Category: Random observations

Attribution (citation) conventions and etiquette are well established in most written media. However, attribution etiquette seems to be far more relaxed – and sometimes non-existent – in the Blogosphere. David Starkoff, for instance, has complained in the past (perhaps somewhat jokingly) about the non-attribution of ideas originating in his blog that have later resurfaced in other parts of the Blogosphere. David himself could surely never be accused of non-attribution because his Inchoate blog probably has the highest concentration of links per sentence of any weblog I read.

One of the problems with blog attribution is deciding who to attribute. I may read a blog article that links to an idea in another blog. Do I attribute the conduit or the originator or both? What do you do in the case where a blog entry links to a non-blog resource? Do you acknowledge the referring blog entry (i.e. does it deserve some kudos/Google juice?), or do you just link directly to the non-blog resource?

The problem is exacerbated if one or more links in the chain are out-of-band; that is, outside the realm of the Blogosphere (e.g. e-mail or face-to-face conversation). I’m not sure that there is a solution to the problem (if it is a problem).

My own feeling is that the conduit and the originator ought to be linked in blog articles. On the one hand, this preserves the information trail and the social network, and on the other it allows readers to quickly jump to the originating source or the resource in question.

Some fans of classic cinema might appreciate this commercial (requires Quicktime plugin) for the Volkswagen Golf GTI, while other fans might be horrified. I like it!

I’m still reading through The Commanding Heights. The pages have been turning over a little faster for the past few days. It’s been a fascinating read so far. Anyway, I came across this little passage in Chapter 9:

Perhaps nothing so much brought home the distance he [Mario Vargas Llosa] had traveled as when he encountered his old friend Gabriel García Márquez one evening at a theater in Mexico City. García Márquez had never abandoned Fidel Castro, and he was strongly critical of Vargas Llosa’s repudiation of the left. They got into an argument, and Vargas Llosa ended up knocking García Márquez out, which is something that one hardly ever gets to do to the subject of one’s doctoral dissertation.

This year’s Australia Day got me thinking about patriotism and the role it plays in the modern world. I have often believed patriotism to be one of the greatest scourges afflicting the globe. The kind of patriotism that promotes self-righteousness and a closed view of the world exudes the most pungent of odours – an odour that causes offence wherever it blows. Yet, I have come to the uncomfortable conclusion that patriotism plays an important positive role in the world today. Patriotism, it seems, is the guardian of cultural diversity.

Patriotism – in its wider connotation – is the love of one’s country, region or culture. It might be that the patriots among us act as a retarding force to the march of monopolistic cultures – those cultures backed by strong economies, which can spread throughout the world on the platform of globalisation. In other words, I am making the observation that, all else equal, the ability of a culture to devour other cultures – or conversely, the ability of a culture to protect itself from the influences of other cultures – is in direct proportion to the economic standing of the nation from which the culture originates. But why ought cultural diversity be protected? Why is it important?

Cultural diversity is of fundamental importance for aesthetic and economic reasons. In aesthetic terms, the disappearance of cultures means the loss of musical styles, stories, languages and cuisine. Everything becomes bland and unappealing. Different cultures find alternative solutions to the same problems. Diversity breeds creativity. There is a mountain of useful knowledge built up by all the cultures of the world. But of greatest relevance to the world as we know it is the role that diversity plays in the market economy.

Capitalism, many economists argue, works because we are all different. We each have something unique to offer, and we each have varying wants and needs. On some level, it is fear of uniformity and conformity that drove many nations away from communism and toward capitalism. But ironically, it is capitalism and the free market economy that is threatening to swallow our multifarious cultures and replacing them with a McDonald’s or Starbucks on every corner.

This kind of culture erosion threatens to undermine the very law that makes free trade worthwhile on a global scale: comparative advantage. Comparative advantage harnesses the fact that countries and regions are different. As these differences are eroded and as cultures disappear, comparative advantage has an increasingly smaller set of activities over which to operate. The demand for niche products and services declines, and so to do the specialised skills involved in the production of specific commodities. Uniformity encroaches, and there is a danger that, as they develop, countries will tend toward the same specialisations and efficiencies, thereby nullifying the law of comparative advantage. Perhaps this is a wild over-statement of the potential effect of culture erosion, but at the very least, the disappearance of cultures subtracts from the number of activities in which a country could have a comparative advantage.

What can be done about this in the absence of tariffs and subsidies? Modern (neo-classical) economics emphasises local decisions (self-interest) and a decentralised command-structure. It advocates small government and minimal intervention. As Adam Smith argued, resources will find their way to where they are used most efficiently by way of the so called "invisible hand". In such a decentralised system, what prevents nations being overrun with the ways and cultures of economically superior nations and regions? I argue that patriotism works as a natural, invisible, decentralised, non-legislative regulatory mechanism, which simultaneously upholds cultural diversity and national identities, and delivers variety to the global marketplace.

Capitalism is driven by the consumer. What consumers demand, capitalism will deliver. Thus, it follows that a large dose of patriotism, as foul tasting as it has seemed to me in the past, might be the best safeguard against the uniformity that globalisation and mega-corporations bring with them. Patriotism helps to shape demand for particular products and services. The level of influence patriotism exerts over demand for a product is directly proportional to the ferocity and extent to which it is practised within a nation or region.

Patriotism has the capacity to inject diversity into the marketplace. It can create demand for diverse consumables, and it can also protect the unique skills procured over the centuries by people in remote parts of the world. If capitalism proceeds in the absence of patriotism, we are condemning ourselves to a world of uniformity; a world in which the culture of the economically predominant nation consumes all in its path.

Patriotism does not preclude the celebration of foreign cultures, nor does it fly in the face of multiculturalism. What it does is ensure that cultures and languages live on. It protects against culture erosion, which could be a major side effect of globalisation. What I am talking about is not the caustic brand of patriotism practised by nations in the past and by some nations today as a result of a superiority complex. Rather I am advocating a pride in one’s nation and culture. Patriotism does not have to imply that one nation or culture is better than another; it can merely be the acceptance that, while we are all human, we are different and those differences are what make the world an amazing place. Therefore, as individuals and as nations, we ought to be proud of our heritage and the things that make us unique. Further, we have a duty to continue the traditions of our ancestors because it may serve a purpose in the future. Thus, aside from any intrinsic value associated with different cultures, there may be a real practical or economic benefit gained from them. The promotion of patriotism by nations and its practise by individuals can help to preserve cultural diversity in our world.

Capitalism is no good to us if it does not serve us; that is, any economic system must deliver the quality of life, the special products and services that are unique to particular regions of the world. If it cannot do this, it does not have a place in our world. Patriotism, then, could be the element that ensures that capitalism does not erode the world’s distinctive cultures.

Patriotism may not be as pungent as I once thought.

Africa

In a recent essay written for The Economist, British Prime Minister Tony Blair states that Britain will use its recently acquired presidency of the G8 to push for aid to Africa and to address climate change.

Africa is a continent of massive potential. It is home to almost 900 million people. It has an abundance of natural resources (even after being plundered by the colonials in centuries gone by), vast tracts of fertile land (although much of it is desert) and majestic landscapes that ought to sustain a healthy tourism industry. However, as Tony Blair points out, Africa is also a place plagued with problems–debt, disease, conflict, corruption and weak governance–so embedded and widespread that no continent, no matter how prosperous, could tackle them on its own. And, he goes on to say, Africa is not prosperous. In fact, Africa is getting poorer by the day.

So what is Tony Blair suggesting that the G8 do? For one thing he claims that tied aid, where the use of aid money is directed by the donor, is counter-productive. This is largely, I suppose, because tied aid is often delivered with the interests of the donor nation at heart rather than the interests of the recipient nation. It also means that the recipient nation is absolved of responsibility in the spending of that money. Thus, it provides no incentive for the establishment of mature economic management in those countries. Of course, Prime Minister Blair will also push for more aid to Africa. Few nations have met their obligation of spending 0.7 percent of their GDP on aid. Much of this money, if it is forthcoming, will be spent on tackling disease and for immediate poverty relief. But I imagine a large part of it must be invested for the long-term in things like education, small businesses and agricultural concerns in order to bootstrap the African economy so it can stand on its own feet.

Climate Change

The second major goal of Britain’s G8 presidency will be to push for technologies and market schemes that will help to curb climate change. He accurately points out that, although scientific debate continues, the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that humans are the major cause of global warming. Tony Blair is often seen as a greater proponent of Thatcherism than his Tory adversaries, yet he is acutely aware that climate change is one area where governments must step in and play an active role. He advocates government spending to develop sustainable technologies, and possibly to provide incentives to companies to reduce their footprints.

An interesting aside to this, and something that points to the devastating impact humans can have on the environment and climate, is recent research that theorises the original inhabitants of Australia may have created the deserts in the middle of the continent by lighting fires some 50000 years ago. The destruction of the forests meant that there was not enough water evaporation to enable cloud formation, thereby putting an end to the annual inland monsoon.

Pre-conditions

Now it’s all well and good for Tony Blair to say that Britain will be pushing these noble causes at the G8; however, as I see it, there are at least two hurdles to be overcome. First, Mr Blair and Labour need to be re-elected to government. I believe the general concensus is that Labour will be re-elected with a clear majority, despite the Iraq fiasco. Indeed there are signs that the Australian co-ordinator of the Tory election campaign may be losing faith in the ability of the Conservative party to win the next election. So while Labour look likely to record another victory, Tony Blair’s main rivals seem to be within his own party. The tensions between Blair and Gordon Brown are well-known, and Brown’s resignation or sacking look to be highly probable.

Given that Labour is returned to government and that the Prime Minister retains a loyal majority within his party, Tony Blair can push his agenda at the G8. Then it will be a question of whether he and Britain can persuade the other members of the G8 to dance to the same tune. In particular, it seems unlikely that any substantial headway will be made on poverty and climate change unless the Americans also make these a priority. Such is life in a world dominated by one superpower.

We know from the Iraq crisis that Blair and Bush must have amicable relations even though they are from opposite sides of politics. Perhaps the fallout from the war has given them even more in common. In any case, Tony Blair must have some sway with George W. Bush, even if their relationship isn’t quite as cosy as that between the US President and our own John Howard. We can only hope that Tony Blair uses his considerable eloquence, charm and political savvy (what wouldn’t the ALP give to have their own Tony Blair?) to persuade the powers that be that the issues of poverty and climate change cannot be put off any longer.

Last weekend Karen and I took Random to Wynnum (photos here). It was Random’s first visit to the ocean. He loved it! Unfortunately, it wasn’t one of my better days with the camera, so some of the photos are a bit dark. But it turned out to be a really great day. Our day at Wynnum has given us an appetite for visiting the beach with Random more often. It’ll be even better when the little mischief learns to behave himself in the car! :)

Two school boards in the US have made further challenges against the teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution in science classes by offering Intelligent Design as an alternative. Their complaint is that the theory of evolution is not fact. My counter-claim is that Intelligent Design is not science, and has no place in the science classroom. This regulation is akin to mandating that the theory of evolution is given its due observance during religious services in churches, mosques, and temples. No theory should see the light of day in a science classroom unless it has undergone the rigorous tests of the scientific method and been subjected to, and survived, the scrutiny of the science community.

I realise that Intelligent Design is distinct from Creationism. But the fact of the matter is that Creationists lobbied for this regulation, not scientists. If Intelligent Design was a worthy scientific theory, then it would already be taught in schools across the globe. Intelligent Design is not science because its central hypothesis (that the world around us, and especially the cells that form the basis of life, are too intricate and "clever" to have evolved through selective processes) relies on a leap with no scientific basis. In any case, such an argument only shifts the grand question to who/what is/are the intelligent designer(s), and who/what intelligently designed him/her/it/them, and so on and so forth? Darwin’s well-known hypothesis requires no such leap. It is based on empirical evidence of the links between both living and extinct species, and more recently on real-time observation of the changes in certain kinds of species (fruit flies, for example).

That’s my two cents’ worth.

With the resignation of Mark Latham as Leader of the Opposition and from politics altogether, the burning question is who will the Labor Caucus elect as their new leader? So far Kim Beazley is the only contender for the position. I’m going to stick my neck out and say that he’ll probably remain the only contender. I believe that Kevin Rudd, possibly the only potential nominee who could pip Beazley in the internal ballot, will decide not to contest in order to portray a sense of Labor unity. I think the contested ballot in the wake of Simon Crean’s resignation as Leader of the Opposition did little for Labor’s cause, especially given how close that ballot was. Rudd knows this. He knows the importance of unity (or at least the outward appearance of it). In my opinion, it’s highly unlikely that the ALP will win the next federal election regardless of who becomes their leader. Therefore, I think it’s in Kevin Rudd’s best interests and in the best interests of Labor party that Rudd bide his time. He ought to put his hand up after the next election, but not before.

Having said all this, I am reminded that, years ago, an Indian fortune-teller visited Australia and told Kim Beazley that he will one day be the Prime Minister of Australia. Unfortunately, I can’t find any links to this on the web. But I swear I’m not making this up! I think it was a segment on A Current Affair about seven or eight years ago (soon after Beazley was elected Leader of the Opposition for the first time). It’s funny what our minds choose to remember.

Virgin Atlantic will be equipping its Airbus A380 airliners with a beauty therapist area, a gym, a casino and double beds. Richard Branson, chairman of the Virgin Group, cheekily stated that since you have gaming and you have private double beds, maybe there are two ways of getting lucky on a Virgin plane. Watch for the abundance of "Mile High" jokes in the media.

It seems the new lamb advertisement featuring former VFL player Sam Kekovich is causing a huge stir. Many vegetarians and vegans are complaining that it vilifies them. Well, I just want to say that I am definitely not in that camp. I reckon the advertisement is one of the funniest things I’ve seen on television in recent times. It cracked me up. To those people who are offended, loosen up and get over it. Have a laugh for heaven’s sake!

Note: I am in no way endorsing the needless slaughter of innocent animals. :)