The Sutherland Post

Canada's New Assisted Dying Laws: Murder by any other name

2016-02-28T16:04:00.001-05:00

This is one of those articles I never wanted to write. In fact, I’ve been on a near permanent sabbatical, uncertain as to whether I wanted to write another blog.

But something’s been stirring in me lately, something I can’t ignore. So here goes.

Witnessing the latest post-modernist attack on the status-quo, the debate about Euthanasia in Canada, in particular "assisted dying" (as the modern dialectic puts it) has left me in awe. Scratch that. Utter shock.

If you’ve been living under a rock permit me to fill you in. A recent Supreme Court ruling (Carter v. Canada) has declared a longstanding section of the criminal code criminalising assisted suicide null and void.

[126] We have concluded that the laws prohibiting a physician’s assistance in terminating life (Criminal Code, s. 241(b) and s. 14) infringe Ms. Taylor’s s. 7 rights to life, liberty and security of the person in a manner that is not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, and that the infringement is not justified under s. 1 of the Charter. Carter v. Canada

What Charter are they referring to? The Charter of Human Rights and Freedom (1982). it states:

7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

For the Supreme Court, these rights change with the times. In fact, it is a little at odds with itself on this point. At one point the finding reads:

The prohibition on assisted suicide is, in general, a valid exercise of the federal criminal law power under s. 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867 Carter v. Canada

The finding then gets into the "how’s and why’s" that give the Court the authority to pass judgement based on the Charter’s "life, liberty and the security of persons". Needless to say its an unnecessarily confusing bit of semantics, concluding with a unanimous decision by the nine Supreme Court judges that radically reinterprets the meaning of assisted suicide in Canada.

I always get a little squirmy when a modern, liberal democratic state gets into the business of determining who gets to live and who gets to die, for that really is what this case boils down to. Usually the state protects life, but in this case it has determined that protecting life (and thus causing continued suffering) is the greater of two evils, the lesser of course being homicide.

This isn’t the first time we’ve battled this issue in Canada. In 1993, Rodriguez v. British Columbia determined that there weren’t enough guarantees that assisted suicide wouldn't spin out of control and leave vulnerable persons at risk. By its own admission the Court states:

[8] The legislative landscape on the issue of physician-assisted death has changed in the two decades since Rodriguez... Carter v. Canada

The Court then gives examples of legislative changes in assisted suicide laws in Europe and Quebec.

[10] The debate in the public arena reflects the ongoing debate in the legislative sphere. Carter v. Canada

The problem the Court had was major: overcoming the sections of the Criminal code that defined murder, ie: sections 222 and 241.

222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.(2) Homicide is culpable or not culpable.(3) Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence.(4) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide.(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,(a) by means of an unlawful act; .. 241. Every one who(a) counsels a person to commit suicide, or(b) aids or abets a person to commit suicide,whether suicide ensues or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

And that is the heart of the issue. The Supreme Court has created an exception for murder where one did not exist, and now it is looking to the Government to codify their decision into law.

Part of the argument also looked at current end-of-life practices in Canada:

"She (the trial judge) found that current unregulated end-of-life practices in Canada — such as the administration of palliative sedation and the withholding or withdrawal of lifesaving or life-sustaining medical treatment — can have the effect of hastening death and that there is a strong societal consensus that these practices are ethically acceptable … that there are qualified Canadian physicians who would find it ethical to assist a patient in dying if that act were not prohibited by law." Carter v. Canada

Essentially, the trial judge determined (and the Supreme Court agreed) that Canada was a pro-assisted dying state already but lacked the legislative protection to allow immunity for murder.

Ultimately this issue has to do with an evolving sense of the value of life.

As Canadian society moves further from its Judeo-Christian roots, its not surprising to see an erosion of support for the concept of suicide as self-murder.

So there is a clear black and white issue here, where some may want to claim shades of grey. Is suicide self-murder or not?

It may come as a surprise then that suicide itself is not illegal in Canada. However anyone aiding or abetting someone in their suicide is guilty of murder. Strange reasoning.

Let me change the language here a little. Anyone taking out the garbage is not guilty of taking out the garbage. But anyone helping him take out the garbage is guilty of taking out the garbage. Hmmm. I guess the Supreme court was on to something here. Either make suicide illegal or make helping someone commit it legal. So that's what happened. (the latter)

So Canada is entering new moral territory. Legalising an act that was previously called "murder" is ethically dubious, whether one is for this practise or not. What is confounding is that capital punishment was abolished for the very reasons argued by the court, that it was considered a violation of a prisoner's right to life. Yet in some bizarre reasoning the Court has decided that based on its interpretation of the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms a fundamental element to our right to life is to have the right not to have life.

[127] The appropriate remedy is therefore a declaration that s. 241(b) and s. 14 of the Criminal Code are void insofar as they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life; and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition. Carter v. Canada

Despite persuasive arguments that removing the murder taboo from assisted killing will let the proverbial genie out the bottle, the Court stayed its course:

[111] Professor Montero’s affidavit reviews a number of recent, controversial and high-profile cases of assistance in dying in Belgium which would not fall within the parameters suggested in these reasons, such as euthanasia for minors or persons with psychiatric disorders or minor medical conditions. Professor Montero suggests that these cases demonstrate that a slippery slope is at work in Belgium. In his view, “[o]nce euthanasia is allowed, it becomes very difficult to maintain a strict interpretation of the statutory conditions.”[112] We are not convinced that Professor Montero’s evidence undermines the trial judge’s findings of fact.

In other words the Court has decided to overlook such evidence that assisted killing may create a "slippery slope" whereby the definition of murder continually changes, expanding the Euthinasia mandate. The Court decided such issues were unlikely to arise in Canada.

And what of dissent? Should doctors be compelled to violate their conscience? The Supreme Court thinks not. But they do think those for and against should reconcile their beliefs:

[132] In our view, nothing in the declaration of invalidity which we propose to issue would compel physicians to provide assistance in dying. The declaration simply renders the criminal prohibition invalid. What follows is in the hands of the physicians’ colleges, Parliament, and the provincial legislatures. However, we note — as did Beetz J. in addressing the topic of physician participation in abortion in R. v. Morgentaler — that a physician’s decision to participate in assisted dying is a matter of conscience and, in some cases, of religious belief (pp. 95-96). In making this observation, we do not wish to pre-empt the legislative and regulatory response to this judgement. Rather, we underline that the Charter rights of patients and physicians will need to be reconciled.

Reconciled means to restore relations with or to harmonise with. How can a doctor who has sworn to do only good and not harm ever be "reconciled" with the wilful murder of a patient?

In fact the recent Canadian Parliamentary report oversteps the Supreme Court and states:

"At a minimum, the objecting practitioner must provide an effective referral for the patient,'' the committee said.

However, we are already seeing mission creep outside the scope mandated by the Court.

But [Dr. Derrick]Smith believes the discussion should go even further — to include young children. "The commite isn't going to address that, but as a society we should," he said. "Obviously a five-year-old is not going to be able to give consent for something like that, but should we allow a substitute decision maker like the parent to say, "Johnny's had enough suffering. I think it's time that we assist him to terminate the suffering."

There’s a saying that when arguing a point the first one to bring up a Hitler reference loses. But in this case I think it is relevant, so let’s learn us some history.

In mid-1939 Hitler authorised the creation of the Reich Committee for the Scientific Registering of Serious Hereditary and Congenital Illnesses. Its ultimate purpose was to cleanse the Reich of those "unworthy of life", including but not limited to children with conditions such as Down’s syndrome, hydrocephalus, paralysis, deformities, etc.

The German "T4" program ran between Sept 1939 to Aug 1941 and saw the execution of some 70,000+ handicapped and disabled children. Under the program a panel of German physicians were directed to sign off patients "incurably sick, by critical medical examination" and then administer to them a "mercy death" .

The T4 program used the term 'euthanasia' as bureaucratic cover…

Parents were misled, compelled and coerced, although many went along willingly, thanks to a culture that labelled such persons a burden to families and society in general.

This was a top down program signed in secret by Adolph Hitler and carried out on a institutional level: from the doctors that administered the deadly cocktail of phenol, to the caretakers that disposed of the children’s corpses in furnaces for incineration.

"At the same time, increased pressure was placed on parents to agree to their children being sent away. Many parents suspected what was really happening, especially when it became apparent that institutions for children with disabilities were being systematically cleared of their charges, and refused consent. The parents were warned that they could lose custody of all their children, and if that did not suffice, the parents could be threatened with call-up for 'labour duty'." Wikipedia

Eventually the program was extended to handicapped and terminally ill adults, and the techniques developed for "humanely" killing - such as gassing - were eventually adopted and up-scaled for use in Hilter’s final solution.

"Several rationales for the programme have been offered, including eugenics, compassion, reducing suffering, racial hygiene, cost effectiveness and pressure on the welfare budget."

While you may say "but James, that’s an utterly preposterous analogy. Hitler’s T4 program wouldn’t happen here. It hasn’t happened in Belgium. Canada is a modern, democratic state with rule of law."

Perhaps you're right. That was also the decision of the Supreme Court justices.

[117] The trial judge, on the basis of her consideration of various regimes and how they operate, found that it is possible to establish a regime that addresses the risks associated with physician-assisted death. We agree with the trial judge that the risks associated with physician-assisted death can be limited through a carefully designed and monitored system of safeguards. Carter v. Canada

But I’m not willing to wait and find out.

What concerns me more than the evolving discourse on the definition of murder is the open acceptance of "assisted dying". Even Hitler and his cronies had to keep the T4 program under wraps for fear the masses would discover the scope of what was happening at the Euthanasia centres.

But in the midst of the darkness something amazing happened in Germany. Facing increasing complaints from parents in its congregations involving their murdered children, Church leaders - both Catholic and Protestant- began to voice their discontent to Nazi authorities, albeit privately.

However in 1941, both Bishops, priests and pastors, initially hesitant, began to openly speak out against Hitler's euthanasia program. Protests began. Hitler began fearing open revolt in some of the more religious regions, particularly the predominately Catholic areas.

"By August the protests had spread to Bavaria. According to Gitta Sereny, Hitler was jeered by an angry crowd at Hof – the only time he was opposed in public during his 12 years of rule." Wikipedia

Absolutely amazing. As Edmond Burke stated "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Thank God that good men stood in the gap and did something. By August 1941, Hitler ordered the T4 program shut down.

It is the duty of everyone who is repulsed by the Carter v. Canada decision (and the soon to be laws enshrining Euthanasia in Canadian legislation) not just to be a conscientious objector, but to defy this order, as a soldier resisting an unlawful order would.

Having studied history and war since I was a child, one thing becomes clear: authority is often abused. Sometimes it manifests itself in a national law that defies moral law.
Governments will compel their citizens to comply with an unjust law, even if it violates their moral constitution.

Likewise, in the heat of battle, orders are given that are egregious, that violate the laws of war. The greater the authority of those issuing orders, the more likely they are to be carried out. But that does not relieve soldiers of their responsibilities, that is to follow the laws of war. They are not automatons without a conscience. They have a duty both to their conscience and to laws of war (ie. Geneva Convention) to disobey an unlawful order.

We are living in precarious times. It is not enough to be a conscientious objector. It is not enough to be content with the creation of laws that aim to protect healthcare practioners from violating their code of ethics. We share a burden of guilt as a nation if we don't maintain just moral laws. If the 20th century taught us anything, it showed us that.

For those in a position of power in Canada, with the ability to speak out against assisted killing, be it in the political, legal, medical or religious sphere, please exercise your influence and do not go silently into the night.

Confederates vs. the Union: modern American politics

2012-09-23T14:59:00.001-04:00

As I was browsing my usual news sites, I came across an Al-Jazeera article on the upcoming US election. A map illustrated the current political voting trend (shown below), with states that usually vote Democrat demarked in blue, and states usually won by Republicans in red. Swing states (those states that may vote either way and are critical to both parties) are marked in yellow.

Al Jazeera Map: 2012 Democrat vs Republican

My first impression was how closely the current political map resembled the division of Union and Confederate states during the American Civil War. So I skipped over to the Wikipedia entry on the American Civil War, and to my surprise I found nearly the same map...

Wikipedia Map: American Civil War 1864

On the Wikipedia map, red represents Confederate states while dark blue shows the those states that remained within the Union. West Virginia, Missouri, Kentuky and Maryland (light blue) were Union states permitted to own slaves. In the Al-Jazeera map, these states vote Republican (with the exception of Maryland). The vast mid-west is unrepresented (white) as they were not states in 1864, but territories.

Besides those "swing states" demarked in yellow, Kansas seems the only post-Union non-slave state to have bucked the Union Democrat/Confederate-Republican comparison, having switched from blue (1864) to red (2012).

Also of note, most of the states that were territories during the American Civil War (white on the 1864 map) now vote majority Republican.

While it may be tempting to draw a direct link between the Republican party and its holdings of formerly pro-slavery/Confederate states, it is important to note that the first and perhaps greatest Republican -- Abraham Lincoln -- served the cause of the Union, not the Confederacy.

The demarcation lines regarding red and blue states have remained fairly consistent since the end of the American Civil War, which may leave us wondering "why the obvious and persistent divide"? What is the common ground between the Confederacy of the 1860's and modern day Republicanism?

Just a little food for thought...

13 Things I Found in my Filing Cabinet

2012-07-30T16:55:00.002-04:00

1. Gulf War Trading Cards. Yes -- for real. My favourite was General Schwarzkopf, but I think I traded him for Saddam Hussein's WMDs.

2. Damned Drunken Bear.

3. I have a feeling this guy had some pretty gay daydreams in High School.

4. Overlooked in this article was that at the time of the escape the prison guards were preoccupied with an intense game of Twister.

5. Long live the Islamic Republic! (that's a joke by the way for those in Homeland Security)

6. Just a few days after this picture was taken, this house owner won the Mega Millions draw.

7. This guy now drives the city bus.

8. I just feel really bad for the girl in the white top.

9. The best arrest picture ever! Bet he posted this on his prison cell wall.

10. Leaflets dropped on Iraq by U.S aircraft back in 2003. I really hope they could read English.

11. This is what really happens when they clone sheep.

12. Unfortunately I only kept the cover page. Would have made for some good bathroom reading material.

13. Last but not least, some dude with an RPG getting blown away by the Americans.

The Iranian-Israeli two-step

2012-03-20T19:04:00.000-04:00

The Persians and the Jews have always had a volatile relationship. From Nebuchadnezzar's sack of Jerusalem and the forced exile of the Jewish people to Babylon in 586BC, to the fiery rhetoric of present day Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- the nearly 3000 year old rivalry continues even to this day.

You'd figure that time would have cooled the flames between these former powers. So what's all the kerffufle about?

Depends what government you ask. The Iranian diplomat will surely blame the illegitimate "Zionist Entity" for all the trouble. His Israeli counterpart will probably accuse the Iranian of supporting terrorism and meddling in the Middle East peace process.

And then there's me. I see the Iran's refusal to acknowledge Israel's existence as sort of the ostrich head in the sand deal. Even though the Islamic Republic's predecessor -- the Pahlavi dynasty (as personified by the Shah) -- was the first Muslim country to recognize Israel's existence, the ire of a specifically tailored Jewish homeland in what was viewed as historically Muslim Palestine was just too much for the new Islamic state to bear.

Sure there's those half-hearted comments by Khamenei and his minions calling for Israel to be wiped off the map; the Gaza-bound ships full of rockets and ammo intercepted by the Israeli Navy or the $400 million given to the terrorist group Hezbollah -- but deep down inside I'm pretty sure the Iranian regime doesn't really mean any of it.

And what about the good old days when Hebrew and Persian alike communed in the great halls of the Persian kings? Despite the Persian decimation of ancient Palestine and enslavement of its population in Babylon, the Jews eventually established a thriving community there.

Thanks to the likes of Daniel and Queen Esther, the Jews eventually won their rights as citizens there, including the right to self-protection and the right to emigrate back to the beloved city Jerusalem. The Torah books of Ezra and Nehemiah attest to this return. These rights were codified into ancient Persian law by Cyrus king of Persia, and a remnant of these Jews still live in Persia (Iran) to this day.

But the recent discontent with Israel is a curious one. While it is true that Iran is a Islamic Republic, it is not an Arab one. Israel's two geographically closest neighbours, Egypt and Jordan, are also both Muslim countries (and Arab), yet they have made peace with their Jewish Abrahamic brother.

So it appears that the row between Israel and Iran is not a nationalistic one, but a recent religious conflict. This is further highlighted by Iran's brazen support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, who also share a radical Islamic view of eradicating the infidel from what it views as occupied Muslim land.

And so the threats and accusations fly. The Iranian regime secretly arms its regional allies in their anti-Zionist resistance movements, and in response Israel blows up some Iranian nuclear scientist driving to work. Both nations deny any complicity in these covert actions, and both profess their innocence. But eventually things are sure to conflagrate.

The risks of Iran or Israel miscalculating and overreacting to the other's next move cannot be understated. The media bears constant witness to the international bluffing game between the two contestants – the Israeli air force flying practice bombing missions to show off its long-range strike capability; Iran testing out its short-range ballistic missiles only to be trumped by Israeli anti-ballistic missile tests; Israeli submarines deploying to the Red Sea only to be trumped by Iranian warships crossing through the Suez canal -- on and on the sabre rattling goes.

Israel fears a belligerent nuclear armed Iran, while Iran is angered by the ongoing Israeli “colonisation and discrimination” of their Palestinian Muslim brothers. It's a bit like two ants fighting over a dropped crumb of bread, all the while oblivious to the ant eater hungrily eyeing them from above. In the high stakes game of nuclear power versus wanna-be nuclear power, it is likely that the deeply ingrained ideological and religious beliefs of both sides will be the kindling for a future, horrible conflict.

But on the bright side, there's always room for improvement. Once upon a time these two enemies became friends, likely because they cohabited a common space (Babylon) and shared a common fate. They also benefited from the actions of a few wise leaders who took the courageous step of setting aside their differences.

Without moderate and realistic diplomacy, the Persian-Jewish two-step will continue its futile death dance. Israel will not disappear (unless made to by means of overwhelming and excessive force), and it is unlikely that Israel will ever remit its identity as a Jewish-majority nation. So the compromise that will usher in peace in this region will likely have to involve an accommodation of these two factors.

In days to come?

2012-03-05T18:54:00.000-05:00

"The word of the LORD came to me: “Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshek and Tubal; prophesy against him and say: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am against you, Gog, chief prince of Meshek and Tubal. I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army—your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. Persia, Cush and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops—the many nations with you.

“‘Get ready; be prepared, you and all the hordes gathered about you, and take command of them. After many days you will be called to arms. In future years you will invade a land that has recovered from war, whose people were gathered from many nations to the mountains of Israel, which had long been desolate. They had been brought out from the nations, and now all of them live in safety. You and all your troops and the many nations with you will go up, advancing like a storm; you will be like a cloud covering the land.

“‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: On that day thoughts will come into your mind and you will devise an evil scheme. You will say, “I will invade a land of unwalled villages; I will attack a peaceful and unsuspecting people—all of them living without walls and without gates and bars. I will plunder and loot and turn my hand against the resettled ruins and the people gathered from the nations, rich in livestock and goods, living at the center of the land.” Sheba and Dedan and the merchants of Tarshish and all her villages will say to you, “Have you come to plunder? Have you gathered your hordes to loot, to carry off silver and gold, to take away livestock and goods and to seize much plunder?”’

“Therefore, son of man, prophesy and say to Gog: ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says: In that day, when my people Israel are living in safety, will you not take notice of it? You will come from your place in the far north, you and many nations with you, all of them riding on horses, a great horde, a mighty army. You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud that covers the land. In days to come, Gog, I will bring you against my land, so that the nations may know me when I am proved holy through you before their eyes."

- Ezekiel 38, written sometime around 620 B.C.E

*For a little background on this text, visit the ynet news website here.

The Mao-Tag Man

2012-01-07T15:45:00.003-05:00

Making it illegal to disagree?

2011-12-23T17:30:00.009-05:00

All of us argue. Most of the time these arguments expose the truths and biases we all have, while revealing our own incompetence or misunderstanding of the disputed issue. Those well versed in debating are more likely to swing us to their point of view by using convincing facts or strong analogy, but almost always they do so by appealing to our inner voice of reason.

But sometimes the debate turns ugly. Facts get twisted or cleverly omitted, participants shut down objective reasoning and the whole thing turns into a battle reminiscent of something from The O'Reilly Factor. Institutional bias, political partisanship and ingrained religious viewpoints are usually the cause of this malcontent, which leads one to wisely consider the maxim of not discussing religion and politics unless paid to do so.

But it is something altogether different when a modern nation state shuts down the debate. In an recent display of this anti-Plato spirit of intolerance, France has decided to make it illegal to deny the 1915 Armenian genocide at the hands of the Ottomans. Not surprisingly, Turkey isn't all too thrilled with the French Parliament's decision and has voiced its opinion by recalling its ambassador from Paris.

That's not to say that a genocide is a good thing. I suppose someone in the French Parliament just got fed up over the Turks rejection of culpability in that nearly 100 year old fiasco and decided to draft up a resolution just to spite them. After all, what does an Asian massacre carried out a hundred years ago have to do with life in 2011 France?

My guess is that some in France are trying to undercut Turkey's efforts regarding their European Union membership bid. Seeing that Turkey has never really been accepted into the European fraternity, it is likely this latest row is just another manufactured issue in an attempt to prove the unworkableness of such a shotgun marriage.

Another reason may be more domestic, as over 500,000 citizens of Armenian decent live in France, and are seen as a key source of support for President Sarkozy in the upcoming presidential election.

But it's not just the French proclamation that worries me. Despite the relatively free democratic, philosophical and religious environment of Europe over the last 60 years, there seems to be a movement towards limiting undesirable discourse.

Perhaps a generalized theory to explain this regression in European free expression could be the increasing secularization of European society. There seems to be an intolerance of dissenting viewpoints regardless of whether or not they are valid, if only to be seen defending humanist values.

But when a modern nation state threatens its citizens with imprisonment for diverging from a prescribed narrative, something smacks of state authoritarianism. It is doubtful that such a law would fly in the U.S, although Canada has come close a few times regarding other recently invented anti-humanist values, such as homophobia.

Recent controversy surrounding the Dire Straits song “Sultans of Swing” led to a massive backlash after the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council ruled the song unfit for the airwaves due to an implied gay slur. And all this after one person complained.

But the intolerance being witnessed lately is peculiarly inverted. In particular, European society, at least on a corporate level, seems to have a greater level of intolerance towards views and beliefs that don't exactly gel with the mainstream. This attitude is clearly obvious when evaluating European Holocaust denial laws.

According to a Wikipedia entry:

Holocaust denial is explicitly or implicitly illegal in 16 countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and Switzerland. The European Union's Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia states that denying or grossly trivialising "crimes of genocide" should be made "punishable in all EU Member States".

The problem is Europe just can't come to a consensus on this. Britain twice rejected Holocaust laws, Spain ruled the laws unconstitutional, Italy and the Netherlands refused to set prison sentences and Sweden and Denmark rejected such legislation.

While Holocaust denial is indisputably distasteful and intellectually dishonest, it's still just a viewpoint. Certainly those European members who rejected such "denial" legislation recognized the slippery slope presented by criminalizing an intellectual position, no matter how foolish it may seem.

Holocaust denial laws exist because of the psychic and tangible damage left behind by Nazism, especially in places that suffered from Nazi oppression, like France and Poland. Interestingly, Germany -- the birthplace and primary aggressor of the “final solution” -- is the most outspoken agent in silencing holocaust deniers.

And how far does this criminalization of thought go? Do conspiracy theories qualify? Anyone with half a hippocampos knows the holocaust happened pretty much the way the official narrative says it did, but what are we supposed to do about the fringe theories of the 9/11 Truth movement or the Flat Earth Society?

Just because a dissenting viewpoint is so obviously incorrect (and possibly offendingly so) isn't grounds for throwing people into prison. Such authoritarian actions make Western democracies look like a monster of sorts, and if there is a consensus we can all agree on it is that the 20th century saw enough of those.

The real life superheroes

2011-12-21T12:53:00.010-05:00

The other day my son and I were delivering newspapers. Running behind schedule and with the sun quickly setting, my son caught sight of me squinting in search of mail boxes and asked me about it. “It's always darkest before the dawn” I told him. “What's that mean, Dad?” he replied with a quizzical look.

I began to explain how the changing lighting conditions at dusk and dawn play tricks with our eyes, how the retina is slow to adjust and therefore our vision is impaired. But eventually our eyes do adjust, I told him, be it to the darkness of night or the brightness of the rising sun.

Having digested this information, we carried on despite the cold, rain and wind relentlessly hammering us. And in the end we triumphed, heading back to our cozy little home for some well deserved dinner and relaxation.

In this, the dying season (as I fondly call it) it's easy to get discouraged by the overcast skies, the piles of snow, or the cold induced chatter of the teeth. Then there's those awful 24-hours-of-torture hybrid flus I'm positive escaped from some Russian bio-weapons lab. But eventually the dawn (or spring) comes, and that's a good thing.

Paradoxically, this week has been good for me. My ten year journey to pay off my student loan came to an end, my leaking house roof got fixed, and to top it all off, the boss informed me a full time position became available and I was his choice to fill it (with raise to boot!).

I suppose any of the aforementioned endeavours could have driven me to raise my hands in surrender. Given the obstacles and hindrances I've faced a long the way, it would have been easy to say “screw it,” just walk away and save myself the hassle of putting in the hard work.

But perseverance builds character, and character is essential in becoming a successful person. And I think this is where we often fall short. We misjudge the purpose of the journey, which is not always to attain the ends that journey entertains -- although reaping the spoils is certainly beneficial and not without merit. “For it is better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all.”

Personality and character are often at odds. Good character is conspicuously absent in our pop culture, while personality is gratuitously promoted. Those with a strong personality are often charismatic, wowing us with their intellect and suave, but an honest evaluation will usually reveal a host of tragic flaws: they're shallow, egotistical, and more often than not lacking in good judgement.

Hollywood celebrity usually equates to dysfunctional marriages and family relationships, because such unions, though they may have been brought together by personality attraction, ultimately stand or fall based on deficiencies in personal character. A great personality may makes things interesting and fun, but strong character is the glue that holds the mess together.

And I suppose the reverse is true, that those with character but little personality may come off as dry, self-righteous, uneventful and therefore discounted as square or boring.

Rarely have I found an instance where both of these attributes inhabited the same person. In fact just writing this article I sat for ten minutes racking my brain in hopes of finding a worthy (and interesting) individual. Most political and religious figures fall into this category, and yet somehow society considers these types the most untrustworthy of characters. Consider the most recent scandals of late-- most if not all who come to mind are persons who fit this demographic.

Teachers (at a trustworthy factor of 81%) and doctors (88%) are among the highest trusted among society, which leads me to believe that character rates highly in their daily activities. After all, we trust teachers to properly mold our children's development, and we trust doctors when they take our lives into their hands.

On the contrary (and not surprisingly) bankers (29%), journalists (19%) and politicians (14%) rate among the lowest.

But this still doesn't mean that doctors and teachers are the most interesting people. Personally, I find dentists come off as the most aloof and creepy of all the professions (have you seen those Sensodyne commercials?) -- hardly a group I'd attribute a hardcore fan base to. Besides, has there ever been a heartwarming, heroic Hollywood tale of a righteous, charismatic dentist inspiring his clients to teeth brushing perfection? I didn't think so.

However teachers tend to evoke a little more fondness from Hollywood: Mr. Holland's Opus, Freedom Writers, Dead Poet's Society -- all seem to evoke the qualities we seek in the perfect man/woman -- the charismatic motivator, a champion of character, and an under appreciated overcomer of seemingly impossible obstacles.

But society is a somewhat hypocritical being. If this were not so teachers would receive salaries reflecting their importance. Instead society values men who can throw a screaming fastball or women with engorged Kardashian assets and perfectly petite pores.

Perhaps I'm setting my sights too high. Guys like William Wallace (Braveheart) or Martin Luther King Jr.(Civil Rights Movement) are a once in a generation find. But history makers are always in demand. These are the types who inspire others in order to effect change, like Mohandas Ghandi (Indian Independence Movement), and they often have a superhuman quality about them.

More often than not this quality shines bright not because of our heroes stoic stirring speeches or the massive civil resistance and popular consensus these heroes draw upon -- but because they are willing to sacrifice their reputations, livelihoods and even their lives for the cause they believe in.

These examples of our perfect hero all lost their lives to the opposition forces they faced, yet in doing so became a symbol that galvanized societies to achieve the freedom they so desperately sought.

The reinventing of Mr. Russia

2011-11-24T10:10:00.003-05:00

I tend to personify countries. In my world, Mr. Japan is the subservient robot loving techno nerd, Mr. America looks like General Patton, and Mr. Columbia is clad in a fedora, alligator shoes and a crisp white suit.

Brad Pitt will forever be Columbian in my brain.

(Just for the record, the only country personified by a female are any of the Nordic countries – they all look like leggy supermodels)

However the identity of Mr. Russia has given me some trouble. Originally it consisted of a scruffy, hard worn man in his late 40's sitting at a table in a dilapidated kitchen wearing a wife beater while downing shots of vodka.

But today's Mr. Russia has transformed himself remarkably --

I suppose having grown up in the 1980's colored my perspective of our Russian comrades. The geo-political landscape during this period had never been more polarized: either you were an enlightened Western Capitalist or a God-hating Communist.

News reports instilled in me a fear of the "Red menace", highlighting the impressive Soviet military arsenal with its thousands of nuclear tipped missiles all aimed at North American cities. Then there were the documentaries showing Soviet armies violently putting down revolution after revolution behind the Iron Curtain, as well as dreadful reports of Christians being tortured in secret Communist prisons. But worst of all was that undefeatable steroid-pumped boxing Russian Superhero who pounded Apollo Creed to death (wait, no that was Rocky IV).

Needless to say Ronald Regan and Hollywood flicks like Red Dawn (featuring a fictitious Russian-Cuban invasion of America) didn't help alleviate my fear of the Russians either.

But lately a little of the old Russian man is bleeding through. My guess is that Mr. Medvedev and Mr. Putin are having a hard time letting go of the whole “losing to the Americans during the Cold War” thing. Seeing that the Communist mis-adventure didn't exactly benefit Russia economically, it seems they've finally figured out the best way to regain their former Soviet glory.

Instead of reinforcing failure by returning to a Soviet-Communist model, their plan is to embrace those Capitalist economic principles that seem to benefit the State, while simultaneously promoting Mr. Putin's strongman image.

The former (strong economic growth) supports the latter (Putin as Hero of the new Russia), as it gives Putin the foundation on which to promulgate an image of a self-assured and thriving Russia not only domestically, but internationally as well.

Recent nationalization of Russia's oil and gas have certainly bolstered the State financial coffers, enabling a repositioning and recapitalization of Russian military forces. More importantly, it seems Russia has been keen on regaining the influence it had during the Soviet era.

The pacification of Chechnya -- as well as Russia's successful attempt at thwarting Georgian reclamation of South Ossetia in 2008 -- has seemingly emboldened Russia in its attempt to regain its status as a recognized player in International affairs.

Russia's emboldening stance, particularly when it relates to Russia's traditional sphere of influence, is clearly demonstrated in its relationship with its old allies Iran and Syria.

Having supported these countries in their numerous wars against the Israelis, Iran and Syria have continued to look to Russia for political “protection”, especially when threatened by UN security council members like Britain, France and the US regarding human rights violations or Weapons of Mass Destruction issues.

In fact, Russia (as represented by the Soviet Union) has used its veto 123 times during the UN's existence, 40 times more than the next runner up, the U.S. The most recent instance of this was Russia's October 2011 veto of a draft report condemning the Syrian government crackdown on protesters.

If anything, Russia's support of Syria and Iran, both morally and physical, is increasing. In defiance of the international community, Russia recently sent a fleet of warships into Syrian waters in a show of solidarity with the Syrians, an unheard of gesture in this tension filled part of the Middle East.

Russia's siding with Iran regarding the latters suspected nuclear weapons activities has certainly upped the stakes, considering that Canada, Britain, and the US just agreed to implement heavy sanctions on Iranian financial institutions. Understandably, Russia has decided to play political hardball by threatening to move offensive nuclear missiles closer to their European border (allegedly to counter US defensive missiles placed in Europe to protect against Iranian ballistic missile attacks).

In response, the US decided it would no longer honour the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed forces in Europe, an arrangement by which the Russian military was allowed to visit NATO bases to ensure the terms of the agreement were not violated. As such, America will no longer provide data to Russia on conventional weapons and troops in Europe, citing non-compliance by Moscow.

This all leads me to believe that Mr. Russia also has an inferiority complex, possibly from being a little on the short side. Regardless, with an increased role on the world stage, it is likely Mr. Russia may end up looking just like this:

Coming soon to a theater near you: Rocky XVIII -- Return of the Russian

The Israeli-Palestinian Prisoner Swap - Why?

2011-10-19T15:08:00.000-04:00

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the recent Israeli – Palestinian prisoner swap. Now I was never all that great at Math, but something about trading one Israeli Jewish soldier for one thousand disgruntled Palestinian Arabs doesn't quite add up.

The problem I have is not so much the seeming disparity of the swap deal. What I'm looking for is the “why” behind it.

On a superficial level, prisoner swaps are not all that uncommon. Every war where prisoners were taken almost indefinitely included a swap following the cessation of hostilities. Both sides relinquished their prisoners, wished them well, and that was that.

But things in the Middle East are much more complicated. Palestinians view the Israeli government as occupiers, Israeli troops as infidels or apartheid enforcers. And to be expected, Palestinian “freedom fighters” are viewed by Israel (and much of the world) as terrorists, nothing more. Whichever way you spin it, both sides view the other as illegitimate combatants and thus subject to prosecution and incarceration.

And some of it is deserved. From my perspective, anyone who straps on a suicide vest and blows up a cafe full of innocent civilians is committing a criminal act and deserving of prosecution. War is not an excuse to violate the rights of civilians. And some of those released in the prisoner exchange were those types.

But likely some were imprisoned unjustly, caught up in the dragnet of overzealous Israeli soldiers. Whatever the case, the Israeli government overlooked the offenses committed and decided it had something to gain by letting a good chunk of their Palestinian prisoners go free. Question is, what do the Israeli's gain?

The first benefit is likely monetary. The cost of incarcerating 1000 prisoners is likely quite high. In Canada we average between $84,000 and $344,000 per year per prisoner. Given the reports of Israeli prison conditions by released Palestinian prisoners, the amount Israel spends on its prisons is certainly lower than in Canada, but substantial nonetheless. Given that some 5000 Palestinians are held by the Israelis, the swap might be welcomed by prison wardens and Israeli taxpayers alike.

If even $40,000 is spent per Palestinian prisoner, that comes to some $200,000,000 per year. Seeing that some Palestinians have been imprisoned for over 34 years and many others are serving life sentences, the economic benefit of releasing a fifth of the Palestinian prison population is quite obvious indeed. It also gives the Israelis a thousand free prison spaces, lest any future intifadas or violence erupts.

The second benefit to Israel is an increase in political capital. Benjamin Netanyahu, traditionally opposed to any sort of appeasement behaviour, can be seen as having taken a proactive step in ensuring the continuation of the peace process -- without violating the sacrosanct and thorny issue of land rights.

But the swap also comes at some expense for Israel. Releasing convicted terrorists violates every established precedent regarding the Western World's attitude towards extremism. In an abstract way, it runs the risk of emboldening others to participate in the type of behaviour that precipitated the incarceration in the first place. According to Al Jazeera:

Ismail Haniyeh, a senior Hamas official, addressed the crowd that Hamas said numbered over 200,000, praising the kidnap of Shalit as a positive operation that had won the freedom of hundreds of Palestinians. "Some described Shalit's captivity as a worthless adventure, but today they are proven wrong," he said. "The people want a new Gilad!" the crowd chanted, suggesting the abductions of Israeli soldiers would mean freedom for thousands more Palestinians imprisoned in Israel.

It also is likely to swell the ranks of Hamas -- especially the militant wing that launched the operation to capture Galid Shalit-- who will undoubtedly exploit the success of the swap to their own advantage.

Interestingly, many of the more “dangerous” prisoners were released into the more secure (at least from an Israeli perspective) Gaza Strip instead of the West Bank, likely to the relief of the Palestinian Authority who tend to be on better terms with the Israelis. The released prisoners were also given a warning not to engage in any “bad stuff” lest they end up back in the not-so-good graces of the Israelis.

There is an obvious question in all of this: is one man's freedom worth letting a thousand murderer's go free? Of course, this takes us back to what we consider a murderer to be. If there is a consensus view that the Palestinian prisoners are in fact soldiers and protected by International Law, then so be it. However, as soldiers they are still held to the test of International Law. Did they deliberately target and kill innocent civilians or were those they killed “collateral damage”?

But there is still much to consider. What about the cries for justice from the families of Israeli terrorist victims? Will this embolden the Palestinian terrorists to commit future attacks? What of the remaining Palestinian prisoners? Why justice for some prisoners and release for others?

I'm always interested in how people justify their actions. Whenever I hear some bizarre reason for a violent and unexplainable act -- be it committed by a liberal democracy or some obscure terrorists gang operating out of the jungle -- I try very hard to connect the dots.

But what I have come to realize is that it is not always possible to join the dots, or rather, find a single logical answer that will explain the irrational human dilemmas we face. Perhaps Netanyahu's prisoner swap simply boils down to doing whatever it took to ensure the return of the metaphoric lost sheep. Maybe he was hoping for a fresh start with the Palestinians, a token of goodwill in the hopes of peace.

Whatever the motivations, both sides got most of what they wanted -- at least for now.

The Wall Street Protest and the Lost Generation

2011-10-08T19:51:00.012-04:00

It seems people have to protest something. Oil, civil rights and wars tend to be among the favorite subjects of these rebel rousers, but from time to time they stumble upon something that really strikes a chord.

This go-around Wall Street is the target. Apparently some folks are angry at the US government and Wall Street for the 2008 bailout of the banks.

According to a National Public Radio (NPR) broadcast: “[the protesters] feel the American political system is being gamed by corporations and the wealthy, what they call the 1 percent. The demonstrators have no leader and so far, they don't have any solutions, either. But amid the air mattresses and sleeping bags scattered across the park, they discuss everything from income disparities to keeping their camp clean.”

The NPR report continues “But Mayor Michael Bloomberg says the protesters are playing the blame game.” Bloomberg then states in his own words “Our problem today is we keep going and vilifying the banks. They're not going to make any loans. If they don't make any loans, companies don't expand. If companies don't expand, people don't have jobs.”

And Bloomberg's right. Sort of. Without investment companies do not grow and people do not get hired. But that is not the issue at hand. In the mind of the protesters, the point of contention is the preferential treatment given to banks.

What Bloomberg is really saying is that he believes the banks are too big to fail, period. From his perspective, the bailout was a form of grace, extended from the hand of the US government to underperforming corporations at the expense of the tax payer.

Unfortunately private citizens who face the same economic miscalculations are not extended the grace given the banks. If, for example, you or I can't pay our credit card bills or lose our job we face an immediate assault on our credit rating. We lose the ability to obtain future credit or mortgages, have trouble applying for certain jobs, car loans, etc. Our lives become very stressful, very quickly.

And unlike those failed American banks, we serfs don't have option of going to the government in the hopes that they'll cover our overspending asses. Individually we're just not that important to the current economic system. Could you imagine selling your house, blowing the money at the races, and then asking the government to cover your losses?

But that's exactly what happened during the bailout. Trillions of dollars meant for building roads, bridges, schools, hiring teachers, and improving health care for current and future generations flowed out of the public chest and into the upper echelon of those already economically privileged individuals -- sustaining a system which benefits from the cheap labour of the lower class masses. And that is where much of the discontent comes from. But it doesn't end there.

Recently my seven year old son got his first paper route, the delivery of which is by no means a small feat. The papers are bulky and heavy due to the whack of fliers placed inside, and the route itself covers 149 homes. So my son recruited yours truly and his five year old brother to help him with his quest. “You know, you're going to have to pay your brother for doing half the work.” I told him. He did some quick math and came up with a figure that suited him just fine. “I will give Ethan five dollars" he replied. “What's seventeen minus five, Dad?” he inquired. “Hmm” I thought. I see the makings of a Wall Street hustler.

And that's the heart of it -- the distribution of wealth. The disenfranchisement of today's youth also corresponds to the inability to obtain a job with a livable wage. Financial reports regarding a forecast of “50,000 jobs created this month" gives a false assurance of economic well being. More often than not they omit that the majority of these newly created jobs are in the part-time service sector, which usually means a low income job with no benefits.

One of the Wall Street protesters summed it up this way. “I'm talking about people who have master's degrees, in a lot of cases, who have to work $8-an-hour jobs because there are just no jobs. My generation - I'm 23 - my generation is really like the lost generation.”

What is interesting about the recent $300 Billion job creation package being promoted by Obama was Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner's warning that the Democrats were engaging in “class warfare.” I thought that a peculiar comment. Seeing that Obama's plan sought to increase the tax “burden” on the wealthiest Americans by closing existing tax loop holes, I came to two conclusions.

The first was that there must be a lot of wealthy individuals in the Republican party that were likely to be affected by the proposed Democratic tax increase. The second conclusion was even more heinous: that the Republicans saw the current economic class order as an established and necessary structure of society, and that any tampering with that order was certain to result in some vague and undefinable battle between those groups.

I'm not sure what class warfare looks like, but my guess is it that it couldn't be any worse than the French Revolution of the 1790s or the 1917 Bolshevik revolution. In both cases, the underfed and suffering masses were tired of the unfair division of wealth that existed in the society of the time.

In fact, America's current state of affairs -- particularly the economy -- echoes that of France leading up to the Revolution. France's support of America during the American Revolutionary War had bankrupted the French treasury, adding to an already massive national debt. In an eerily similiar comparison to the stalemate faced by the dysfunctional American Government, Wikipedia explains of the French situation:

“Necker [Comptroler-General of Finance] realized that the country's extremely regressive tax system subjected the lower classes to a heavy burden, while numerous exemptions existed for the nobility and clergy. He argued that the country could not be taxed higher; that tax exemptions for the nobility and clergy must be reduced; and proposed that borrowing more money would solve the country's fiscal shortages...

This was not received well by the King's ministers and Necker, hoping to bolster his position, argued to be made a minister. The King refused, Necker was fired, and Charles Alexandre de Calonne was appointed to the Comptrollership. Calonne initially spent liberally, but he quickly realized the critical financial situation and proposed a new tax code.

The proposal included a consistent land tax, which would include taxation of the nobility and clergy. Faced with opposition from the parlements, Calonne organised the summoning of the Assembly of Notables. But the Assembly failed to endorse Calonne's proposals and instead weakened his position through its criticism. In response, the King announced the calling of the Estates-General for May 1789, the first time the body had been summoned since 1614. This was a signal that the Bourbon monarchy was in a weakened state and subject to the demands of its people” (Wikipedia)

Despite the best efforts of the ruling elite and the overprivileged aristocracy to contain the lower classes brewing resentment, eventually “war” did break out. A proxy government sprung into being with the Tennis Court Oath, small gangs turned into mobs, mobs turned into organized resistance (much like the Arab spring) and soon peasants, youth and defected soldiers alike were battering down the doors of the Bastille and sharpening the blades of the guillotines.

Agents of the overprivileged?

Now I doubt such a course of action is likely to happen in the US or Canada, although Greece is currently undergoing resistance to austerity measures being forced upon it at the hands of the EU. However, in the US, the current economic disparity among the classes does not bode well for a future peaceful coexistence. Here are just a few random statistics compiled by businessinsider.com:

- In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1; since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 and 500 to 1
- The bottom 50 per cent of income earners in the US now collectively own less than 1 per cent of the nation's wealth
- 61 per cent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 per cent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007
- 66 per cent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1 per cent of Americans
- 43 per cent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement
-24 per cent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age
-Only the top 5 per cent of US households earned enough to match the rise in housing costs since 1975
-More than 40 per cent of Americans who are actually employed are now working in service jobs, which are often low paying.

As much as the US Republican party tries to avoid the subject, maintain the economic status quo of the classes and stymie Democratic efforts to address the current economic inequality, protests like those in Wall Street will only intensify. The pressure is building, and the cork will not plug this geyser indefinitely.

For an in-depth look at the root of the protests, check out Al Jazeera's article entitled "Youth movement in a culture of Hopelessness".

Gender roles and the in-law stink eye

2011-09-06T20:08:00.000-04:00

The other day I celebrated my 33^rd birthday, albeit several weeks late. After enjoying a delicious home cooked meal of steak, ice cream cake and liquor, my mother placed a present in front of me. Encouraged by the gaggle of onlookers, including my mother-in-law and her hardworking, gruff- talking husband Ed, I reluctantly opened the femininely decorated gift bag.

Out came a frying pan, two sets of dish towels and a tin of coffee. Flushed red with embarrassment, I attempted to rationalize the affront to my masculinity. “My eggs won't stick to that pan” I reasoned. I took a look around the room. It was obvious from the grin on Ed's face that he was imagining me prancing around the kitchen, cooking apron tied around my waist and Martha Stewart on the TV.

The Stink Eye, Clinton style.

I scoured the bottom of the gift bag hoping for an item of masculine redemption. “What's this?” I questioned as I brought up a tube of hand lotion. “For your dish hands, of course” my mother assured me. “Of course” I responded awkwardly as I nonchalantly slid the items back into the bag beneath the pink and purple tissue paper.

Funny thing is, until I decided to try a stint as a stay-at-home dad I received gender appropriate presents: things like drills, plaid shirts, and movies with lots of automatic weapons and lines like “tell my wife I love her”. But recently I've been getting a sense that not everyone is okay with a man keeping house.

Given, the majority of hammer swinging men view stay-at-home dads as pansies. And most women look at them as inferior provider types. Perhaps these are gross miscalculations and insecurities on my part, however reality tends to bear this out. Traditional gender roles exist because they are the default composition making up society over the last 10,000 years.

Men cannot bear children, can't breastfeed them, and usually make fairly poor laundry folders. Besides, all that puking and crapping is probably the single most effective method in keeping a man out of the house. In fact, for the first few years of a child's life I think it is best that the kid's mother be at home.

But does that mean men have no place being in the home? Are gender roles so ingrained and inflexible so as to say “men should work, and women stay home and raise babies”? Do women not go to school and entertain careers? Then why the double standard?

As a result of the feminist movement, as well as factors like single-mother families or two-income households, mothers and wives have entered the workforce en masse. And while not equal, the gap in pay equality between the sexes is steadily shrinking. Women increasingly find themselves out earning their male counterparts. Partnered with an increasing number of job opportunities favouring traditionally female vocations – everything from administration to health care – and a reduction of traditionally male jobs (things like a shrinking automotive industry), it's not uncommon to see men heading home to roost.

So the seasons change. My parents generation (baby boomers) do not view gender roles the same as their parents generation did. To generalize, both my grandmothers expected my grandfathers to bring home the proverbial bacon while they tended to the home. And that was that. My parents generation however, schooled in their parents “male as provider” mentality, represents something of a hybrid archetype – one that places an increasing emphasis on increased living standards (ie: new hardwood floors or camper). And I think it is this factor that is at the heart of the matter.

I'm guessing that until the waning of our views toward traditional gender roles, women will tend to resent their lower earning spouses, and men and women alike will resent the man who doesn't work (at least those not earning a paycheck). Ingrained in us as a species, we are unable to look past the physical, financial benefits of work. As the book of Genesis puts it, God cursed Adam to toil, and women to childbearing.

But we also live in an extraordinary age. Whether we can define this effect as a Post-modern revelation or not I don't know, but society does seem to find itself in the midst of a paradigm shift, where gender roles are being stretched and redefined. After all, who cares who makes the money as long as provisions are provided for, right? And if one spouse has a greater earning capability than the other does it not reason that the family unit would be better off with that member earning the keep?

The makeup of both the family unit and the global work force in the 21^st century is radically different than it was even twenty years ago. And these structures will only continue to change, making it likely that at least for the next little while homemaking men around the world will continue to get the in-law stink eye.

Somalia and aid relief: A case for non-state armed intervention

2011-07-13T20:57:00.010-04:00

With most of Somalia's nine million residents on the brink of starvation, it boggles the mind that some nefarious characters would seek to gain from the sufferings of others.

Yet that's exactly what the radical Islamist group al-Shabaab is doing. While pundits argue the roots of the crises -- be it the heating of the atmosphere above the Horn of Africa due to global warming, residual internecine conflict or what have you -- al-Shabaab is making a bad situation even worse.

Thrown from power by the 2006 Ethiopian military incursion into Somalia, al-Shabaab still retains a solid grasp of Southern Somalia. Resisting National Federal Government (NFG) and African Union attempts to unite the country under Federal authority, "Africa's Taliban" use brutal tactics in an attempt to bring the nation under the rule of Islamic Sharia law.

And despite recent threats directed at the World Food Program (WFP) and Western NGOs (and the killing of 42 relief workers between 2008 and 2009) al-Shabaab has suddenly changed its tune.

Operating primarily out of a need for self-preservation, the rebel movement has agreed to allow the WFP to distribute aid supplies within territory under its control. But the deal is not without its detractors. “Local analysts in Somalia said al-Shabaab lifted the ban on foreign aid organizations to generate money to fund their war effort, by charging those groups a registration fee.”

And it wouldn't be the first time al-Shabaab resorted to shameful tactics in a bid to fill their war chests. In the town of Merca, "the Shabaab decreed that gold and silver dental fillings were un-Islamic, and dispatched patrols to yank them out of people's mouths." My guess is that they ended up sending the fillings to Dollars for Gold.

Perhaps NGOs bribing their way into Somalia is better than shooting their way in (as the US did in 1993 during their UNOSOM missions). But what if al-Shabaab doesn't allow the WFP in? What then?

Somalia, effectively a failed state, has had little if any governance outside the capital, Mogadishu. Despite US efforts to prop up the NFG, lawlessness still rules the day. The area is extremely hostile to soft-targets like NGOs, and as with any NGO involvement in conflict zones, is subject to the approval of local warlords and corrupt officials.

Most murderous regimes are extremely suspicious of external influences. As was the case of Burma after it was hit in 2008 by Cyclone Nargis, such entities allow their people to experience extraordinary suffering before they are willing to allow foreigners to assist. Even then, access is restricted.

As WFP aid pours into Somalia and the situation stabilizes (or the rains come), it is likely al-Shabaab will order the expulsion of the WFP and its accompanying NGOs. With the region's populations still subject to conflict and famine, such organizations have little in the way of recourse. It is unlikely that the UN will put boots on the ground to protect continuous aid delivery efforts, as most Western nations have little appetite for another Somali escapade.

But not acting is also not an option, at least not one that any self-respecting modern society should entertain. While it's certain that the Somalis as a corporate body have burned many bridges in the past, that shouldn't exclude the world body from turning a blind eye to their suffering.

Despite previous efforts by the world community (mostly the US) to bring stability to the region, the population of the Horn of Africa is seemingly in a perpetual state of suffering. Seeing that this is the worst famine in 60 years, estimates are that as many as 15 million people are at risk of starvation across the region. Weakened refugees from Somalia and Ethiopia stream across the Northern Kenyan border in the hopes of reaching the aid camps located there. Overflowing to capacity, aid agencies like CARE struggle to provide what little they can to the starving and malnourished masses.

But mass migration is not always an option. Often the calamity overtakes a population too rapidly. Weakened by malnutrition, many die just from the journey. Then there's the possibility that neighbouring countries may close their borders, or simply may not have the resources to deal with the situation.

In these cases there are two options. If there is a resemblance of governance in the affected county, then all peaceful means of intervention should be exhausted. However, in those cases where a government is belligerent and unsympathetic towards its own populace -- or is systematically harming them -- then something must be done.

The face of aid relief to come?

The problem of course is what to do. The list of state actors and international bodies to deal with these contingencies are many, however more often than not they are too slow to act, or in the case of Rwanda in 1993, are simply unwilling to.

And I truly believe that protecting aid camps, guarding aid relief convoys and ensuring the safe delivery of aid is not the same as sending in the B-52s to carpet bomb a city back to the stone age. And such protection need not be undertaken by a nation state or even sanctioned by them – although UN vetting such actions would help.

The use of “private contractors” (as the US government puts it) has been extensive in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Mercenaries by any other name, there is an increasing use of private security personal to fulfil duties, like protection of VIPs, that the military has no interest in doing. In fact, such personale are already operating off the coast of Somalia

Due to the surge in hijackings of commercial shipping by Somali pirates, companies have been equipping ships with security details – ex-military types with AK-47s, in an attempt to stave of these attacks. According to the UN, “In the past 12 months alone there have been 286 piracy-related incidents off the coast of Somalia. They have resulted in 67 hijacked ships, with 1130 seafarers on board – whilst, at present, 714 seafarers are being held for ransom”. While historically contrary to International law (which states that civilian vessels must be unarmed), the practice of putting armed guards aboard is now vetted by the UN.

And this policy is working. Apparently not one ship with armed guards has been successfully hijacked. While some fear an escalation of violence, it's clear that armed guards are doing something that an international coalition with all its warships and firepower failed to do – that is to ensure the safe conduct of goods through the midst of a hostile environment.

And while I realize that NGOs currently rely on their neutrality in order to access conflict zones, neutrality is not always enough. If al-Shabaab changes its mind and refuses the WFP entry, only the fittest Somali (those with guns) -- will survive.

And like the situation with maritime shipping off the coast of Somalia, the use of private security forces in the distribution of aid would fall into a moral and legal grey zone, that is until the concept is proven successful. And unlike an international military expedition, private contractors are not subject to political haggling and indecision, have the training and the fortitude to deal with conflict, and could ensure (regardless of the hostile opposition) the distribution of aid and the protection of aid distribution facilities.

Of course there is always the issue of who can afford to hire these folks, as well as to whom they are accountable. Blackwater contractors unlawfully gunning down innocent Iraqis led to a massive backlash against such activities, but it is unlikely that a similar situation would result if contractors were involved in the protection of NGOs delivering aid. The intimate relationship that would exist between an NGO and its accompanying security detail would make a Blackwater type scenario extremely unlikely, if only because the NGO wouldn't stand for it.

But there's also the issue of mission creep, as with the US escalation of force in 1993 when the aid delivery mission in Somali turned into a hunt for rebel leader Mohammed Farrah Aidid (remember Black Hawk Down?).

However the rules regarding use of force by such contractors would be extremely specific, as with the protection teams onboard ships. Just as banks employ armed guards to escort their money around, these contractors would escort NGO personale with their precious cargoes of food, water and medicine.

Considering that human life is more important than shipping containers full of sweatshop made Nike running shoes or dollar store trinkets, I'm sure we can all agree that humankind's right to food and water is of the utmost priority.

Global warming and Canada's complicity

2011-07-07T14:19:00.011-04:00

I've never really been much of an environmentalist. Growing up, my parents instilled in me some basic principles of conservation: things like recycling, not littering, and re-wearing the same clothes over and over until they stank or spontaneously biodegraded on my body (to avoid excess water consumption washing them I suppose)

But one thing that always struck me about the environmental movement was the passion of the activists. My personal favourite are the new wave of Greenpeace folks who race around in their James Bond-esque speedboats in an attempt to interfere with the fishing efforts of those always chipper Japanese whaling crews.

The two sides exchange water cannon barrages, toss flash-bang grenades at each other, and follow the whole thing up with some nonsensical rambling over the bullhorn.

Perhaps I just never understood how people could get so worked up over a few clubbed seals or the cutting down of a couple hundred acres of forest. My understanding was that nature in all its massiveness would quickly replenish what was taken from it – no hurt, no foul.

But lately I can't help but feel that Canada's wilderness, with its incredibly varied and pristine ecosystems, seems to be feeling the sharp end of humanity's consumptionsickle (yes, like creamsicle only sharper and with more consumption)

Now don't get me wrong. I love the idea of a resource that took millions of years to come into existence being harvested in a twenty-year frenzy of drilling, pumping, scouring and digging. In fact, we should give ourselves a gold star for such efficient results.

If anything we should be kicking ourselves for not exhausting our resources faster. With worldwide appetite for carbon based fuels and rare earth elements at an all time high, surely now is the time to cash in. Combined with geopolitical instability in the Middle East and South East Asia where oil resources are capable of being held hostage by unfriendly regimes, nations are looking elsewhere to secure more reliable sources for their energy needs.

And Canada is only all too willing to prostitute itself. Between the Alberta oil sands and the planned exploitation of thawing Arctic waters, Canada has a unique opportunity to not only benefit from the effects of global warming, but to significantly contribute to the problem as well.

And if there is anything we Canadians do well, it's digging big holes. Apparently 20% of the oil locked in Alberta's 141,000 square kilometers of oil sands is recoverable through open pit mining -- that's a piece of real estate the size of the country of Haiti or Albania.

While most other countries battle genuine terra firma issues -- things like shrinking useable land due to population density issues or the reduction of arabal land for crop production -- Canada is busy turning tracts of earth the size of countries into toxic sludgepits.

Adding insult to injury, when the oil companies are finally finished their short lived Alberta misadventure they won't be replacing the boreal forests and muskeg destroyed in the process of extruding the oil (they will however sod it for you).

Not too far from my home sits an example of just such a useless piece of land. Closed in 1979, the Marmora open pit mine removed 1.5 Million tons of ore during its relatively short 24-year run, or enough to build 21 Nimitz-sized aircraft carriers.

The pit itself covers an area of 75 acres, and due to rainfall and underground springs the 600-foot deep pit has become a massive man-made (unswimmable) lake. Due to the mining efforts carried out there (as well as those of other local mines in the area) the wetlands of the region have been turned into heavily fortified no-go zones -- the soil heavily contaminated with runoff waste and mining by-products. Surrounded by a 10-foot tall barbed wire fence, the area is completely uninhabitable and is likely to stay that way for generations to come.

Comparatively speaking, the long term damage to the environment from the Marmora Mine surpasses even the nuclear destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, which were quickly rebuilt and thrive today (despite higher rates of cancer and birth defects). Today both cities bear little evidence of the atom bombs, save that of a few war related memorials.

But the effects of mining are much worse. No amount of landscaping is going to bring back the natural beauty of the countryside with its forests and ecosystems. And it is also certain that these toxic, heavily compacted tracts of land will be uninhabitable for hundreds of years to come.

Not that Britain's richest man should give a hoot about that. To the ignorance of most Canadians, billionaire steel magnate Lakshmi Mittal is volunteering Nunavut -- Canada's Northernmost territory -- as his next mining experiment. Toting the massive infrastructure and labour benefits that his mine would bring to the local Inuit, Mittal is gambling on the assumption that given enough economic incentive, local and federal governments will bow to his plan.

And it will be his way or the highway, literally. Mittal's plan is to build a 150 km railway from the mine to not one, but two ports (which he will build). Not only this, but he'll need “to build 24 bridges, stretches of road, warehouses, fuel depots, landfills and an airstrip.” Phew. Oh, and he needs to open a few more mines just to extract enough ore to build everything he's got in mind.

Given that the Arctic is one of the few areas relatively untouched by human destruction, you figure its protection would be of vital importance to citizens and governments alike, right? You might even go so far as to expect the Feds to take up arms to defend it. Well, that's what's happening – kind of. Except that it's not the walruses, polar bears or permafrost getting the bodyguard treatment.

No, it is the humans. In particular, the humans who will be pumping the gas and oil out of the thawed ice flows. Locked in a bitter struggle over territorial borders, those nations ringing the Arctic Ocean (Norway, Russia, US and Canada) are attempting to work out the best possible settlement for their respective countries in regard to the region's massive carbon deposits.

Despite the global warming klaxon sounding regarding the futility and foolishness of pursuing a carbon based energy policy, these nations see only lost revenue generating opportunities. Like an addict desperate for the next high, these governments are desperate to be seen capitalizing on the massive natural wealth hidden beneath the sea floor, even if it means polluting pristine ecosystems or going to war over it. Which may happen.

Canada's fumbling response to the warming of the Arctic was to initiate an ice breaker ship building program (which is yet to see the light of day), recommended building an Arctic forward operating base to keep an eye on all the hypothetical shipping traffic, and rearmed the only actual Canadian presence in the North – a handful of Canadian Rangers – with new boots.

Russia on the other hand resumed long-range bomber patrols over the arctic, planted a flag 14,000 feet down on the ocean floor, and celebrated the whole thing by firing a bunch of missiles from a nuclear missile submarine.

What worries me is the attitude of all those parties involved, including Canada, regarding this newfound “Arctic soveriengty”. Nobody cared about the place when it was covered with ice and snow, but with the possibility of accessing all that valuable "black gold", suddenly the Arctic is everyone's concern.

It is possibly this banter between countries is just a case of harmless sabre rattling -- but I doubt it. What boggles the mind is that our supposedly modern liberal democracies are using militaristic rhetoric to defend an industry which is (at least in the West) primarily a private enterprise. This sets a dangerous precedent regarding the narrative of international relations, especially considering the primary actors -- Russia and the US -- have a history of using force in order to obtain natural resources and resolve territorial disputes.

Given the dwindling supplies of fresh water and arable land worldwide, it seems trivial to threaten war over something as silly as oil. Then again, the global economy would falter without it. With no viable fuel alternative, oil sands pundits like Paul Michael Wihbey are preaching the idiocy of not exploiting the few remaining fossil fuel reserves.

What is most confounding is while everyone is fully aware of the effects of global warming, the exhausting of the carbon based fuel supplies, and the global conflicts that will inevitably result – few nations are going "balls to the wall" trying to solve the problem.

Countries like America will declare war on drugs and terrorism (both impossible to achieve goals) coughing up trillions of dollars in the process, yet somehow find it distasteful to deal with what is quite certainly the two biggest threats facing humanity today – the effects of global warming, and the exhaustion of carbon based fuels. It's almost enough to turn me into an activist.

How to get Gaddafi: Hire a Hollywood tough guy

2011-06-28T15:27:00.003-04:00

Apparently the International Criminal Court (ICC) has just issued an arrest for warrant for Libya's bastard son, Muammar Gaddafi. Problem is, no one is brave enough to pass him the subpoena requesting that he get his genocidal arse to the Hague, pronto.

Like those TV party mommas who spoil their children with extravagant Sweet Sixteen's and plastic surgery, the ICC is mostly impotent in bringing down the hammer on Gaddafi (or gavel in this case). With a yearly budget of more then €101,000,000, you figure they'd be able to get something accomplished. But then again, in the words of Austin Power's father, Nigel:

You'd figure that in the very least the Americans would be able to do something about this. Coming off their win gunning down Osama Bin Laden, the US Navy Seals would be perfect candidates for this kind of nab mission. However, the US government and ICC haven't always had the warmest of relationships.

Despite having initially signed the Rome Statute (the treaty that established the ICC) back in the Clinton days, the whole arrangement has been a bit of a headache for the Americans.

George W's invasion of Iraq in 2003 created a sticky situation for US military personal and private contractors being subject to criminal charges, particularly with regards to the human rights violations at Abu Gharaib, the Blackwater contractor mass shootings, as well as an expired UN mandate (not to mention that pesky issue of an illegitimate and bogus premise for the 2003 Iraq debacle).

In response, the US opted out of the Rome Statute, and added the caveat that any country requesting US military aid do the same – which Israel in turn complied to.

Fears that the ICC would violate the US Constitution, override the Supreme Court or otherwise affect national interest and self-determination, were given as justification for unsigning from the treaty. The US Congress even went so far as to pass the American Servicemembers' Protection Act, also known as the “Hague Invasion Act”, permitting the President to authorize military force to free any U.S. military personnel held by the court.

But the US is not the only one unsubscribing to the ICC. India's objections to the court are notable, if not genuinely hilarious. Their tiff related to the hypocrisy of the Rome Statute signatories not including the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction under the category of war crimes and crimes against humanity. My guess is that someone in the room (ie: any country with nukes) didn't want to be held accountable for letting that genie out of the bottle.

China, quite obviously, isn't interested in subjecting itself to the scrutiny of the International Community either -- not that it has anything to hide on the humanitarian front. Along with Russia and the world's second most populous county, India, China's objections echoed America's -- with a particular fear of being judged for domestic human rights violations, as well as worries regarding “external” interference in internal political affairs.

And China's shunning of the ICC knows no lengths. A recent visit by Sudan's Omar al-Bashir (another ICC fugitive) showed just how far China is willing to go to thumb it's nose at the whole ICC idea. According to Al Jazeera: “Bashir is wanted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for alleged genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity that occurred in Sudan's western Darfur region, where about 300,000 people have died since 2003.”

But it is also economically advantageous for China to play the bad guy. Western democracies have recently found it distasteful to buy crude oil from despots and tyrants, so Chinese access to Sudanese crude has never been greater.

But China isn't the only country that has embraced al-Bashir. Nigeria and Kenya (both a signatory of the ICC) and Egypt (not a signatory) have also welcomed al-Bashir post-warrant onto their soil, clearly mocking the authority of the court.

As a result of the ICC warrants against him, al-Bashir expelled several NGOs from Sudan, including Oxfam, claiming them to be “spies in the work of foreign regimes.” Interestingly, much has been written of the relationship between the NGOs (aid agencies, human rights organizations) and the ICC. The ICC relies on the information garnished by the NGOs intimate relationship with affected populations in order to produce evidence required for the prosecution of offending regimes.

Despite the Rome Statute being ratified by over 115 countries, the objections of only a half dozen (albeit populous and influential) countries have seemingly hindered the effectiveness of the ICC. There is no enforcement mechanism (ie: nab squad) and the ICC must therefore rely on a each member's national police force to arrest suspects. National or religious sympathies often stymie such apprehension efforts, as was the case with Radko Mladic, whose sixteen-year evasion made a mockery of international efforts.

The ICCs' predecessors -- the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the similarly named Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia -- demonstrate that these courts are somewhat effective. A recent string of convictions in the case of Rwanda demonstrate that while justice may be a long time coming (the tribunals were established around 1994), it does eventually come.

Problem is, most of these ICC “fujitives” were (or currently are) high ranking, influential and beloved leaders that are protected by their own populations. And it is silly to suggest that the current Sudanese and Libyan incumbents -- al-Bashir and Gaddafi -- will order their own arrests any time soon.

If anything, the warrants for these sitting heads of state will only help to further entrench their position. Aware that defeat will inevitably lead to a padded jail cell, they will likely grow even more ruthless and tyrannical in defense of their fiefdoms.

So that leaves us with one option: let's hire a hit team of washed up, Hollywood action stars to bring these ethnic-cleansing buggers to justice. With all their quasi-military training, chiseled features and overblown paychecks, I'm sure the likes of Steven Seagal, Chuck Norris and Sylvester Stallone could make this happen. Heck, even Arnie's currently looking for employment, right?

How to get rich (or die trying)

2011-06-18T23:09:00.007-04:00

Recently I've been doing some renovations for someone with inheritance money to burn. The residents of the home I'm working at (all three of them) sleep, eat, and watch TV -- and that's about the extent of it. They eat out at restaurants so they don't have to cook or clean up dishes, and hire others to do everything else -- from cutting the grass to replacing light bulbs.

And it's not that the man of the house isn't able bodied -- he is. It's just that they would rather have someone else do the work for them. Which is fine with me.

So there I was, slathering peach coloured paint on the wall when I came to two conclusions. First, in a less affluent era I'm sure these lazy people would have died off long ago. Second, that the path to success isn't always found by those who vigilantly strive for it.

See, I was under the impression that hard work, determination and self-discipline would be enough to guarantee the American dream. Impressed upon me by teachers, parents and media alike, the concept that work equals success has become a hollow theory for me – and one that I've observed is consistently mocked by several annoying anomalies: those of nepotism, good genetics, inherited social status and good old fashioned luck.

Take Petra Eccelstone for example. Despite never having held paid employment, she's just purchased Aaron Spelling's $91 million Los Angeles estate (the one fashioned after Buckingham Palace, complete with a bowling alley, gift wrapping room and bomb-proof anti-terror room).

Recipient of her Formula One father's $2.4 Billion estate, she's a living, breathing example of being a recipient of someone else's hard work.

As if this wasn't insulting enough to 'Joe the average factory worker' (putting up with a 12-hour continental shift for $10 an hour), an Eccelstone family friend had to rub it in with the following statement: “At least this LA house will give Petra something to do. The trust is paying for it. In fact, the payment is coming in cash — paid from the interest on the interest.” Interest on the interest? I wasn't aware there was such a thing.

And did I mention Petra is drop dead gorgeous?

Apparently a side effect of your dad having lots of money means that he'll chose for you a genetically pleasing mother. So Petra has that going for her too. Which leads me to those who have been fortunate enough to benefit from Mother Nature's finest DNA -- chiseled features, good bone structure, and any other pleasing physical aesthetic feature that would get you noticed by a talent scout, casting agent or otherwise horny producer.

A bizarre by-product of the evolutionary “survival of the fittest” (where the most beautiful specimens are more likely to attract a mate and therefore bear offspring) is the smorgasbord of talentless eye-candy (the likes of Paul Walker and Megan Fox come to mind), supermodels and otherwise unproductive people (anything Kardashian) who receive untold riches and fame in return for simply being themselves.

And how many times have I heard a story of our hero celebrity or model being “discovered” eating doughnuts in a cafe or simply walking down a city street?

In a similar vein, another category of enviable individuals we cherish and reward are sports stars. Drawing on their predetermined superior genetic code, they inevitably break from the pack of us mere mortals in order to humble us with their amazing feats of awesomeness.

And each sport has its own genetic prerequisite. Basketball players are probably the easiest characters to cast. Ask anyone over six-foot-five how many times people have asked them if they're a basketball player-- chances are they've heard that assumption implied ad infinitum. By default, the taller player will win out against the shorter regardless of talent. He's just that much closer to the hoop.

Even racial characteristics play into success. African-American athletes often fare better in high-impulse, short endurance activities due to inherent superior fast-twitch muscle fibres.

According to an article in the Times, “Black athletes have monopolized every Olympic 100 metres for the past quarter of a century, without a white man making the final. The same dominance asserts itself at the World Championships, in which every sprinter in eight of the past nine 100 metres finals has been black.” That's not to say that training, dedication and skill can be discounted, but I think the record speaks for itself. White men can't jump, and apparently can't sprint, either.

And while I understand stereotypes influence our perception of who does “what” well, there usually is a kernel of genetic truth helping the winner along the way. We usually see Kenyans excelling at endurance running, the Chinese cleaning up at ping-pong, and the Russian's winning at arm wrestling, shooting things to hell, and drinking you under the table.

And then there are the environmental factors. To say that a child living in a mud hut on the drought ravaged plains of the Sahara or the slums of New Delhi has the same opportunity as their upper-class peers from the Hamptons is simply ludicrous. Which speaks volumes regarding the myth of the self-made man.

Besides those destined for inheritance or genetic superiority, nepotism is another powerful factor in the creation of successful individuals. The nepotism crowd ride the coat-tails of their parent's reputation and success, undoubtedly finding it easier to access otherwise insular and elitist occupations.

As with most jobs, success still rides on whether or not someone likes you (or your parents) and is willing to vouch for you (I myself once received a promotion this way after it turned out both my boss and a co-worker previously worked with my father). However being associated with a household name probably doesn't hurt the job hunting effort.

And I'm often surprised to discover just how endemic nepotism is in our culture: it's present in everything from entertainment to finance to construction to politics. What else can explain the impossibility of George W Bush clinching a two-term tenure in the Oval office?

Now this does not preclude every beautiful, genetically blessed person with a recognizable surname from achieving instant stardom, but it certainly increases their chances of achieving success.

I suppose until that distant rich relative kicks the bucket (or I develop some newfangled and yet untapped athletic ability) I'll have to resort to screwing in light bulbs for the overprivileged.

Fear, and the psycho next door

2011-06-02T17:50:00.000-04:00

Coyotes. I never had reason to fear them. That was until I visited the Parks and Wildlife booth at our local springtime maple syrup festival. Mounted on a table was a stuffed coyote, its massive snarling yapper and menacing jagged-claws threatening me from beyond the grave. Suddenly, these wolf-sized creatures stopped being the cute and cuddly fox-like canines I somehow thought they were.

Now something like this generally wouldn't effect me, except for the fact that the forests surrounding my neighbourhood are teeming with these deadly grey beasts. Often while walking my hulking seven-pound Papillon guard dog Bo-bo, I hear the chilling howl of the coyote packs. And I'm not the only one getting freaked out here.

While conferring with neighbours, I often hear stories of old folks out for their evening strolls being stalked by lone coyotes. One senior even resorted to carrying a spiked-cane in a vain attempt to ward off any hypothetical attack by the sneaky varmints.

Most of the time I'd take these tales with a grain of salt. Problem is, it's all starting to effect me. Going for walks now leaves me feeling like a shell-shocked vet, with every snap of a twig sending me scanning for the tell-tale silhouette of a stalking coyote.

I guess I've probably grossly exaggerated the threat in my own head, because I can't recall hearing of anyone being taken down in a coyote attack (at least not in my area). My bet is that they'd rather feast on a bunny rabbit or a tethered wiener dog then tackle a six-foot tall man, but something inside me has changed toward the outdoors – and placed in me a fear I never had before.

Funny thing is, until I had a family of my own I feared little. I walked when and where I wanted. I killed spiders (although millipedes and snakes and anything else that slithers fast kinda freaks me out), climbed 40-foot ladders, skydived and did pretty much anything else without fretting about it. Perhaps the lack of concern was due to the naivety and ignorance of my youth -- that invincibility complex older generation's like to remind the young about.

I suppose there are several types of fears. Childhood fears are usually illogical and based on lack of understanding or untruthful representation by those is authority (parents). These usually include things like fear of the dark, or dogs -- or that the bedroom ceilings and walls are going to cave in.

You figure by the time most of us reach adulthood, we've outgrown such concepts. But over my short 32 years, I've found that a lot of people haven't. If anything, those fears are as powerful today as they were when they were five.

Often times fear is created through trauma or violence -- events like combat, car accidents or assault. That's not always the case though. An experience that may deeply affect one person may have little bearing on another.

When I was in college, my fiance (now wife) and I had just gotten off a bus in the inner city after a lovely day at the mall. Unbeknownst to us we were followed by a gang, who quickly initiated (what turned out to be) a fight for our lives. Never in my life had I experienced an adrenaline rush like this – tunnel vision, loss of hearing, heart pounding in my chest.

Perhaps they didn't expect me to fight back. And after a fury of punches I dived my way out of the swarm, over a snow pile and onto a busy city street.

And from a distance I watched helpless as a few of them continued the assault on my fiance. Exhausted and battered, I collected myself enough to make it back to her. Thanks to the intervention of a bystander, we made it home relatively intact.

For days after I refused to wear the jacket and hat I had been wearing the night of the attack for fear of being spotted by the gang. My overall senses were heightened, and my mind was full of all kinds of irrational thoughts like “what if they find out where I live” or “where can I get an Uzi.”

To this day, I carry this experience with me. The event took my “fear virginity” as it were, leaving me a little less trusting and a little more cautious every where I go.

But I have other fears: fears of improperly cooked chicken, fears of my bi-polar psycho neighbour showing up at my door with a loaded shotgun – and the like. However I think these fears are not necessarily irrational. Most are based on real-world experiences that had significantly threatened my physical existence.

I do find it interesting when other's fears become apparent. Usually it comes as a surprise that someone is afraid of this or that. I've known people to be afraid of some strange stuff: balloons, clowns, and even seaweed. And then there's the usual suspects: mice, heights, flying, sharks, claustrophobic spaces, and Elvis impersonators.

One time I witnessed a fully grown and otherwise normal looking man have a panic attack in a public washroom. Unable to pick out a suitable stall, he left the washroom in frustration only to return with his middle-age father. His father then visited each toilet stall, offering his opinion on whether or not it was suitable for his son to perform a #2. Eventually the whole thing was just too much for the poor guy, and he broke down and left.

But fear is also contagious, if not hereditary. Look at how many children inherit their parents dislike of dogs or insects or heights or blood. And when fear grips an entire society, it gets a lot worse. Events like the overblown H1N1 flu pandemics or child kidnappings are just such examples, where everything from random rumours to over-repeated media coverage seem to intensify the paranoia and make everyone think that everyone else is infected or going to steal your children.

The fear of the unknown is a powerful force, and is an easy emotion for society to embrace -- particularly if the circumstances in question are unfamiliar, uncommon and dramatic/horrific.

And it makes for great entertainment too. Horror films by far prey on the mostly irrational fears we all have: It's dark. You're in the woods, alone. And a guy in a hockey mask is chasing you with a chainsaw... I mean, who wouldn't be freaked out? And what would those Japanese monster films be without the hilarious screaming masses?

And fear is not simply psychological. Often the physiological effects of what fear does to the body is quite profound. While not a doctor, I can tell that my mother-in-law's “jumping onto the couch to avoid a tiny spider” routine is probably an automatic reaction, and not one actively thought out or internally debated. Then there's the sweaty palms, the heart palpitations, the tossing of the stomach -- reminds me of grade school speeches.

Inevitably, I believe it is our innate sense of self-preservation that causes us to collect (and exhibit) fears as we age – accompanied by the instinct to protect one's family -- that drives us mad with what-if's and worry.

How the Baby Boomers screwed the rest of us

2011-05-31T00:04:00.005-04:00

I can't help but feel a little resentment towards the Baby Boomer generation.

I'm certain it's not because of the massive national debt they've carelessly heaped into their children's lap, the complete lack of foresight in providing affordable post-secondary education for their own kids, or the devastated, messed-up post-divorce families they've riddled society with.

No, ultimately it comes down to one thing – fluoride in my water.

Of course I'm just being cynical. I mean, what could be wrong with Generation X, Y and Z paying for the sins of the father?

For those unaware, the generation born in the Post-War era (1946-1964) were both numerous and well, let's face it, entitled. They grew up in a era of unmatched peace, prosperity and opportunity and as such, were imbued with a hopeful expectation that all these good things were in fact their God-given birthright.

They grew up in the soft underbelly of the American and Canadian suburbs, passed through the chills of the Cold War, and experienced the moon landing, push-up bras and colour television. In the 1950's they became the Beatniks, only to transform into Hippies in the 1960's. Free love, cheap drugs and good times ensured a thorough education in what not to do, and then came the 70's.

Mom and Dad toned it down a little, got married (just cause) and popped out babies like a Palestinian refuge camp. Dad's money was never worth so much, and his house and car had never been so damn big.

Then, one day, it all started to go sideways. And it wasn't because of the 1980's fashion disasters or the campy synthesized pop beats. Divorces started to rip apart families. Jobs got scarce.

But then there was hope: United States and Canada signed a free trade agreement, the Cold War ended, and World order was restored when George Herbert Walker Bush bombed the living daylights out of the Iraqi Army in 1991.

Today, the indispensable generation of Baby Boomers “control over 80% of personal financial assets (wealth) and more than 50% of discretionary spending power. They are responsible for more than half of all consumer spending, buy 77% of all prescription drugs, 61% of OTC medication and 80% of all leisure travel.” And in case we needed to know this, they also own 80% of all top of the line cars.

But then, why shouldn't they? They worked hard for their cake, provided the majority of services and goods to the majority of consumers, and should be compensated as such.

Problem is, it wasn't enough. The peace dividend had left too much time for a husband to envy the shiny new Ford sitting in his neighbours driveway, and too much time for the wife to salivate over her neighbours new dishwasher (hey don't get me wrong-- dishwashers are the bomb.)

So they whipped out their all-new plastic credit cards, and in turn expected the government to do the same.

Sometime around my birth (1978), the Boomers let loose. Crazy loose. We're talking billions upon billions of “who gives a hoot, spend-it-or-burn-it-I-don't-care” kind of debt. To get some perspective, during the 1970s, debt held by the public declined from 28% GDP to 26% GDP. During the 1980s, it rose to 41% of GDP.

While not an economist, I can tell that the chart located below is probably not a very good omen of the harvest to come.

But then again, the Boomers probably won't be around long enough to experience the lovely debt defaulting and accompanying social service collapse yet to come. Seeing that their average age is over 56, they'll probably be dead – or worse, senile – when this economic storm hits full force.

But what of this debt?

According to Wikipedia:

The gross public debt... tripled in size from $260 billion in 1950 to around $909 billion in 1980.

Not so bad you say. Hold on, it gets better.

Gross debt in nominal dollars quadrupled during the Reagan and Bush presidencies from 1980 to 1992. The net public debt quintupled in nominal terms.

Then the whopper.

During the administration of President George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased from $5.7 trillion in January 2001 to $10.7 trillion by December 2008. Under President Barack Obama, the debt increased from $10.7 trillion to $14.2 trillion by February 2011.

From $5.7 Trillion to $14.2 Trillion in under ten years. Coincidentally, both Obama and Bush are Boomers (just saying).

In some ways I'm glad I grew up in a nice house. I'm glad I lived in a country with Universal health care (Canada). And I'm glad I only had to pay $30,000 of my own (non-existent) money to go to college. Why should my parents have to bear such an unnecessary cost, especially knowing that when I graduate there won't be a decent paying job on the other side?

That's not to say that some parents don't cough up the coin to enable their children to make a better future for themselves. And my folks did do their best. But I see a dangerous precedent being set across North America. Skyrocketing university tuition, for-profit corporatization of post-secondary education, unpayable student loans-- it all smacks of (to put it Hollywood) -- greed.

And while I'd like to think the Captains of Industry who organized this feeding frenzy aren't Boomers with college age kids themselves, my bet is they probably are.

So good for them. When my oldest goes to University in 2022, his tuition is expected to cost $91,300 – or halfway towards the cost of a new house.

According to a Wall Street Journal article:

There is an estimated $730 billion in outstanding federal and private student-loan debt, says Mark Kantrowitz of FinAid.org, a Web site that tracks financial-aid issues—and only 40% of that debt is actively being repaid. The rest is in default...

My guess is that by the time the Boomer generation gets settled into their comfy retirement homes or white-washed Florida condos, the whole thing will go to mush. The consequences of a top-heavy economic distribution model --with its reduced tax base combined with the needs of caring for this high-maintenance generation -- will surely create a crisis of tsunami-sized proportions.

And it is likely that the generations that have born (and will bear) the brunt of this Boomer phase-out will have to extend an uncommon measure of grace -- and accept an uncommon measure of austerity in return-- if life is to be pleasant for all.

Don't worry, be happy (oh, and it's the end of the World)

2011-05-24T14:14:00.001-04:00

Given the recent spate of natural disasters, bloody conflicts and prophetic warnings blasting across the headlines, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was the end of the world.

There's this year's record number of tornadoes in the American Mid-West, the recent 2011 Japan earthquake, tsunami and subsequent nuclear power plant meltdown; the Icelandic volcanic eruptions, the floods in Missouri, Louisiana, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick – on and on it goes. And that's just Mother Nature's offering to the mix.

Add to this the recent global economic crisis, the "Arab Spring" revolution in the Middle East, the ongoing Islamic fundamentalist “terrorist” threat -- or the wrapping up of the Oprah show -- and life on this modern planet can seem a bit overwhelming. It doesn't help the situation either that soap box prophets like Harold Camping are cashing in on the public's paranoia by crying wolf (apparently the end of the Earth is now Oct. 21st).

But it's not like the world hasn't seen this before. Every generation thinks they have it worse then the generation before them, and that a dramatic and horrific Apocalyptic ending is just around the bend. That is not to say that it won't happen (the Apocalypse), but we need to get some perspective on things.

I'm sure those who lived through the early part of the 1900's through 1940's felt just as uncertain about the times they were living in. After all they saw everything from the Great Depression, the devastation of The Great War and the resulting 1918 Influenza pandemic (that killed far more people then the war), the rise of Fascism and Communism in Europe (with it's accompanying wars and holocausts) -- through to the ushering in of the nuclear age following the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan.

And I can't imagine there wasn't a family worldwide unaffected by the horrors of that era. In just five years (1941-45), Russia alone lost 13% of its population of 110 million, Europe 78% of its 7.8 million Jews, and Poland just over 16% of its 34 million citizens.

Such huge numbers are nearly impossible to comprehend. In comparison to the plagues of the Dark Ages (when between 30%-60% of Europe's 450 million people were wiped out by the Black Death) or the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake (which killed an estimated 850,000 in one day) -- the travails of our modern times pale in comparison. Perhaps our present day paranoia has more to do with our proximity to such recent disasters brought about by the Information Age.

As with ages past, distance and time played a crucial role in softening the impact of disaster. There were no on-the-scene reporters braving the forest fires or the hurricane winds, nor images and sounds of tornadoes or wars or famines to shock the senses.

Likewise other factors -- like Nationalism, isolationist policies, inherit political or ethnic biases promoted by nation states -- often created an atmosphere of callousness and disregard for the suffering's of those outside their sphere of influence.

Our immediate environment shapes the way we perceive our circumstances. When the weather is nice and sunny, it is hard to imagine another region getting slammed by a snow storm. However thanks to modern media -- with its 24-hour news channels and anywhere accessibility of the Internet – we can't help but absorb news like a sponge. Incidentally we intake, regurgitate and dwell upon the mostly negative material we observe.

Back in my college days I concocted an experiment. For two years I swore off modern media. I didn't watch any TV, listen to commercial radio or browse the Internet (although I didn't give up going to the cinema). Besides the initial boredom, the quiet, and the copious amounts of free time I found myself with-- something in my way of thinking began to change. It was a near instantaneous clearing of the senses, as if a weight had been lifted off me. Perhaps the media disconnect left me more naive regarding what we call “news”, but I still garnished an idea of what was going on from the occasional newspaper or magazine headline.

And I didn't feel in anyway diminished by this experience. If anything, I felt more relaxed, at peace, and more hopeful. What I realized mattered most was what was going on immediately around me -- at that very moment. I'm sure other things (probably bad) were happening elsewhere which probably shouldn't be overlooked, but there were enough needs within my immediate environment to vie for my attention.

The problem with modern media is that it oversaturates. Though I currently partake in my share of news gathering and disseminating, I can't help but think how unnatural it is to absorb so much information. Since the dawn of human civilization, the only concern was the physical here and now. But media has created a new paradigm, one which opens up many worlds and displays them continuously -- whether or not these new worlds have anything even remotely to do with us.

To say that we should ignore what goes on elsewhere would do a disservice to those who empathize with the suffering of others. But I think we also need to be aware that empathy means nothing without action, and in most cases we watch what we watch just to be "informed." And I've got nothing against that.

But what I think is essential is an understanding that yes, the world has and will always have its share of trouble – so just relax, calm down and do what you can with what you've got.

If not, perhaps it's time to tune out.

Polygamy (but only if it's okay with the wife)

2011-05-19T23:35:00.013-04:00

Now that's a legacy!

Polygamy. The very word is enough to make most women cringe, and most men smile. Not only is it a polarizing subject to most of us of Judeo-Christian heritage, but it's also a thorny issue in those cultures that advocate (or at least don't condemn) the institution of plural marriage.

More specifically referred to as polygyny, this union of one man and his many wives is as old as history. In fact, the Patriarchs of the world's great Faiths -- Judaisms and Islam -- both practiced plural marriage. Even Christianity didn't condemn it, although the Church fathers did prohibit those Christian men with more than one wife from serving in the Church. So why does polygamy get such a bad rap?

Not only is polygamy abhorrent (at least overtly) to most Westerners, it is also contradictory to the way our society in large thinks about love. We're brought up to believe (thank you Hollywood) that everyone -- including the ugly ones -- has a soul mate just waiting around the corner for that happily ever after (monogamous) relationship.

But this “to the exclusion of all others” business is just plain horse cocka. And we all know it. With US divorce rates in the neighbourhood of 50%, society is already in a de-facto state of polygamy anyway. Alimony and child support inevitably tie the offending spouse (usually the husband) to the family regardless, so why not just expedite the whole process and save the divorce?

Probably because Western women wouldn't stand for it. And justifiably so. But this viewpoint hasn't swayed societies that still practice this chauvinistic lifestyle.

Polygamy is nearly always a cultural construct. Traditional patriarchal societies were more likely to practice it, primarily for the purposes of enlarging and ensuring one's estate through procreation. Families would be large as a result, which meant more helpers in the fields and workers in the home. And if a man disliked his wife, he simply married another. Divorce was (and still is in some Muslim and more traditional cultures) to the benefit of the husband, and as such the affected women simply accepted the situation as their lot in life.

At the risk of sounding like a Utah salesperson for this unusual relationship brand, I must add one caveat. Most societies that allow polygamy also require the man to be able to support his wives. This requirement is not only reiterated in most religious scripture that condones the practice, but it is also codified into law in most places. So you need money too, lots of it. More often than not, no money means no (extra) wives.

And while most countries have laws prohibiting the practice of polygamy, there are exceptions. Huge swaths of Africa and the Middle East (as well as some Muslim majority countries, such as Indonesia) recognize these marriages under civil law. Interestingly, India allows it for their Muslim population, but not for the Hindu majority.

Saudi Arabia probably has the most intricate polygamy “organization.” Men may marry up to four wives, with or without the other wives consent. However, the wives do have the option of divorcing the dude if they feel the arrangement is not for them.

Africa, however, is home to some of the greatest polygamists -- men who do the word proud, like Ancentus Akuku of Kenya. Nicknamed “Ancentus Danger” because of his good looks, this Don Juan of the Serengeti married 100 women in his 94 years, fathering some 160 children. Then there's Mohammed Bello Abubakar of Nigeria, who had 86 wives and 170 children (although due to Sharia law he was forced to drop the other 82 wives). Even the South African President, Jacob Zuma, has three wives and 20 kids and is a shameless, self-promoting wife-loving polygamist.

However in North America polygamy is a big no-no. Known here by its more heinous name – bigamy – it is considered a legal offense to marry someone while still married. For some reason, Westerners just hate the concept of polygamy. I'm not sure why our founding Fathers had such an aversion to the idea, but most of us today view those who choose to participate in this marital union as immoral spectacles of a bi gone era.

In Canada, places like Bountiful, British Columbia are home to a growing polygamist community. Having come under attack for their alternative attitude (although the official government line infers abuse) they don't seem like your typical criminal enterprise. Sure, they look like they've been watching a little too much Little House on the Prairie, but they all seem a very innocent and peaceful people. The wives enter into the marriage covenant willingly, and the whole thing seems completely unoffensive.

Utah too seems to like its polygamy, thanks to the early teachings of the Mormon Church. Even though the Church of the Latter Day Saint's have renounced their belief in “plural marriage” the polygamist legacy is still felt. (It's even the premise of HBO's Big Love -- a show I have never seen and frankly don't care to.)

Perhaps the regions where polygamy thrives most are those which are closer to their tribal roots or cultural pasts. Most are located in developing or Third World countries, often in countries with minimal Western influence. Yet this is not always the case. Saudi Arabia -- with a per capita income north of $20,000 and an affinity for Western luxury and goods -- seems to easily meld it's modern lifestyle with more traditional tribal and Islamic beliefs.

Polygamy influences (and is influenced) by living standards. In certain environs, especially those with non-automated agricultural based economies, the benefits of polygamy are clear. Clearly a man in this situation bears an advantage over the one with a smaller family. The kings of old, notably the Hebrew kings David and Solomon, could afford the means to keep tens or even hundreds of wives.

But it seems that as mankind has evolved and progressed, emphasis was placed on material possessions and personal betterment (as well as developments like universal suffrage) -- causing polygamy to become a tad bit extraneous, if not financially prohibitive. In the era of cultivation, children were an asset. In the age of information, children are a liability (others, not mine).

But the varying factors that encourage plural marriage never really found root in the West. Though farms needed workers and men needed women, both the Catholic and Protestant Church looked on polygamy with disgust. And it would seem that the religious and social heritage of the settling pioneers didn't stray too far from this ideal.

In all likelihood the legalization of polygamy in the West would be certain disaster. The qualities that allowed this institution to survive to this day really do not factor into modern life: The need of additional wives to ensure that one be able to produce enough offspring to survive the plagues, wars and famines of the day; the economic benefits to a man's estate of having many children to tend to the goats and the fields; the elevated tribal status of having more children, more wives, and in turn, a larger estate. Almost always the benefits of polygamy relate to procreation.

In the end, it's probably a good thing that our self-indulgent Western society has taken the position on polygamy it has. Could you imagine a country full of Charlie Sheen's marrying multiple hotties, only to jump ship when the going got rough?

The only reason women ever stood for plural marriage was because there was a reasonable expectation that the husband would respect each and every wife, or in the very least provide for her and her children's needs. I don't think there has ever been a version of polygamy (at least not a successful one) where a husband married for sex, only to leave his wife neglected emotionally and financially.

While it's not for me, I don't see the harm in allowing polygamy. As long as the agreement is mutual and beneficial to all those involved, I don't perceive it as a threat to National Security.

The Man who stood against the Tsunami (and won)

2011-05-16T11:13:00.003-04:00

Picture yourself five thousand years ago in a world that has never seen rain. Surrounding you are luscious green fields watered by underground springs, small homes dotting the rolling hills -- and some old white-bearded guy banging together a boat.

But this isn't your ordinary take-it-out-for-the-afternoon fishing dingy. Notwithstanding its massive 450 foot length and 75 foot width, this monolithic multi-story piece of pitch and Cyprus wood was to house two of every living creature on Earth. Problem was, the ship wasn't built even remotely close to any existing bodies of water. It just sat in Noah's backyard, an object of ridicule amongst his dumbfounded neighbours.

And after the poor old guy had laboured away for what must have been the better part of a century, the animals were loaded aboard, the doors were shut, and the flood waters came and wiped out everything but him, his family and the animals. At least that's how the book of Genesis tells it.

Fast forward to March 11, 2011. An underground megathrust earthquake with the force of 600 million Hiroshima nuclear bombs rocks the coast of Japan. Besides knocking the planet 10 inches off its axis, the energy displaces enough ocean water to create a wall of water 128 feet high.

The wave, initially the speed of an airliner, slows at it approaches the hapless fishing hamlets dotting the Eastern Japanese coastline. In the blink of an eye, the torrent smashes the land with unimaginable force. Houses and bridges are ripped off their foundations; buses, boats, cars, trains and nearly anything else buoyant enough to float is unwillingly swept into the deadly morass of mud and debris.

Further inland -- and in the direct path of the onrushing tsunami -- is the fishing port of Fudai. At the mouth of the city, nestled between two mountains, is a massive 673 foot long concrete tsunami barrier. Built 38 years earlier after much controversy (and at the insistence of the late town mayor Kotaku Wamura) the barrier's 66 foot height and $40 million cost was considered too extravagant and unnecessary by many of the townsfolk.

However Wamura knew better. Having spent his life in Fudai, he had seen first hand the effects of Mother Nature's fury. The 1933 Earthquake and tsunami had so ravaged the area that for decades after bodies were still being dug out of the mud as the town rebuilt and expanded. Despite the doubting of others (as well as Wamura's own misgivings) he managed to convince the resident's that the barrier was in their best interests.

But as the onrushing water approached the barrier, something went terribly wrong. Despite the successful closing of the four main gate panels, a small door refused to budge. Springing into action, a local fireman raced to the jammed door and shut it moments before the torrent collided with the barrier.

Despite the water lapping over the edge of the berm, the barrier stood solid. Amazingly, all but the town's port was spared from destruction, thanks entirely to Wamura's foresight and persistence.

Something needs to be said for those visionaries -- be they thinkers in alternative energy, environmental protection or what have you -- that clearly foresee the potential disasters ahead and act on behalf of others to save them. They brave the stigma of doubters, overcome collective ignorance among society and struggle to maintain their reputation or even livelihoods in order to raise the warning.

Often times these persons are not even alive to see the fruit of their struggles, but this should not deter them from acting. Recent efforts by the current American administration to address the severity of the US debt might be seen as such an act, though possibly this may be an example of sounding the klaxon alarm too little, too late.

But in other areas, such as the alternative energy front, there is still plenty of time to enact change and steer the boat of global warming and fossil-fuel dependence away from the swirling whirlpool. Most of us can concur that something needs to be done here, but most of us expect someone else to do it.

What is necessary is a collective awareness that we all have a share in this global biosphere, and should ( in the very least) approve of and encourage those who have the capability to protect and preserve -- like Noah and Wamura -- to do just that.

Censorship: What's the big bleeping deal?

2011-05-08T22:27:00.002-04:00

Ah, the infamous censorship bleep. Our mid-afternoon television viewing experience just wouldn't be the same without this oh-so familiar tool of social decency. Along with its notorious television sibling the “blur blob,” these two heroes of the airwaves act as the guardians of public propriety and civility.

Sure, there's always those fun to read redacted government documents with their blacked-out sentences, but there's nothing like the deliberate visual and audible obscuring applied to otherwise untampered music and video to make the entertainment experience all the more exciting.

So what's the problem with a little appropriately applied censorship?

There is something that makes me uneasy whenever I witness an instance of subjective media manipulation, in other words, the censoring of traditional print or broadcast media. These days, seemingly everything in the American public realm – at least those items which fall within Federal Communication Commission jurisdiction (or is borderline First Amendment) -- is subject to this principle of necessary conformity.

Nature gives us few options in regard to our visual and aural senses. The former, vision, operates in two modes: either eyes opened or eyes closed. If you are going to look, you are going to see what it is you're looking at. You can't sort of see it, and as much as you would like to forget an image you simply can't unsee it. Like a kid in a scary movie, it's entirely up to the viewer to subject themselves to such visuals.

Hearing, however, has no such shut off capability. You hear things whether or not you want to, which makes that annoying aural bleep of the censor all the more unnatural. If nature had given us the capability to turn off our hearing, our world would be as incomprehensible as those highly censored videos on MTV...

...talk about an exercise in futility. My personal favourite are the radio-friendly gangsta-rap songs that quietly omit any offensive or vulgar language. I'm not sure why they even bother with the effort, as the final edit ends up being so heavily sanitized so as to be completely unintelligible and of no audible or artistic value.

Then there's the ten second delay on those live awards ceremonies and sports performances, the “no swearing before 10pm” rule on network TV, no blood in PG movies (even though the heavily edited TV version of the same film still shows the guy getting all shot to hell), the blurring of the guy flipping the bird, the blurring of the offending cussing mouth, etc. (checkout Jimmy Kimmel's "This week in unnecessary censorship" for a satirical take on this -- but be warned!)

Not that I'm advocating a nihilist media viewing experience. But in the real world of flesh and blood, censorship does not exist. Kids are exposed to all manner of vulgarity, whether we let them be or not. And from what I can tell it doesn't turn them into little foul mouthed f-bomb dropping sailors.

Kids are smart enough to know that swearing or cussing is wrong, given they've received some moral direction in this topic and it's been modelled by a parent. So I don't see some hypothetical landslide into moral oblivion if the censor button guy were to go on permanent vacation. But what about the rest of us?

Censorship has traditionally been a construct for the protection of public and private decency. It supposedly promotes those things that we as a society value; as well as those which we shun, mark as taboo, or simply don't wish to see or acknowledge.

Understandably, censorship and propaganda often go hand in hand. Dictatorships and democracy's alike censor negative news out of concern for ongoing public support for the war effort, often masked by the guise of national security. This was usually done easily enough during those early years of war correspondence when the entire reporting cycle -- from filming through to the distributing of the news reels -- was measured in days, if not weeks.

But by the time Vietnam rolled around reports from the battlefront was a near daily occurrence. The Persian Gulf War saw a quantum leap forward with the advent of satellite transmissions – but it wasn't until the 2003 Gulf War that we truly experienced the revolution in information dissemination brought about by the Internet.

In an effort to better control the flow of battlefield information, most Western governments introduced a policy embedding journalists into military units. This satisfied the governments duty to the writ of law regarding a free press, while also giving the public an idea of the situation on the ground. It is also an excellent way to shape public perception of the war, and helps keep an eye on what is or is not revealed about the realities of the conflict.

But the Internet age is a double edged sword. Inevitably things like Abu Ghraib or Wikileaks happen, side skirting the censor altogether. This information diffusion is beyond any containment “system” traditionally employed, and has led to a paradigm shift in the way societies censure or don't censure material, as well as the means by which individuals avoid such censorship .

Never before has humankind seen such a plethora of non-censored material – that is, information that has not been subjectively qualified in accordance with cultural standards of decency and acceptability. If Western publications enforce censorship on a particular image, or a publication band prohibits the naming of names or the like -- it doesn't take much effort to locate that information from a non-quarantined online source.

Despite the best attempts of authoritarian (and democratic) governments to control their populations access to contraband images, audio and subject matter -- proxy servers and other ingenious methods allow individuals to bypass such safeguards.

Censorship is also progressive. What can be shown on TV and film today would be unthinkable in the 1940's. And this isn't just limited to cursing, sex or violence. Topics openly and regularly discussed on such banal shows as The View were simply taboo back in the day. Values morph from generation to generation, and it's no surprise to see the censor keeping step with these changes.

So what could be wrong about creating an appropriate and safe environment for children? Remember that Supreme Court ruling regarding those fleeting expletives tossed around on Sunday afternoon football? Quite hilariously the Court's decision regarding the FCC Vs. Fox TV row resulted in them penalizing Fox for not adequately bleeping players unscripted cussin'.

I'm not sure what this says about us as a society, but I'm determined not to fine any of my loose-tongued friends and relatives for their occasional indecent slip ups.

In particular, media companies will always self-censor even without a state imposed mandate. They have a knack of feeling out the times, as if attuned to the pulse of the masses. These entities are aware of what the people find “repulsive,” and they often sense a growing grassroots shift regarding an emerging viewpoint or moral shift.

Recent trends regarding this interpretation of popular sentiment usually include the censuring of anything that smacks of homophobic, racist, intolerant or hateful language. Incidentally, this list is also extremely subjective. These trends usually gain momentum when endorsed by “people of influence.” While certainly not a fan of derogatory language, I don't think there was as much aversion to the word “nigger” until Oprah banned the word from being spoken in her presence. As if ushering in a divine revelation, suddenly every major print and television based media company instantly blacklisted the word, instead referring to it as the "N" word or simply fuzzing it out.

American censorship is probably stricter and more invasive then any other Western nation, especially when it comes to vulgar words and sexual content. European society may be seen as more progressive in this latter area, with nudity and sexual content seen as minimally offensive. On the other hand, depictions of simulated and actual violence in North American television and film are an order of magnitude higher than in Europe.

However the standards by which material is subject to censorship varies significantly between countries, and can even be broken down further to differences in viewpoints within a particular subset or minority group.

Cultural preferences certainly play a factor in the decision to censor, especially when religious and ethnic values are brought into the equation. Those racy bus shelter ads featuring mostly nude women selling soap or perfume or cereal simply do not exist in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. But these same cultures will happily broadcast the “beheading of the week”-- and without the annoying blur blob to boot.

Curiously, censorship is primarily directed towards domestic consumption. Its enforcement has typically been attained through a combination of voluntary and coercive methods – call it church and state respectively – that, when placed within a framework of limited media offerings creates an environment which is extremely effective at filtering out all that “undesirable” information.

But I understand that there is a vital distinction between what is indecent and what is obscene-- between the things we would rather avoid, and those horrible things that should never be witnessed regardless of age or belief system. And I think for the most part that is something we all can agree on.

Osama bin Laden and the laundromat

2011-05-04T13:58:00.000-04:00

My introduction to Osama bin Laden was a unique and unforgettable one. The morning of September 11, 2001 found my girlfriend (now wife) and I in a non-descript laundromat. A scruffy, rambling street person entered the place, walked straight over to us and started describing unimaginable carnage.

Being the critic I am, I instantly dismissed the man and his visions of jets crashing into buildings as having had one sniff-of-the-glue-bottle too many. Then -- as if having made his peace -- he stopped talking, looked strangely at us (and us at him), and exited the establishment.

I'm pretty sure my eyebrow was cocked in that “suspicious” position when Jackie turned to observe my response. Despite the peculiarity of the meeting, something the stranger said had left me slightly unsettled. His ramblings were uncomfortably specific and oddly passionate. So we left our tumbling clothes and headed out to the car to put these doubts to rest. Sitting in our ruby red Ford Festiva, we listened in shock to the radio reports coming out of New York City.

It didn't take much brainpower to comprehend that whoever had masterminded the attacks of that day would be living on borrowed time.

Shortly after came the American invasion of Afghanistan and it looked as if they were going to get their man. As it turned out, they probably had him tracked down to an area smaller than your average shopping mall, trapped in or near the mountain of Tora Bora. But when it came to tightening the noose around bin Laden, something went terribly wrong. Like a ghost, he disappeared from his hunters and escaped into the cold.

I was always curious as to where they would eventually find Osama. Most educated commentators figured he was hiding somewhere in the mountains along the Afghan/Pakistan border, probably a protected guest of a local tribal warlord. Others figured he had disappeared into the obscure back alleys of Yemen, hiding away in some dilapidated shanty while planning for the next great battle with the American infidels.

It must have come as shock then when US intelligence operatives discovered him in the affluent village of Abbottabad, 60 miles outside of Islamabad near the Indian border.

Far from cowering away in a barren mountain cave, Osama and his trusted aids instead relaxed in the relative luxury of their million dollar mansion. True, they didn't have phone service or cable television, but the living standards of the three story compound was a far cry from the Bedouin persona Bin Laden had carefully crafted for himself.

What is most revealing about the whole “finding bin Laden” fiasco is just how aware the local Pakistanis were that a major terrorist figure was living amongst them. Curious reports filtering out of Abbottabad tell just how out of place bin Laden's “Waziristan Mansion” was in comparison to the adjacent houses of the area. Locals apparently avoided the premise with its 15-foot high wall topped with barbed wire -- believing it to be the home of a high ranking terrorist or Taliban leader. Clearly recognizable as foreigners due to their language and dialect, even the football playing children of the village knew something was strangely out of place when instead of returning a stray ball back over the compound wall, bin Laden's goons would hand them money in compensation.

Even more difficult to reconcile is the fact that less than 800 meters away from bin Laden's compound sits the Pakistani military academy, a location where American troops had recently trained.

It certainly begs the question as to just how much of a terrorist safe haven Pakistan has really become. It was the home and training ground of the Lashjar-e-Taiba terrorist cell responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks. In that same year, there was the Islamabad Marriott Hotel bombing. In the North, the Waziristan region operates like the American wild west, with occasional Pakistani army incursions or American UAV air strikes being the only manifestation of Federal authority in this mostly autonomous region. Then there are the random insurgent bombings across the country, the attacks on NATO supply convoys, and the free movement of Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces across the porous and unguarded border with Afghanistan.

A while back I worked as a car inspector alongside a fellow from Pakistan. An engineer with managerial experience in the Kuwaiti oil fields, he emigrated to Canada in hopes of creating a better life for him and his family (Instead, he ended up buffing cars in the detailing shop). One day I was boasting about the beauty and safety of residing in Canada, and asked him why anyone would want to live in such a dangerous place as Pakistan. He responded that in the overall scheme of things, a few people blown up here and there didn't really matter. He went on to note that there were 170 million people living in Pakistan, and for the most part it wasn't such a bad spot to live.

Notwithstanding his casual and apathetic attitude towards these random terrorist events, what bothered me most was his ability to look past a topic that had so ingrained itself in my psyche. Like any other North American at the time, the events of September 11, 2001 had a significant effect on my internal narrative. Sure, terrorism (with its characteristic assassinations and brutal randomness) is as old as history itself. But the fundamentalist maelstrom unleashed by bin Laden was something entirely different, both in terms of its overall scale and ideological influence.

While not sympathetic to bin Laden's cause, my Pakistani friend did view the issue from an alternative (though possibly more realistic) perspective. Not that I feel comfortable about a country as unstable as Pakistan possessing a cache of thermonuclear weapons, I just don't think the people of Pakistan are all that worried about their country descending into a orderless anarchic state. Nor do they seem interested in enacting a purge of all things “fundamentalist.”

Perhaps this has to do with the nation's history of illicit support for the Afghani Taliban movement (and in turn the Taliban's protection of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan), as well as individual fundamentalist sympathies within the Pakistani Intelligence and military services. Together, these factors contribute to a lack of cohesion and vision in tackling the roots of radical violence in this relatively new country. Perhaps the average Pakistani citizen cares more about living a normal life – that of working, raising a family and increasing his estate -- then involving themselves in the larger, often riskier business of dealing with the radicals around them.

I think this probably best explains why bin Laden ended up where he did. For the most part, he had the sympathies of those he needed to keep him safe, and the apathy of those locals he wanted to avoid. But the persistence of his American hunters eventually won the day.

Freedom! (Or something like it)

2011-04-29T07:57:00.000-04:00

Since the first tribal elder crowned himself head honcho thousands of years ago, humankind has had an obsession with its kings. Sure, we don't use that moniker that much these days, and for the most part these “masters” do not wield the all encompassing power they once did -- but they still fulfil their prescribed role as leader of the clan.

When it boils down to it, we really don't value freedom as much as we say we do -- at least not in its purest, most absolute form. As much as our leaders like to rally around the word, proclaim it passionately in speeches and wear it to bed like a set of flannel pyjamas, I don't think society is aware of how thoroughly lacking in freedom it really is. And that is by design.

Inherent in our mindset is a need for order and control. The way we get this is to create a system -- most likely in the form of government -- in order to ensure that this goal is satisfied. Every generation has their own idea of what that government looks like, but it seems to be a vital and unequivocally necessary factor in the development of human society.

If we valued freedom as much as we say we do, it's likely we'd end up with two polar outcomes. The first most commonly cited would be anarchy, or the complete breakdown of the formerly described system -- in essence, a hedonistic society.

In this world, the theory of “survival of the fittest” comes into effect. It's back to the almost animalistic free for-all of our caveman ancestors.

The other example would be that of a system based on law, without the trappings of what we consider “power”. In this system, the people govern themselves without representation according to the dictates of a preestablished and honoured law.

So freedom is relative. Most of us will concur that the first option is clearly undesirable. No one wants the uncertainty and guaranteed disaster an anarchical system would bring about. Nor is it realistic. No matter how dark the circumstances the human race finds itself in, it always reaches out for the familiar and certain. We inevitably revert back to a state of civic order and enforced hierarchy.

The second example -- that of the leaderless “utopia” -- is somewhat of an anomaly in the narrative of the human journey. The most vibrant instance of this form of “order” happened sometime around 12^th century B.C., in the ancient land of Israel. Known as the time of the Judges, the Israelites were required by God to adhere to the requirements of the law. This “code of conduct” as it were was to ensure that justice was maintained, that wealth was distributed properly, and most importantly -- that the Hebrew identity was kept intact. There would still be territorial division, religion, commerce, legal system, etc; but no recognizable “overseer” with its associated bureaucracy.

Instead, this system focused on collective observance of the law. Violators of the agreement were to be sentenced to death and stoned by the offended community. Also, the Israelite community didn't “outsource" duties as modern societies do today. There was no standing army, tax collectors, or representatives in parliament or congress.

Instead the entire community drew together in times of war to defend a village or pass. They decided matters locally in accordance with the law (similar to a Arabic Shura council). The people gave a tenth of what they had to the service of the priests, who acted as an early social welfare agency and distributed the fund to the poor and sick. They did not allow others to speak for them. They took direct action and spoke for themselves.

And every once and a while, when Israel strayed from this law, or when the situation with its heathen neighbours got too rough, a “judge” would arrive on the scene. Samson, Gideon, Deborah – all were necessary to guide the nation through the times of trouble. They would rally the people, raise an army, and march out to deal accordingly with the troublemakers. However, when the situation cooled down sufficiently the army was disbanded, the people returned to their day to day activities, and the judges disappeared back into the wood work of society.

Problem was, often these judges failed the country. Prone to lust, greed and injustice, the people soon grew weary of them and demanded a more common form of government. The prophet Samuel (himself a judge) tried to talk them out of their request. Among his arguments to dissuade the Israelites was a warning that they would suffer heavily under the requirements of this new king. They would be taxed a tenth of everything they had (on top of the tenth they already tithed). Men would be conscripted into military service, and women would be forced to work menial tasks. Everyone would be unwillingly pressed into service on behalf of the “state”, and the nation would face an unbearable yoke because of it.

But the people responded: “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” So they got their king -- Saul -- and things turned out pretty much as Samuel had predicted.

And thus concluded the experiment in the non-anarchic government-less state. It seems 200 years without government was just too much for them to handle. Freedom had its price, and the uncertainty inherent in operating such an unorthadox social structure was relinquished by the ancient Israelites in the name of order and predictability.

And we continue to see civilizations willing to pay the cost in order to gain an advantage. Authoritarian governments in particular can be singled out as glowing examples of the “perfection” of this ideal. Democracies may be the “end of history” as Francis Fukuyama likes to put it, but real results occur in authoritarian systems -- especially when these constructs are linked with a capitalist ideology. Such systems incur substantial dividends in terms of economic progress, political stability and international power projection -- but like the Israelites living under their new king, it comes with a price.

Throughout history, the majority of men and women have always been willing to offer their freedom in exchange for the security and peace of mind brought about by government. And equally so, other men (usually the strongest) have been just as willing to answer their call for subjugation.

Western countries have historically sought to strike a greater balance of government and individual liberties than those conformist societies of the East. The American war of Independence, the French Revolution, and nearly every civil war from time immemorial are examples of the human hunger for freedom from tyranny and unnecessary government imposed burden.

The inherent struggle of Western man seems to be between wanting to be subjugated, but only as much as is required or is necessary to fulfil his need for peace, order and predictability. Historically, the problem with this theory is that once this metaphoric snowball gets rolling downhill, it picks up speed and charts an often all too unpredictable path.

Tim Hetherington: Global witness

2011-04-27T11:49:00.000-04:00

When British filmmaker and journalist Tim Hetherington was killed by a Libyan army mortar shell outside the city of Misrata on April 20, it brought home to me the indiscriminate nature of war. In all likelihood, the Libyan soldiers dropping the round down the mortar tube were unaware of the journalist's presence in the mix of rebel forces they were targeting.

And he didn't die alone that day. Embedded with Tim was colleague and Getty Image photojournalist Chris Hondros. Chris had taken shrapnel to the head, and died later that day. Their two riddled bodies were unceremoniously loaded aboard a van, driven to a ferry boat, and shipped out of Misrata.

Upon hearing the news, I wondered what would posses someone to willingly place themselves in a situation that runs a high risk of bodily harm or death. Tim's most renowned work was the war documentary Restrepo (nominated for an Oscar) which also saw him embedded with troops in an active combat zone -- this time with a US Army platoon located in an outpost in the Afghanistan mountains.

I suppose the majority of sane individuals would dismiss him as having a death wish, as most would banish the thought of leaving the comfort and safety of home only to witness the horrors of battle. But there is something about the war correspondent that has always intrigued me.

Perhaps it is the carelessness in which they toss themselves into such a macabre venture, or the desire to participate in something few others get to. But more than this, there seems to be an innate need to bear witness to such historic events, to absorb the rawest human emotion, and to connect personally with the sufferings of other people.

I'm not sure what Tim's motives were in Libya. Perhaps it was an ego thing -- an ambition to create a lasting portfolio of notable work -- that propelled him into his work. Maybe it was the adrenaline addiction brought on by combat (so widely claimed by war correspondents) that kept sending him back into harm's way. Whatever the reasoning, his presence on the battlefield -- both in life and in death -- enabled the world to bear witness to the savagery of the Libyan civil war.

The cynic in me wonders if he thought he could get away with it all. Movies and television has left us with a perception that the good guy always lives to fight another day. We identify with the protagonist: though he takes a beating and watches his buddies drop on the beach beside him, he somehow manages to make it through the adventure fairly intact -- if not enriched by the experience. I truly believe we carry this sense of entitlement with us in our daily lives, both individually and collectively.

Nobody thinks they're going to be the poor old schlep that spends two years training for war only to step off the landing craft and onto a land mine. Just look at a community that has been rocked by natural disaster or a mass shooting. “This is supposed to happen to other people" they say. "I never thought this would happen to me.”

I don't think journalists are the exception to the rule. In all likelihood these people are even more aware of the risks they are taking. However, they are probably falsely reassured by their record of having beaten the odds. Does this mean they should stop doing what that they're doing?

Without such individuals, there would be only the embellished and misconstrued tales from the soldiers themselves. As a society, we have come to expect such invasive coverage of current events. We want to be privy to all the details. It informs our opinions, which in turn leads to the development of our public policy.

I believe that Tim thought he would make it out of Libya alive. Despite the ferocity of the battle that day, I doubt any of the embedded reporters in Tim's little group could imagine they would be on the receiving end of a mortar barrage. I'm sure that in their minds eye they would surely see another Libyan sun set, perhaps enjoy a refreshing shower in a nearby Holiday Inn, then head off to the next adrenaline packed assignment.

And like the local victims of the conflict, I'm sure that none of the journalists who survived the mortar attack of April 20 could leave what they had witnessed behind.

Click here to see photos of Tim's last day.