Dr. Filomena

sushi by Mr. P, photo by dr. fil

Good food in good company. What more could one ask for?

It may be rather brave to invite a connoisseur of all things Japanese over for one’s first attempt at  the art of combining what may look like simple overcooked rice but actually isn’t with raw fish, veggies and… err… roasted seaweed into bite-size delectables, but there, I must admit it. Mr. P pulled it off.

Hats off to the chef for preparing a mouth-watering dinner to fuel the debates. Seeing as this is his very first sushi, I look forward to the next ones. And to the conversations they spark, of course.

krofi & foto: dr fil

Drage soženske, na ta šaljiv dan nam želim, da ne bi pozabile, da bi morale biti enakopravne moškim, čeprav nismo enaki. Da se moramo boriti za svoje pravice. Ne proti moškim. Da si poleg izenačenih možnosti v poslovnem svetu zaslužimo korektnost in vljudnost na vsakem koraku. Tako kot moški. Da nas nikoli ne smeta ustaviti strah ali brezvoljnost. Upajmo si zahtevati več. Da bomo imele enako.

PS: Krofe sem danes delala prvič, po receptu ene od mnogih superžensk, ki jih poznam – svoje babice. Ne sprašujte po njem, ker je vsega “ravno prav”.

Vir: SAZU

Opravičilo za neobjavljanje zapisov je sestavljeno, a žal bo minilo še nekaj let, preden ga bo odgovorna oseba znala podpisati. Neobjavljanje ne pomeni, da ne berem, ne opazujem, ne poslušam. Sivocelične napetosti na hitro sprostim na Twitterju, zato bloga ne pogrešam pretirano.

Ko pa mi kdo grozi z resetiranjem, oziroma me vabi, naj se skupaj z ostalimi volivci resetiram kar sama od sebe, si vzamem čas, da svoje mnenje delim tudi z vsemi tremi bralci tega bloga.

“Resničen reset se mora zgoditi tukaj, v Sloveniji. Resetiranje novinarjev pomeni resnico-ljubno pisanje. Volivci morajo resetirati svoje vrednote, svoje srce: lumparije na drobno dajejo glasove lumpom na debelo. In glava volivcev mora spregledati propagando, ki brenka na tistih pet predsodkov. Resetirani volivci bodo bolj zahtevni kupci na slovenskem političnem trgu in trgovci – stranke – se jim bodo morali prilagoditi. Politične stranke se bodo morale resetirati in nekatere priznati svojo idejno bankrotiranost in odvisnost od predsodkov. Mimogrede, podpisani nove ne ustanavljamo.”

Vir: Delo

V današnji Sobotni prilogi Dela nas k temu spet poziva dr. Žiga Turk, tokrat v družbi dr. Mateja Lahovnika, dr. Marka Pavlihe, mag. Rada Pezdirja in dr. Janeza Šušteršiča. Zaenkrat pustimo ob strani dejstvo, da so med naštetimi trije bivši ministri, ki so že imeli realno možnost krojiti delovanje slovenske države.

Fantje, trenutni položaj v državi ni rožnat, pa tudi tako črn ne, kot bi radi naslikali. Ljudje smo takšne čudne, nikoli zadovoljne živali. Prav to nas vodi v iskanje vedno novih rešitev in znanj, ki so temelj tistega, kar samovšečno imenujemo napredek. Če se strinjamo, da stanje ni popolno (in da nikoli ne bo), pa me v živo zadenejo ideje o, če ne kar zahteve po nenadnih korenitih spremembah domnevno popolnoma gnilega sistema.

Slovenija je krasna država. Narava je lepa, ljudje delavni in pametni, potencialov je veliko, smola le, da vse skupaj z napačnimi odločitvami kvarijo zavedeni volivci in neresnicoljubni novinarji? Besedilo je prežeto s tolikšno mero naivnosti, da človek težko verjame, da je prišlo izpod prstov tako izobraženih ljudi. Predlagam jim pogovor s kakšnim preprostim posestnikom zdrave kmečke pameti.

V demokracijah, ki jih tako radi omenjajo avtorji, se spremembe uvajajo postopoma. Podlage zanje pripravijo demokratično izvoljeni predstavniki ljudstva, preživeti morajo razprave in zakonodajne postopke, če ne dosežejo želenega učinka, se poskusi drugače, verjetno z drugo ekipo. Hitre širokopotezne spremembe sistema, vsiljevanje novega sistema vrednot, spreminjanje človeka samega v želji po oblikovanju popolne družbe, vse to so elementi neke popolnoma drugačne miselnosti, katere posledice pozna vsak, ki je vsaj od daleč povohal zgodovinske knjige.

Za vsak slučaj, da ne bi prišlo do nesporazuma, sem izraz hotela preveriti v Slovarju slovenskega knjižnega jezika, a ga v njem ni. Angleška definicija izraza je, na primer:

reset – to press a special button or to make changes so that a machine will work again or work in a different way

Vir: Macmillan Dictionary

Ne boste verjeli, ampak človeška družba takšnega gumbka nima. V resnici verjamem v dobronamernost avtorjev članka in tudi, da verjamejo v to, kar so napisali, ampak njihova teorija nasede na čer prvega stika s človekom v resničnem življenju, v praksi.

Nasprotje postopnih sprememb v demokratičnem sistemu, ekvivalent gumbku, ki spremeni delovanje družbe (predvidevam, da avtorju niso imeli v mislih povratka družbe v katero od že videnih ureditev) je v preprostem jeziku revolucija.

Ne, hvala. Resetirajte sebe.

Bom imela kmalu možnost v miru sestaviti zapis o kateri od tem, ki se mi podijo po glavi?

Bodo Slovenci kdaj znali ceniti, kaj vse jim (zlasti v primerjavi z ureditvami drugod po svetu) zagotavlja naša socialna država?

Bo jamranje izgubilo status slovenskega nacionalnega športa številka 1?

Ali kdo razmišlja o tem, da se te dni jasno kaže, kako zelo težko je priznati napako in se zanjo opravičiti? Že napako v obliki nepopolne resnice (polresnica je cela laž) ob zakonitem ravnanju, kaj šele v obliki čiste laži in ponarejanja dokumentacije? Ter da zato priznanje napake in opravičilo velja ceniti?

Figo.

(foto dr. fil)

This is what my social networking looks like at the moment under the watchful eye of my new time manager.

Oh joy, my fingers are almost fully functional again! I kid you not.  The ball that Planika Praslovan’s esteemed staff member claimed I’d stolen from her and hidden in my belly had several funny effects on my body with one of the more intriguing ones being the carpal tunnel syndrome. Meaning that in addition to swollen hands and reduced sensation in fingertips, typing was akin to driving needles through my fingers. If you haven’t heard from me, trust me, it hurt me more than it hurt you.

The ball

Like parents like son? Or a supporter of a certain FB group, perhaps? Thank you, DJ Rollo Tomassi

Back to that ball, though. After nine months (right… why doesn’t anyone tell you it’s actually ten (10) months?) of it rolling around in there, seemingly gathering mass and momentum, it decided it’d had enough practice. It banged on the belly door for several days until the watery barrier gave in. Six hours of abuse later (verbal abuse of the medical staff and physical abuse of Mr. P’s arm by yours truly, that is), the ball turned out to be alive and kicking. Rather hairy for a ball by any standards, as well.

The doctors said it was a healthy little baby boy and who am I to quarrel with them? He was so incredibly cute that Mr. P (www.pengovsky.com) and I decided to keep him. Dad (and what a great dad he is turning out to be!) named him Renko and the rest is… well… the loud, busy, enjoyable present.

The Nitty-Gritty

On a slightly more serious note; I opted for a natural childbirth and don’t feel sorry for a second. All the pain that dragged on and on – due to the oxytocin injected to speed up the process after my water broke in a movie-like fashion back at home – was forgotten instantaneously (and I do mean in an instant!) after the baby was born. Six hours of building up the pain to levels that leave the last hour a blank, followed by me snapping back to it when it went for real and the baby was in position. I could see and hear again and focus on instructions. A couple of pushes and the most adorable creature was laid on my belly. I’m repeating myself, but I can’t get over how all that pain simply disappeared from short-term memory, seemingly pushed years back into the past. Nature dispenses powerful drugs!

I know I’ll get asked this questions so here goes: no, I did not have an episiotomy. And yes, I knew it would hurt and yes, I’d opt for the same type of delivery with minimal pain relief again.

I thank my family, my dear friends and colleagues along with my boss for their support during the rougher periods of my pregnancy. And babičar, a twitting birth attendant who met with me to discuss childbirth and the Ljubljana hospital. I still made some of the mistakes he warned me about, but all in all I fared well. I must not forget to thank the hospital staff who took my abuse with style. And my partner Mr. P for being the better student at the ‘school for parents’ and taking me through the delivery without batting an eye, even when I shared the pain with him in a rather literal manner.

Staying Fit

Five days before delivery and seven days after delivery

Throughout my pregnancy I kept up at least a basic workout routine. I ran up until the seventh month, in the end reducing the morning stretches to 5 km and finally walking a few times on that distance as well as soon as I felt I couldn’t breathe properly. When running seemed out of question, I switched to swimming three to four times a week, bringing that up to five times a week all the way until one week before delivery or two days before my calculated due date. I realise a few people thought I was being irresponsible, but I had my doctor’s full support and swimming was the only way I could cope with all the extra fluids retained in my body that were also the cause of my carpal tunnel syndrome. I’ll go ahead and say it. I am positive that it was the moderate exercise that kept me away from medications and machinery and it was the exercise that helped me deliver naturally.

The Cats

In a time-honoured feline tradition that obliges any upstanding catizen to provide for incompetent yet beloved humans who are well known to be disastrous mousers, Planika Parada a.k.a. #cyberkitty decided in the absence of mice to catch, to place her toys in the new cub’s bed. Other than that, the cats seem completely unphased by the loud little new flatmate. As long as he doesn’t take over the couch, I heard them purr to one another quietly in a conspiratorial tone. Since I’m saying thanks here, I must thank my cats as well (www.planika.us). In the 15 years of breeding Persians I’ve learned much that helped me keep my cool in this pregnancy.

Private and Personal

It seems that since I’m vocal, opinionated and share quite a bit (like that belly pic up there, eh?), people assume that I share my private life in social media. Well guys, I don’t really. Since I didn’t start showing until late, not even my colleagues knew about my pregnancy until I was well into the fifth month. Guess why I was fainting on a daily basis during the Football World Cup. It wasn’t just the super cute Slovenian goalie. This will not turn into a baby blog, Renko will not have a Twitter or Facebook account and though I will undoubtedly share titbits from time to time, our family life is… private.

Renko

Don’t let that bottle fool you. This sweetie is breastfed.

Here he is. Renko. My new time manager, our love, our joy. I’m trying my best not to get all mushy on you, so suffice it to say that a smile on this little face erases the world around us, leaving just my baby and me, feeling all warm on the inside.

And somewhere, not too far away, I know my mother is smiling.

Včerajšnji referendum je bil polom. V resnici ne tako zelo za vlado, kot za predlagatelje dragega državljanskega odločanja na sončno nedeljo.

Jasno je, da bo opozicija rezultat tolmačila kot izraz nedvoumne nezaupnice vladi, ki naj bi jo izreklo ljudstvo, ampak če premore kanček zdravega razuma, se bo zamislila nad slabokrvnim odzivom na temo, ki jo je sama uvrstila tako visoko.

Kdor je spremljal medije, je moral ugotoviti, da ljudje niso šli na volišča, ker

• niso vedeli, za kaj gre,
• so menili, da ne gre za pomembno vprašanje, zlasti pa
• so bili prepričani, da gre za nekaj, o čemer bi politiki morali odločati brez njihove pomoči (saj so za to plačani… to delo pa so že opravili v Državnem zboru)

in ne, kot je izjavil Aleksander Zorn, ker ljudje čutijo krizo in se umikajo sami vase.

Opozicija je očitno uspela mobilizirati precej manj ljudi, kot je pričakovala. Zdi se, da izgublja stik z njimi in ne ve, kaj so zanje pomembna vprašanja. Morda pa jih bo res treba resetirati.

Kakšen je rezultat? Ogromni stroški za državni proračun pri vprašanju, o katerem državljani niso želeli odločati sami, novinarji RTVS bodo še naprej veljali za javne uslužbence (se kateri s tem hvali kolegom v tujini?) uboga poražena koalicija pa bo do konca mandata v RTVS *lahko* imela precej večji vpliv, kot bi ga imela po novem zakonu.

Ne pomnim, da bi se mi kdaj zgodilo, da še en teden pred glasovanjem ne bi imela precej izdelanega mnenja o referendumski temi. Mogoče se mi zakon ni zdel posebej pomemben, mogoče gre samo za to, da branje veljavnega in novega Zakona o Radioteleviziji Slovenija ni najprivlačnejše razvedrilo. Ker pa se udeležim vsakih volitev in vsakega referenduma, se mi je zdelo prav, da se vsaj malo potrudim. OK, priznam, da me je mikalo, da bi za novi zakon glasovala že samo zato, ker je prejšnjega sestavil Branko Grims, ampak to kljub vsemu ne zadošča.

Prebrala sem oba zakona in nekaj komentarjev v časopisih. Med drugim mi je bila v pomoč primerjava Financ. Ker sem se nagibala h glasovanju “za”, sem prebrskala spletno stran Slovenske demokratske stranke in zaman iskala kakšne konkretne razloge proti. (Tam sem mimogrede med drugim ugotovila, da SDS napoveduje 150-odstotno rast inflacije v Sloveniji in da komentatorji niso prebrali zakona, v katerem je določeno, da se prispevek z inflacijo usklajuje enkrat letno, in pozabili, da tudi veljavni zakon omogoča do 10-odstotno prilagajanje višine RTV prispevka, prav tako enkrat letno.)

Novi status RTV se mi zdi nenavaden, ampak razumem, po kakšni logiki je bil izbran. Ne razumem ga kot privatizacijo hiše, ampak kot možnost za ločitev nekomercialnih od komercialnih vsebin, pri čemer ima nekomercialni del vedno korist od komercialnega, obratno pa ne velja.

Dejstvo, da so zaposleni na RTV trenutno “javni uslužbenci”, se mi zdi perverzno. Sploh, kar se tiče novinarjev, ki se s tem očitno strinjajo in bi se raje odrekli tej oznaki.

Zelo mi je všeč dejstvo, da se krči število članov Sveta (z 29 na 17).

Prav tako mi je všeč, da se krči število članov Nadzornega sveta (z 11 na 7), še bolj pa način njihove izbire. Po novem bi Državni zbor imenoval tri od sedmih članov, od tega enega na predlog Komisije za nadzor javnih financ Državnega zbora (kar glede na poslovnik Državnega zbora – glej člen 33(3) de facto pomeni na predlog opozicije), dva člana imenuje Svet, enega imenuje Vlada, enega člana pa Svet delavcev. Vlada in poslanci vladajoče koalicije torej skupaj tri od sedmih članov. Do zdaj jih je od enajstih 5 imenoval Državni zbor, 4 pa vlada. Politizacija????? (#nežmahizem)

Doma nekje na dosegu rok in nog elektronsko zemljico tlači kopica naprednih napravic, ampak LCD televizorja sta kljub temu (še?) priklopljena na sobno anteno in trenutno na njiju trenutno lepo sneži. Kadar sta v akciji, jima pomagajo prenosniki in HDMI. Ampak vseeno z veseljem plačam RTV prispevek. Preprosto zato, ker se mi zdi prav, da država premore javno radiotelevizijo, ki mora producirati vsebine, ki se jih ne bi lotil noben komercialni medij, ki se prekleto dobro zaveda, da je denar v kupljenih licencah poneumljajočih oddaj in potenciranju blišča in bede, ne pa v oddajah o kulturi ali – bognedaj – manjšinah. Sploh slednje je lahko uničujoče. Manjšina po definiciji ni ciljna publika, ki bi se jo dalo dobro tržiti pri oglaševalcih, kakšna kratka oddaja za sodržavljane, ki so po poreklu iz bivših bratskih republik (zdaj le še zaželenih trgov in krajev proizvodnje), pa bi znala načeti srž slovenskega naroda.

Kakor koli, prebrala sem oba zakona, mnenja za in proti ter se odločila, da novi zakon podprem. RTV prispevek bomo plačevali v vsakem primeru, tudi njegova višina ne bo določena kaj dosti drugače, v ostalem pa se zdi, da novi zakon prekaša starega. Upam, da bo dobil možnost, da se izkaže tudi v praksi.

Oh ne, spet me je doletelo prekletstvo. Razmišljam drugače kot večina ljudi, katerih mnenja berem in poslušam zadnje dni.

Objava ameriških diplomatskih depeš po mojem mnenju:

• ni pozitivno dejanje (vendar so za razkritje odgovorne ZDA in ne WikiLeaks, zato naj to organizacijo pustijo pri miru),
• zaenkrat ni razkrila nič presenetljivo novega, šokantnega, nepričakovanega,
• ne bo spremenila ne diplomacije ne novinarstva,
• ne prikazuje neke resnice, ki je javnost do zdaj ni poznala, ampak je naključen presek enostranskih, včasih zelo osebnih opažanj in mnenj posameznikov, nepopoln mozaik,
• vse prebivalce www z možnostjo prebiranja (samo) ameriške diplomatske pošte postavlja v vlogo protiameriških vohunov,
• ne izpolnjuje definicije whistle-blowinga (kot jo razumem, to je razkritje kaznivega ravnanja ali malomarnosti, da bi državni organi in pritisk javnosti zadevo sankcionirali), ampak gre (baje) za naključnih četrt milijona depeš, ki se jih besno pregleduje, da bi se razkrilo kaj nezakonitega – napaka v vrstnem redu.

Preprečevanje organizaciji WikiLeaks, da poskrbi za svoje financiranje, je pod vsako kritiko in mislim, da bo (oziroma je malo že) teplo tiste, ki so se tega lotili. Ampak vseeno nikakor ne morem razumeti prevladujočega navdušenja nad hekerskimi napadi na MasterCard, Viso in kaže da celo odvetnika Švedinj, ki naj bi ju posilil Julian Assange. Sploh to zadnje je popolnoma nesprejemljivo. Zdi se, kot da nihče ne pomisli, da so njune obtožbe morda resnične. Objava njunih osebnih podatkov ni vzbudila niti kančka ogorčenja javnosti. Pa bi morala.

Danes zjutraj je bil v BBC-jevem studiu Coldblood, neformalni vodja hekerske skupine Anonymous (posnetek pogovora via @lenkaseseta). Pravi, da je njihov cilj poskrbeti, da internet ostane “odprt”. Fant, kaj bo logična posledica vaših napadov? Ne, ne občudujem vas in vaših izpadov, ki bodo organizaciji WikiLeaks in Julianu Assangu zelo težko kakor koli koristili.

Vse za 5 minut slave.

V3ZKTGVACTS5

Pravkar sem prebrala še n-ti članek, ki, baje na podlagi ameriških depeš, ki jih je javnosti razkrila organizacija WikiLeaks, bralcem pripoveduje o sramotni izdaji slovenskega naroda, ki da jo je zagrešil premier Borut Pahor s tem, ko je Ameriki ponujal sprejem zapornika iz Guantanama v zameno za narcisoiden 20-minutni fototermin s predsednikom Obamo.

Prebrala in se spet vprašala, ali so komentatorji prebrali depešo.

Dostop do vseh depeš je bil že pred meseci omogočen petim časopisnim hišam: Guardianu, El Paisu, Der Spieglu, Le Mondu in New York Timesu. Prejšnji teden jih je WikiLeaks začel objavljati na svojem spletnem mestu (do tega trenutka je bilo objavljenih 837 od skupaj 251.287), omenjeni časopisi pa svoje analize in komentarje. Zanimivo, da je med četrt milijona dokumentov precej pozornosti požela depeša z ljubljanskega veleposlaništva, ki je na spletišču Wikileaks mimogrede še ni.

K sreči jo je objavil El Pais, tako da si lahko preberemo tudi izvirnik (povezava na besedilo depeše) in ne le interpretacij, ki so trdile od tega, da je Amerika zlorabljala svojo premoč in ubogo malo Slovenijo silila, naj sprejme zapornike iz Guantanama, do tega, da je slovenski premier ponujal njihov sprejem v zameno za najmanj dvajsetminutno srečanje z ameriškim predsednikom.

Priporočam branje depeše v celoti, v imenu tako popularne uravnoteženosti pa navajam, da je ameriški odpravnik poslov v njej med drugim zapisal:

• da ga je Pahor, kar sicer ni običajno, že drugič obiskal (in ne poklical; razlika med “to call” in “to call on“) na veleposlaništvu, kar po njegovem mnenju kaže, da si Pahor želi razvijati odnose med Slovenijo in ZDA,
• da je Pahor veliko časa namenil pogovoru o gospodarskih vprašanjih,
• da je Pahor v odgovor na izrecno prošnjo odpravnika poslov za podporo pri zapiranju Guantanama vprašal, kakšna je ameriška “ponudba” in kaj bi morala zagotoviti slovenska vlada; pri tem je zlasti poudaril, da premestitev ne bi smela dodatno obremeniti proračuna; dejal je, da bi se po svojih najboljših močeh potrudil prepričati slovensko vlado, naj sprejme zapornike (nikjer v depeši ni navedeno, da gre za enega zapornika, nikoli ni uporabljena ednina),
• da je Pahor neuradno (glej “pull-aside“), na štiri oči, uspeh pri vprašanju premestitve zapornikov vljudno a nedvoumno povezal z 20-minutnim srečanjem z Obamo,
• da bo v letu 2010 morda njegova najzahtevnejša/najtežavnejša naloga prav doseči, da Pahor pri podpori premestitve zapornikov iz Guantanama preide od besed k dejanjem.

Slovenski premier se je z ameriškim odpravnikom poslov pogovarjal o gospodarskih vprašanjih, poudaril specifično politično težo Slovenije na Balkanu, omenil svoja prizadevanja v zvezi z ureditvijo spora med Grčijo in Makedonijo glede imena slednje, itd. Na prošnjo ZDA, naj Slovenija s prevzemom kakšnega zapornika pomaga zapreti zloglasni Guantanamo, je Pahor odgovoril z vprašanjem, kaj za to ponujajo ZDA in poudaril, da prevzem zapornikov Sloveniji ne bi smel naložiti finančnih bremen. In da, odpravnik poslov pravi, da mu je Pahor prišepnil, da bi pri ureditvi tega vprašanja pomagal dvajsetminutni sestanek z Obamo. O čem mislite, da bi se slovenski premier ob takšni priložnosti pogovarjal z ameriškim predsednikom in kakšne bi bile morebitne posledice za našo državo in njeno gospodarstvo? Mogoče bi izmenjala recepta za brownije in kremne rezine? Meh.

Veliko hrupa za nič.

Since thorough research and reading complemented by careful consideration seem to be out of fashion anyway, I may as well jump on the bandwagon and add my two eurocents’ worth to the latest biggest and juiciest affair of all times.

WikiLeaks site states it is “a non-profit media organization dedicated to bringing important news and information to the public. We provide an innovative, secure and anonymous way for independent sources around the world to leak information to our journalists. We publish material of ethical, political and historical significance while keeping the identity of our sources anonymous, thus providing a universal way for the revealing of suppressed and censored injustices.”

Whistleblowing as far as I understand it is a legitimate action that allows an employee with a conscience to reveal illegal or negligent behaviour within his or her organisation in order to protect the interests of a wider population. Its official name (in the UK) sums it up nicely: “making a disclosure in the public interest“. The above self-description does make the WikiLeaks site sound like a whistleblowing site.

Motives for Disclosure

But does disclosure or rather the announcement of disclosure of some 250,000 randomly picked diplomatic cables count as whistleblowing? I wonder.

Allegedly, the whistleblower’s motive was to reveal the patronising attitude of the US toward third countries. The US, patronising? What a shocker. As for the WikiLeaks’ founder’s motive?

As seen on ABC via the The Daily Show, Julian Assange explains:

“I’m a combatative person. I like crushing bastards. So, it is deeply personally, personally deeply satisfying to me.”

So let’s get this straight. Confidential diplomatic correspondence has been disclosed, because (allegedly, unconfirmed) a frustrated young American soldier Bradley Manning (who allegedly had social difficulties in the Army attributed to the problems of being homosexual under the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy and had been demoted for assaulting another soldier and scheduled to be discharged early) wanted to show, purely in the public interest, his home country for what it was. Right. No personal vendetta involved. And, because a frustrated not-quite-as-young-an Australian man feels deep personal satisfaction crushing whom he deems bastards. Nothing personal, either, pure public interest at play.

Granted, discrediting a whistleblower in its midst is most probably the first step any organisation is tempted to take once the small wind instrument is blown. So in an attempt to disregard the variety of motives other than serving the public interest, especially since the source of the cablegate leak has not been confirmed, let’s take a look at what has been disclosed.

Subject of Diclosure

What is allegedly about to be disclosed are 251,287 cables exchanged between 274 US embassies around the world and the US State Department. There is supposedly no rhyme or reason as to what is being disclosed. No specified illegal act or act of negligence that should be remedied. Simply, opening a certain country’s diplomatic mail and sharing it .

Manner of Disclosure and Interpretation

Five newspapers (Der Spiegel, El Pais, Guardian, Le Monde and the New York Times) had advance access to the material and while the cables are being posted to the WikiLeaks site in stages that will apparently last for months to come, the newspapers are for all intents and purposes editing the material by choosing what to publish now and how to present the information contained in the confidential correspondence. The tiny nagging voice in the back of my brain won’t stop asking why only five newspapers and if so, why these five. It’s even louder asking why all the cables are not published simultaneously and how their order of publication is determined.

A lovely insight into the importance of editing and interpretation by the select hand-picked media is the case of discussions between the US and Slovenia on the relocation of a Gitmo detainee to our lovely country. Interpretations of the same cable ranged from the US using its might to try and force tiny Slovenia into accepting a detainee to Slovenia’s PM Borut Pahor begging for a 20-minute interview and offering to take in a detainee in exchange. The public depended on these interpretations as the cable was not yet published at the WikiLeaks site. Finally, El Pais came around to sharing it with us: here. Read it yourself and form your own opinion. Slovene media more or less seem to agree that its content constitutes something along the lines of treason. That it reveals servility of Slovene foreign policy and exposes the PM as sucking up to the US.

Then again, a popular Slovene magazine took this text:

“2010 will, we hope, be the year that we focus our attention on partnering with Slovenia in the Western Balkans and ISAF; paving the way for Westinghouse to compete successfully for the construction of a new nuclear power plant; and, perhaps most challenging of all, turning Pahor’s rhetorical support for detainee resettlement into reality.”

and translated “perhaps most challenging of all” into the Slovene equivalent of “probably most importantly of all”. Ah.

Big Sister

Notwithstanding previous whistleblower efforts by WikiLeaks, what I see right now is a case of a quarter million random confidential US State Department cables exposed with no true whistleblower motive. The site does claim the following:

“The cables show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in “client states”; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.”

but seriously, they should publish the cables that effectively prove the above claim and prove some sort of illegal conduct. If they fail to do so, the only reason for media to rave about the material and present it as a sensation (though, truth be told, not much less attention seems to be paid to a President choking on a pretzel, a child presumingly trapped in a hot air balloon or a family dog being rescued) and for the public to accept is as such is the perverse pleasure of peeking into other people’s mail. Heck, the public is used to peeking into people’s whole lives. Big brother, big sister, whatever. Sure, you may have already “known” everything contained in the cables, but you also “knew” everything about the celebrities involved in reality shows, yet having your suspicions confirmed along with millions of other people takes you to a whole new level, doesn’t it? So I hear, anyway.

You may call out “ah-hah, but that is not private correspondence, it is correspondence exchanged by public servants paid by our taxes. Basically our employees!” True, but what is these folks’ job that you’re paying them to perform and excel at? If you are a tax-paying US citizen, what do you expect your diplomats to do for you? I’d almost expect you to want them to build solid country-to-country relations, secure your best interests, to gather information that might help your country secure its/your best interests and to behave professionally in public while sharing their private thoughts that may or may not contribute to your country’s policy-making process, privately. And I’d expect the same of any country’s diplomats, i.e. to work in the best interest of their countries without breaching law or duty.

“Openness” and “transparency” sound mighty fine, but may not really be conductive to the objectives of diplomacy as such. When sensitive subjects are being discussed, carrying out the entire process in the open would likely render any negotiations lengthy and fruitless. Negotiations mean making concessions and reaching a compromise that is not the ideal solution for any side involved, but one that all can live with. Again, when sensitive subjects are concerned, try to imagine the public reaction to any of the sides “giving in an inch”. End negotiations right there.

Positive changes in diplomacy and world politics as such are not achieved overnight. As a rule, they are not the result of a single act, but rather of a series of events and acts pushing in the same direction following eternal shifts of power, adapting to new circumstances, negotiations and renegotiations, all based on a certain level of trust. 

People, snap out of the reality show mode and engage common sense.