Ukrainian elections - what awaits us tomorrow

When I am writing this it's Saturday evening in Canada and in the course of a few hours polling stations begin to open in Ukraine. I've written a couple of posts on the campaign so the purpose of this one aims to provide a general summary.

Although the Ukrainian race has been overshadowed by the American one Western media has paid some attention to it (see the latest issue of Economist or the editorial in Saturday's Globe&Mail).
The American race has been viewed as a divisive one in which two sides represent vastly different ideologies and political approaches. There are people on the both sides that predict 'hell and high water' if the other side wins. I do have my own preference in regard the the U.S. elections but I'm pretty confident that whoever wins nothing major will change, at least in the short run.

Not so in Ukraine. Never before on the post-Soviet space the choice was so stark. It used to be the case that old Soviet nomenklatura that had adopted to the new reality, was fighting, successfully, against a weak democrat or a communist.
That's who Kuchma won in 1994.

And his presidency has not been always disastrous. During his first term he managed to accomplish quite a lot. Perhaps, it was his greatest setback, that literally held him 'back' was his inability to break away from the old Soviet model and embrace Western values.

So having been caught in a crisis, I am referring here to the Gongadze gate in 2001, he quickly scaled back almost everything good that had been built before. The power vertical he used to stay in power has borne a monster. From what I can infer Kuchma is taken aback by what he's seen so far.

I see the great irony and the internal logic in the fact that the party of power chose Mr. Yanukovych to run against the leader of opposition; that it was not some hapless bureaucrat or 'director' like Kuchma.

The twice convicted Yanukovych represents the worst of what has been brought to the fore after the collapse of the ancient regime. He was the governor of the Donetsk region, the Ukrainian Chicago can it be called, if it weren't worse, much worse.
the Soviet Union collapsed peacefully but what the Great Criminal Revolution transpired. And anyone from Ukraine knows all too well that the gangsters ruled supreme not in Kyiv or Dniepropetrovsk but in Donetsk.

In any civilized country Mr. Yanukovych would have had a chance to get nominated let alone win. And in Ukraine his perspectives would've been grim if not the massive power resource, plus the support of Russia behind his candidacy. His opponent has had no or little access to TV which is the main source of information in a country where there are only 850,000 internet users out of 48 million strong population. Yanukovych used state funds to raise pensions even though inflation will soon offset these gains but not soon enough for the elections sake. He refused to debate with his main opponent. Mainly because he is not fluent neither in Ukrainian nor Russian save for the criminal slang.

But all of this still doesn't guarantee him victory tomorrow. So there are percistent rumors of possible mass scale falsifications and fraud tomorrow.
Globe&Mail editorial suggests that "world's democracies should let out an almighty shout" if this happens. I hope it will help but I doubt it very much.


In sum, all odds are against Yuschenko but I'll pray for his victory and hope... for hope dies last...

P.S. there is a great irony that Ukrainian elections are scheduled on October 31.
Unfortunately, the forces of evil are pretty damn real in Ukraine...

Economist on Ukraine

Ukraine is too lively, too European, not to get its democracy sooner or later. Russia, on the other hand, is a different story.

that sounds flattering to Ukraine who would've imagined that ten years earlier when everyone in the West was smitten by Yeltsin's phoney 'democracy'. I can only hope it'll turn out to be true after October 31.

rules of entitlement

I love our University’s student newspaper. I feel slightly embarrassed about it because, on the surface, reading it seems like a waste of time. Is it possible to take it seriously?

But sometimes students express popular ideas in such a candid manner that it becomes really revealing. It takes a considerable amount of skill (and time!) to siphon through Chomsky’s convoluted verbiage to get to the bottom of his argument. But undergrads are still incapable of wrapping up their ideas in the fancy jargon of modern academia.

Which brings me to the letter written by an undergrad student in Native studies and published in the local student newspaper. The subject of the controversy is the Canadian government’s recent decision to tax aboriginal students’ tuition money, which in turn, is itself provided by the government. The news story published earlier about it referred to this money as ‘free’ that provoked the reader’s ire and prompted him/her to write a stern rebuke.

This tuition is not free… Free is something that your receive without paying for it. Aboriginal peoples have paid for their tuition and other funding that they may be eligible to receive [emphasis added]. It was paid for on the backs of Aboriginal ancestors. It was paid for with the signing of a document.

Anything that Aboriginal peoples may be eligible to receive has been bought and paid for. [emphasis added] It was not and has ever been free. Aboriginal peoples allowed others to live on their land and in their country. This was the transaction. Non-Aboriginal peoples were welcomed into this land and Aboriginal peoples were given certain privileges. That’s what happened. That’s what makes it not free.

I just loved that! In other words, Aboriginal peoples are entitled to any kind of handout the government might wish to provide them with. My only question is why stop here? Why is it only about tuition? Why not give any Canadian of Aboriginal descent a free car, a TV, a stereo system, or better yet – a personal jetfighter (no, that would be un-Canadian, too militaristic).

One may dismiss this person’s views as outlandish and accuse me of trying to make much ado about… well not much. It might as well be but this student was not a neophyte – she/he hails from the Native Studies program, fifth year! I am may be terribly wrong but I would not be surprise that this person merely conveyed to the public what’s being taught in that Department.
Don’t get me wrong – I am all for Native Studies as an interdisciplinary field in social sciences. But it is my strong suspicion that Native Studies and other such 'special departments' have evolved from being another research body in the temple of knowledge, which University is supposed to be, into the academic wing of a political party that serves to give the latter a certain degree of respectability and to help it to spread propaganda and indoctrination.
Any thoughts?

Putin to appear on TV during his visit to Ukraine

Vladimir Putin is coming to Ukraine, ostensibly to take part in the parade on the 60th annnievsary of the liberation of Kyiv from the Germans.
In fact, it's nothing more than a pre-election stunt to help Viktor Yanukovych, the current prime minister. In order to do so, he will appear on TV answering questions (carefully screened of course) from the audience on October 26. Putin's appearance will be broadcasted by three (!) TV channels.
"Meanwhile, Russia's ambassador to Ukraine, Viktor Chernomyrdin, said on 24 October that Russia "is not intervening in Ukraine's elections, but only worries about its results," utro.ru reported. VY"
If this is not bloody interference, what is it????

Current mood: seething with discontent.

Alien vs. Predator: What can crush 'Savage Love'?

Welcome to the world of Dan Savage. For those of you who have never heard of the bloke he is a syndicated sex-columnist and the author of several books. In his column he usually address issues such as whether taking your partner's piss can be harmful to your health or the immanency of cheating etc. But recently I stumbled upon a discussion of a different kind.

Dan Savage was accused for "cultural imperialism" because
"It is incredibly offensive to imply the superiority of morals in Canada to values taught in Saudi Arabia."

In reply, Mr. Savage was blunt:
“Let me set the record straight: I never meant to imply the superiority of morals in Canada to values taught in Saudi Arabia. I meant to state, loudly and clearly and for the record, the absolute superiority of morals in Canada to values taught in Saudi Arabia.”

Then he proceeds to name all the freedoms Canadians can enjoy vs. Saudi Arabia and finished it with this:

"To paraphrase the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I believe that human rights are universal, man. As Saudi Arabia exists in this universe, I think that the humans there--Muslim or not, liberal or conservative, male or female, gay or straight--are entitled to their full human rights. Until that day comes, SOS, I'm going to go right on thinking that Canada kicks Saudi Arabia's ass when it comes to morals and values. And bud."

I found the whole issue fascinating, amusing and very indicative of the most important trend in Western society: the clash between secular pluralism and cultural relativism.
I don't know the identity of the reader who tried to chastise Savage. Perhaps, he was of Arabic descent (though "Ich don't think so"- Ali G©). Most likely it was a zelous leftie who spotted him breaching the PC rules - you can insult and mock the Christian right all you want, but it's a different matter if you do the same in regard to "the Other". But at this point of time, Dan Savage didn't have to think twice to be so straightforward and dismissive. But were he in Europe (in Britain for example) that would have not been so easy.
As Mark Steyn has pointed out in an excellent column a while ago:

"..when free speech, artistic expression, feminism and other totems of western pluralism clash directly with the Islamic lobby, Islam more often than not wins."

Right now, it's still possible for a liberal like Savage to criticize Saudi Arabia (a conservative doing the same would surely be assumed to have just proven how the right are 'rasist'.) Furthermore, Savage was smart enough, though intellectually dishonest, to compare Saudi Arabia to Canada, rather the U.S. (oh, right, I forgot - the land of the free is under the onslaught by the religious fundamentalists).
His another fallacy is the assumption that only the “fucked up brand of Islam” constitutes the problem. I am positive that no modern Islamic culture, however moderate and progressive, would tolerate the "Savage Love" for a second.
I can say with a degree of certainty that it's not America's foreign policy and her perceived or real misdeeds that make many people in the other parts of the world to feel contempt towards the West. That's what the Left believes and it's total ballonies.
99% in the third world would cringe in disgust, had they been told about Savage's column. It would just reinforce the long held belief that the West is a morally corrupt, 'rotten' place.
I don't know what about Dan Savage’s views would be more outrageous to them: his talk about piss or the suggestion that cheating is like that death - "it's gonna happen to you sooner or later."

“I believe that human rights are universal, man. As Saudi Arabia exists in this universe, I think that the humans there--Muslim or not, liberal or conservative, male or female, gay or straight--are entitled to their full human rights.”

I cannot agree more with you, Mr. Savage. It will be even more ironic when you finally find out who’s really after you.

I hope it's coming to your town, too

Have no time to blog much these days and probably this post is superfluous for I don't expect a potential viewer to learn about this movie from my blog.
Ok, but I'm getting swung by the momentum of the
Team America: World Police .
Today I read two reviews of it, in the Globe and the NP. The Globe reviewer half-heartedly acknowledged that the movie seems kinda funny, but I disagreed with the politics of it (who would guess??). The National Post's Onstad held a more favorable opinion but still felt obliged to warn the potential viewer that basically the movie is crass..
Whatever, my response to it - BRING IT ON!!!

Update: Let it Bleed has an excellent post on the subject

two photos of Yuschenko - must see!

I thought of posting them here myself but it turned out somebody else has done it already.
Brief synopsis:
some time ago the frontrunner candidate in Ukrainian presidential elections, Viktor Yuschenko, was hospitalized and taken to a private clinic in Austria due to a mysterious illness. It's been strongly suspected that Yuschenko was poisoned and the authorities were behind it. Others, however, have argued that Yuschenko might have faked it.
These two photos show the impact of the illness on Yuschenko's face: it's just simply horrible

Slamming Chomsky

An interesting and, I must say - absolutely devastating, review of Chomsky's recent book What uncle Sam really wants
Definitely worth reading...

I thought it was just me

Apparently I heard it right - this morning I kinda watched CNN's rerun of the yesterday Bush-Kerry debate. Answering the question about the possible introduction of draft, Bush said "I know there are rumours on the Internets".
I was going to post it but then I thought may be I got it wrong. Well, according to this site, I wasn't the only who heard it.

Smear campaign in Ukraine (Black PR)

For those of you who have no clue - Ukraine is to choose its next president on October 31, 2004 (or in the next round two weeks later). These are probably the most important elections in Eastern Europe, ever.
Russian spin doctors are certain that Ukrainians would consider it a liability if the candidate can be portrayed as pro-American. Hence the following poster:

this one is a few more at polit.ru
The text says:
Bosnia, Hercegovina, Serbia, Kosovo, Iraq - you are the next one.
the Uncle Sam's face is actually Viktor Yushenko's - the main opposition candidate.

Canadian mercenary killed in Chechnya

I watched a report about it two days ago on a Russian news program. In today's Globe$Mail Mark MacKinnon brings the story:
Rudwan Khalil, who according to his passport is a 26-year-old resident of Vancouver, was reportedly killed along with three other rebels Thursday in a gun battle outside Niki-Khita, in the Caucasus mountains in southern Chechnya

I don't know though where he got from, that Mr. Khalil was "described in local news reports as being of "Afro-American origin,"" - on the news he was called a person of "Arab origin". But I guess it's a trifle detail.

Also, apparently this guy was not a simple adventurer but a highly skilled sapper who had come to Chechnya to replace the captured predecessor.

But I just love the end of the story:
"News of the apparent involvement of a Canadian mercenary may force the conflict higher onto the agenda when Prime Minister Paul Martin visits Moscow next week.

Canada has in the past avoided public pronouncements on the war. Human-rights groups say it has spawned countless atrocities against civilians but Mr. Putin sees it as part of the international "war on terror."

Mr. Doiron said Canada is committed to fighting terrorism. "However, we believe this must be done in accordance with international law and in respect for human rights," he said. "Preventative war is not a path we favour."

Oh, I see, what that means - "bringing the conlflict higher on the agenda". The terrorist who turned to be a citizen of Canada is eliminiated in Chechnya. In the wake of this event Paul Martin is expected to lecture Putin just another time about human rights violations and make not so subtle references to the American foreign policy (preventative war and stuff).
Not that such criticism is unwarranted in principle. But the timing....
Silly me, I thought Paul Martin might as well apologize on behalf of other Canadian citizens and assure Putin that Canada is no breeding ground for terrorism, such incidents notewithstanding. But I guess I am wrong...

That's ridiculous!

Russian spin doctors have been trying to mobilize all possible resources to help Viktor Yanukovych win in the upcoming presidential elections in Ukraine. A new organization for Russians of Ukrainian origin has been created - the Congress of Civic Communities of Ukrainians in Russia". It's headed by Oleg Baklanov. This guy was one of the organizers of the infamous Putsch, the GKChP, in 1991, a failed attempt to preserve the Soviet Union.
It's like to appoint Heirich Himmler (the Gestapo Chief) to lead a German-Jewish society, say in the U.S., because he's dealt a lot with the Jewish issue.

Could Borat Sagdiyev be a dating success?

Ok, it's just because there is not much to blog about today - I am actually working :-).
For a while I've been fascinated by this idea - to create Borat Sagdyev's profile at Lavalife. I guess it would have the following lines:
"to my future wife:
I will give everything: TV, the remote control, the cows. But If you cheat on me, I'll crash you..."
Borat Sagdiyev is of course one of Sasha Baron Cohen's personas
created for the Ali G Show

a showcase example of "non-sequitur" logical fallacy

From today's National Post:
Mohammed Ayug Ali Khan, chairman of the Indo-Islamic Heritage Council of Canada replies to a letter, published earlier, which was entitled "Barbaric Acts" and was written by an Indo-Canadian Venkat N. As you may guess the letter was very critical of Islam and Muslims, to put it midly. So Mr. Khan felt obliged to respond. Fair enough.
He wrote:
"If the almost 1,000 year-long Muslim rule in India was as brutal as claimed by Venkut N., then there wouldn't be a single Hindu left in India today. The fact that the Hindus are still a majority in India shows that Muslim rule in India has been one of tolerance and harmony."
Though I'm not surpised. I'm becoming convnced more and more that leaders of all ethnic groups have been lobbying their group's rights a bit too vigoursly, at the expence of reason usually. May be I'm going to have to write a post on what I mean by it.

Proud to sew the flag of Canada on your backpack? Well, think again!

This is just hilarious:

No, this time they’re making fun of the Canadian patches we sew proudly onto our backpacks every time we leave the country. According to an Aussie girl I met traveling, they think the patches are given to every Canadian backpacker at the airport to serve as the grown-up version of those stickers that parents paste to their kids’ backs at large confusing gatherings like K-days and South Edmonton Common.

The full article is here

The Return a.k.a. Возвращение

Seen it yesterday. My verdict - it's a good movie, high artistic quality but I wouldn't recommend it to pick it if you long for entertainment and relaxation.
It's a Russian movie and to me it was fun to watch at some moments as recognized little details that would be missed by a western viewer - (the mom tells the kids that their father was a pilot - this is a typical excuse that single moms give to their kids in Russia to explain their father's absense. Or the empty metal can they take with them when they go searching for worms for fishing - I would use exactly the same kind of can when I was a kid...)
But overall the movie is not specifically Russian and seems to belong nowhere, in place and time.

Russia finally signs up to Kyoto ...but why?

It's sort of yestserday news that Putin has announced that Russia now okays Kyoto after almost a year (or even more) hesitation and sending mixed signals to the West.
What's interesting though is the reasoning behind it. Unlike say Canada when the Kyoto protocol is being pushed by the environmental lobby, some prefer to call them eco-nazi :-), Russian officials are blunt about Kyoto's purely political nature.
The article in Russian magazine Novoe Vremia from which I've lifted the qoutes below is entilted "The protocls of the Kyoto Elders" (the title is an allusion to the infamous Protocols of Sion Elders - people from media studies - isn't that funny?).

The Director of the Institute for the Issues of Climate and Ecology of the Russian Academy of Science Yuri Israel:
"The Russian Academy of Sciences (RAN) would like to confirm again that the Kyoto protocol is ineffective and scientifically unproven"

Yuri Osipov, president of the RAN
"The deicision on Kyoto is purely political, there is no science behind it."

Minister of Industrial Enegry, Khristenko shares sceptics' attitude on both, scientific and economic grounds, in regard to Kyoto. However he pointed out that
"In essense, the Kyoto protocol creates a new segment on the global market and this segment is interesting and promising."

The Dreamers

So this weekend I saw the Dreamers - a Bernardo Bertolucci movie set in Paris in 1968.
Cheers:
Good soundtrack, sometimes very good.
aesthetically pleasing. Bertolucci is indeed a professional so he knows what he's doing.
Jeers:
Not much else. I mean there is nothing else to this movie except for a couple of nice shots and a lot of nude adolescent bodies shown with Hellenic overtones (If you know what I mean :-)). I were to explain my impression in just one word, it would non-profound.
Thoughts upon watching:
What we see in the movie is a polyandrous relationship involving (perceived) incest. The heroine wants to commit suicide if her parents find out (which she didn't opting instead to join the revolutionary struggle of Parisian students in 1968).
In the year 2004 it still seems somewhat controversial though not as scandalous as it would have likely been in the year of 1968.
But I cannot help but wonder how the efforts of the let's-make-marriage-more-inclusive movement might alter the impression the movie makes on general public in, say, ten years.
The viewer's attitude to her problem would be - she was a victim of bias in those old times, now she could've come out and live in a peaceful, committed relationship with the two boys collecting social security benefits.
In a nutshell, the story now seems to be of the Kink material, ten years down the road it might as well be a Good morning America kind of stuff.

Feedback needed!!!

I really, really wanna hear any feedback to my ramblings - please, leave a comment!!!

The Motorcycles Diaries - fawning reviews

Today's Globe and National Post looked almost identical. The same top story, even the second one as well, and both featured reviews on this movie about young Che.

Both came out in favor of it and the authors tried to do their best to downplay as much as possible the fact that the movie completely neglects to address the little contradiction to otherwise flawless portrayal of a revolutionary romantic. The fact that Che was actually a cold-bloodied commie-fanatic.

However, I don't want to sound dead serious and fight the wind mills of artsy windbags. So the only symmetrical answer to this would be the one conjured up in terms of pop culture and it's been done already:

(via ThoseShirts.com)

Bush Kerry Debate - Part 1. Foreign policy

Despite being a political junkie (it's like a pundit without status :-)) I didn't watch them yesterday - we had a soccer game which we lost ignomiously :-) and by the time I got home I couldn't bring myself to watch it. Though I did see a couple of minutes of it and from the glimpse I got I'd agree with all the pundits:
Bush was stumbling...
Actually the moment to which I tuned in was this
(thanks to this online transcript):

LEHRER: New question, Mr. President. Two minutes.
What about Senator Kerry's point, the comparison he drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein?

BUSH: Jim, we've got the capability of doing both.
As a matter of fact, this is a global effort.
We're facing [here Bush made a long, long pause like a kid trying to remember the story he had memorized] a group of folks who have such hatred in their heart, they'll strike anywhere, with any means.

Oh my God, "a group of folks" - as if he was talking about a community bbq or something!!!

Very dissappoiting.
Though from I can infer from other bloggers' accounts Kerry's position has not become more appealing or reasonable - let the other nations decide U.S. foreign policy - that's what he's been basically saying.
A good summary of the debate can be found
here