Ščerbatihs wins Latvia’s first medal of 2008 Olympics

Andris Straumanis | 

Weightlifter Viktors Ščerbatihs has won Latvia’s first medal—a bronze—in the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games with his Aug. 19 performance in the +105 kilogram event.

The 33-year-old athlete from Dobele, who also is a member of the Saeima, was considered in media reports as the frontrunner for gold in the heaviest men’s weightlifting class. But it was Germany’s Matthias Steiner who stole the show, lifting a total 461 kilograms in the snatch and clean-and-jerk portions of the event, according to the official Web site of the Beijing Games.

Ščerbatihs, who won a silver medal 2004 Games in Athens, lifted a total of 448 kilograms for the bronze. Evgeny Chigishev of Russia took the silver medal with a total of lift of 460 kilograms. The event took place in the Beijing University of Aeronautics & Astronautics Gymnasium.

Estonia so far has won one silver medal, won by Tõnu Endrekson and Jüri Jaanson in the men’s double sculls rowing competition. Lithuania has two medals. Mindaugas Mizgaitis won bronze in the men’s 120 kilogram Greco-Roman wrestling event, while Gintarė Volungevičiūtė took the silver in the laser radial sailing event.

Andris Straumanis is a special correspondent for and a co-founder of Latvians Online. From 2000–2012 he was editor of the website.

Russia’s ‘Russia problem’ also causes global misery

Linas Kojelis | 

In his successful bid to topple President Gerald Ford in 1976, Gov. Jimmy Carter made very effective use of the “misery index.” This index is simply the sum of the unemployment and inflation rates, and was an effective device by which Carter could contrast and compare the results of the Nixon/Ford administrations with those of their predecessors.

In 2008, as the world again recoils at the sight of Russian tanks brutally crushing the hopes and aspirations of a small neighboring country, it seems a good time to pause and reflect on the concept of an “international misery index”—the sum of devastation caused by a country to both its neighbors and own citizens. For many international observers, the single obvious champion of such an index would be Russia. For the past several centuries that country has won so many gold medals consistently in both categories that its national anthem seems to be on a continuous loop as the Russian bear once again steps onto the victory stand.

In considering the category of “The Most Misery Caused Internationally,” let it be said that since the dawn of man the world’s been a tough place. First tribes battled tribes and then kingdoms battled kingdoms until the 18th and 19th centuries, when the consolidation of European nation states and their empires established and defined, for better or worse, the international stage we see today.

In terms of the positive and negative social and economic effects and results of their rule, one could argue there wasn’t much difference between, for example, Queen Victoria’s empire and that of her royal Russian cousins. Though it is striking to contrast the enthusiasm with which Her Highness’ former subjects, upon attaining independence, re-established both warm and official relations through the British Commonwealth against the driving desire of states arising from both the royal and communist Russian empires to quickly distance themselves culturally, economically, and politically as far as possible from Moscow.

Since the collapse of the USSR, every country of the former Warsaw Pact and the Baltic States has joined NATO perceived by both Russia’s hierarchy and a majority of its citizenry as a great Satan. In short, it is not illogical to surmise that the Russian occupation of much of Europe in the 20th century was especially brutal and worthy of many medals for “international misery.”

As regards current events in Georgia, the key point of divergence between modern European and Russian mentalities relates to the self-identification of average citizens—i.e., what does it mean to be a “proud Frenchman” or “proud German”? Before 1945, it was the pounding of Teutonic boots on the streets of Amsterdam and Brussels that gave Germans pride. The French took pride in their African and Asian colonies. The British saluted a flag upon which the sun never set.

But by the 1950s and 1960s, modern western European states came to realize that national pride comes not from foreign occupation but by building dynamic, successful, and generous societies benefiting as many citizens as possible within their own national borders. One can argue that some social programs (French vacations, German labor laws, or Swedish public health) went too far. No one can argue that the vast majorities of people in these countries aren’t content, and have no desire to invade their neighbors in the name of “national pride.”

This then is the first part of Russia’s “Russia problem.” In the 21st century Russian national pride continues to base itself on brutal domination of its neighbors. It can come in the form of Russians goose-stepping across the Georgian countryside. Or it can be more subtle, such as the use of energy policy against Ukraine when it flirts too openly with the West.

Perhaps, and most dangerously, it can take the form of cyber-warfare, as was Russia’s response to Estonia’s decision last year to respectfully move the Soviet Bronze Soldier monument from downtown Tallinn to a military cemetery. In this case it wasn’t the Russian military, but an army of Putin-jugend who turned their cyber talents against Estonian-based internet servers. Consider the spam that comes to your computer, and then multiply it by 10,000. That was Russia’s tactic.

This attack on the Web sites of the Estonian parliament, banks, ministries, newspapers, and broadcasters was so devastating that NATO (Estonia is a member) began a substantial review of its entire military doctrine. If the Russians could shut down Estonia, why couldn’t they do the same to France, Norway, or even the United States?

In contrast to the sophisticated strategies and technologies of the international part of Russia’s misery index rating, the domestic side—the misery Russians exact on each other—is based on crudeness and indifference.

Starting at least with Ivan the Terrible in the 16th century, the Russians people consistently acquiesce to rulers with national sadomasochistic tendencies. This pattern culminated with the reign of Josef Stalin in the 20th century. Stalin is remembered primarily for his purges and ethnic cleansings, which sent untold millions of Soviet citizens to their graves at the hands of their own military and security personnel.

But that’s just the tip of Russia’s domestic misery index. In contrast to the flourishing capitalist societies in the West, life throughout the vast majority of the largest country in the world was and continues to be miserable. The simplest and most basic health and sanitation needs go unmet for the average Russian. As poor as West Virginia or Pennsylvania coal miners might have been, they never had to make availability of plain soap a strike demand, as their Russian counterparts did in the 1990s.

Today Russia spends billions of dollars invading tiny neighbors, training its Olympic teams, and hiring American image consultants—while alcoholism, drug abuse, prostitution, STDs, tuberculosis and untold environmental horrors devastate her citizens. At the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars in Washington, Murray Feshbach, America’s leading expert on Russian demographics, predicts that, due to these maladies and low birth rates (especially of healthy babies), “by 2050 Russia’s current population of 144 million could fall to 101 million or as low as 77 million if factoring in the AIDS epidemic.”

In short, the second part of Russia’s “Russia problem” is that they don’t value their own lives. In 2008, if the Russians really cared about themselves, they wouldn’t invest in foreign invasions and international intrigue, but would tend to their own social, political, health and cultural ailments first, for those are many and multiplying rapidly.

Former President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is given great credit for stabilizing Russia’s domestic politics and economy. In reality, he has only been riding a wave of success solely dependent on rising global oil and gas prices, these natural resources being in great supply in his country.

The Russian “middle class” you might see in Moscow or St. Petersburg is simply a tiny fraction of lucky suckers sipping the cream from the Russian energy cow, for the country manufactures nothing—save for Kalashnikovs and nuclear power plants—for global consumption. Go a few kilometers beyond the grand boulevards of Russia’s finest cities and you return to almost medieval conditions.

Unfortunately, for decades to come Russia’s “Russia problem” will be America’s and the world’s problem.

Upon first meeting Putin in 2001, President George W. Bush explained that he looked into the former KGB officer’s eyes and “was able to get a sense of his soul.” Let’s hope that come January, Barack Obama or John McCain takes a deeper look.

(This article originally appeared in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, a daily newspaper in Virginia, and is republished here with permission.)

Dmitry Medvedev

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. (Photo courtesy Presidential Press and Information Office of Russia)

Ēnas will sweep you away, but not completely

Kaija Straumane | 

Ēnas

People always say the pace of life in Europe is more relaxed or simply slower than elsewhere. This review, for example, could (or should) have been finished weeks ago, but I like to think on my words before I commit them to “.doc”. Rock-pop group Ēnas has been together since 2005 (and averaging three concerts a month since 2006), but its self-titled debut just came out back in April of this year. The band took its time as well. My reactions to the album were also delayed, as well as fickle. And although I can’t say I’m 100 percent swept away, I can at least recommend Ēnas further.

The four-man band is a smorgasbord of total talent, consisting of Lauris Valters (vocals), Jānis Ķergalvis (solo guitar, acoustic guitar), Dāvis Ābrams (keyboard, piano) and Mārtiņš Miļevskis (drums). Though the group is relatively new, its style of music rings more familiar than not, a rock-pop sound that tends to easily remind people of bands like Latvia’s Lādezers or U.S. band The Calling.

The album starts with a very steady orchestral and piano introduction that sounds like something you might hear during a transition scene on some American television series. I can only understand about seven words total, but I’m not bothered. Valters’ voice soars through the latter half of the first one minute and 34 seconds of the album and leaves you with a good feeling about what is hopefully to follow.

On that note, not only does Ēnas start its album out in English, but more than half of the album is in English. A somewhat risky move for a debut? Maybe, but Ēnas lucks out in that it doesn’t affect the quality of the album as a whole.

Track 2, “Beautiful Morning,” follows the same musical principles of the intro but trades the strings for guitar. The lyrics are very positive and fairly well developed, though there is the questionable use of the word “funny,” which sticks out painfully. The most notable and positive aspect of the song is the vocals, which are well-rounded and don’t disappoint.

“Viss savādāk” (Everything’s Changed) takes a darker turn from the previous track. A slightly blast-from-the-past synth intro and background beat accompany lyrics that build a picture of a brownish haze of desparation. Even the lyrics portray the narrator as having a sense of being lost, knowing but at the same time not knowing where he stands in the implied relationship. But I feel the song lacks originality. The sound is nothing new, the title of the song is nothing new—it’s a weak link in the album.

The next track, “Par šo un to” (About This and That), is simple in nature. A very strong guitar and snare beat demands your attention and is good at getting you physically involved in the listening process. However, the lyrics are not impressive—the song is about juxtaposition and contrast, but nothing original. The music is good, though, and pleasantly passive-aggressive. If you can look past or just ignore the ho-huminess of the words, the track is decent.

“SirC” (Heart) is probably the first and best known song by Ēnas. I had actually forgotten about the song until I listened to the entire album for the first time and, very fittingly, my heart jumped with joy at hearing something I had heard before. The guitars dominate this track, giving you the first good listen at what these guys can do. Once again, the vocals let loose and the whole thing just comes together. It’s a catchy song that radiates positivity and, though I wasn’t moved by it way back when, it’s now one of my favorite songs of the year.

My second favorite, Track 6, “Ar skaistām frāzēm” (With Beautiful Words) is a meloncholy song, but has a truly wonderful sound to it. I could listen to the intro over and over again, even with the synth, which actually works this time. A combination of guitar, drums and excellent bass line melt together in a smooth beat that leads you into the vocals almost without noticing what’s happened. The lyrics leave you with an achy feeling and, even though it’s a sad song, I appreciate the lack of beating around the bush. It’s no-nonsense, a “No, something’s up and this is what it feels like” tune:

Kāds no mums nav patiess.
Vai savādāk var būt?
Daudz sapņu prāts noliedz,
Tos zaudējot, sirds lūst.

Tad pēkšņi viens var pateikt
viss beidzies, kā būs – tā būs.
Tā zvaigzne kādreiz izdziest,
tai mirklī pagaist it viss.

And let me say once more just how big a fan I am of the bass line. Thumbs. Up.

Skipping ahead a bit, track 8, “Neprātīgais” (Reckless) starts out slow, then unexpectedly picks up. There’s an interesting ambiguity here in subject matter and I like the image the lyrics create. This song is also one of two (the other being track 7, “Somehow”) that made me start thinking that Ēnas might be borderline Christian rock. The subject matter and potential references to religion are more apparent in these two tracks, but looking back over the preceding material, the rest of the album could also easily be associated with belief in a higher power.

Tracks 7 (“Somehow”), 9 (“Double Coffee”), 10 (“Rainbow”) and 11 (“Mr. Evil”) are all decidedly my least favorite parts of the album. While technically strong, they form a line of English tracks with randomized styles and approaches with which I apparently have some kind of problem.

“Somehow,” which isn’t saved by the wonderful musical talent of the group, features less than perfect English grammar and the one and only profanity on the entire album. Is the song a huge reference to the Rapture or something? The second coming of Christ? Then there’s “Double Coffee,” which I thought would be a clever reference to the café and restaurant chain (it’s not). These two tracks form a pair of grammatical anti-wonders that I can’t bring myself to get over. It doesn’t make a difference that the written lyrics are mostly correct, because it’s what you hear that matters.

“Rainbow” and “Mr. Evil” also left me less than enthused. Maybe the problem with these tracks is that Ēnas, being a relatively new group, has already involved so many other people. If the band members had less outside help and more of themselves on their first album, there would be a better chance for them to establish themselves as themselves. Let us hear who you are before you let us hear what you can do with everyone else.

Track 12 is back in the more consistent style of the band. The second verse is a little too cliché, but the refrain is outstanding. Right away it’s apparent that the English is much more advanced. As a result, I’m inclined to think that this song may have meant more to Valters than the other English tracks. In any case, the sound here is more refined. The vocals run through a wider range and the individual instruments can be heard much better than in the other.

“Acīm ciet” (With Eyes Closed) is the “cool” song of the album. Astro’n’out vocalist Māra Upmane joins Valters in a duet that basically summarizes a lot of what has been already “discussed” in the lyrics of the rest of the album. One of the nuances of the song is that Upmane and Valters seem to have a similar vocal range, which they take complete advantage of. They take turns in singing the high and low notes. Their voices mesh well and the track slows the album down, nicely preparing it for the close.

The final track of the album has two parts to it: the actual song, “Player”, and a bonus track, which is a rather unconvincing English version of “SirC.” “Player” is another track with some good imagery and, looking past some grammatical speedbumps, is probably one of the best songs on the album. Once again all members of the band are given the chance to clearly show what they can do. Piano and vocals run for a little over three minutes without drums and guitar, then the group has four more minutes to prove that it is adept at different instrumental-voice combinations and that it can take it down a notch without a hitch.

I have to say that if for the most part it sounds like I don’t like the album, it’s not all true. My opinion of the band changed completely after I saw Ēnas perform live. I felt cheated that the album didn’t have the same vibe as the live show. It wasn’t just the that it was a surround-sound, live gig. On stage the band members sounded so much more “there” with their music. It was like I was watching a completely different band play the same Ēnas songs. They might benefit from recording a live album: the electricity they emit and receive is something else. Ēnas, when you break it down, is a group of very talented individuals who work together like they were born to do so.

Details

Ēnas

Ēnas

Antena,  2008

On the Web

Grupa Ēnas

The band’s official Web site includes news about the band, samples of its music and other features. LV

Where to buy

Purchase Ēnas from BalticShop.

Note: Latvians Online receives a commission on purchases.