the trappings of a sovereignty, including diplomatic relations, coins, stamps and even an "air force." See http://www.orderofmalta.org/the-order-and-its-institutions/310/the-knights-of-malta/?lang=en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta
Yet another conundrum the comes with the repatriationist territory.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110824/local/Facebook-campaign-for-return-of-de-Valette-s-sword.381580
The sword has an interesting history. As the article explains,
"The sword and a matching dagger had been given to the Grand Master by the Holy Roman Emperor Philippe II of Spain in 1565 [better known here for his effort to invade England], to mark the Order�s victory in the Great Siege in the same year, which had led to the retreat of the Ottoman forces.
In 1798, while on his way to Egypt, Napoleon landed in Malta. He captured the islands with the loss of only three Frenchmen. The knights had lost their fighting spirit and although the Maltese forces offered to resist the occupation, Grand Master Ferdinand Von Hompesch surrendered.
In his Facebook page, Bring Back The Sword of La Valette to Malta, Mr Bugeja says: 'This sword was unfortunately taken from us by Napoleon�s soldiers when they invaded Malta and is now on display in the Louvre Museum in Paris. This sword rightfully belongs to the Maltese people and should be in a Maltese museum and not in Paris.'"
But, even if the French would accede to such a request, should the de Valette sword really be sent back to Malta? Or, is its proper place at the headquarters of de Valette's "Order of Malta" in Rome, particularly when his knights continue to maintain many of the trappings of a sovereignty, including diplomatic relations, coins, stamps and even an "air force." See http://www.orderofmalta.org/the-order-and-its-institutions/310/the-knights-of-malta/?lang=en
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta
Yet another conundrum the comes with the repatriationist territory.
Coin World Coverage of ACCG Case
Coin World has posted the following story on its website:
http://www.coinworld.com/articles/accg-loses-test-case-involving-coin-imports/
http://www.coinworld.com/articles/accg-loses-test-case-involving-coin-imports/
Another View of ATADA Meeting
Here is another view of what actually happened at a panel sponsored by the Antique Tribal Art Dealers Association. Kate Fitz Gibbon, a participant, believes that an archaeological blog and article mischaraterized the event, and provided this for publication on the CPO Blog:
Your email noted an article on a Santa Fe event during last week�s annual Indian Market � and the subsequent press, blog and Twitter response. I was a panelist at the August 15th public program sponsored by the Antique Tribal Art Dealers Association Foundation, New Mexico Lawyers for the Arts, and the Cultural Policy Research Institute. The panel included four ATADA board members and three representatives from the FBI, Dr. Bonnie Magness-Gardiner, Program Manager, FBI Art Theft Program, David Hall, Esq., a prosecutor with the Art Crime Program, and David Kice, F.B.I. Special Agent. The program was free, public, very well attended and civil throughout. The next day, ATADA members hosted the FBI guests at a tour of the Santa Fe Antique Indian Art Show. There was agreement to continue to work cooperatively, including, tentatively, by having ATADA members speak at a training program the FBI operates in Santa Fe.
The Santa Fe New Mexican article following the program said that the crowd had �jeered� the FBI, a complete mischaracterization of the event. An Associated Press reporter present gave an accurate description. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/after-fbi-raids-native-am_n_931700.html
Panelists asked at several points what art dealers could do to help the FBI stop looting. Mr. Hall said that they should just tip the FBI off to criminal activity. Mr. Kice said that art dealers always complained that the FBI had gone after the wrong guys but would not tell the FBI where to find the major looters. That remark elicited spontaneous laughter from virtually the entire public audience, and a number of people replied at the same time, �We don�t know any!�
Afterwards, audience members expressed disappointment that the FBI panelists would not respond to questions on the Blanding and Santa Fe cases or any Indian artifacts-related matters. The FBI panelists stated only that these were ongoing investigations and they could not comment on policy because the FBI didn�t make policy.
There are a few remaining defendants in the Blanding, Utah cases (the rest have reached plea agreements for probation) and a wrongful death suit was recently filed in a Bivens action by the widow of Dr. James Redd of Blanding, who committed suicide the day after agents held him shackled for four hours of questioning. The charge against him was that he had picked up a shell pendant, � in by � inch long from the surface of the ground during a hike. The pendant was never offered for sale. One other defendant committed suicide after turning himself in, and the FBI informant in the cases committed suicide just a few weeks before the first trial was scheduled to begin.
Interestingly, Ms. Magness-Gardiner was asked if there were any completed cases she could speak about; her reply was that in her tenure at the FBI (six years, if I recall correctly) the Blanding cases were the only cases related to Indian artifacts that the FBI has pursued.
Earlier the same day, in another ATADA presentation, Dace Hyatt, who was the only appraiser qualified as an expert by the courts in the Blanding cases, showed examples of artifacts from completed cases. All material had been released in discovery. The values ascribed by the informant and utilized by the FBI averaged 752% of the appraised Fair Market valuation. This difference in valuation pushed the charge related to most artifacts from a misdemeanor to a felony.
A third ATADA program was led by US Fish and Game agent Dan Brooks, and a fourth featured a discussion on laws related to endangered species by attorneys Roger Fry, William Fry and Len Weakley. All the programs were videotaped and will be available through the ATADA Foundation. Contact webmaster@atada.org for information on how to order them.
Kate Fitz Gibbon
Your email noted an article on a Santa Fe event during last week�s annual Indian Market � and the subsequent press, blog and Twitter response. I was a panelist at the August 15th public program sponsored by the Antique Tribal Art Dealers Association Foundation, New Mexico Lawyers for the Arts, and the Cultural Policy Research Institute. The panel included four ATADA board members and three representatives from the FBI, Dr. Bonnie Magness-Gardiner, Program Manager, FBI Art Theft Program, David Hall, Esq., a prosecutor with the Art Crime Program, and David Kice, F.B.I. Special Agent. The program was free, public, very well attended and civil throughout. The next day, ATADA members hosted the FBI guests at a tour of the Santa Fe Antique Indian Art Show. There was agreement to continue to work cooperatively, including, tentatively, by having ATADA members speak at a training program the FBI operates in Santa Fe.
The Santa Fe New Mexican article following the program said that the crowd had �jeered� the FBI, a complete mischaracterization of the event. An Associated Press reporter present gave an accurate description. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/19/after-fbi-raids-native-am_n_931700.html
Panelists asked at several points what art dealers could do to help the FBI stop looting. Mr. Hall said that they should just tip the FBI off to criminal activity. Mr. Kice said that art dealers always complained that the FBI had gone after the wrong guys but would not tell the FBI where to find the major looters. That remark elicited spontaneous laughter from virtually the entire public audience, and a number of people replied at the same time, �We don�t know any!�
Afterwards, audience members expressed disappointment that the FBI panelists would not respond to questions on the Blanding and Santa Fe cases or any Indian artifacts-related matters. The FBI panelists stated only that these were ongoing investigations and they could not comment on policy because the FBI didn�t make policy.
There are a few remaining defendants in the Blanding, Utah cases (the rest have reached plea agreements for probation) and a wrongful death suit was recently filed in a Bivens action by the widow of Dr. James Redd of Blanding, who committed suicide the day after agents held him shackled for four hours of questioning. The charge against him was that he had picked up a shell pendant, � in by � inch long from the surface of the ground during a hike. The pendant was never offered for sale. One other defendant committed suicide after turning himself in, and the FBI informant in the cases committed suicide just a few weeks before the first trial was scheduled to begin.
Interestingly, Ms. Magness-Gardiner was asked if there were any completed cases she could speak about; her reply was that in her tenure at the FBI (six years, if I recall correctly) the Blanding cases were the only cases related to Indian artifacts that the FBI has pursued.
Earlier the same day, in another ATADA presentation, Dace Hyatt, who was the only appraiser qualified as an expert by the courts in the Blanding cases, showed examples of artifacts from completed cases. All material had been released in discovery. The values ascribed by the informant and utilized by the FBI averaged 752% of the appraised Fair Market valuation. This difference in valuation pushed the charge related to most artifacts from a misdemeanor to a felony.
A third ATADA program was led by US Fish and Game agent Dan Brooks, and a fourth featured a discussion on laws related to endangered species by attorneys Roger Fry, William Fry and Len Weakley. All the programs were videotaped and will be available through the ATADA Foundation. Contact webmaster@atada.org for information on how to order them.
Kate Fitz Gibbon
Slim Public Support for Italian Import Restrictions Raises Questions About State Department Special Interest Program for Archaeologists
Politcos within the Obama State Department Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and Diplomats from the Italian Embassy take note: a recent FOIA request reveals that CPAC only received thirteen (13) public comments in support of controversial import restrictions on "coins of Italian type."
Not that there really was any groundswell of public support for renewing the Italian MOU in the first place. Indeed, CPAC received only about one hundred (100) comments in favor of renewing the MOU at all.
Who supported the renewal of the MOU? The American public? Well, maybe only one or two individuals identified themselves as such. No, as one might expect, virtually all the support came from archaeologists who excavate in Italy, their students or their "trade associations."
And who supported restrictions on coins? Well, the AIA, Lawyer's Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, a few professors and students from NYU (Home of Pro-Restriction CPAC member Joan Connelly) and foreign archaeo-bloggers like David Gill and Paul Barford.
Contrast this with the one thousand nine hundred (1,900) plus public comments opposed to the extension of import restrictions on ancient coins.
Given this disparity, one can only ask: What gives? Why has the State Department disadvantaged the interests of American collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade by imposing hard to meet documentation requirements when the support for such restrictions is so limited?
And more to the point, has State Department Cultural Heritage Center staff told the political appointees at State and the diplomats at the Italian Embassy how thin the support actually is for restrictions?
Not that there really was any groundswell of public support for renewing the Italian MOU in the first place. Indeed, CPAC received only about one hundred (100) comments in favor of renewing the MOU at all.
Who supported the renewal of the MOU? The American public? Well, maybe only one or two individuals identified themselves as such. No, as one might expect, virtually all the support came from archaeologists who excavate in Italy, their students or their "trade associations."
And who supported restrictions on coins? Well, the AIA, Lawyer's Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation, a few professors and students from NYU (Home of Pro-Restriction CPAC member Joan Connelly) and foreign archaeo-bloggers like David Gill and Paul Barford.
Contrast this with the one thousand nine hundred (1,900) plus public comments opposed to the extension of import restrictions on ancient coins.
Given this disparity, one can only ask: What gives? Why has the State Department disadvantaged the interests of American collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade by imposing hard to meet documentation requirements when the support for such restrictions is so limited?
And more to the point, has State Department Cultural Heritage Center staff told the political appointees at State and the diplomats at the Italian Embassy how thin the support actually is for restrictions?
The Nanny State Strikes Again
A Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute has analogized the import restrictions at issue in the ACCG case to other recent examples of bureaucratic over reach, such as clampdowns on lemonade stands and the saving of baby woodpeckers by well meaning children. See http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/08/another-hobby-legally-hazardous-pursue
He then goes on to state,
Much of this new body of law rests on the dubious premise that cultural artifacts of great antiquity, even those that have been in the hands of Western museums or collectors for hundreds of years, should by right be subject to the dictates of whichever national government or sovereign entity happens to lay claim to the territory where the objects were originally crafted.
Such national governments, however, are often culturally quite distinct from the civilizations that inhabited those places over millennia, and often lack either the will or the means to conserve fragile artifacts as well as collectors would. The fate of more than a few "returned" artifacts has been to be stolen or crumble in the hands of inexpert new custodians.
Is some sort of property right at issue? Well, one might conceivably argue that certain artifacts, such as funerary urns and temple friezes, must by their nature be regarded as stolen property since at some point they must have been looted from sites originally contemplated as permanent.
(Presumably -- but not necessarily -- temples may choose to sell their friezes, dynasties go out of business with no receiver in bankruptcy, and so forth.)
But coins are just the opposite: They were meant to circulate, and, if of good value, they might soon be found in intended and legitimate use far from their country of origin.
Much of the success of coins as an institution in economic history (as with precious metals more generally) arose from their very anonymity, the fact that when they changed hands they left no paper trail for a jealous sovereign to trace.
Yet modern antiquities law falls over itself to cater to the wishes of the jealous sovereign, at a cost to both fairness and the interests of conservation. Why?
Good question.
He then goes on to state,
Much of this new body of law rests on the dubious premise that cultural artifacts of great antiquity, even those that have been in the hands of Western museums or collectors for hundreds of years, should by right be subject to the dictates of whichever national government or sovereign entity happens to lay claim to the territory where the objects were originally crafted.
Such national governments, however, are often culturally quite distinct from the civilizations that inhabited those places over millennia, and often lack either the will or the means to conserve fragile artifacts as well as collectors would. The fate of more than a few "returned" artifacts has been to be stolen or crumble in the hands of inexpert new custodians.
Is some sort of property right at issue? Well, one might conceivably argue that certain artifacts, such as funerary urns and temple friezes, must by their nature be regarded as stolen property since at some point they must have been looted from sites originally contemplated as permanent.
(Presumably -- but not necessarily -- temples may choose to sell their friezes, dynasties go out of business with no receiver in bankruptcy, and so forth.)
But coins are just the opposite: They were meant to circulate, and, if of good value, they might soon be found in intended and legitimate use far from their country of origin.
Much of the success of coins as an institution in economic history (as with precious metals more generally) arose from their very anonymity, the fact that when they changed hands they left no paper trail for a jealous sovereign to trace.
Yet modern antiquities law falls over itself to cater to the wishes of the jealous sovereign, at a cost to both fairness and the interests of conservation. Why?
Good question.
Wall Street Journal Legal Blog on ACCG Case
As the Wall Street Journal Legal Blog observes,
"The next time you try to bring antiques into the U.S., think again: if they look old enough and don�t have any documentation, customs officials might just seize them as potentially looted cultural artifacts."
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/08/15/court-rules-u-s-customs-rightfully-seized-ancient-coins/?mod=google_news_blog
Scare tactics? Hardly. It's not too hard to imagine someone purchasing an old Roman Republican coin at a shop in Italy or one of the millions of Chinese cash coins extant at a stall in Indonesia, only to have it seized by those ever so friendly US Customs officers after a long flight at the end of what had beforehand been a pleasant vacation.
Perhaps the bureaucracy is out of control after all....even if at least one US District Court Judge would rather not hold it accountable as a legal matter.
"The next time you try to bring antiques into the U.S., think again: if they look old enough and don�t have any documentation, customs officials might just seize them as potentially looted cultural artifacts."
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2011/08/15/court-rules-u-s-customs-rightfully-seized-ancient-coins/?mod=google_news_blog
Scare tactics? Hardly. It's not too hard to imagine someone purchasing an old Roman Republican coin at a shop in Italy or one of the millions of Chinese cash coins extant at a stall in Indonesia, only to have it seized by those ever so friendly US Customs officers after a long flight at the end of what had beforehand been a pleasant vacation.
Perhaps the bureaucracy is out of control after all....even if at least one US District Court Judge would rather not hold it accountable as a legal matter.
The Aleppo Codex
The archaeological blogosphere has been full of comments about the pros and cons of repatriating the Iraqi Jewish archive. Yet, there has been no discussion of the far more culturally significant Aleppo Codex that left another country hostile to Jewish culture years ago. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_Codex
The Codex left Syria well before academic archaeologists began to press for repatriation even where such returns raise serious questions about preservation of the objects in question.
The Codex is clearly better off in Israel than in Syria. The strong likelihood is that the Iraqi Jewish archive would be more likely to be preserved and studied as well if it remains outside of a hostile Iraq. Yet, our State Department as well as its supporters in the archaeological community apparently do not see it that way. They plan to accede to Iraqi demands for repatriation, although there are no guarantees the archive will be available for academic study or even preserved.
Will there also be calls for the return of the Aleppo Codex? Or, is the analysis different because it left Syria well before the 1970 UNESCO Convention was promulgated?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleppo_Codex
The Codex left Syria well before academic archaeologists began to press for repatriation even where such returns raise serious questions about preservation of the objects in question.
The Codex is clearly better off in Israel than in Syria. The strong likelihood is that the Iraqi Jewish archive would be more likely to be preserved and studied as well if it remains outside of a hostile Iraq. Yet, our State Department as well as its supporters in the archaeological community apparently do not see it that way. They plan to accede to Iraqi demands for repatriation, although there are no guarantees the archive will be available for academic study or even preserved.
Will there also be calls for the return of the Aleppo Codex? Or, is the analysis different because it left Syria well before the 1970 UNESCO Convention was promulgated?
From table to bench...
Here is a sneak peek of what I have been working on for the last few days. I am super excited to reveal the after tomorrow, but for now here is the before:
the fabric and materials
Putin, the Looter?
http://news.yahoo.com/putin-discovers-greek-urns-scuba-dive-154802017.html
I'll leave it to others to complain to the Russian Embassy that Russia's former and likely future President did not excavate the amphora in question scientifically.
Addendum: PM Putin's office put up this interesting transcript about his discovery, where he indicates his excavations were done with the help of archaeologists and that the he hopes the area will be preserved and exploited for touristic purposes. See
http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/16173/
Meanwhile, the NY Times suggests that he dive is but one of many events staged to help ensure PM Putin's standing with Russian voters. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/world/europe/17polling.html?hp
I'll leave it to others to complain to the Russian Embassy that Russia's former and likely future President did not excavate the amphora in question scientifically.
Addendum: PM Putin's office put up this interesting transcript about his discovery, where he indicates his excavations were done with the help of archaeologists and that the he hopes the area will be preserved and exploited for touristic purposes. See
http://premier.gov.ru/eng/events/news/16173/
Meanwhile, the NY Times suggests that he dive is but one of many events staged to help ensure PM Putin's standing with Russian voters. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/world/europe/17polling.html?hp
Not for Me to Decide....
That's the message that comes across loud and clear from Judge Blake's admittedly well written opinion dismissing the ACCG test case. See
http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Decision_released_in_Baltimore_litigation.aspx
But if it's not a matter for the courts, who then will address legitimate concerns about how the State Department and US Customs impose and apply import restrictions on widely collected cultural goods like ancient coins?
The State Department or US Customs? Fat chance.
The Obama White House, under its transparency and regulatory reform initiatives? Doubtful.
Congress? Well, members of the House and Senate from both political parties have indeed made their concerns known about how import restrictions are imposed to the State Department, only to be stonewalled in return. But wrestling with the State Department's entrenched bureaucracy is not a high priority, particularly given the other problems facing our country.
All this, of course, helps explain why regular citizens increasingly hold our government in such low regard. Indeed, this issue in many ways encapsulates what is wrong with Washington: Faceless bureaucrats making decisions in secret at the behest of connected, narrow special interest groups with little more than lip service being given to the protections built into the law for small businesses and individuals.
All shameful, but legal, at least according to one US District Court.
http://www.accg.us/News/Item/Decision_released_in_Baltimore_litigation.aspx
But if it's not a matter for the courts, who then will address legitimate concerns about how the State Department and US Customs impose and apply import restrictions on widely collected cultural goods like ancient coins?
The State Department or US Customs? Fat chance.
The Obama White House, under its transparency and regulatory reform initiatives? Doubtful.
Congress? Well, members of the House and Senate from both political parties have indeed made their concerns known about how import restrictions are imposed to the State Department, only to be stonewalled in return. But wrestling with the State Department's entrenched bureaucracy is not a high priority, particularly given the other problems facing our country.
All this, of course, helps explain why regular citizens increasingly hold our government in such low regard. Indeed, this issue in many ways encapsulates what is wrong with Washington: Faceless bureaucrats making decisions in secret at the behest of connected, narrow special interest groups with little more than lip service being given to the protections built into the law for small businesses and individuals.
All shameful, but legal, at least according to one US District Court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)