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.