Everyone has problems

Just thinking out "loud", but these are the problems I think will become increasingly important to Canada and the world at large. Regardless of the headaches that this kind of thinking causes, sometimes it's good to take a look at the big picture, at the map ahead. In no particular order:

- Climate Change. This one's going to be huge for way too many reasons to list. "Climate Wars" by Gwynne Dyer is probably one of the most insightful books on the subject meant for popular audiences.

- End of cheap goods. There's every indication that the rapid Chinese growth spurred on by Western demand for cheap goods is coming to the end, due to currency imbalance, living quality growth in China, and growing consumer demand within China. Now it is likely that other countries will pick up Chinese slack, but for a confluence of reasons China was the ideal place to provide cheap manufactured goods to the rest of the world, and that might change.

- Growing polarization of politics, especially in Canada. I think that we are already well into our own Canadian Culture Wars and it's going to get worse before it gets better, especially with the latest election results and growth of Conservative media outlets and popular sentiment.

- Sustainable Development (or lack thereof): the problem is not that of technology. That much is very clear by now. The problem is that of political and social will. Our political system prevents any kind of meaningful long-term planning and development, and our social system prevents us from dropping our favourite childhood toys and grow up. The world's not going to stand still and wait for us to get our act together, but our leaders and masses are unable and unwilling to come to grips with it.

- Clash of Civilizations: personally I hate this term. I think it's misleading, dangerous, and smacks of high-blown rhetoric and demagoguery. However, looking at the current political climate, it might just become a reality. Whether this is a self-fulfilling prophecy or not, it remains to be seen.

- Peak Oil. 20 years ago the idea of global Peak Oil was deemed preposterous. Today respectable textbooks (McGraw Hill, Pearson, etc.) publish graphs showing that peak oil is happening right now. While the deposits in Alaska, the China Sea, Canadian oil sands, etc., might give hopes that there are still vast reserves of oil to offset Peak Oil and stave off oil production collapse for several decades, that's a little like arguing that an addict shouldn't abandon his heroin addiction because there's still plenty of heroin available.

Well, that's all for now. More thoughts as they come.

Domodedovo and Putin

The latest horrific terrorist act in the Domodedovo Airport in Moscow ought to be a clarion call for Putin and Co. to finally resign. Let's perform a simple thought experiment. What if the September 2011 World Trade Centre attack was followed by a continuous and expanding wave of terrorist acts on U.S. soil? What if it was followed by attacks on Broadway theatres, on schools in the Midwest, on high-rise apartments in Chicago, on subway in Los Angeles? What if, despite pouring many billions into new anti-terrorism agencies, new anti-terrorism legislation, fresh campaign promises to fight anti-terrorism, and so on, the wave of terror only grew? How long would Bush's regime have survived before being forced to resign in the wave of public outrage?

Prime Minister Putin's mandate when he was Russia's president between 2000 and 2008 was stability: both economic and physical. His promise to: “Drown the responsible in an outhouse” back in 2000 brought him to power and bought him 11 years of uninterrupted rule. And yet over that time the number of terrorist acts on Russian soil grew from 130 attacks per year in 2000 to 750 attacks per year in 2009. During that same time the federal budget for anti-terrorism and law enforcement grew from $2.8 billion in 2000 to $31.3 billion in 2009. At every step Putin and his closest supporters used each major terrorist act to slowly erode what was remaining of democracy in Russia. The horrific murder of children and teachers in Beslan was the pretext for cancelling free elections of provincial governors, the failed attempt to rescue hostages during the attack on Dubrovka theatre in Moscow was the pretext to pass censorship laws to bring Russian TV stations under government control, and so on.

The Domodedovo attack underscores the need for both Russian people and Western states to rethink their relationship with Putin's regime. Regardless of how much more 'humane' President Medvedev may appear than Putin, there are no illusions as to who is really in control of Russia. Putin's regime must answer for its abuse of civil liberties and due course of law, its failed policies in the Caucasus region that are directly responsible both for the escalation of terror and murder of hundreds of civilians, its repeated attempts to get rid of free speech vis-a-vis censorship laws and murders and attacks on Russian journalists, and the staggering growth of economic corruption that has placed Russia in the 154^th spot on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2010 (that's up unprecedented 82 spots since Putin became president in 2000). While the terrorist attack on Moscow's largest airport is inexcusable, horrific, and evil, Russians and Western leaders must realize that lasting solution to this kind of violence does not lie with Putin and his clique. If Prime Minister Putin and President Medvedev truly have Russia's best interests and commitment to democracy at heart, they should resign immediately.

"We have awoken a giant and filled it with terrible resolve"

The actions of the Russian government seem determined to eliminate any and all moderates and polarize society along ethnic and cultural lines. Putin's regime seems curiously helpless to put down any demonstrations or protests that elsewhere would be deemed extremist and fascist, while at the same time slamming down on any sort of democratic/moderate/liberal opposition protests that are tiny compared to ultranationalist outbursts. Worst of all, as an outside observer, it seems that it is the government itself that seems to both create and nurture the "us vs. them" to divide in the Russian society, not realizing what kind of powder keg they're sitting on and lighting a fuse to.

Meanwhile the actions of the police and other 'force' structures (silovyie struktury) are so eerily reminiscent of the tsarist police during its last few years (what I wrote my M.A. thesis on) that I get goosebumps reading the current news. It is entirely likely that Putin is trying to shore up his political power in the same fashion that the Tsars tried to do almost a hundred years ago, and it is entirely likely that the results will be the same.

The was a kind of jubilation, or at the very least hopeful expectation that the Russian people (and other nationalities as well) had throughout the 80s and 90s. Even in the worst parts of the 90s when the communists were seemingly on the verge of a democratic victory there was no strong and convincing rhetoric of "us vs. them" or abandonment of democratic principles in favour of economic stability (beyond grumblings and demonstrations by increasingly politically-irrelevant old people) which is basically Putin's platform. What the 90s created, however, was a large and powerful junta (I can find no better word that conveys illegality of what they had done - oligarchy sounds too 'legitimate' for my taste) that was able to use Yeltzin's impending retirement and physical and mental disability to push through a candidate that will guarantee the kind of regime they needed to survive and prosper.

By 2000 the kind of Russian people who were necessary for real democracy either emigrated or were economically desperate enough to believe that Putin did not necessarily mean the end of democracy. Here's how demography worked against democracy - at the height of emigration, Russia was losing more than half a million people a year to emigration. Those were the people with the: a) skills, b) money, c) work ethic, d) desire to make things better for their family. In other words - the middle class. By late 90s the middle-class was diminished and impoverished both economically and morally. The middle-class that slowly grew up under Putin now tend to associate their prosperity with Putin and economic stability at the price of democracy, however, now it seems like they're starting to wake up.

An average modern Russian (according to polls) associates poverty with democracy, Russia's apparent "weakness" on the global stage with an American conspiracy, crime with "blacks" (by which Russians mean anyone from Caucases or Central Asia - chornyie, the Russian word for people of African descent is different), wealth with corruption, police with legal crime, politicians with liars and puppets of the rich elite, and so on. Fortunately there is some indication that the grassroots organizations that connect seriously pissed-off Russians (whether on environmental issues, taxation, etc.) are becoming more effective. Unfortunately these organizations either deal with purely economic or non-political issues (that could be a good sign if South American democratic movements of 70s/80s are any indication. Most of the successful anti-fascist/anti-junta South American movements grew out of religious, economic, and even sport-based organizations) or much worse - with ethnic issues (in which case they become ultranationalistic or even openly nazi organizations).

For example, the most recent wave of violent protests in Moscow and st. Petersburg started out as a huge violent riot of soccer fans who were protesting the shooting of a "Spartak" fan club member whose murderers were set free by the corrupt police, and has turned into an anti-government/anti-immigration riot that the gov't is content not to stop in any way.

A cogent and powerful argument can be made that the reason why every openly democratic-liberal party/faction has failed in Russia is that all the really successful parties/factions have traditionally stressed nationalism and paternalism, whether populist or not, and that it is a sign that Russian people are either incapable of, or not yet ready for, real democracy. Now I personally would not entirely agree with such an argument, but it has been made and it has been made well.

Do the radicals stand a chance to win in the Duma however? Thanks to Putin and co. the Russian political system is very effectively rigged to prevent a real opposition. However, an even greater consequence of this is that the radicals are no longer interested in using democratic means to gain power, as they realize (quite rightly) that doing so is pointless! Even before the recession, the radicals (of either stripe - left, right, or pro-gov't) have taken to the streets and have often used street violence to make their point. Ultra-radical nationalists kill journalists, liberal opposition members, immigrants, foreign nationals. Ultra-radical left-wingers have taken to vandalizing gov't offices, attacking members of openly fascist/ultra-nationalist/nazi parties, and attacking police (try to find some news about anti-police gangs in the Russian Far East - not sure how much coverage they got in the English-speaking media). Ultra-radical pro-gov't faction is content to let the police contain and disperse the other two factions and then attack them without any repercussions or danger.

There is a Russian word (really a Polish word that was borrowed) - 'Bydlo'. It used to mean herd of cattle, then it also started to mean serfs, specifically referring to docile dumb peasant serfs. Putin and co. have been treating Russian citizens like 'Bydlo' for the last decade - considering incapable of rational or independent thought, willing to be led around as long as they are fed. Well the cattle is waking up, and the idiots in charge are too busy stealing to read history textbooks and realize that every time the mob of Russian people wake it is never merciful to its one-time shepherds.

Private school frenzy

Toronto Private School Expo was an interesting experience to say the least. Probably the most interesting aspect of it were the attendees, the vast majority of whom were parents or parents-to-be. Strollers were dominating the convention floor of Ron Thompson Hall despite the abundance of five-step stairs and lack of easily accessible ramps. The strollers were dominated by offsprings of anywhere between 6 months and 3 years - so this is a clear indication of how early some parents (call them responsible, well-prepared, obsessive, or worry-wort) start worrying about their children's education. Children of older ages were surprisingly few and far between, majority of parents there I guess weren't interested in considering their spawns' input on the choice of schools. The facial expressions of the parents betrayed a mix of desperation (how hard is this school to get into? How do I choose a school? How do I pay for it? Will it be good for my son/daughter? What do I do if I can't get my child into this school/afford to pay for it?), incredulity (38 thousand a YEAR? The uniforms cost HOW MUCH?), weariness (jeez that's a lot of private schools), and hope. Not quite as heart-breaking as the faces of parents waiting for lottery results of a charter school in "Waiting for Superman" documentary, but very interesting nonetheless.

Then there were the booths of the private schools themselves. If the booths and stands are any indication, there are clearly the 'have' and 'have-not' schools. Just about every booth had a laptop running some sort of demo, or showing the school's website or whatever. The crests, logos, and mottos were on prominent display, even as the PR people practically tried to pry potential customers away from competitors' booths. What I found faintly sickening or pathetic were the number of schools that trotted out their students to either give out brochures, model school uniforms (at least that's what it looked like to me), or demonstrate some sort of artistic commitment that the school has (usually music). Overall the effect was probably the opposite of what was intended: rather than highlighting the schools' commitment to student success, it presented a picture of the schools using the students for their own means. OK, so private schools are of course more interested in students as a source of revenue, but these displays drove that home. "We're going to use your child to get more parents to send their children to our school so that we can make even more money." And then there was the usual spiel about the limited spaces availability, and how important it is to make the choice ASAP and register your child, or else it's too late and the spots will be filled and oh my god what will you do then send your child to a PUBLIC school how can you possibly do that to your dear Johnny/Betty and oh my god the sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!111ONEONEONE

OK, take deep breaths you poor breeder. Take nice deep breaths. Everything will be fine. But oh no, here comes the solicituous vulture from one of the financial institutions attending the expo! (I won't list them, but rest assured that a variety of both general banks and credit institutions, as well as companies specializing in education loans) And then the panic really sets in, pitches a cooler and a lawn chair, and cracks open a brewski. Because your child's education will run you anywhere from 12 to 40 thousand a year depending on the type of school, programs, uniforms, lunch options, trips, school locations, and so on. But never fear, these helpful folks from Insert-Your-Debt-Here company will help you take out a second or third mortgage on your house, or advance you a nice 10 year line of credit. Because we wouldn't want to risk your child's future, now would we? Because clearly if you throw money at your child's future, it'll turn out better, won't it?

Dear parents: I'm very critical of some of the methods and reforms in public and Catholic education, but it's not nearly so bad that you need to sell yourself into debt slavery to send your offsprings to a private school