Skip to main content


Eyewear is a blog that values the rule of law, within reason.  While, a week or so ago, the blog began featuring poems by poets writing on - and often in praise of - the American spy and whistleblower, Edward Snowden, at no time has the editorial policy been to praise or condone illegal activity, even if by a member of the intelligence community.  Indeed, the initial sense that Snowden was a hero has been somewhat dampened by his extraordinary personal flight, from Hong Kong, to Russia, then Cuba, and on to Venezuela, aided by China and Russia along the way.

Friends of human rights should take pause at that odd list of allies, for when an agent of espionage is supported by enemies of America, suspicions must be raised.  What is Snowden up to?  Evading punishment, for one thing - but when Eyewear first praised the man, again, before he had been charged with a crime by the US authorities, he seemed to be stepping forward, as Socrates, and Christ, and Mandela did - a symbol of oppositional politics, willing to do the time, to take the punishment, to become the cause's rallying point.  Now, Snowden is a fugitive, seeking asylum with the Assange-supporting Ecuadorean government.

Assange, accused of rape, refuses to face the courts, and remains in semi-permanent hiding in London.  I want to think that Edward Snowden is a good man, but is he a brave or law-abiding one?  A braver whistleblower might, like Manning, have gone to trial, however dire - and they would be - the consequences.  Manning's trial has allowed the world to confront certain issues frankly; this globe-trotting spycraft is a bit too melodramatic, even for Eyewear's liking.  Snowden would be best to return to America and face trial.

He has, after all, committed a serious crime - revealing state secrets of the highest order - and it is up to the American people - and their president - to decide whether he shall be pardoned.  History may be kinder to him than the rougher justice of the moment, but rendering unto Caesar is what a good Catholic believes, and is the official position of Eyewear.  So - while we oppose Internet surveillance, to a degree; and do not want a police state, either, neither do we want an anarchic free-for-all without any rule of law. 
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog


According to the latest CBS, ABC, etc, polls, Clinton is still likely to beat Trump - by percentile odds of 66% to 33% and change. But the current popular vote is much closer, probably tied with the error of margin, around 44% each. Trump has to win more key battleground states to win, and may not - but he is ahead in Florida...

We will all know, in a week, whether we live in a world gone madder, or just relatively mad.

While it seems likely calmer heads will prevail, the recent Brexit win shows that polls can mislead, especially when one of the options is considered a bit embarrassing, rude or even racist - and Trump qualifies for these, at least.

If 42-45% of Americans admit they would vote for Trump, what does that say about the ones not so vocal? For surely, they must be there, as well. Some of the undecided will slide, and more likely they will slide to the wilder and more exciting fringe candidate. As may the libertarians.

Eyewear predicts that Trump will just about manage to win th…


Like a crazed killer clown, whether we are thrilled, horrified, shocked, or angered (or all of these) by Donald Trump, we cannot claim to be rid of him just yet. He bestrides the world stage like a silverback gorilla (according to one British thug), or a bad analogy, but he is there, a figure, no longer of fun, but grave concern.

There has long been a history of misogynistic behaviour in American gangster culture - one thinks of the grapefruit in the face in The Public Enemy, or Sinatra throwing a woman out of his hotel room and later commenting he didn't realise there was a pool below to break her fall, or the polluted womb in Pacino'sScarface... and of course, some gangsta rap is also sexist.  American culture has a difficult way with handling the combined aspects of male power, and male privilege, that, especially in heteronormative capitalist enclaves, where money/pussy both become grabbable, reified objects and objectives (The Wolf of Wall Street for instance), an ugly fus…


The Oscars - Academy Awards officially - were once huge cultural events - in 1975, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr, Shirley MacLaineandBob Hope co-hosted, for example - and Best Picture noms included The Conversation and Chinatown. Godfather Part 2 won. Last two years, movies titled Birdman and Spotlight won, and the hosts and those films are retrospectively minor, trifling. This year, some important, resonant films are up for consideration - including Hidden Figures and Moonlight, two favourites of this blog. Viola Davis and Denzel Washington will hopefully win for their sterling performances in Fences. However, La La Land - the most superficial and empty Best Picture contender since Gigi in 1959 (which beat Vertigo) - could smite all comers, and render this year's awards historically trivial, even idiotic.

The Oscars often opt for safe, optimistic films, or safe, pessimistic films, that are usually about white men (less often, white women) finding their path to doing the right thin…