this is progress?

there's a story circulating in the media that you might have heard, but if not, i'll get you caught up on the details. basically, there is a certain gentleman, not an elected official himself, but well known within political circles and a big backer of the tea party movement. he's what you'd call an eligible bachelor- 40ish, good-looking, unmarried- and apparently in the run-up to the november mid-terms last year, he had a little romantic encounter with a female tea party activist while on a campaign run. she alleges that, while she was initially open to his advances, she later told him she did not want to have sex and that he then forced himself on her. in fact, he's been charged with sexual assault.

his friends and associates are up in arms, alleging a politically motivated smear campaign run by an assistant district attorney they say has an anti-male bias and a district attorney with a leftist agenda. they have made all sorts of claims about the man's accuser, claiming that she made up the story about refusing consent after the fact and that she may have been an "undercover agent" in a seamy political plot, bent on entrapping this man. they've even gone so far as to strip her of the anonymity normally accorded women who bring sexual assault charges, releasing her name and other details about her to the media.

let's for the moment set aside the question of the man's guilt or innocence. that is for a court to decide and the information is too vague and incomplete to allow us to render a decision. what i'd like you to think about is the behaviour of his friends and supporters. is circulating dubious stories about the accuser and publishing her identity a reasonable reaction? or does it seem like the same sort of vicious political attack they accuse his prosecutors of making? you should consider this question carefully, because a lot of liberal-minded, progressive, intelligent, articulate people seem to be having a problem with it.

ok, i fibbed a bit. the man isn't a tea party supporter. his name is julian assange and you've probably heard a lot about him in the last few months.

as i said, what concerns me is not his guilt or innocence. what does concern me, and what should concern a lot of people, is the ugly underbelly that is betrayed by the words and behaviour of his supporters. here are a couple of examples:

"The “charges” against Assange, made by two women – a “feminist” harridan who works as the “gender equity” officer at Uppsala University, and a sometime photographer and former Assange groupie with stalkerish tendencies – are quite murky."
-full article here

"Julian Assange is being harassed for slighting the feelings of two groupies who worshipped him before and after the alleged rapes and he's being hunted for something that's definitely not rape and not even a crime yet.
Something that probably didn't even happen as the girls are known to have made the whole thing up."
-full article here 

"Ms A appears at this stage to be a woman blinded by a burning desire for revenge on her cheating boyfriend"
-full article here

others have accused the accusers of doing a disservice to all rape victims by bringing what they term frivolous charges. and these aren't your tea-party dames- no less an authority than author naomi wolf  has condemned the women. (i'll even admit that i thought the whole interpol spectacle was pretty ridiculous on the surface, considering what else the agency is supposed to be dealing with.)

when the hell did the proponents of free thought get this vicious? did i miss a meeting? feminist harridan? groupie stalker? having comparatively recently laid the groundwork to overcome the prevailing belief that women can be raped only if they were virgins, it now seems that women are going to have to overcome a new belief that women can be raped only if the perpetrators are white, wealthy and republican.

none of this discourse has any bearing on assange's guilt. nor does it have particular bearing on the question of whether or not the prosecution was primarily politically motivated. it may well be that there is a conspiracy to silence julian assange (and, by extent, to bring about the downfall of wikileaks). the point is that there are other ways to discuss this without resorting to the sort of name-calling and smear tactics we claim to deplore.

these attacks don't say much of substance about the case or the conspiracy, but they do reveal something that supposedly progressive people would like to keep a secret: a lot of those who support democratisation, public empowerment and strict government accountability are still very much believers in powers they try to fight. as audre lourde said, "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house". abusive, derogatory, demeaning language has always been one of the master's greatest tools.

let julian assange's legal team attend to his woes with the swedish prosecutor's office and beyond. it's evident that the rest of us have bigger issues to deal with.

friday favourites 01.28.11

here's a little something that i've decided to start in the hopes of bringing some organisation to the lovable chaos that is this blog. i've never tried doing a regular feature before, but i figure an easy place to start is just with a recap of some of the things that i've been appreciating over the last week, or at least things that have captured my interest.

ricky gervais :: depending on what you believe, gervais either thumbed his nose at the entire assembled hollywood elite or pulled off the greatest publicity stunt in the history of entertainment. the man himself has pointed out that he wasn't exactly revealing any great secrets (robert downey jr. has had drug problems? seriously? i never knew.) and anyone who's seen gervais do stand up knows that he has a reputation for offending just about everyone, but the evening was still a welcome respite from a lifetime of awards shows that are to entertainment what ambien is to energy. it obliterated the fact that the awards themselves were utterly predictable. besides, anyone who has harvey weinstein hiring a posse of guys to take him out has to be doing something right.

(the following clip is probably not safe to play in front of your coworkers, your family, or even yourself if you're easily offended. you have been warned.)



new additions :: sure, everyone thinks i've lost my damn mind, but there are two new furry faces in my life. one of the most fascinating things about having my own little pride of lions about is that my inner anthropologist gets to observe feline society in the making. there is a developing social hierarchy, as well as a nebulous network of allies based on who is getting along with whom. i'm also wondering whether or not i can use them for strength training, lifting each of them to give myself some weight resistance. i figure i can start with the siamese and work my way up to the maine coon. cuddling as exercise.


leigh-ann white :: aka, my deep tissue massage therapist. i know what you're thinking- massage is a luxury, not really therapy. i'm guessing that if you are thinking that, you've never had back problems. i've had them for many years and no one has ever been able to do anything useful for me until i met leigh-ann. the difference is that, with her, not only do you get a better sort of massage (filled with good hurt), but you also get someone who knows a lot about anatomy, how things get messed up, and how to undo the ravages of time and neglect. of course, at the moment, my back, neck and shoulders probably hurt more than when i first went to see her. the difference is that i don't feel like my breathing is restricted, i don't have numbness and weird tingling in my arms and i can feel things gradually starting to loosen. if you have back problems, get yourself a good massage therapist. if you live in montreal, get leigh-ann!

fluevogs :: ok, i always love fluevogs, but this week is special because the first set of designs for 2011 were unleashed upon the public. and sure, i probably have enough shoes to last three lifetimes, but can i help it if he just keeps coming out with such awesome designs? best of all, this is one of those times where one has the choice of what's new and what's affordable, because a lot of outgoing models and colours are on sale. i already have a list of springtime choices picked out and it makes for very good motivation to get myself back in the workforce, pronto.

the rebellion against post-literacy :: this isn't something new, but since i started following GRAMMARHULK on twitter, i have at least some hope that there are people out there who are trying to resuscitate the english language from the near-death state in which the last years have left it. yes, you can still send text message asking if your friend has arrived at the restaurant before you with whole words, not with : u r in restaurant? (come to think of it, that reads like it might be kind of disgusting.) current opinion holds that, with computers to check our spelling and online resources to provide synonyms, antonyms and translations, the need for individuals to be literate is passe. i hold with the always-wonderful "the oatmeal" that people who use words without knowing what they mean, or who can't spell simple words just look dumb.

so what's making you happy this week? or, if you've had a rough one, what would improve the things that are vexing you? personally, i'm waiting for blogger (hello? hello google overlords?) to come up with an iphone app that will allow me to use this space from wherever my adventures take me. then you'd never shut me up!

what i'll be watching this week :: egypt. sure, we all thought that the first revolution and coup of the internet age was going to happen in iran. remember, we all changed our twitter avatars green for a week or so? you don't remember? well it doesn't matter, because now the first revolution and coup of the internet age is absolutely, positively, without any possibility of doubt (ahem) going to happen in egypt. it's the same sort of story, but the work of internet interlopers wikileaks and the cloud of mystery that still surrounds mubarak's rise to power and the assassination of his predecessor anwar sadat make for a potentially explosive variant.

it leaks for thee

i am just getting way too lazy in my early middle age. after surprising no one by writing about the death of peter christopherson (here's a link for those who are feeling too lazy to scroll down), i decided to scribble out some thoughts on the most over-analysed portmanteau in the world: wikileaks. if i didn't, i'd probably be the only person in the world who didn't offer an opinion, although i'd like to think that mine is a little better thought out than those who have called for the deaths of wikileaks informants and of the organisation's polarising leader, julian assange. (note: if these guys wore turbans instead of business suits, they'd be on an international watch list by now.)

while a quarter million documents might provide the media fodder for a year-long series of in-depth reports, the selected method of dealing with the story has been extraordinarily muddled. first, much of the reporting has centred on wikileaks itself and editor-in-chief julian assange. there has been coverage of an interpol warrant for assange. this is the sequel to a case from earlier in the year that swedish prosecutors dropped before it went anywhere except to the news media.

i have no opinion on the validity of the case, knowing nothing about it other than the fact that allegations have been made and responses issued. if someone wants to point me towards more compelling information, i'll gladly look at it. the only concern i have about the story right now is that it is consistently presented in tandem with the story of the leaked documents themselves, as if one thing were closely linked to the other.

it reminds me a great deal of cases of rape or sexual assault (ironically enough) where the prosecutor feels compelled to bring up details of the victim's sexual history as if it is relevant to the case. it's a flagitious sort of tactic, where one talks about two issues with the same general subject at the same time, implying that they are related. basic logic dictates that, unless a victim has a history about lying about past sexual assaults, past relations shed precisely no light on whether or not a sexual assault occurred. there is a link between the two subjects- they are both sexual events in the life of the victim- but they are otherwise unrelated. so it is with the assange warrant and the wikileaks publication: both are linked, in that both are associated with the wikileaks organisation. but the link goes no further. assange may be a rapist (just as a victim may be promiscuous), but that has nothing to do with wikileaks or the information that they make available.

next, there are the inevitable questions about wikileaks' right to release government documents at all. this is where the histrionics really get started. this is where you have people throwing around the words "traitor" and "terrorist". the fact is that this is fertile ground for debate. to what extent should public figures guard their words in anticipation that they may some day reach an unintended, or wider, audience? will the knowledge that their correspondence may be made public stifle diplomats in their communications with their own governments? for people government, where should the line between private and public be drawn? unfortunately, these questions are hardly being asked, or if they are, there isn't anything like adequate space being allotted for a rational answer. many of the people (myself included) who advocate the right of a group like wikileaks to publish documents as a way of keeping governments honest should take a moment to recall their reactions when robert novak decided it would be fun to blow the cover of cia operative valerie plame, ostensibly as retaliation for her husband's criticisms of the bush administration. there is a discussion that needs to take place about when and how information is made available, but there aren't any signs that that''s immanent.

then of course, almost as an afterthought, there's the question of what's actually in the documents that have caused such an uproar. it seems like in the screeching, hyperbolic debate over wikileaks and over the act of releasing, very few have had time to look at the material in question. as far as i can tell, there seem to be different levels of diplomatic embarrassment going on.

the top tier, which is most of what major media are covering, comes from communications that have the salacious allure of gossip. vladimir putin had been described by someone as an "alpha dog". (i'm reasonably certain that people have referred to me in less polite canine terms and it doesn't keep me up nights.) libyan leader mumar qadhafi has a contingent of buxom ukrainian nurses. benjamin netanyahu is polite and charming, but doesn't do what he says (which i'm not certain makes him unique among politicians). these snippets are absolutely not newsworthy on their own and would only warrant mention in the context of a discussion about when and how diplomats should be allowed to speak bluntly. yet this seemed to make up the majority of what was being reported this morning. such coverage is time-wasting, but also sinister, in that it downplays any real import attached to the documents released.

the second tier, receiving the next largest amount of coverage, are the "revelations" that should be revelatory to no one who has not spent the last twenty years in a hole under a rock at the bottom of the ocean. arab leaders are mistrustful of iran, although they wouldn't say so in public? let's say that in a slightly more detailed way: the hereditary monarchs of countries with massive islamic populations are suspicious and feel threatened by the leader of an islamic theorcracy whose government came into being by overthrowing their hereditary monarchs? i'm stunned. (if you take the time to read the linked cable in its entirety, you might notice that there are some interesting- more interesting to me at least- phrases on saudi economic relief for iraq that have gotten no media coverage that i've seen.) there are other examples of shocking statements that should shock no one, they're not hard to find. perhaps they serve as confirmation of long-held suspicions, but they're hardly earth-shattering. the idea that world governments are up in arms about this makes it clear that the issue is not the information, but who controls it.

which brings us to the final tier of information, which isn't really being discussed, at least not to the extent that it should be. perhaps the most damning information hidden in these pages is the revelation of what those in power think of us, the people whom they are sworn to protect. noam chomsky has weighed in, saying that the information released reveals a hatred for democracy on the part of world leaders, given the difference between their positions and the beliefs of the people they purport to represent. ironically, the one place where this issue is being pushed to the forefront is canada, where one of the most discussed cables involves a conversation between a u.s. diplomat and the head of canada's intelligence agency, c.s.i.s. in language that could in no way be considered diplomatic, jim judd let fly like mussolini from the balcony, his vitriol and contempt for the people who are, through the proxy of government, his employers, as openly exposed as, well, the diplomatic cable recapping details of the conversation.

i'd like to see more attention given to this aspect of the leaked cables- what it reveals about the relationship of those who are elected to those who do the electing. because if the real risks taken to make these documents public is to be justified, their release needs to do more than give those in power occasion to blush, it needs to redefine how those people relate to the ones who put them there, to the people on whose behalf they claim to speak. at the very least, our benevolent overlords should have to answer some pretty tough questions about what they've been doing and on whose authority. and that means that we should be paying careful attention, whatever our opinion on how we came to possess this information. we should be reviewing what they have said and we should hold them to account.

[note: the attached image is an editorial cartoon from the absolutely brilliant bruce mackinnon, of halifax's chronicle herald newspaper. i don't have permission to use it, but since this is a completely non-profit venture and the image is included because i think he represents the apogee of this under-appreciated form, i hope that the intrusion can be forgiven.]