A Question of Civility

Like any Canadian progressive, I am not thrilled that Stephen Harper won the election. But it would seem that I am much less upset than one Brigette DePape, recently fired from her job as a senate page for holding up a "STOP Harper" sign...during the speech from the throne. As spunky, defiant moves go, I think it's kind of boss. As politics go, not so much.

Ms. DePape seems to be a woman possessed of intelligence, creativity, and courage. She is worthy of respect. But so are the institutions of Canadian parliament. Her statements against the worst policies of the Harper government DO have merit, but I think that it is important to voice these complaints in the proper forum. That sounds very stodgy and conservative of me, but I think there is a good reason to believe that, in the long run, civility is just as important an issue as climate change.

My reasoning is this: because of how charged our political debates can be at the best of times, we need to have public fora that are as neutral as possible. If a Conservative protester interrupted a Liberal or NDP speech, it would not be very polite. I don't think we can make a good case that Ms. DePape's conduct should be judged by a different standard, just because we agree with what she says. No, I think that as a private citizen she had every right to say what she did. But as an agent of our Parliament, she had a duty to remain impartial - no matter how offensive she found Harper's agenda. There are all policies that we find offensive, but if we allow Parliament itself to become polarized and partisan, we have failed.

The good thing about Government and Parliament being separate is that we may remain loyal to the institutions of government, even while we have vehement disagreements with the present ruling party. This separation reminds us that the Government is not the ultimate authority - it is subservient to the good of the country and the will of the people. The Conservative party and its disastrous policies are a temporary thing. Showing disrespect to the Conservatives is not so bad; it may mean that you are uncivil, but it will pass. To show disrespect for parliament, however, shows a lack of faith in Canada and its people. I may not like that we elected Harper, but that does not mean I'm going to take out my anger on democracy, civility, and neutrality.

-LOUD!

Autopsy 2011

This is the story of a deficit, an election, and the men who would be Prime Minister. It's about all of these things in the reverse order.

Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has the dubious blessing of being able to watch his own autopsy. We knew that the pen was mightier than the sword, but this week it has proved itself the scalpel's equal; every pundit has busily - and sometimes not so carefully - peeled another layer off this candidate's carcass to be put under the microscope. When all is said and done, what secrets will the investigation yield to us? Just where did Michael Ignatieff go wrong? At this point, we have several prevailing narratives of the election. The Toronto Star seems to believe that the turning point was during the English leaders' debate, when Layton asked Ignatieff to explain his dismal voting record in the House of Commons. Much of what I have heard on CBC radio seems to focus on the arrogance - perceived and actual - of the Liberal leader. On the radio and in the Ottawa Citizen, I heard it said that Ignatieff's moderate messages fell on increasingly polarized - and ultimately deaf - ears. And then there is the matter of the Conservatives' smear campaign against Mr. Ignatieff, which has been going on to various degrees since he took the job of party leader.

The story I wanted to tell about the election is that of the deficit. Possibly two (or even three) deficits, although I hope to show that they are, at least symbolically, linked. Throughout the
election, Harper's promises revolved around the economy, and the fiscal deficit that he hopes to eliminate. Ignatieff also proposed to eliminate a deficit, but one of a different sort: the so-called
"democratic deficit" that has plagued Canada for more than a decade. The common element of both deficits was, and is, trust. At the basest level, consider that in a society where fiat currency is
used, money is trust. Trust not only in the mint and the state and the government, but in other people. The mortgages and loans which, when their holders defaulted, sent the world economy spiraling into a recession, were the product of too much trust. Stephen Harper's rationale for keeping Canadian corporate taxes low was that it would earn the trust (in the form of investment and jobs) of corporations. A functioning democracy (indeed any just society) is also built on trust: trust in the system, trust in authority, and - most importantly - trust in candidates as it is measured at the polls.

Ignatieff argued, I would say correctly, that Harper had yet to earn a majority government because Canadians did not trust him. This, he said, was because Harper did not trust Canadians: he didn't trust them to ask the right questions at his campaign rallies; he didn't trust Canadian climate scientists enough to let them speak freely; he barely trusted his own cabinet to speak on their own. Harper had shown contempt not just of Parliament, but of Canadians themselves. It was a compelling argument, alas it seemed to go unheeded on election day.

...by a good 40% of the population.

Having established the link between trust and money, I think I'm beginning to see where Ignatieff's campaign went wrong. I might also be able to explain at the same time why Jack Layton did so well. Ignatieff's implicit promise in condemning Harper's treatment of democracy was that he was going to find some way to restore Canadians' trust in their political system. I wonder if he had simply failed to amass a sufficient wealth of our trust before he made that promise. Harper and Layton both have extensive histories in politics. Harper comes with Reform-party era cred as an Albertan rabble-rouser. Layton worked his way up from Toronto municipal politics. Say what you want about the Conservative ads attacking Ignatieff for his absenteeism from Canada, and his allegedly selfish and opportunistic entry into politics - one of these candidates was not like the others. The people who voted for Harper on election day presumably voted with confidence that they were getting the vindictive social and economic conservative they wanted. I have seen it argued that the NDP's upswing in popularity was largely attributable not to their policies, but to the charisma of Jack Layton. From what I saw of the leaders' trustworthiness ratings in campaign polls, this rings true. The proportion of respondents saying they would vote for the NDP was - for a time - no greater than usual, but the general opinion of Jack Layton's competence and trustworthiness were, if I recall correctly, higher even than Harper's. In short, I think voters saw Ignatieff as writing cheques he could not cash.

Let's also take a moment to examine the Liberal platform on democratic reform and renewal. Not that any party had a particularly strong showing in this area, but every other party, including the Conservatives, supports senate reform*. The Conservatives, it should be noted, also pledged to give more seats in Parliament to presently under-represented provinces. The only plank in the Liberal platform that could generously be described as "democratic reform" is the proposal for an online voting initiative. It isn't that I think online voting is a bad idea - which it is without extreme security safeguards - but I heard a lot of talk from Mr. Ignatieff...but I look at his platform and see no promises to fix the parts of our democracy that are currently broken.

* Technically, the NDP just want to scrap the whole thing, but the Liberals seem quite content with Canada's undemocratic elephant-in-the-room.

To bring some of this full-circle, I think Layton's question as to Michael Ignatieff's whereabouts in the House of Commons when 70% of the votes were going on cuts to the heart of the matter. Ignatieff talked the talk about respecting democracy, and changing partisan attitudes, but never really did the groundwork to back it up. As I said before, I don't think the Liberals should have avoided showing up to the House when Harper bullied them around with another confidence motion they didn't want to defeat. Sure, when an election comes, they want to be able to say "we didn't support any of their policies". I get it. But there is no shame in saying "voting for this bill is better for Canada than a federal election", and being honest about that. Or, at least, I don't think there should be. Instead of actually trying to extend an olive branch in the House of Commons, the Liberals decided to play a partisan game - not encouraging.

In any event, it's like "they" say: "The surest way to lose is not to show up at all"

Still A Distant Third

I can still vaguely recall the very beginnings of my political socialization. I remember that my parents, before they took me along to the polling station, explained the Canadian political system in terms that my 5(?)-year-old self could understand. They said something about political parties: there was a Red one, a Blue one, and an Orange one. Being my younger self, my assumption at the time was that the Red party could do no wrong. They had chosen the best of the colours, hadn't they? That night, as we watched Jean Cretien's government secure a majority, I rejoiced in the tide of Red washing over the House of Commons.

Times changed. In the next election, I remember supporting Jean Charest's Progressive Conservative party (Parents: "I thought you wanted the Red party to win?"), for reasons I can no longer remember. Given the guy's subsequent reputation in Quebec (as a Liberal, no less), I think that has to go on the record as one of my more regrettable opinions. Not long after this election, the extremely damaging education cuts of Progressive Conservative (Ontario) Premier Mike Harris put me off the "Blue parties" for good.

As put off as I am from Conservative politics*, the problem in this country is that the likely alternative - that is to say, the Liberal party - is hardly inspiring. At the outset of this campaign, I would have said that Michael Ignatieff was decidedly preferable to Stephen Harper. If you ask me today, I'll tell you the same thing - but I'll say it in that voice; that "I'm-really-not-happy-saying-this" voice, that "I-am-contractually-obliged-to-tell-you-this voice". Every day, I'm losing a little more faith in the man. Every day I wonder why the Liberals agonized so much about getting this man onto the ballot. Oh, wait, we don't directly elect people to the ever-more-powerful** office of Prime Minister - I had us confused with a real democracy for a second***. Regardless, he's beginning to remind me a little of Paul Martin, the guy who managed to wait 20 years to be Prime Minister...without developing any strong vision for the country. I've had more profound political visions waiting at the dentist's office. I'll break it down:

* Big-C and small-c alike

**Since the Trudeau era; I won't say it's all Harper's fault.

*** Ok, so there's three branches of Government: Legislative (ie. House of Commons), Executive (Presidents), and Judicial (the Courts). Technically, our head of state is the Queen/Governor General, but they're figureheads, not functionaries. Other countries (America and France, to name just two) get to elect a President (head of state = executive) who is separate from the Prime Minister, who nominally serves as the head of government. In Canada, the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) has taken on the role of both Prime Minister and President, and yet is an unelected office****. Neither Judges nor Senators are elected in Canada, either. Out of three branches of Governments, Canadians may vote for only half (three quarters, if we're being generous) of JUST ONE BRANCH.

****Yes, you can elect the individual party leaders as MPs, but that is not the same thing.

No Support for Coalition Governments

It's bad enough that Stephen Harper - an enthusiastic supporter of a coalition that would have put him in charge - has renounced and denounced the notion of a legitimate governing coalition. What's worse is that Ignatieff doesn't seem too happy with the concept either. He seems to be of the opinion that he can restore the Liberal hegemony that predominated throughout the 20th century. After the corruption that has been exposed in both the Liberal and Conservative parties, however, It's unlikely that we are going to see an end to minority parliaments any time soon. What we've seen so far is a lot of brinksmanship from the Conservatives: by making a judicious use of confidence motions in the house, they force Liberals into compliance (and, largely, absenteeism) by dangling over them the threat of an (implied: unpopular) election.

Coalition governments suggest to me a different way of ruling, one that is more democratic than the present one. We have, time and again, elected a very divided House of Commons. What that suggests to Stephen Harper seems to be "I have the most seats, therefore I call the shots". To me, those results say: "Many Canadians desire Conservative policies, but MOST DO NOT". The obvious answer should be some sort of compromise, but of course this seems to sit well with no party's support base. And why would it? A good compromise - as Bill Watterson's Calvin observes - leaves everybody mad.

Everybody, of course, except for the 2/3rds of Canadian voters who find themselves alienated and ill-represented by the Conservative party's agenda. Those of us who are ashamed Canada's increasingly regressive stance on the environment, aboriginal rights, and birth control/abortion*****. The majority of Canada's most recent parliament was comprised of members of center-left parties. To me, that should mean a center-left agenda, even a center-left mandate. When Michael Ignatieff tries to distance himself from this idea of a coalition government, when he tries to present the Liberal party as the only credible alternative to Harper's conservatives, he seems to hearken back to a Liberal party that rules not to give the people justice - but for the sake of ruling. After ten years of Cretien and Martin, after six years of Harper...I'm getting tired of this shit.

Oh, yeah: I'm tired of this shit about disregarding the Bloc's voice in parliament on the sole basis of their separatist agenda. They also exist as duly-elected Members of Parliament representing the Citizens of Quebec; they should be allowed to participate in a government - and that is that!

*****Harper's Conservatives made it clear that none of their foreign aid money earmarked for improving the lot of women/mothers would fund abortions. They have yet to challenge abortion rights at home, but the double standard evinced here strikes me as cowardly, striking out at those who had no power to vote him out of office.

"Caring, Compassionate, Liberal Government"

This goes back to something my mom says, every time the Liberals play up the "compassion" angle. She says that it's all so much bleeding-heart bullshit, a meaningless appeal to the emotions. It sticks with me, because now it's all I can do not to retch when I hear Ignatieff say the word "compassionate". I hear "condescending". I'm a political liberal (note: small-l) because I believe in an inclusive social and cultural framework. I reject the toxic jingoism and intolerance of social conservatism. I'm not a liberal because I want people to be mollycoddled or looked down upon with pity. People who struggle to get by don't seem to want "compassion"; they want action. When I hear people speak at social justice events, I don't hear them demand a more "compassionate" form of top-down, hierarchical government. What they DO demand is empowerment, reform, revolution. The Canadian Liberal party is in many ways what American conservatives accuse the Democratic party of being. I had hoped, perhaps, that Ignatieff could have brought something new to the table...but all I see is more of the same.

(Dis)Respect for Parliamentary Institutions

Ignatieff has been trying to gain the high ground by pointing out that Stephen Harper is the first ever Westminster-style Prime Minister to be found in contempt of parliament. He says that Harper does not deserve the trust of Canadians, because he does not trust Canadians. I tend to agree. But Jack Layton was quick to point out in the leader's debate that Ignatieff has the poorest attendance record in the whole House of Commons. I can understand that the Liberals did not want to force an election they did not see a chance of winning...but to resort to chronic absenteeism strikes me as a kind of political cowardice. Either they support the Government's policies, or they do not. If they were afraid of going into an election having supported Conservative policies in order to stall an election (which, by inaction, they did), perhaps they should have DONE THEIR JOB as the official opposition and attempted to affect change in Conservative policy?

With his cowardly voting reputation, I'm afraid I don't think Ignatieff has even one foot to stand on. He only has himself to blame

In short, while I don't think I will ever vote Liberal in this country, I'm used to thinking of that party as the one I'd rather have in power, if it's going to be either them or the Cons. I thought that maybe Ignatieff's leadership (if one was to believe the hype) could have upgraded them to "meh, not bad", or even "a decent second choice"...but the fact that he has not managed to do even that, well, that's just another sign of Canada's crippling drought of political vision.

LOUD!

Cowabunga, Dude.

It's a heady combination of a coming election with my own mercurial literary ambitions, getting me into that frame of mind in which I want to have arguments with big words and big ideas.

I get excited about elections. It's probably not a good habit, though - these things are expensive. It's also perplexing; I don't think I have ever in my life cast a vote for a winning candidate. Depending on your metrics, I have wasted every single vote I've ever cast. That's in three years of being legal voting age - just imagine the poor blokes for whom this has been a reality for thirty! Why all the excitement, why the nervous energy and the hope for changes that will never come? It would be too easy to become despondent, and perhaps I would have more reason than most. Well, if we're being technical, more reason to do so than a plurality of the Canadians who even bother to vote.

It's at a time like this when perspective can be, for lack of a better word, handy. Dandy, even. Why should this election's failure to produce radical, progressive change in this country bother me? Human history is a long chronicle of justice mostly prevailing over injustice. I realize that I run the risk of sounding positively panglossian when I write this, and I would like to qualify this statement. Progress has been erratic, fundamentally un-equal, and above all else it will never be complete. That does not mean that progress has not happened, nor does it excuse us from trying to extend the rights, freedoms, and quality of life that "we" (i.e., the kind of people who are affluent enough to spend their monday evenings blogging for no pay) possess to as many people as possible.

I should be careful to define my terms. "Progress" is a vague and loaded term, but I shall do my best to reach an agreeable definition. Progress may be scientific, technological, social, or spiritual. Progress can be said to have happened when we reach a new, or more complete understanding of an object, a process, or a concept than we previously had. Progress can also be innovations or insights gained from such understanding. I think that some people question this sort of definition, because some innovations are not "good" in their eyes. I don't think it should matter that a novel design of coal plant is an environmental nightmare; it merely offers us the ability to accomplish a task in a different way than we have before. When we come to understand that burning coal is not desirable - for any number of reasons - that, too, is a kind of progress. It is our responsibility to apply the new wisdom we have gained, and in this case, to stop building coal-fired power plants. At least, it is if we believe in the cause of environmentalism. I should add, finally, that progress can be said to have happened when humans meet the goals they have set for themselves.

I think that while it has taken "us" a very long time to come to a more complete understanding of what constitutes a human being and a citizen, that the definition has nevertheless been continuously expanding. From the exclusive club of propertied Athenian men, how our definitions have grown. Grown from white men to encompass men of every colour and creed. Grown from men exclusively to include women. Grown to encompass notions not only of belonging to a city-state, but to states and provinces, counties, countries, and even now the notion of global citizenship gains traction. We talk about citizenship and participation in online communities, which cross national boundaries (although linguistic ones may prove harder to breach...). Our notion of rights is expanding, too: we can conceive of rights to reproductive choice, to sexuality - healthy sexuality, to fresh drinking water, to education, to privacy...rights that have never existed comprehensively and for entire populations before in the whole history of our species.

The Harper Government has not been a stellar one. It can even be argued that they have tried to back-pedal on some of these crucial liberties. But always remember that it is we, we who side with the greater measure of liberty, inclusiveness, and tolerance who surf atop the inexorable wave of history. Let Harper build his sand-castle prisons; the tide is coming.

My Life Measured in Garbage Bags

Three years is enough time to accumulate quite a bit of unnecessary shit. I would be polite, but there is frankly no other way to describe the utterly superfluous junk that I find not-even-sentimental reasons to save from their truly deserved place in a trash heap. Poorly-written snippets of RPG systems I was making up, long abandoned. Sketches of cool futuristic guns that I draw whenever I get bored. Eight hundred course outlines and schedules. The panic-ridden house-cleaning that my compatriots and I have recently completed has opened my eyes to a certain disparity between the person who I am, and the one I would like to be.

To borrow a phrase from Daydream Believer, I don't want to settle. Or, more precisely I don't want to be the kind of person who settles. I'm young, I'm physically fit, I don't have a lot of obligations: no children, no permanent career position with good benefits and a nice pension plan. Why should I tie myself down as though I do? Why should I spent what will be - if not the best - the most able and mobile years of my life building a nest? I will have plenty of time to build a nest when it's time to, um, lay some...eggs...in...it? There are some pragmatic and political reasons, too; I don't want to be the kind of person who gives in too easily to the empty acquisition of mass consumerism. I mean, where's the fun in that? I'm not such an extremist to believe that nothing bought can have "real value" - precisely the opposite: I'd rather have less stuff, but individually I want the stuff I have to mean more. Less stuff is easier to move. It's not as messy, even when it's not exactly cleanly arranged either.

This desire for less "stuff" is also a broader part of a life philosophy that I've been entertaining for a while now. We can call it "Technomadic" culture, if it indeed deserves a name at all. The combination of highly-portable computing devices, ubiquitous wi-fi and wireless internet access, and "cloud computing"* means that I can be a knowledge worker from anywhere, at - roughly speaking - any time. Besides, cross-time-zone businesses are practically old-hat now. What relevance does the standard workday have when you need to be ready to help customers half a world away? It should be possible to, through a conscious minimizing of junk possessions, escape some of the "shackles" of a traditional white-collar job, especially in a knowledge industry. It should also be possible to make re-locating myself much, much easier if most of my stuff fits into a modestly-sized attaché case and a laptop bag. I could move to a new city by hopping on a train, or taking the next flight. There are still accommodations to be considered, but as long as one sticks to cities with month-to-month rentals available it shouldn't be too much of an issue.

That's an awfully...different speculative life than the one I lead now. It's possibly not too environmentally-friendly (depending on where and how I move), and it most certainly is rooted in a certain kind of middle-class privilege. I can only say that it's a notion in its infancy, likely untenable. I find myself nonetheless compelled by a certain minimalist component. If I have to choose, I would rather live with a few items of high quality, than with an ocean of disposable junk. I would rather live modestly in several interesting places, than live opulently in just one. That is, of course, still my aspirational self talking. My real self is still content to sit on his ass and play videogames. But a man can dream, so dream he shall.

In other news, there's an election now looming on the horizon, and I may give Stephen Harper credit, for once in my life; he did say that this was something Canadians didn't really want. Well, from my tiny cross-section of the Canadian population, it looks like he was probably right, albeit not for the reasons that he would hope. The people I know don't see any difference between the two parties who can be expected to form governments in this country. "Mildly objectionable" has been the only way to describe Canadian Prime Ministers since Brian Mulroney was "Very Much Objectionable" in the late 1980s (or, if you like it with a dose of perspective, since before I was born). Of course, "Not Something Canada Wants" is not the same as "Not Something Canada Needs". Can we, perhaps, salvage this poor election by proving that it needs to happen? Eh, maybe.

The Conservatives were set to fall on their budget, so regardless of whether or not they turned out to be in contempt of Parliament, there was an election coming. I found Harper's suggestion that the budget was "not a political game" to be disingenuous; a bad budget implemented quickly isn't actually good for Canada. Was the budget bad? I must confess that I have not read it, but all of the opposition parties - together representing a majority of those Canadians who bothered to vote in the last election - seemed to think that it was. Their obvious partiality aside, the Harper Government seemed unwilling to introduce compromise measures to woo even one party's support. I think that's characteristic of Harper's government style, so it's no surprise. It's problematic to me, because I can stand a Conservative minority that makes concessions, that ever acts in the spirit of co-operation for the benefit of the nation and its people. I don't really have time for Stephen Harper and his mildly objectionable political games.

But let's talk about this "contempt of Parliament" thing for a moment. For the first time ever in any Westminster parliament, our Conservative government has been found in contempt of said body. If it were some antiquated relic, something that was a commonplace occurrence - a slap on the wrist - I might not think it altogether important. However, the fact of the matter is that the government was asked in a legal and legitimate fashion for information which they did not provide. This was a party that had run on a platform of increased accountability, and it fell flat on its face. This is to speak nothing of their broken promises to reform the senate and the judiciary. If Stephen Harper had kept his word on any one of these issues, I would be singing a different tune. Stephen Harper may have been an antidote to years of Liberal corruption, he may have been what we needed at the time...but now he has proven himself no better than those he supplanted. We may not have anyone capable of articulating a coherent and inspiring agenda here in this country, but we can give this douche the Boot. "And why not?", say I.

Another Addendum

"The Times has taken care to exclude, in its articles and in supplementary material, in print and online, information that would endanger confidential informants or compromise national security. The Times’s redactions were shared with other news organizations and communicated to WikiLeaks, in the hope that they would similarly edit the documents they planned to post online.

After its own redactions, The Times sent Obama administration officials the cables it planned to post and invited them to challenge publication of any information that, in the official view, would harm the national interest. After reviewing the cables, the officials — while making clear they condemn the publication of secret material — suggested additional redactions. The Times agreed to some, but not all. The Times is forwarding the administration’s concerns to other news organizations and, at the suggestion of the State Department, to WikiLeaks itself. In all, The Times plans to post on its Web site the text of about 100 cables — some edited, some in full — that illuminate aspects of American foreign policy."

- The New York Times

I had an argument with some friends recently about Wikileaks, and while I came out in support of its radical assault on secrecy, they did not. They said that the cost of publishing data like the names of Afghan informants wasn't worth it. They said that governments, and not individual citizens, should be empowered to determine what is and is not secret. I disagreed then, and I think I still do now. Post-9/11 government security paranoia has surely served us well, but it's too easy a cloak to hide under when you've got something you want swept under a rug.

Perhaps if Wikileaks, rather than publishing material itself, would simply give their leaks to the press - who do have standards and who are accountable - rather than publish raw data themselves, we might see the kind of restraint that can save lives, while still giving power back to the citizens to take their oppressors in governments and corporations to task.

Power to the people!

-LOUD!

Crowd-Sourced Justice: the Resurgence of Mob Rule in a Networked Society

Justice 101: the system of laws and courts that most of you, the readership, live with is based on a few precepts:

• It is, in general, not a good idea to allow individuals to pursue vengeance against wrongdoers, as there will be no consistency or impartiality in the rendition of justice.
  
• Law and order should serve to protect the rights of citizens (from excesses of government, murderers, discriminatory hiring practices, etc). Removing a person's liberty is, essentially, the ur-crime.
  
• Being that punishment often necessitates removing or curtailing liberties, we have established the presumption of innocence and the system of due process because we believe that false positives are worse than false negatives.
  

"Crowd-sourced justice" is really just a pretty euphemism for "mob rule in the age of pervasive networked recording devices". Before the internet and camera phones were ubiquitous, the people with enough publishing power to make libelous or slanderous character assassinations were few. Fewer, anyhow. And they had printing presses or radio towers...big, physical landmarks with fairly unambiguous records of ownership. I suppose you could always have spread dirty rumours, but anything you could do verbally or in written communication you can do ten thousand times more efficiently now with a platform like twitter or blogger. It should not be particularly surprising that in the pseudo-anarchy of the internet, you can see aspects of the "state of nature" explored by the likes of Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau; the lawless, orderless never-never land which preceded the advent of politics. There are no authorities to which we may transfer our "right" of vengeance to in exchange for a measured response. There might be a Leviathan in the form of China's Great Firewall, but its reach does not yet extend across the whole network. And, if the things we did on the internet had no ramifications on the outside world, that would not be particularly worrisome. Unfortunately, we are seeing the intersection of internet and real-world justice. And, so far, I don't believe anyone has a very good profile for dealing with these situations.

The first example is the response of the US Big Content industry to online file-sharing, which runs flat-out into a brick wall because of internet anonymity. We have seen the RIAA and MPAA sue grandmothers and grandfathers who barely know how to send an e-mail, because their grandchildren have used limewire on their computers. We have seen ISPs subpoenaed to get at the names of their subscribers so that they can be subjected to lawsuit after lawsuit. We are seeing a push toward abandoning the presumption of innocence in favour of so-called "three strikes" laws which not only a) make internet subscribers DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for EVERYTHING conducted on their connections, but also has them automatically disconnected without recourse after being *accused* of copyright infringement 3 times. And don't mistake this for a copyright rant: we should not let corporations run roughshod over our individual rights simply because it would be TOO HARD to take individual file-sharers to court and make the charges stick. Cry me a fucking river - your monopolies are not worth selling out the fundamental rights of an entire citizenry, end of story.

My second case study is the infamous woman who threw a cat into a garbage can, and was caught on camera. Within a day or so of the footage hitting the internet, 4chan and its ilk had discovered the woman's name, and she went from being a potential suspect to protective custody due to death threats. Here, there was never a shield of anonymity to begin with. This woman wasn't, as far as I know, a significant presence on the web behind some pseudonym or forum guest account. Not an unmasking, this was a kangaroo-court, with but one piece of evidence submitted before the faceless hordes pressed in to deliver their justice. The physical authorities had to step in to defend this woman from their presumption of guilt. No matter how incontrovertible the evidence, no one is to be punished before due process has been observed. If we should fail to uphold that principle even once, it undermines the foundations of a civil and just society. What troubles me is that there is no sensible way in which someone's name could be removed from the internet after being attached to such footage. Countries - for example, the UK, are already having trouble with overzealous libel laws justifying censorship. With the ability to post and mirror and hide content anonymously, and with legions of people willing to do so, there is simply no way to stuff the genie back in the bottle. Once a name and a deed are out there, they are inseparable...and indelible.

Which brings me to my third case study: Noirin Shirley. Reporting that she had been assaulted by a fellow Apache-Con attendee on her blog, she set off the usual shitstorm of slut-shaming, victim-blaming, and vitriolic misogyny that regrettably characterizes about half the total volume of commentary on feminist content on the internet*. The alleged assailant's full name was featured in the post, which was picked up in short order around the tech-news community. The worst comments accused Ms. Shirley of being "crazy", "a tease", "an attention whore", "a character assassin"...in, I would like to note, stark contrast to any and all available evidence in the style and content of her writing elsewhere on her blog. The woman displays a level of self-awareness that I would frankly find painful. Not that I couldn't imagine a circumstance in which even the most level-headed person might want to vilify another...I just think the burden of proof re: Noirin's supposed "craziness" sure as hell ain't on me. I did commend her (I'm "Loud!" in the comments, if you want to see what I said) on her bravery in posting as she did. Her stated motivations were laudable: "I’m tired", she said, "...of the fear. I’m tired of people who think I should wear something different. I’m tired of people who think I should avoid having a beer in case my vigilance lapses for a moment. I’m tired of people who say that guys can’t read me right and I have to read them, and avoid giving the wrong impression.". What's tragic about this, is that if you abuse a cat on the internet, you get threats. The kind of threats that put you into protective custody. If you abuse a woman, the internet...leaps to your defense (some screaming vocal woman-haters do, anyhow)? This is the kind of disproportionate response that justice systems supplant. Of course, calling someone out by name on the internet for a crime they have not been convicted of? Questionable, to be sure. Ms. Shirley's actions will, I hope, be a catalyst for a serious inquiry into sexual harassment at conventions and meet-ups of all kinds. But they also transgress against a fundamental rule of our justice system, and as much as it would pain me to see her face consequences, she might have to.

* What gets me is that you'll see this scum show up in the comments on feminist spaces where they're clearly not members of the normal community/discussion. Is there someone out there shining a giant douche-signal (it's in the shape of a giant cock) like they're calling down the wrath of the goddamn Douche-Bat on any woman who dares to defend her personhood on the internet?

I didn't want to get too much into the nature of the case (being that it is in the hands of the Police now), but I have become sidetracked as I am wont to do. I keep thinking about these cases. Is there way we can ensure ethical use of our internet services without resorting to tyranny? Would it have been better for Ms. Shirley to write her account after the police and the courts had rendered a verdict? What happens if her assailant is guilty, but acquitted? Vice versa? What are we going to do, since it really isn't possible to stop people from doing this sort of thing with the internet without shutting the whole damned thing down?

Last night, I had an argument with some friends about Wikileaks, and I realized that it, too, is a part of this "crowd-sourced justice". On the one hand, I think that we're still dealing with reduced governmental transparency in the wake of 9/11, and that something like Wikileaks is the sort of radical activism that could force governments to publish more and better data about what they are doing. But I can't overlook that - in publishing the names of Afghan informants as part of the "Afghan War Diary" - wikileaks' zeal has made it an accessory to murder most foul. Etarran identified the problem as being a lack of accountability and responsibility. Wikileaks is acting outside any regulatory framework, and one must ask the question "who watches the watchman's watchmen?". Julian Assange (who, by the way, if he turns out to be guilty of rape deserves to burn) has an interest in creating, and profiting from (if not in money, than in publicity) scandal. I can't believe that what we are learning is worth the lives of those informants, and what's worse I can't do anything to effect a change in Wikileaks' policies because it is not a democratic institution, nor does it answer to one. I cannot shake the notion, however, that in light of how internal regulatory measures have failed us in our time of paranoia and hypocrisy, that someone could have done it better. Someone could have shown us a world without lies, but instead all we got was a different kind of corruption.

I am resolute in my belief that there must always be a place where can be found the stories of victims, rebels, visionaries, prophets, and whistle-blowers. Our commitment to freedom in speech, in thought, and in the pursuit of fulfillment demands of us that we should hear the voices of the oppressed, and that we must answer. But, at the same time, our commitment to peace, order, and truth means that both speaker and listener have the most solemn duty to check facts, consider opinions, and act with deliberation and conscience. When we fail to do these things, we are giving in to a kind of knee-jerk lynch-mob insanity that our societies are built to protect us from.

-LOUD!

Post #250 (hoooray!): What Alcoholism Teaches Us About Being Cyborgs

I step out of the classroom to switch from the brain amp (for as much as it augments my cognition, it also exacerbates the less helpful aspects of my brain) to the muscle amp. Actually, I don't get very far. I hit up the Tim Hortons around the corner for a muffin and a liquid stimulant suspension, which I hope will serve to temporarily increase my physical and mental performance - albeit with side effects (man, have we not figured out how to counteract the diuretic effects of caffeine yet?). I've been reading about cyborgs yet again. I guess I'd like to say that it's blowing my mind, but really I'm coming to realize that the story of the cyborg is the story of all Popular Science (capitalization intentional); we're sold one story by people whose job it is to froth at the mouth and speculate wildly and inventively...and then we're sold products by people whose job it is to make devices which are nominally durable and actually usable (and most importantly available without an additional ten years and ten thousand in R&D).

I'm about to step into the elevator (ok, done with the futuristic euphemisms) on my way down to the bike and I think "computers and bikes are pretty sweet, but where's my cybernetic enhancement that makes me less socially awkward?". A beat, and then: "ALCOHOL! Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....". The "original" cyborg was a pretty heavy drug user, in theory. Drugs to keep awake, drugs to go to sleep for extended periods of not much to do. There's something in there about periods of intense sensory stimulation to combat the boredom inherent to long space voyages, and I'll give you three guesses as to what probably turns out to be a pretty energy- and mass-efficient means for "intense sensory stimulation". Alcohol-as-cyborg-enhancement is a wonderful thought experiment, as I'm discovering. I tripped some balls when I found out that cooking was an artificial, external organ...and that also applies to brewing! It's going to be pretty weird referring to "the brewery" as a human external organ (which we should totally start compiling a list of, guys?), but it's a fusion of living matter and technology which performs a chemical transformation so that our bodies may make "better" use of raw materials! Sweet!

Through this lens, alcoholism is a kind of technological dependence. I think this is particularly interesting...and also scary. I have been quick in the past to dismiss terms like "internet addiction" and "video game addiction" as unsubstantiated, products of an aging culture that refuses to understand mine and instead condemns it. But while the levels of physical and mental compulsion may be different, can we really draw a moral distinction between two kinds of technological over reliance? I think that texting-and-driving bans are just the first wave of realization that we're going to have to say "no". And that's uncomfortable for a lot of us, we who depend upon pervasive computing, who feel the loss of an internet connection like it's blindness, deafness, and laryngitis all in one (albeit temporary). Scary is good, though. Scary is important. Alcoholism is a clear, concrete, not-Hollywood example of what we don't want to be as cyborgs, which is to say helpless. Cybernetic enhancement is supposed to leave "[People] free to think, feel, and create" (not an exact quote) without having to worry too much about what amounts to bookkeeping. The enhancements taking control is a pretty straightforward nightmare scenario - and Alcoholics live it every day. They ARE the Borg.

I have two potential conclusions that I'm drawing from this so far. One is that when you see those ads (as in old Archie comics or what-have-you) that say things like "you don't need drugs to enjoy music", that's about as true as "you don't *need* shoes to enjoy walking". Drug policy also starts looking kind of weird, like you're being imprisoned for the crime of being a cyborg. I'll bet that's pretty small consolation to the frankly absurd number of people languishing in prison for such "crimes". Also, William Shatner's TekWar doesn't...seem...as...dumb? Olympic (and other) doping scandals start looking even dumber; why are drugs necessarily so different from the latest, greatest piece of sporting equipment? Drug paranoia boils down to luddism and future-phobia; these policies are based not on good logic and good sense, but as some kind of imagined bulwark against a tomorrow when the particulars of ones birth no longer govern the limits of his or her success. And isn't it funny that in fiction, that's what the BAD GUY's talking about (viz. The Incredibles; Harrison Bergeron)?

Now, lumping all drugs together for the purposes of this argument certainly does strain credibility. Legalizing pot is not really the kind of cybernetic revolution that we're particularly excited about (maybe it would help us mellow out and forget how much we're disappointed that stupid, dangerous, impractical, fuel-inefficient flying cars haven't happened yet?), nor does legalizing cocaine really seem like "human enhancement". This is where the second possible conclusion comes in. The idea of a drug using cyborg comes from the 1960s (surprise, surprise). Did they really expect that even when their proposed drugs became a reality that they would be free of negative side-effects? Pull out a US magazine and look at the mountainous fine-print on the back of the drug ads (illegal in Canadian publications)! Remember what I said about Caffeine earlier? Maybe we CAN'T remove the side effects. Biochemistry is already exceedingly complex and incompletely understood, not to mention that it varies demonstrably between individuals: some are more predisposed to become addicted to alcohol or tobacco, others less, for instance. Do I have things backwards? Is the dream of the drug-fueled cyborg just another dream from the past whose reality is much more dangerous and much less glamorous than we would have liked to believe when we dreamed it? Of course, if we can become addicted to devices and services (phones, internet) just as much, is there really a reason to see drugs as any different? Steroids shrink your balls, paper and digital records shrink your memory, right? So in which direction is it most correct to err on the whole oevre of human enhancement, in the end? Dangerous addiction is a proven and real danger of ubiquitous availability, but it's a lottery. Prohibition and proscription are unsustainable and have proven impossible time and again. So it seems that in enhancing ourselves we create - inevitably, though without any malice - an underclass of people who are controlled, rather than take control. Of course, we can suggest careful genetic manipulation to reduce the possibility for addiction...but think for a moment. Before genetic technology, what would be the comparable suggestion? More drugs to combat addiction.

"as much as it augments my cognition, it also exacerbates the less helpful aspects of my brain"

As the cyborg was at the time of its inception a construction designed to make humans MORE human, it seems appropriate that an amplification of our faults is perhaps inextricable from the process of being cyborg. So I guess, Etarran, that as much as you hate internet culture, it could be that you cannot have the transformative powers of the web without 4chan after all?

"...give the Red States Blue Balls!" (21/??)

I was having a conversation with Daydream Believer, and she was telling me (after I complained of a sort of writer's block) that there was plenty to write about. And she mentioned the lack of support for safe abortions evident in Bill/Melinda Gates' charity efforts for Womens' health as one potential topic. I said that it was probably a political necessity when operating in the United States, and that a "different kind of soldier" was needed to fight for the acceptance of abortion in the US. And it strikes me now that this is perhaps not the best metaphor that I could have chosen for this, or any of a hundred thousand other ideological disputes. Analogy to warfare is not ineffective, not by a longshot; the wisdom of Sun-Tzu is valuable to many people whose job description is not "warrior prince" (gosh, would I ever love that on my résumé!), after all! But recourse to violence is often too real a response when no one is willing to give an inch. Should we dignify that by using the language of war? Should we cheapen the suffering of those who live in real wars by thinking and writing and speaking as though we are under siege, when in fact we live in peace? I am certainly leaning toward "no".

When the use of particular language is challenged on such grounds, the obvious counter-argument is that being proscriptive about language in this manner constrains the author. That to remove fiery language is to rob the verbal artist of the tools of his or her craft. And this is precisely the point. The intent of fiery rhetoric is to stir the blood, and not the brain. Thus, this is as much a gift to the health of a debate as it is a theft from the rabble-rousers who - it would seem - care little for solutions.

The metaphor of warfare and soldiering is especially damaging because inherent to these are formations, hierarchy, and battle lines. War is constructed such that there are generally two sides. The cohesiveness of a unit is tactical necessity, a union of purpose among allied forces a strategic imperative. But there are no such requirements in a debate, if one values truth over victory. There is a place for nuance and difference in debate; the only lines are the ones we choose to draw in the sand. An argument can look like a Venn diagram, where the sides may share common ground (like, say, Catholics and Protestants disagree about a lot of stuff, but they have God and Jesus sorta mostly in common?). The language of battle is clearly both innacurate and inappropriate.

It should go without saying that the logic, as well as the language, of war must also be expunged. An example from my conversation with Daydream Believer is that in attempting to figure out HOW to affect a policy change on abortion in the US, I quoted a line from a book I had leafed through many years ago. It said "Women: don't fuck Republicans". It was sound advice, but of course - as we both understood - there is not a homogenous battalion called "women" that can do (or, rather refuse to do) such a thing. And so while it can be expected that many different women may gather under the auspices of feminism when they can agree on certain minimum standards...it will work only as far as their disparate agendas permit. Unfortunately, when this happens it can give rise to the idea that there is only one feminism and, ergo, we can divide people along the lines of feminist/not feminist*. Another example would be the unnatural union of religious psychopathy and fiscal conservatism that produces the modern Republican party. It is a strategic alliance that produces victory, but also great internal tension because these are not always the most pleasant of bedfellows. And the focus on gaining power (victory) begins to outweigh the desire to use that power constructively. And if you think I'm down on American politics, the two main parties in Canada aren't even the result of fused ideologies, so much as they are strategic alliances of people with no positive beliefs beyond "I am entitled to Rule"!

*This realization has caused me to reverse my previous belief about something that EK has said, which is that one should necessarily self-identify as "feminist" if they believe in equality between Men and Women. Feminism is not only at this point a loaded term, but it can also describe easily dozens of distinct sub-ideologies. I do call myself a feminist, but I imagine there are those for whom I do not fit the definition. And, hence, I believe that no single ideological statement - no matter how noble - can really tell a person whether or not they should call themselves a feminist or not. It is far easier to state clearly what we believe than it is to spend our days clarifying labels.

LOUD!

The Third Cup of Tea (10/30)

So I guess I lied about a cool beer post on Friday. I couldn't really get anyone else in my house interested in buying/making equipment, and I'm not sure I have the finances or the wherewithall to do this whole process alone for the first time. But the dream lives on, so stay tuned.

I've been playing a bit of Red Dead Redemption and so far I think it's working for me. Yeah, yeah it's just Grand Theft Horse...but I dunno. For whatever reason I can't get too much into GTA, but RDR's period piece aesthetic does it for me. I guess maybe it seems more mature, bein' set in history and all? I don't really know what it is. It's far too late to review, but I'll post occasional thoughts as I get further into it.

It's September 11th again. 9 years now. Still no sign of Osama Bin Laden (and I bet you a couple bucks it'll be the same story next year). It's starting to feel like part of a different time, a different life. It's so very weird to look back, because while technology and culture have been moving forward at the usual rapid pace...look at all the awful baggage that we're carrying: Britain is still living an actual Orwellian nightmare of pervasive surveilance; the US is still embroiled in two theatres of war, and us in one of them; airport security is still paranoid and ridiculous. And we have to start asking some tought questions like "when are we going to get over it?". If our goal was to beat terror, why are we still afraid?

I guess we are slowly getting our shit back together, but in a way maybe that's part of the problem. Maybe we've adjusted too much to a little more restriction of our civil liberties. Maybe we're too busy worrying about the economy to understand the irreparable damage we've done to our integrity by having ever allowed human beings to be held without trial. Maybe we're too busy worrying about bringing the troops home to ask what the hell is going to happen in Afghanistan after they leave? I think there are some things we need to be afraid of now, and unfortunately they're all our fault. Or the US's, but I mean we're not so separate really.

The answer to this problem of violent fundamentalist religion has always been understanding, education, and goodwill. The work of individuals like Greg Mortenson (founder of the Central Asia institute) is of extreme value in this regard:

"Central Asia Institute’s mission is to promote and support community-based education, especially for girls, in remote regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. The philosophy is to empower the local people through their own initiative. As of 2010, Central Asia Institute has successfully established 145 schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan, which provide (or have provided) education to over 64,000 students, with a emphasis on girls’ education. Over the first decade of CAI’s evolution, our programs and projects expanded to several regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan with an emphasis on education, health issues, environment and cultural preservation."

I've taken IDS* and I know to be critical of missions to "develop" other countries, but there's something here. Because I have only ever heard of one truly successful way to empower communities, and that is to educate the women. I recall my grandfather relating the story of an orchard project in which the men of a community were being offered the chance to make some money working on this orchard. Not bad, right? Local business, (presumably) some kind of self-employment...certainly not a sweatshop factory. Turns out the women wanted none of this, because they said the men would just take their wages and drink them away. It seems that on some kind of macro-economic scale, my kind are just not very forward-looking when it comes to money and prosperity. If you educate women, however, they can gain power and traction in communities. When that happens, they can then exercise that power to improve conditions for them and their families.

*International Development Studies

So let's not compound the waste of dollars and lives we've been funding for 9 years now. Rather than sending an invasion force to foist development on people, let's spend our money on envoys who will take the time to get to know a community, to ask them about their aspirations, and then try to make those into reality. Maybe in another 9 years the world might actually start looking like a better place.

LOUD!

The (Other) Tragedy of the Commons (8/30)

I wouldn't count on this becoming a weeklong theme, but I thought this was worth posting on its own anyway.

As a relatively new import to Halifax, I feel a little bit awkward making pronouncements about municipal politics here...but there is a clear and present danger to a longstanding Haligonian institution - the North Commons - and I feel compelled to speak out! Unlike all too many cities, Halifax has got this wonderful stretch of common land right in the middle. Anyone can walk, run, bike, etc. as well as hold events/get-togethers, play sports...basically it's a big flat park that nobody really manages. Sort of. Of late, the city has started allowing for-profit concerts into the commons. Never mind that Halifax has at least three suitable buildings for ticketed events (The Metro Center, The Forum, Dalhousie's Rebecca Cohen auditorium)...the very spirit of a commons is stretched to the breaking point by fences and guards and price tags. It's not like you can play a concert in the Black Eyed Peas' backyard on a whim and charge admission. It's not like they can do the same in yours. That's how property works. Common land...well, I personally can't kick the BEP out of the commmons...but I wasn't even consulted. I suppose I can't suggest that we have a referendum every time someone wants to have a concert in the Commons, but whoever gave the BEP the go-ahead...I'm not sure they should have the authority to do that. Yes, there needs to be some measure of order even on common land. The police obviously still have juristiction. But there should be no one who wields a power of ownership over the Commons, and yet someone is behaving as if they do. This is troublesome.

Fortunately, I'm not the only one to see things this way. Tomorrow there is to be a "Take back the commons" dance party in the North Commons. I think I will probably go check it out. It's at 9 near the fountain if you're in Halifax and want to see what's up. I think this kind of event is exactly what SHOULD be happening in the commons: free, grassroots, and leaving little mark behind. This in contrast to the private, top-down, ground-pounding shows we've had come through here. If we want to preserve the freedom of a community resource like the commons, it is essential to lead by example. I can't imagine anyone living in Halifax being unaware of the Commons, but there are likely many who do not consider its true potential. By holding events like an outdoor dance party, these people can be shown precisely what is at stake. And, with any luck, they will join us in defending it.

LOUD!

PS: I recently found out that Clive Doucet is running for mayor of Ottawa. I met him once when he was adjudicating a provincial all-candidates meeting (I blogged about it way back), and he was very well spoken and I think I agree with a lot of his positions (I'll double check this against his current platform and give you an update). Until then, consider him possessed of a full, unreserved LOUD endorsement. If you live in Ottawa, please vote for this man so that there is hope for our moronic city bureacracy to get its shit together and start making my hometown a better place to live!

They See Me Rollin'/ In Linen / Patrollin' / They Tryin' To Catch Me Ridin' Pretty

First up, I will draw attention to a new Process Blog post for Little Worlds, which is now back from hiatus. Check it out if you didn't before!


Over the weekend I had an encounter with what I guess must be called "pretty cyclists" or "pretty riders". It wasn't really by chance, but because I don't look before I leap I had decided to attend an event described as a "pretty ride"; I naturally assumed that living in a city that isn't hard on the eyes (and I believe fancies itself to be picturesque), this was a geological/architectural sort of pretty we were talking about here. "I am down with biking past pretty places", said I. Only later when I went to see where I ought to park myself come fourteen-hundred-and-thirty Saturday did I notice a link to an article describing the act of "riding pretty". Riding pretty, besides being something you'd expect to hear in a Chamillionaire parody, is a movement whose goal is to disarm road rage and intolerance toward cyclists with an aesthetic shift from what you expect (spandex, muscle shirts and cargoes if we're talking mountain or BMX bikes) to something a little more whimsical, perhaps. Helmets which have velcro-on hat coverings. Lipstick. The pretty rider falls somewhere in the area of 'hipster' or 'retro-chic' on the fashion spectrum. Suits seem to be accepted also (one man and one woman came so attired). It was raining Saturday afternoon, and so I went somewhat less-than-prettily, following my usual logic of "if you would mind getting chain grease on it, don't wear it on a bike!".


These pretty riders turn out to be a nice bunch, so it didn't even turn out to be a thing that I looked as though I had not received a memo. Perhaps they were too polite to make a point of it? If it happens again on a nicer day I shall dutifully suit up, perhaps? In any case, it didn't end up being a very long bike ride on account of the rain and the cold, but that made tea at the end rather gratifying.


The Pretty Ride was a part of cycling week here in Halifax, which is a rather encouraging phenomenon. Halifax has rather fewer bike paths than Ottawa does, and almost nothing like the sections of trans-Canada trail and similar pathways that wind along the rivers and the Canal. Oddly enough it makes cycling a little more visible when you have to take the roads everywhere, but the flip-side is that even comparatively deferential Nova Scotia drivers can scare some would-be cyclists off the road as-is. About a week before the pretty ride was an event called "critical mass" in which cyclists saturated about a lane's worth of roads and even tackled one of the big suspension bridges over to Dartmouth, so I hear it. ELI was rather disdainful of their tactics ("You shouldn't be allowed on the road if you can't keep up with traffic!"), but I rather enjoyed the idea of such a high-visibility tactic. It's really too easy to miss cyclists when they're confined to the narrow margin between car door and kerb.


It seems not unreasonable that major streets should have dedicated bike lanes. The nice, bold white lines make everybody's lives easier. The margin for cyclists is well-defined, it's clearly delineated...it removes a lot of ambiguity from the relationship between car and bicycle drivers, I think. Halifax has a few good bike lanes, but not enough. But beyond that, we should be looking at how to reverse the car-centric approach to urban transport. Peninsular (Metro) Halifax isn't that big - maybe 25km from end-to-end, if that. That's a long bike ride if you need to go from one tip to the other, and most people probably don't.


Bikes are - at least according to Mind Trap - the most efficient vehicle ever designed by humankind. They have a much better vehicle-weight-to-payload weight ratio...actually, it's so good that it's the other way around! It's a rare person who weighs less than their bike! I'll sound like a broken record saying this, but you want an easy way to kill two birds with one stone? Bikes are a pretty good tandem solution to over-dependence on oil and potentially the obesity epidemic - certainly if you encourage cycling from childhood.


I've never really been heavily invested in velopolitics (a term I have just now coined) but this bike week, and a couple of recent discoveries have made me consider it more strongly (that, and it will make a lovely break from copyright law!). Bikes are forbidden in Halifax's public gardens. I'm cool if I have to walk my bike in quiet, slow-paced pedestrian crowds...but even WALKING MY BIKE is apparently disallowed. I will go to great pains to keep it out of peoples' way; I just want to cut through somewhere pretty and not have to backtrack in order to get to my ride! Furthermore bikes are also prohibited on the weekends in Point Pleasant Park. THIS IS MADNESS. What good is Saturday and Sunday biking if the nicest places in the city to look at are off-limits to me? I drive slow on the paths, I look out for people. I stop when dogs take an interest and let them sniff so I don't run into them. THE DOG OWNERS APOLOGISE, EVEN (they needn't!). I don't ask to be able to be a speed demon in a shared pedestrian/cyclist park, but I would like to be able to see the sights in my own chosen way!


That is all for now, methinks.


-LOUD!

Lessons Unlearned

In the aftermath of Boobquake (the boobwake, if you will) I saw a few (generally female) bloggers despairing at what they perceived as a "highjacking" of boobquake by what a film geek might call the male gaze - a sort of objectifying ray emitted by the eyes of men. In all seriousness, it was a good concern; the focus of boobquake was primarily humour and skepticism...T'n A being a pleasant - if non-critical - side benefit. Men who went into Boobquake day looking for nothing more than a show of tits were clearly misapprehending the point. Worse still, I think, is that they were in a way undermining a part of Boobquake's thesis. You'll recall that in Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi's clerical error (oh, snap?) he professed that it is female immodesty that causes male infidelity (and presumably that of women as well)...and that somehow this affects plate tectonics. And how did some of us supposedly enlightened western men react? Well, kind of offensively, actually. I don't have statistics, to be sure, but I think what's important here is to recognize that freedom of clothing choice isn't the endpoint of equality. The objectification of women is still something to be reckoned with in our society, and the blithe equation of Boobquake with "yeah, shake 'em baby"...it does worse than NOT help the cause. It transforms an event dedicated to satirizing ridiculous pronouncements and the mistreatment of women into little more than us ramming our culture down another culture's throat. How DO you like them American hooters, mr. Muslim?



You see, it just trades the spark of genius for the spectre of racism and bigotry.



I'll come back to this, but first I need to work something out that's been bothering me for a while:

" How is this "feminist" response anything but an attempt to squash female expressions of our sexuality, for fear of whipping men into an uncontrollable frenzy?



How is it anything other than blaming women for the fact that many men behave badly?"

I've been going over this sort of reasoning in my head for a while. On the one hand, I think there's a point missing: Heterosexual dudes are genetically programmed to be aroused by the female form, or at least I'm pretty sure we are. I mean, it's not a very good meme for a species that reproduces sexually to be ambivalent about the process. Ah - I can hear the yells forming in your throats and I am not done yet thank you very much! Genetic predisposition isn't really an excuse, but neither is it nothing at all. Dress and manner are means of communication, often nonverbal, but communication they are. Friends of mine will recall the ladies' T-shirt I proposed with only "The medium is the message" emblazoned upon the bosom. It was my own little way of satirizing T-shirts that said things like "my eyes are up here" in bright, eye catching text across the wearers' breasts. Both of these T-shirts are saying the same thing, when you get down to it. When you wear a particular style and cut of clothing you are sending people messages. I admit full well that I try to wear snug T-shirts these days because I've got a little muscle in my upper body and it's nice to have it show. But I am under no illusion that I have a right to complain if someone makes a remark about it on the street, in class, wherever. I'm trying to show off, the least you can do is notice!

No style of clothing is to be taken as a declaration of consent, duh. I still don't think it's really a consistent position to try and separate medium and message. I might not know whether your message is targeted at a particular individual or the world at large, but what "immodest clothing" tells me is that you think you have a body worthy of aesthetic consideration. So while I do not dispute in any way shape or form that physical security is your constitutional, heck your human right when you - and I mean dudes and ladies - run amok with only strategically-placed bands of cloth...a public display is a public display. We do have a sort of content filter when you only want to control access to your sexuality, both in the visual and physical capacities. It's called modesty, and it shouldn't be a dirty word just because some people think it needs to be enforced. It's also not a binary choice of covered/uncovered, there's a lot of room I think to choose an image that you're comfortable with projecting. Now, if you want justification I am going to have to tread carefully on this ground...but hear me out: common critics of Anarchy allegedly miss the point when they talk about total chaos in the absence of law. If you ask an Anarchist you'll probably hear something about "social norms" and "unwritten codes of behavior", possibly "natural-" or "divine" law, maybe even "common sense". You would be foolish to equate the absence of a code of law with the complete absence of guidelines and cues for behaviour. Similarly, you would be unwise to confuse the absence of religious persecution against your chosen style of dress with a complete obviation of your responsibility for your own image! We are likewise never free of our responsibility for our own perceptions of other people; what I am - in essence - arguing for is clarity of communication. Don't send wrong messages, and don't get the wrong ideas. Just don't be surprised if you're showing off your tits or pecs or whatever - and someone pays them a compliment. Is it regressive to believe that people shouldn't toy with each other and send mixed messages under the pretext of "I can do anything I want without consequence"? I hope not.

But back (sort of) on the track that I was intending to go upon. If we indeed wish to show that we as individuals and as a culture have an enlightened attitude toward women, let's do that with respect, consideration, and solidarity. This isn't accomplished by clamoring for tits, nor by indulging those who do.

On the matter of solidarity, I bring your attention to "Everybody draw Muhammad day". Look at the comment thread, even just the first few will do. Is this how to advance the cause of free speech, by calling Islam a "death cult"? How blind and shortsighted we are, then; historically we have been blessed with the gift of arabic numerals (way, way easier than those dumb Roman ones!), the concept of zero (or at least Europe got wind of it by way of muslims)...in fact, the preservation of classical philosophy that would spark the Renaissance? That was totally Muslims! So their civilization is not at its height now, but are we going to pass judgement on the whole of their culture and religion while observing only such a narrow slice? One might as well characterize Europeans as being the peddlars of dogmatic barbarism (middle ages and the crusades) or America as being inherently racist and oppressive (slave trade). Worse still we're talking about a narrow cross-section of a narrow cross-section! So much for this farce of the Western thirst for knowledge and reason! Ok, you know this; what I wonder about "Draw Muhammad Day" is whether or not I should participate. On the one hand, I see a noble purpose and intent: to become one with a group of people who have faced death threats and even death itself (RIP. Theo Van Gogh) for the sake of free artistic expression. As the Blag Hag says, to "dilute the pool of targets" seems a pretty funny, interesting way to deal with some of the hostility that has greeted people who are critical of Islam. Ironically, Christianity is vehemently opposed to idolatry/graven images (depends on the brand/translation), it just happens to be one of those "pick and choose" things that gets discarded and under rug swept. Actually, I recall there being vocal outrage in the West when an artist chose to depict Jesus Christ as a black woman. So on some level this isn't cool. I don't imagine all the people taking part are hypocritical, but it bears a striking resemblance to the problem with Boobquake: this event invites people who aren't here to celebrate free speech, but to denegrate Islam. I think that if we desire logical consistency, we desperately need to expand the scope of this day! I think we need a "Depict God and Jesus as not-exclusively-white-people Day", for starters! it's easy to talk trash about Islam because it has some differences in the value system, and a thriving militant streak that the media loves to talk about. But there are militants of all stripes, and maybe if we did more to provoke them, they'd come out of the woodwork. Hell, just look at the utterly braindead response from the religious right at the abolition of that national prayer day in the US.

You can say perhaps that there aren't any death threats at work here, that we're dealing with a religion that does seek to impose upon others versus some that don't. That's an awfully thin argument. Sarah Palin wants to base US law on the 10 commandments: does that mean the manufacture of graven images would become illegal, 'cause that would just be TOO GOOD right now! In any case, that's an imposition right there, one that has a lot of undesirable implications for those who do not share in her faith. You could even argue (successfully, I might imagine) that inherent to the "don't tread on me" 2nd ammendment-happy ethos are death threats, ie. when those arms you so proudly bear come in handy for overthrowing an oppressive government. For once I'm not trying to make fun of gun culture: I think "Governments should be afraid of their people" doesn't seem much too much more conducive to good policy than the converse (think about the kind of distaste people have for legislative deadlock, and imagine if you will the kind of paralysis you might see if the lives of legislators depended upon their never crossing a rather nebulous line). Everyone has their violent streak - from Marxists to Margaret Thatcherites (ESPECIALLY these, even). It seems pretty hypocritical to condemn another culture because their soft spot is your sacrament, doesn't it?

I think these two issues boil down to a very similar core: people are constructing freedoms in the absence of responsibilities. We have freedom of expression, but we are not without responsibility for the content we express. That is not to say that you "get what you deserve". Clearly, physical attacks are not the correct way to respond to expression that confounds or offends you!

On this general theme of getting things wrong, I saw on BoingBoing the other day a link via Wired to a piece that examined the role of mercenary bloggers in documenting the war on Afghanistan. Some of the comments were very vitriolic, wishing death and ruin upon these individuals, generally to the tune of:

"Mercenaries are the scum of the Earth, I hope they all die."

I'm sorry, I forgot that the purpose of learning about someone in their own words was to justify your kneejerk reaction to their superficial qualities, what was I thinking!? I had imagined in a fever dream for a moment that reading the words of combattants on the ground would humanize them in a way that might challenge our assumptions about who these people are. Yes it is morally questionable that they are effectively paid to kill. Good job. Does the above statement reflect a more developed morality? It would be very hard to argue that it does. Again, you can see that we are receiving information, but not everyone is learning the right lesson. There's something that Christianity says, something like "love the sinner, hate the sin"? You can Godwin that to death if you like, but how else can we approach unsavoury professions like "mercenary"? Are we to decide that some people can be judged solely on the basis of their employment...but not us, oh no! We're just office drones on the weekdays; on weekends we're gorgeous unique butterflies free from the stale cucoobicle! So you don't kill for money - you waste away your life unsatisfied for money. Should I wish death upon you for squandering your human potential five days out of seven? Come on!

These are human beings. Fact. Why do some people refuse to learn that? I don't think any more kindly of the profession, but I can now put words and maybe even a face on these people. I think that makes for a better debate, somehow, if we discard this notion that we are fielding armies of demons abroad in a vein effort at...something, I dunno what. Actually, if you read some of these blogs they are often quite critical of the war effort itself: the uncertain terms of victory, the corruption in government and police forces that we turn a blind eye to...even the anti-war crowd will find some common ground here! In fact, reading these blogs has given me more reason to doubt the war than I might have ever had. I have a much better perspective now, I think, of what we have done wrong. What's very interesting is that there is a palpable level of culture shock going on. Some of the blogs I read bordered uncomfortably on racism, but it did make me think. We're talking about how best to prosecute this war in terms of drone strikes and troop surges, and we're really just not trying to talk about the cultural barriers between our peoples! It seems dangerous to have heavily armed people becoming increasingly jaded and disoriented in a country that we wish to have good relationships with, don't you think?

An Open Letter to Stephen Harper (In Progress)

To the Right Honourable Stephen Harper:

Two recent pieces of news have caused me considerable consternation with regards to the policies advanced by your government; these being - in no particular order - your intent to bring "stronger" copyright law to Canada, and the intimidation of those feminist/womens' advocacy groups in Canada which have come out in opposition to your frankly contemptable decision not to support safe access to abortion for women in impoverished countries. Although these two issues aren't of themselves related, your government's adoption of these policies speaks to a perilous disconnect between the values of the Conservative party and those of the general Canadian public.

On the matter of copyright, our country has been very fortunate that circumstances have conspired against your previous attempts to reform the law, which were met with much resistance by consumers, educators, and even creators themselves. The copyright consultations held by your government last year seemed a show of good faith, a willingness to seek a superior balance between the needs of consumers and creators. Please, do not disregard the will of the people on this matter; it is in their name and their interests that you are supposed to govern. What the media conglomerates are demanding of the Canadian government (and others) is not merely protection for artists, it is support for business models that are dying. It is an end to privacy and even the presumption of innocence, the so-called "three-strikes" policy that would institute widespread monitoring of internet use and automatically disconnect citizens merely accused of copyright infringement without so much as a chance to defend their innocence. It is a lockdown on culture that simply does not make sense in an age of sharing. I do not, Mr. Prime Minister, mean "illegal file sharing" when I say sharing; I refer to a more general set of cultural phenomena. Networks and software aren't only making "theft" easier; they are also giving the means for creative self-expression to more people than ever before in history. People are chosing to create, and in many cases they are choosing to share: whether it's the Free/Libre Open Source Software movement, or the Creative Commons.


I am not so naive as to think that in some ideal future, all creators will work for free. What I do think is that the way to ensure that creation continues in this country is not to use heavy-handed legislation to lock Canadians into the old ways, old businesses whose practices are no longer suited to the current market. Apple and Amazon have demonstrated that what your legislation would call "digital locks" are not necessarily the only way forward for digital commerce: both have been selling music without such encumberances for some time now. You have children, and so I imagine that you are not unaware of the artistic medium that is the videogame (I have a bone to pick with Roger Ebert on this matter, but that is for another time and place). Stardock Studios and the website "Good Old Games" sell such products without digital locks, and they do not seem to be in dire straits. Conversely, EA Games' "Spore", a hotly anticipated title, suffered a PR nightmare when it was released with particularly strict digital locks upon it. The fact of the matter is that the more entrenched these locks become, the better (comparatively) the experience of piracy will become. A pertinent example can be seen here: commercial DVDs when played in a standard DVD player assail the viewer with often unskippable previews and warnings. The content of commerical DVDs is scrambled, making it difficult for end-users to make archival copies, or even simply watch the DVD on operating systems such as Linux. A pirated film, by contrast, simply begins playing the film when placed in a DVD player. It is simple to make copies for use in case the original becomes damaged, it can be played almost anywhere, and it can be converted to many different formats to be played on many different kinds of player. Paradoxically, the kind of broad functionality that I and many other Canadians would be interested in paying for is NOT the kind offered by the industry. It is that same industry which has been framing the choice in this debate as between Canadians (and others) being offered their very limited, highly controlled packages...or nothing at all. I wish that your party would take a stand against this, not just from a consumer rights angle, but also because we should not encode into law this caste-like distinction between producer and consumer. We are not passive; I don't believe that culture exists without interpretation, criticism, parody and remixing. These are not valueless acts, but the content industry seeks in law to make crimes of some or all of these!

I have not been very forthcoming with positive suggestions, but as a start there is perhaps NDP MP Charlie Angus'proposal to extend Canada's existing private copying levy to a new range of devices. Here, at least, is found the spirit of true compromise: the industry wants money, and Canadians want relative freedom to format-shift their media once they have legally obtained it. Rather than criminalizing the latter, the private copying levy allows both sides to enjoy what they say they want to enjoy. But if the content industry insists instead on tighter controls, you must ask yourself; if they thumb their nose at money, what is it that they really want? Do they want fair compensation for creative works, or do they want a frankly unrealistic and unfair level of control over our culture?

On the issue of your government's lack of funding support for abortion abroad, and the subsequent cutting of funds to women's advocacy groups I urge even more strongly that you reconsider your position. DVDs are one thing, but your party is endangering human lives in the hopes that it can simultaneously adopt fundamentalist values re: abortion and still somehow stay in the good graces of Canadians by maintaining the status quo on the homefront. With all due respect, Sir, just how stupid do you think Canadian feminists (both women and men) are? At best, what your policy decision indicates is that your government either does not believe in a universal standard of human rights (reproductive and otherwise) or that you intend at some later time to mount a campaign against abortion at home. Either of these conclusions should send chills down the spine of respectable Canadians, Mr. Harper. Women who are denied access to safe abortions will often seek them from less reputable sources. This can kill them, Mr. Prime Minister. I believe in providing and promoting contraceptives in places where women wish for a greater control over their reproductive lives, but if you have been following the issue you will know that it is sometimes difficult to get men to wear condoms reliably. There is an effort to produce a simple, easy-to-use, easy-to-distribute female contraceptive cream (or some similar unobtrusive substance), but this is not at present a reality. The reality is that a balanced approach to the reproductive health of women must include abortion, even if only as a last line of defence against unwanted pregnancy! That you have chosen not only to stand against abortion, but also against those groups who have lawfully and dutifully protested your choice in this matter speaks to an even greater evil than neglect, however. These groups do not exist to stroke your ego, and they will not always agree with you. Disagreement and debate are principal foundations of democratic society, and while I suppose there's no law that says you MUST fund these groups, it rather seems as though you are cheating. Quieting the debate with fear tactics and then claiming that you have won by virtue of being the loudest (or perhaps the only) voice is poor sportsmanship - and I am being generous. What is it that your government fears from these groups? That they might take a stand against what they perceive as injustice? Is that not an invaluable practice in a free society, or do you believe that all of our checks and balances and our Constitution itself are just so much window dressing for your new brand of tyranny? Well this Canadian will have none of that, and will have none of you if this is the most reasoned and mature manner in which you see fit to conduct public discourse in this once-proud nation!


Sincerely,


A Concerned Citizen.



I intend to send this letter in paper form at some point in the near future, but not quite in this present form. The final work will obviously need less of the spleen that makes blogging so delicious, but I'm curious to know what you think could be improved. Yes, I am outsourcing my proofreading. I'll be doing some of my own over the next day or two...but I won't catch everything!

And Since We've No Place To Go...

The post counter ticks ever closer to 200 (10 more to go after this one, we're in the home stretch!). I think I'll do something special. Maybe retrospective, maybe prospective. Maybe a little bit of both; stay tuned.

With so many posts, I often find myself searching my own archives when writing new posts. It's getting to the point where I can't remember if I've written something or not. Turns out that I've written next to nothing about snow. Snow, of all things! Weird. Good thing, I suppose, that I haven't covered EVERY topic yet. Consistently posting is hard enough as-is.

Snow is basically the best precipitation that can happen on this planet. Sure, golf ball sized hail is pretty snazzy, but are you sure you like the roofing bills (to speak nothing of insurance premiums!) that come with it? Snow is relatively benign, and what it does is provide anyone that's interested with a more or less limitless supply of sculpting material*. It's by no means the most accurate, nor the most comfortable to work with for hours on end, but it's free and it's omnipresent. The potential that snow has goes tragically unrealized year after year; snow could mean free public art wherever you go. I mean, yeah it'll be a lot of snowmen. So what? Give people time, maybe toss them a Calvin and Hobbes book...you'd see them start to push the envelope. Or, you know, make snowforts. But we should encourage that, too. Heck, I think we should have pinnies that we can wear over our coats that mean "it is OK to start a snowball fight with me/I will have your back if you're already in one and need help"! There was an article I saw a while back about how during winter, you gain the ability to see how the paths people actually take differ from the ones that are provided from them by the city. I think we need to take these lessons further. Snow is tabula rasa, and yet we spend so much time and effort plowing and scraping and salting just to fight back the tide, get back what we had before, but do we ever stop and think "Hey...we could have more!"?

*It's also good for building shelter, throwing at people, etc.

At this point I should clarify that I'm not really trying to advocate snow as an agent of anarchist policy. This is more food for thought than it is a polemic. We have a plain white canvas that descends from the sky and stays for about four months...Why DON'T we do more with it than we do? Is it one of those stupid 'maturity' rules, like it's suddenly not OK to start rolling up a snowball past the age of 25? Why DON'T you see more street artists working in the medium of snow when winter rolls around (when conditions are right, you can and will see me making mini snowpeople whilst waiting for the bus. I usually leave 'em on a bench or whatever surface is handy. They don't last long, but snow as a medium does have a certain expected ephemerality)? I implore you to imagine a city that enrobes itself in snow: ornamental arches, ice slides, forts, walls, snowmen and women - rather than one which pushes it aside and grumbles until the spring. I would have told you yesterday that my great regret about last winter was not tobogganing on Citadel Hill. Now  I can see that what I - what we - miss every winter is the chance to live in the same fantasy snow-land seen in christmas/holiday film and TV! Some cities try a little harder than others in this regard: Quebec and Ottawa get points for Carnaval and Winterlude, respectively. I think that Halifax's plentiful public spaces could play host to all manner of snowcraft. I'm sure that to some extent, they already do...but we can do better!

-Loud!

PS. ACTUALLY REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT THOSE PINNIES. WE NEED A WAY TO MAKE PUBLIC SNOWBRAWLING LEGALLY/SOCIALLY OK AND UNAMBIGUOUS!

First, they came for the...

This is shaping up to be a bad week for civil liberties, and it's really getting me down. I've been kicking ass these past few days, so this bad news tempering my excitement? NOT appreciated! I refer primarily, of course, to the complete and utter failure of the state of Maine to uphold the right of same-sex couples to marry. I know only two people from Maine (and only one of them well at all), but I wish that as a sample they had proved to be more representative of the whole (they were both decidedly against the same-sex marriage ban)! My position on marriage is surely well-established by now, so I'll keep any reiteration short and to the point: I...I do and do not understand the idea that same-sex marriage could be threatening or offensive to a person. I mean, sure it might be against the tenets of your religion or something, but did you forget to read the damned bits of your constitution that address the separation of church and state? I mean, yes you could find an idea repulsive on a personal level, but I'm pretty sure that's not how laws work (well, it shouldn't be anyhow). I mean, Etarran hates zucchini, but I can at best imagine him joking about a legal crusade to outlaw its cultivation!

No, the whole miserable business is indefensible. One cannot pretend to live in an open and free society whilst all the while denying his or her countrypeople the same rights he or she enjoys. At best, that can be called hypocrisy. I think I call it tyranny, which is a good segue into another troubling assault on personal freedoms: the recent ban on violent video games in Venuzuela. This has also been an issue in the US, and I guess that it is fitting for a country which is more at ease with making war than making love that their citizens and courts should uphold the right of citizens to simulate all manner of slaughter, but not to marry whomsoever they choose. Wonderful, isn't it?

There's a wonderful essay written by a Venuzuelan on the topic, which can be read here. I'm not sure if I agree that banning violent videogames is tantamount to making protest illegal (although making the expression of views contrary to those of the government a crime? Yeah, there we go!). I think it might be something different, something more than just silencing protest. I think it's entirely possible that the Venuzuelan government is trying to silence an entire generation, regardless of what it is they are saying. If you're incredulous, simply imagine [insert your government here] bans text messaging, facebook, or twitter (hey, wait, hasn't that HAPPENED ALREADY SOMEWHERE?) It could be - at least on the surface - a move to silence particular voices of dissent, but you would realize soon enough I think that the real effect of such a ban would be to effectively evict our generation from home turf. "oh, POOR YOU, you'd have to resort to communications in person, how terrible!" I hear the parents droning sarcastically. No, for serious: That was your way, we have our own way now! It would be like taking away paper and quills before people had phones in their houses, or killing all the troubadours in medieval Europe. Back to videogames, though: I don't think they really express "dissent" of themselves, but they provide our generation with cultural anchors of a sort. Weirdly, I think that the backlash from gamers might be the source of more dissent than games themselves could ever be.

I think that for too long I assumed that 'socialist' meant 'good', and that Hugo Chavez was simply the victim of the kind of slander you're liable to hear about socialists when you live next to one of the most heartless capitalisms the world has ever known. Now, I'm not so sure what I believe. It would be too easy to say "well, now I know the opposite to be true", but I don't think that would actually bely a better understanding of the situation. What I do know is that I want to live in Venuzuela even less than I did before...

...and there's the rub. This is all very well and far away for me, but it's terrifying to think that it IS TRUE somewhere. My hard drive and collection of optical disks? VENUZUELAN CONTRABAND?!?! Weird stuff!

I wonder if there are any gaming speakeasies already in operation in Venuzuela?

Loud!