Making it illegal to disagree?

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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.