How the Baby Boomers screwed the rest of us

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)

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)

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)

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?

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

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.