Unkie Herb

It’s sort of like a dramatic comedy. There are moments of seriousness, of thoughtfulness, but whatever tension arises is constantly broken by bouts of comic relief. It’s like Rain Man. Yeah, just like Rain Man.

To be a Canadian watching the monstrous cacophony that is U.S. federal politics is fun and exciting. As I don’t have the option of voting, it’s really just entertainment. While it’s true that American policy decisions have huge reverberations in Canada, other than making donations there is really little I can do to sway things south of the border.

And so I watch, and laugh, and shake my head.

I’m particularly fond of Obama, which should come as no surprise, though it’s easy to see his downside. When you cut away his oratorical abilities, his demeanor and his passion, what have you? To be honest, I don’t know. I like to think that while short on experience he is long on intelligence. One of a rare breed of politician who is beyond partisanship and can understand both left and right arguments on issues. Able to make decisions that serve the public interest, instead of the demands of his party’s base.

But there is little to justify that sentiment. His speech after his caucus win in Iowa, however, was downright moving.

Is he just pomp and circumstance? Is he peaking in the public consciousness now, only to have his shortcomings illuminated and his star fall before the crucial date in November?

But, just as pressing, is there another Democratic candidate with enough crossover appeal to beat a McCain or a Guiliani?

It is this mindset, the cold-hearted strategic slant, that American primary voters will focus upon. It is leading to McCain’s boost - he is the only Republican to poll well head-to-head with the Dem big 3 - and Romney’s dropoff. It is propelling Obama beyond Clinton, who has more negative appeal than any other serious candidate, because despite his race Obama speaks a language that independents and even some Republicans are flocking toward.

But, again, I must temper myself. For while the world changes when Americans vote, I still have no say.

Except that you’ve read this. I’ve done my part.

Share This

Beautiful people are more successful. Or, at least, they have an easier time getting jobs, making contacts, and being remembered. Makes sense, right? But what came first: the beauty or the success?

Beauty is often regarding as a subjective trait. The eye of the beholder is the common reference. Yet certain studies on the topic have exposed a heavy amount of objective opinion on what is beautiful. Essentially, proportional, symmetrical facial features are more attractive.

Further investigation, as illuminated in this article, seems to imply that beauty helps determine one’s potential for career development. This also seems reasonable. In certain fields - sales, retail, film, television, fashion - the connection is obvious. In other professions the aesthetic bonus may be less pronounced but surely it can’t be ignored all together.

What the articles, and indeed the social scientists conducting the studies, ignore is that beauty and success often stem from the same origin: successful parents.

As much as we don’t like to admit it, people raised in wealthy families are more often better looking. They have the best nutrition and constant care. They can afford the finest clothes, cosmetics, exercise, and accessories. They, given an unfortunate turn of genetics, can rectify their lack of symmetrical proportions with plastic surgery.

Furthermore, people from wealthy backgrounds have, unfortunately, a much greater chance of success as they enter the workforce. They are blessed with private schools, tutors, and tuition. They have their parent’s powerful network of connections to exploit. They have the financial backing to start their own businesses.

That’s not to say that there aren’t heaps of rich, ugly, unsuccessful kids out there. The sort of kid that’ll never get daddy’s company or be invited to the press conference. The sort of kid that’ll float on their trust fund as long as they can and then beg the estate for more.

But I think my point is a valid one. The article lists several statistics linking success and beauty. Isn’t it just as possible that these people, given their familial advantages, would have been successful even if they were less handsome? One such stat, that attractive candidates did better in Finnish elections, must be attributable at least somewhat to networking and campaign dollars (or euros).

I’m not trying to discount the connection between beauty and success so much as I am trying to emphasize the connection between success and beauty. Did you get that?

I’m a massive believer in equality of opportunity. It is essential to free democracies that every child have the same potential, the same starting line. These studies only damn the poor further into the cyclical dungeon that is poverty. Yet another leg up for the haves, and another hurdle for the have-nots.

So what to do?

Subsidize fresh fruit and vegetables? Get kids exercising more in schools? Teach them, outright, that beauty is a factor? Educate parents?

Any other ideas?

Share This

I recently had an interesting argument with my father.

He wondered at the disproportionate number of women in the Canadian Parliament (Congress). Of 308 representatives, or members, only 65 are women. That amounts to just over 21 percent of the seats, which (according to Wikipedia) ranks Canada 45th in the world in terms of lower house female representation. The US Congress is at 16.6 percent, with 90 women in office; 74 in the House, 16 in the Senate.

My dad’s logic was that since only a small portion of House members are women, women’s interests are not being properly represented by our government.

Does this make sense? Is it impossible for someone, even a politician, to see beyond their own perspective?

Naturally (him being my father) I disagreed. Not that more women in government isn’t a good thing, but I don’t think men are necessarily unable to appreciate women’s interests (where they differ).

While I will never fully understand the institutionalized sexism that occurs in our society - in terms of directly experiencing it - I can appreciate its existence and try to make changes. Men everywhere, thanks to our historical (and continuing) lack of respect, owe it to society to open our minds and understand other perspectives.

The same argument can be made about ethnic representation. A small portion of Canadians (13%) identify themselves as minorities yet an even slimmer percentage of House members would also do so. The population of Toronto, Canada’s largest city, is now over half visible minorities. Yet of 44 City Councillors only 3 represent this.

Yet, both in Toronto and Canada overall, the government does a fairly good job of representing ethnic minorities, women and other groups. This despite the fact that power continues to be concentrated with men of European origin.

What this illustrates to me is the effectiveness with which democracy can operate. Even with a bunch of old white guys running the show, they are unable to ignore the interests of demographics even without belonging to them. They are forced to learn new perspectives or else they don’t get elected. Many recent immigrants to Canada have come from places without effective democracy (China, Vietnam, Pakistan) and, out of appreciation for the value of the system, are very active citizens.

Returning to the female representation point, one can find instances where high levels of female representation doesn’t result in gender equality. My favourite resource, the Economist, argues that Argentina’s more evenly proportioned government is doing little for its women.

The point I’m making here is not that we shouldn’t have a demographically accurate government, but rather that one isn’t necessary for equality amongst different groups. Policy is shaped through compromise, discussion and, yes, the wire-walk of self-preservation. The women in our government, despite being only a fifth of total members, tend to punch above their weight.

Even groups with little or no direct representation are taken into consideration. While only a few prominent Canadian politicians are homosexuals, gay marriage remains a legal option in Canada.

Share This

Time Magazine, in it’s infinite wisdom, has named Russian President Vladimir Putin as it’s 2007 Person of the Year. Now I’m going to do my best to look at this objectively, as my criticisms of Putin (see here, here and here) have been, well, somewhat one sided.

First of all, I’ve never regarded Time Magazine as much of a pure journalistic source. They have the despicable habit of printing stories that promote other brands owned by their parent company, AOL-Time-Warner. The latest issue, for example, features a story about Will Smith’s I Am Legend, a Warner film. Time, in all honesty, is as much a promotional tool as it is a newspaper. I’ve always regarded it as the Readers Digest of news magazines.

That said, it is a respected magazine worldwide and its Person of the Year “award” is generally taken seriously. As such, I have read the Time article as well as their column justifying their selection. A few things have come to mind.

I’ll begin with Time’s defensive explanation of their decision:

TIME’s Person of the Year is not and never has been an honor. It is not an endorsement. It is not a popularity contest. At its best, it is a clear-eyed recognition of the world as it is and of the most powerful individuals and forces shaping that world—for better or for worse. It is ultimately about leadership—bold, earth-changing leadership.

When I read this, I found myself nodding. Putin does represent this selection making process. His power over Russia is nearly absolute and Russia’s power on the world is severely underestimated by the general public.

Looking back over the last few choices, however, and I find myself doubting Time’s sincerity. Last year the winner was “You” as in me and everyone else who uses and contributes to the Internet. Wow. Previously, we had Bono and the Gates family for their humanitarian work, two years earlier (in 2003) it was The American Soldier. Between them, in ‘04, was my main man Dubya. While Bush definitely represents the same global leadership traits as Putin (right down to the sacrifice of freedoms to advance his deeply felt mission), how do American Soldiers or internet users fit in? Surely US troops, for all their noble sacrifice, are followers in the world game. Am I wrong?

All of this makes me think that Time’s annual selection is based on one thing: selling magazines. By making this selection they have turned me, a critic, into a reader. Granted I read the articles online, but readership is readership. As well, they have managed to secure a rare treat - an exclusive interview with Putin. The multinational that is AOL-Time-Warner now has some serious connections in a country where who you know is the only thing that matters.

Despite all this, Putin is indeed a man who demands respect and receives it. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t in awe of the man. What he has done for Russia’s stability cannot be denied and I applaud his work in this regard. What I cannot abide, however, is his Machiavellian approach to achieving it. His disregard for his own people is deplorable. He is and will continue to be an obstacle to global humanitarian efforts. His use of his UN veto on issues such as Burma and North Korea is vexing. As well, the possibility of outright aggression cannot be ignored - he’s already invaded Chechnya and installed a puppet government.

Yet Time’s justification, if taken at face value, still rings true. Looking further back at other winners, however, a sense of foreshadowing emerges.

In 1938 a man had taken an unstable, down-trodden former world power and inspired it. He had the massive support of his people, and after free elections set himself up as supreme leader. He reinvigorated his country’s economy and its citizens. In that year, he was selected Time’s Person of the Year.

His name was Adolf Hitler.

Share This

Here’s the link to Avaaz.org’s petition, which will be delivered to the office of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, calling for him to stop blocking the world’s efforts to apply binding emissions targets on developed nations.

Sign it here.

Whether or not you’re Canadian, you can add your voice to the outcry against the Canadian government. After all, the imaginary lines we’ve drawn in the dirt are meaningless in the face of global environmental disasters.

Share This

The odds are so stacked against Garry Kasparov that he won’t even bother running. And this from the guy who battled IBM’s famous supercomputer, Deep Blue, in epic chess matches.

Such is the state of Russian democracy.

It’s an unfortunate development, but ultimately a meaningless one. Nothing short of death will stop Vladimir Putin’s hand selected presidential candidate, Dmrity Medvedev, from assuming the top job next spring. The power that Putin carries with Russia’s people is immense, and his endorsement of Medvedev ensures his election.

Somewhat confusingly, however, Putin is using his vast powers to impede the opposition. In the recent parliamentary elections widespread accusations of electoral fraud were reported. His party would have won that election even without cheating, and yet cheat they did - stirring up international attention and outcry. It all seemed unnecessary then, as it does now.

In order to run for President, Kasparov needs to be nominated by a group of peers in a collective meeting. The Kremlin, knowing this, has pressured auditorium landlords into not renting space to Kasparov’s supporters. With no venue to conduct the meeting, and with the deadline for nominations passing today, Kasparov, who has until now led the anti-Putin camp, announced he would not be running.

Again, Putin cheats his opposition despite their impotence. Allowing Kasparov to run would have maintained the illusion that Russia is a democratic country without jeopardizing Medvedev’s chances of victory. Yet Putin took no chances and stifled his critics once again.

Putin, using his control of Russia’s media and police, (often violently) suppresses all opposition. His approval rating is usually put between sixty and eighty per cent, thanks in part to the strength of the Russian economy. Much like in Canada, the global commodities boom is the main force stoking the flames of growth. As long as oil prices stay high, Putin is unstoppable and, except for a small but vocal opposition, his people applaud him.

Soon we will see Putin in the roll of Prime Minister (which has no term limits, as does the Presidency) and his old buddy Medvedev as President. The political landscape will be changed, but only superficially.

“Kirill Rogov, a political analyst, points out that elections, which in a democratic society act as a mechanism for rotating power, have in Russia become a mechanism for preserving it.” - from here.

Share This

Some brilliantly simple stuff from an organization that has taken activism to a new level.

Avaaz means voice or song in several different languages, including Hindi, Turkish, Bosnian and Persian. The word was appropriated by the organization to imply not only global harmony, but also the expression of that inclusiveness.

What’s so different about Avaaz.org versus other activist groups?

Firstly, they have moved beyond the notion that each cause deserves its own collective. By defining themselves broadly as “a community of global citizens who take action on the major issues facing the world today,” they are able to mobilize on multiple fronts even on short notice. The sort of people concerned about climate change are also concerned with Musharaff’s state of emergency in Pakistan, the Burmese regime’s continuing violent suppression of freedom and other causes. By maintaining one membership and mailing list, they are able to connect and educate across issues.

As well, they have begun with wide yet simple ambitions. Avaaz.org aims “to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people — and not just political elites and unaccountable corporations — shape global decisions.” The idea here is to give voice to citizens. They involve people around the globe through the internet, organizing petitions on a variety of topics.

Finally, they make their presence felt. On October 15th a delegation from Avaaz.org, including Burmese monks, delivered a petition signed by over 750,000 people to Prime Minister Gordon Brown calling for him to take the issue to the UN and China. Just last weekend, they staged a virtual march within the Bali Climate Change compound. They were the only activist group given permission to stage a rally within the compound, and they managed over 500,000 signatures from over 190 countries.

Avaaz.org is one group that seems to be bridging the gap between general apathy and the growing concern that human rights, the environment, and poverty are not being dealt with in a satisfactory manner.

Engagement, awareness and discussion are essential to change. Kudos.

On a similar topic: Canada, the US and Japan continue to sabotage the talks in Bali. Sign the petition here to voice your disgust.

Share This

In a fascinating (and detailed) account of global food markets, The Economist argues that American ethanol subsidies are responsible for the biggest leap in world food prices since the mid-70’s. Global meat consumption, on the rise hand-in-hand with growing income levels, isn’t helping.

The British newspaper has been critical of Bush’s corn based ethanol aid program since it was expanded two years ago. While the idea is a noble one - pay farmers to grow corn and have it refined into a gasoline additive to reduce emissions - it is economically unsound. Instead of exporting the corn around the world to feed animals and people (the US is the world’s largest food exporter) for cheap, it is now being funneled into American cars. Brazil, on the other hand, derives its ethanol from a cheaper, greener, faster growing crop: sugar cane. Bush, wanting to keep the American farming lobby happy, smacked a huge tariff on ethanol imports which effectively derailed any plans to bring in Brazilian fuel.

A longer term but no less significant effect has been the growth in developing countries. The recent explosive expansion of the Chinese and Indian economies has lifted millions out of poverty. As with most societies throughout history, this has resulted in a growing taste for meat. As I’m sure you’re aware, livestock make much less efficient use of land and grains than straightforward cereal farming. For every pound of pork produced on a pig farm, three pounds of grain goes in. Cattle farming is much worse: eight pounds of grain is needed to produce a single pound of beef.

That’s a lot of buns for a single burger. The more meat we eat, the more expensive all our food becomes.

Though what the future holds is based on speculation (and a change in governance in the US might have something to say), a long term and sustained food price increase is detrimental to most of the world’s citizens. Farmers as a group have something to gain, though most grow one or two crops and need to buy everything else.

The world’s poor - even the rural poor - will be hit the hardest. While us rich folk in North America and Europe spend a fifth or less of our monthly income on food, the poorest billion spend half or more of all they have feeding themselves. Food aid programs to starving nations will also suffer.

Solutions?

The US should cut down on partisan pandering and allow competitiveness in the ethanol trade.

You, as a consumer, can eat less meat. If global meat demand falls then more farmers will switch to the high priced grain crops like wheat and corn - producing more and lowering prices. As less of the grain is diverted to livestock a greater amount will be made directly into tortillas, noodles, bread and other foods. All of which are a much more efficient use of crops.

Feeding people is easy. You don’t have to be a vegetarian, you just have to cut down a little.

Share This