The Unbelievable Implications of Cologne Ads

I always found cologne ads a bit pretentious. The spartan but sensual voiceover whispering in come-hither, husky tones, for men, and in an alluring breathless French accent for women. Abstract scenes with incongruous elements, like a pensive white guy standing in the middle of the desert wearing his cologne contemplating an apple, as you do. But most annoying are the understated, and not so understated, implications of wearing the designer scents, now more often endorsed by big name celebs. Colognes ads usually feature White men with sex, or more accurately, promiscuity, as the primary selling point.  

Hugo Boss' Night ad features Ryan Reynolds, recently voted People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive 2010 (also a reserve for White men), as he stalks into his high tech, sophisticated apartment after a hard day of being incredibly sexy, unbuttons a single button of his perfectly tailored shirt, removes a cufflink dashingly and most amazingly, a white woman magically appears in his apartment with a 'you're gonna get lucky tonight' sashay. All, we must assume, based on his application of Hugo Boss Night. The ad ends with Reynolds recognising that coitus is imminent and stares directly into the camera as if to say, 'My cologne has made me successful and now, it has brought me sex...which I will now have', and cut. See for yourself.

Ryan Reynolds proves Hugo Boss 'Night' will make you a white, sexually active male

The real doozy for me though is Paco Rabanne's 1 Million ad. This features another European fellow, slim, toned with all the requisite caucasian good looks. He has the power to snap his fingers and win at the craps table and the roulette wheel, summon fur coat clad women, make their clothes fall off and conjure up bags full of cash.

This time you become a white male magician without a job - or a pimp

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being white, male, promiscuous and sexy - well something's wrong with promiscuity. But it's just the totally ridiculous premises that somehow convince some of us to buy these products. We know this is done with a myriad of products (including people who are products - celebrities) but if you are say, a 350 pound Chinese accountant who loves suspenders and puppies, do you really stand a chance of passing for Ryan Reynolds once splashing on a little Night? Will you even acquire a high rise city apartment shortly thereafter? Can the act of snapping ones fingers when doused with 1 Million somehow spontaneously generate a remarkably large sum of cash in neatly stacked, small bills?

I think that's why the Old Spice ad worked so well. It made it clear that the hot guy is the one selling the Cologne. The best we can do is smell like a hot guy - the rest is up to you or your plastic surgeon. Fortunately for me I look slightly better than the Old Spice guy. Braap! Only problem is it might encourage ladies to change their man rather than his cologne. 

                                        

Less Than Nobel Intentions and the Growing Boycott

China has boycotted this year's Nobel Peace Prize Award ceremony on the basis that one of its political dissidents, Liu Xiaobo, was the recipient. According to Reuters, China wasn't alone and reported that the Nobel committee,

...said in addition to China, countries declining invitations for the gala were: Russia, Kazakhstan, Colombia, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Serbia, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Venezuela, the Philippines, Egypt, Sudan, Ukraine, Cuba and Morocco.

But not all seemed to boycott for the same reason as China. However, with a little thought one can understand why some nations would be suspect of the mechanism behind the Award and the Award itself. Certainly the spirit of the Nobel Peace Prize is without question, but if Obama's reception of the award is anything to go by, it may have a purpose other than just promoting Peace, and may in fact be a tool for the Western political agenda.

Last year Obama was awarded the Peace Prize for making nothing more than a speech. The irony is that one of the central reasons cited for Obama's worthiness was his, '...efforts to support international bodies and promote nuclear disarmament' (BBC 2009). This becomes laughable with France and England only recently forming treaties on defence and testing of nuclear weaponry. 

The implication of Obama's speech and subsequent award, is that the US - and by extension the West -  were taking a new approach to nuclear proliferation, with the award underlining the credibility and gravity of the 'effort'. In light of the UK/France defence treaty, it was nothing more than lip service. It really was only a speech. 

With the WikiLeaks info running amok and US opponents coming out holding the short end of the stick, suspicion grows in direct proportion with the hypocrisy of Western Governments who seem to think only they should posses nuclear weaponry. 

Liu Xiaobo may very well deserve the Peace Prize and China does have a spotty human rights record to answer for, however, a news forum participant insightfully noted that the West is quick to condemn WikiLeaks for exposing its violations and secrets, but quick to reward those who expose the violations and secrets of its enemies. Very good point. 

The UK Tuition Hike Protest Violence & Royal Pains

The UK's coalition government just won, by a 'narrow margin', the vote to hike student tuition fees up to a maximum of £9000 per annum. The run up to the vote was punctuated by student protests and moments of violence, vandalism and disorder. The latest round of protests included an 'attack' on Prince Charles and his homely consort-cum-wife, Camilla, an incident apparently worth more attention than the hypocritical turnabout by Lib Dem, Nick Clegg, and the Conservative Government, that both promised not to do what they have just done. 

A case for violence

The protests are a democratic right, and the violence debatable, however, Western action and philosophy provide for violence when there is no other recourse, and often when there are a myriad of other options. The United Kingdom uses violence against other nations at will and with little cause - and has done for centuries. Iraq is the latest and best example, but the Falkland Wars will do nicely as well. 

But when 'the people' become violent it indicates a profound societal issue: nothing else works. What became obvious in the run up to the vote and the vote itself, is that students and parents had absolutely no say. The only place a student voice could be heard was through the media, and that could not guarantee that those who 'mattered' were listening.  Based on the outcome of the vote, they definitely weren't and that is a genuine and disturbing problem in an allegedly democratic nation. This is an excellent object lesson for both the people and the Royals - now they have first-hand knowledge of potential causes of violence in third world nations: when one feels helpless to act, any action will do.

That said, the hypocrisy of the coalition government continues as they self-righteoulsy condemn the student violence and attempt to get the attention away from their broken promises, all while the UK continues to ravage Iraq and search for a pretext to invade Iran.

Importantly, PM Cameron noted that it was a majority of protestors that engaged in violence, it was completely lost on him that this may indicate something about the decision. Majority, it is widely believed, is an important element in democracy. But democracy may not be so important in the UK. 

Getting what they wanted

The irony, however, is that 'the people' got the government they voted for. Albeit a coalition, that it is Conservative heavy is no secret, and neither is the elitist leaning of the Conservative party. Historically, Conservatives favour the rich and exploit the 'commoner' - should the people really be surprised at the sudden 180 degree turn of their Government of choice? 

There is no debate that the budget needs to be trimmed, but why education should suffer and not defence (what with troops allegedly scheduled to pull out of Afghanistan next year) is an argument that never occurred, but should have. The fact that the Government didn't even consider a delay of the vote suggests the outcome was a fait accomplis. 

In the end Great Britain, be careful what you wish for because you just might get it. Well, you just did. 

Iran and Iraq - for the US the only difference is a consonant.

                       “They have good reason to be suspicious of our intentions.”

                                              Ivan Oelrich, senior fellow, Federation of American Scientists                

The above quote is uncharacteristically humble, responsible and reasonable on the part of the West, and from a Washington-based group to boot. But then again, the speaker is a scientist and not a politician. That said, it's still the first sign of some admission that the West is even remotely responsible for the defensive posture Iran has had to assume - nuclear armament or not  - and especially since the Bush administration declared it was part of the enigmatic 'Axis of Evil'. 

The 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, US and UK) along with Germany, are in Geneva conducting a second round of talks with Iran over its nuclear ambitions. But the first item on Iran's agenda was the November 29 killing of Iranian nuclear physicist, Majid Shahriari, in a Tehran bombing. Most telling was not the US denial of involvement, but unwillingness of the UK and Israel to comment. Is silence consent?

The issues are many, but there are a few I'd like to highlight: 1. The agenda began by the Bush admin seems to be moving ahead apace 2. The scenario is eerily similar to that pre-Iraq invasion 3. The entire Region, not just Iran, has reason to beware. 

As mentioned, it was the Bush admin that initially proposed the 'Axis of Evil' concept, citing that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were somehow the world's greatest threats. Iraq has already been appropriated and its oil fields sold off to private interests - mission accomplished - if Iran does want to develop nuclear weapons, who can blame them? Iran has the world's largest oil reserves second only to, and this might surprise you, Iraq. Nothing stopped the invasion of Iraq; not facts, lack of evidence, diplomacy or common sense - what reason does one have to believe anything will stop the implied invasion of Iran under almost identical circumstances? 

So what's the blatant implication? The American/Western corporate agenda takes precedence over any political or ideological agenda regardless of who is president - and that makes it ok for him or her to be Black and erudite (as in the case of Obama) or embarrassingly undereducated and inarticulate (as in the case of he-who-doesn't-have-to-be-named). That the scenario is almost identical to pre-Iraq invasion is obvious, what is alarming is that no one seems to care. Not the American public, not the Iranian public and not even Iran's neighbours who are likely to be next on America's hit list. 

In this context, the recent alleged 'Leak' that has dominated headlines in recent weeks, seems to play right into a Western pretext for an Iran invasion. It claimed the Saudi King urged the US to conduct missile strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and somehow painted the US as a reasonable and reluctant participant in the same. 

That the oil rich Middle East has been in Western crosshairs for some time is no secret. Some argue that Israel is its loyal 'watchdog' armed to the teeth and a constant destabilising force, now joined by an occupied Iraq. Divide and conquer seems to be the order of the day. Even now the GCC countries are meeting in Abu Dhabi, UAE to discuss Iran's predicament, among other things (importantly a unified stance against terrorism). We hope they make real concrete process. Even though Iran doesn't always see eye to eye with its Gulf neighbours, there is a common interest that may warrant some call for unity, cooperation or least dialogue that indicates, not support for the American agenda, but solidarity on an inclusive Middle East agenda.

Even as the US plays an essential role in brokering relations between Israel and the Arab world (and hence makes a logical ally for Arab states), its historical actions seem to indicate it has other more pressing concerns that may supersede all others. I'm not making any accusations, but there may be a reason to be 'suspicious'.

The New World Cup Hosts & England's Baffling Reaction

Russia and Qatar were just named the Fifa World Cup hosts for 2018 and 2022 respectively, to their own jubilation and to England's chagrin. While the preceding bid-teams celebrated their selection, the English press asserted claims of corruption, cheating and favouritism.

According to The Guardian the, 

2018 [UK Fifa bid] chief executive, Andy Anson, also said there was no point England bidding for another World Cup until the process was fundamentally overhauled as the detail of the humiliation was laid bare. "I would say right now, don't bother until you know that the process is going to change to allow bids like ours to win," said Anson.

Anson's statement is revealing. The obvious implication being that the system only works if England wins, not a gracious sentiment coming from the host of the upcoming 2012 Olympics. Apart from demonstrating an inability to lose with dignity, some elements of English media, and perhaps English public opinion, also exposed an arrogant and baffling sense of entitlement. Why should England have won and why shouldn't Russia or Qatar? England's odd reaction is made stranger considering it was eliminated from the first round of the two rounds of voting - it wasn't even close. There may be some element of denial here. 

Some claim that the move was all about money - it probably was and there is nothing wrong with that at all. It will, after all, take money (and lots of it) to host these events and Russia and Qatar have it, and from all indications, a Global recession and massive cuts in public spending, England (and indeed Europe) doesn't. But logic and common sense aside, Fifa has also been aiming to put the 'World' into the World Cup. 

In the 19 events since the beginning of the competition in 1930, over half (10 to be exact) were hosted by European nations (including England in 1966 - which they won), Italy and France got 2 opportunities at bat (in 2014 Brazil will have too), the US hosted once as did South Korea/Japan, and the rest were hosted by a mix of Central and South American nations. This year saw an African nation hosting for the very first time. Each of these nations had a 'first time', Russia and Qatar deserve no less. 

Indeed, the WC was seeing a revolving door of winners and qualifiers happily broken by Spain, first time winner in the 2010 competition. The danger was to see a similar list of the 'usual suspects' taking on hosting duties and benefiting from the potential commerce thereof. Fifa is absolutely right to spread opportunity - one that doesn't always guarantee profit as the gains for hosts are usually over the long term.

Some objectors to Qatar's selection cite a small population, its negligible footballing presence, relatively small size and very high summer temperatures as the main reasons that make Fifa's decision a questionable one. Qatar countered with a promise of climate controlled stadia and the relocation of the same to developing countries after the competition. A savvy and thoughtful response - and if the ambition, growth and wealth of the region is anything to go by, they are capable of living up to their word. Still, we speak in future terms - all is just a promise, and if it makes those objectors feel better (and it shouldn't) there's still time for both events to be catastrophic failures. 

A Panorama documentary has also been blamed for England's failed bid, with claims that voters, offended by accusations of bribery in the show, spurned the Brits proposal. If this was the case, it may be justified - certainly England's graceless response to their loss doesn't help. It may betray the attitude of a First World nation that is historically accustomed to getting what it wants simply because it wants it. Perhaps the best lesson for those English who are mortified by the loss and consider a Middle Eastern host 'a disgrace', is that the World Cup doesn't revolve around them.

The Problem with Wikileaks (for us, not the The Man)

The next Bond villain?

Wikileaks and its enigmatic silver haired, Bond-villain like leader, Julian Assange, came into our consciousness with a resounding 'WTF!' (as said by governments around the world). I think any true lover of freedom will applaud the intent and actions of Wikileaks, as it seems to be removing the veil of secrecy and hypocrisy worn brazenly by First World nations, and the US in particular.

While Wikileaks seems to have become a much-needed thorn in the side of the West, especially with the latest revelations, there are a few issues and questions that naturally arise:

• Why do Governments condemn Wikileaks instead of their own people who are the ones clearly 'leaking the Wiki'? US senators called for the site to be branded a terrorist organization - wouldn't that make the leakers terrorists too?

• Governments can clearly leak what they wish for their own purposes (which makes said Governments complicit in terrorism if US senators get their way - see previous point). This latest leak is more problematic for the Middle East than the US as it has the potential to divide the Region (based on the 'fact' that Saudi Arabia has been asking the US to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities). This leak definitively supports a Western agenda and works in favor of the US who would like nothing more than a divided Middle East. Quite honestly, this latest leak actually has the US coming out looking pretty good - but not too good. But good enough. Look at this BBC condensation of the contents and judge for yourself. 

• No doubt the credibility and agenda of Wikileaks will be questioned. Surely conspiracy theories as to its true origin will (or already have) arise. Is it truly an independent body, or part of the West's propaganda machine? The bit of info that most supports the latest US mission most of all - and no doubt will take centre stage in Western media outlets - is the alleged acquisition of North Korean WMD's by Iran. The now, Twosome of Evil (Iraq was after all saved by an American Bootoscopy), is really being set up for an all-out Iraq style US invasion and just in time for the fresh NK/SK conflict. Coincidence?

• If Wikileaks is truly independent, how can it be sure that 'leaks' are truly 'leaks' and not political PR and power plays (see point 2)?

• Will Julian Assange reveal that he is the Anti-Christ by 2012, and is Obama going to be consumed with jealousy as a result?

That's all I've got. Feel free to add what you will. I gotta take a leak.

[EDIT: check this link for at least one differing view on the Leak courtesy of Ahmadinejad]

More Interesting Facts (& Rumours) About Living in the UAE

1. You need a licence to buy alcohol and keep it in your house.

2. You need a licence to dance. Yea you heard me, a licence to dance.
If holding a function of any kind you will need a ream of permissions, among them the permission to dance.

3. Dancing in public is frowned upon as is singing out aloud.

4. Alcohol is not sold openly - only in tourist areas like Hotels. You can get arrested for improper use of alcohol.

5. Emiratis are nicer people than you have heard.

6. Western culture is becoming quite dominant in the UAE and beginning to override local customs and standards.

7. Dishdashas (worn by local men) and Abayas (for women) are rather elegant (IMHO) and can be quite fashionable and chic.

8. Proper policing of traffic has only recently begun in the UAE.

9. There are a range of nationalities within the UAE including Indonesian, Indian, Pakistani, Lebanese, Egyptian, assorted European, American, Jamaican (Ya Mon!) and Filipino...oh yes and some Emiratis (only 20% of the population though).

Interesting Facts (& Rumours) About Living in the UAE

It'll be exactly 2 months tomorrow since my Empress and I moved to the UAE and we've learned, heard and seen all kinds of interesting things since touching down. These are but a few of them and the list will grow as time goes on. So in no particular order:

1. An Emirati (name for the locals) male can marry up to 4 women at a time. He can get a sum of money and a piece of land for each one he marries (through loans which are routinely waived).

2. You may see someone washing his feet in the face basin of the public toilet. I did and it seemed...ok.

3. When a Sheik passes away all the radio stations are required to play Muslim chanting/prayers for 7 days. It happened just today (27/10/2010) during the morning news on Radio One mid-sentence. Literally mid-sentence.

4. Every Emirati is entitled to a stipend from the Government, employed or not.

5. Locals pay no utility bills and all health care is free.

6. You can get arrested for eating in public during Ramadan.

7. You can get arrested for wearing inappropriate clothing or inappropriate public displays of affection.

8. Some Indian men routinely hold hands in public (totally cultural, nothing sexual), but it's cool. However, unmarried persons of the opposite sex could be jailed for doing the same.

9. You are often paid according to your race and/or nationality. Pay increases with the progressive lightness of your skin.

10. Skin lightening products are openly advertised and sold here. One of India's most prominent actors, Shahrukh Khan, is the spokesperson.

11. The food is pretty awesome, especially Lebanese and Filipino food.

12. You must do a medical in order to take up employment here. You can get deported immediately (if working with kids or food) if found to have a contagious disease (like Hepatitis). Get a medical done before you arrive.

13. It's more open and liberal then you hear it is.

14. Emiratis are human beings and behave as such.

15. It's very cheap to hire a maid here. Very often Filipinos are maids and sometimes terribly exploited. Some Westerners get a kick out of having a maid because it makes them feel better about themselves. They are idiots.

16. Laws and policies can change very quickly here as they are done by decree rather than democratic process.

17. Dubai is the London/New York of the UAE. Abu Dhabi is the Coventry of the UAE. Coventry is the Coventry of England.

Robots V Man: Why The Obsession?

I'm not sure who was the first to propose that Mankind's ultimate demise would be brought on by his own sentient robotic creations, but it has caught on with no discernible association to reality whatsoever - except maybe an environmental implication.

Asimov's I, Robot series came out in the 1950's but Fritz Lang's Metropolis appeared in 1927. Since then a slew of apocalyptic films/books on the near extermination of mankind via automaton have been produced including Stephen King's Maximum Overdrive, Runaway with Tom Selleck, the cult classic Blade Runner, The Matrix trilogy, The Terminator series and more recently Tim Burton's 9. Waiting in the wings is Spielberg with something called Robopocalypse (based on a novel). Robopocalypse? It might be good - but what kind of name is that? If it's a satire, then I can understand, but it's going to be hard to take a movie with a name like that seriously.

That said, the main question is why we have become obsessed and fixated on this idea of technology as the bane of mankind - more specifically, technology as deadly, autonomous reservoir of intelligence and choice.  

I can see how our use of technology through biological and nuclear weaponry could lead to a serious crisis. Even the impact of industry on the environment. But robots coming to life and demanding to write poetry and live out a life of free choice? No, not happening. If anybody is going to kill Mankind it will be Mankind - and it will have nothing to do with intelligence, artificial or otherwise. 

If anything, our greatest weakness is the digital age. This was  insightfully implied in John Carpenter's Escape From LA with Kurt Russell reprising his role as Snake Plisskin. A generally bad movie, it had Snake plunging the Earth back to the 'Dark Ages' at the push of a button, wiping away the World's progress by permanently shutting down all power via satellite. Then with eye-patch-like coolness he grunts, 'Welcome to the human race'. We've all wanted to do that. 

Think about it. Everything is going digital, and by extension is becoming highly connected, one mega hard drive crash and we have to start from scratch. Granted, not everything is digital yet, so we should be safe for a few years more - but only a few. 

After the nuclear winter when the remnant of humanity surfaces, significantly stupider than pre-apocalypse, they will hardly know what to do with a laptop, should they find one. A book would be easier to figure out and no batteries necessary. 

What we may be obsessed with is the fact that much of what we fabricate will outlive us, toilet bowls will live for thousands of years, long after we've Tweeted our latest bowel movement to Cyberspace. There is also the Matrix premise that our progress comes at the very cost of our own lives. The energy needed to run our World and its many contraptions is, in essence, our own life energy sacrificed for the sake of profit and comfort. Otherwise, the closest battle between man and machine to date is right below and we clearly win!

The lesson here is clear. The World needs to be a Mac rather than a PC. 

Giving Parenthood a Test Drive

Have I rented out a newborn for a few months to give parenthood the 'ol once over? No, but my wife and I are temporarily living with friends (we are in the thick of moving home) who have a newborn and a 2 year old, so I'm considering it a trial run.

Don't get me wrong, we're not considering having kids. But we know time is running out and sometimes think 'what if?'. This thought is quickly followed up with a 'hell no!' upon the hint of a dirty diaper insinuating itself into my personal air space. That and a few other things.

Based on my short time in such close proximity to the vocation, I have gathered through watching and babysitting etc., that kids reshape your life in profound ways. They determine when, where and what you eat and for how long. They determine where you live. What you wear. What you smell like. How much energy you have - or don't have. How much money...you don't have. They take, and take, and need, and need, and demand and wail and scream and, allegedly, give back only when they hook you up with a nicely appointed old age home...if they don't kill you for the inheritance first (my folks know what to expect - the old age home, they're broke). 

You can only get on a bus if there is enough room for the pram. We had to eat at McDonald's (ewwwwww) because that's what the kid eats, and then only if you can find a seat where the pram can fit. The newborn has to eat every 2 minutes so life must stop for that, and the stygian banshee wailing ensures that life stops for that. The house, schedule, indeed your life,  literally become theirs, and they don't seem to give a flying hoot.

I am amazed at the satiric accuracy of Family Guy's, Stewie, whose misomater shenanigans aren't that far from the truth. Children are masterminds of manipulation, and parents always seem to be the easiest to dupe! They smile, cry, pout, rage, holler, sob, laugh, hug and sometimes listen to you, all to get their way. They wrap mom and dad around their still developing little fingers with the ease and expertise of a practiced person-who-does-that-stuff-expertly. Not to mention the sibling rivalry that starts from day one. Sigh. 

No doubt, kids are a delight...in small doses. I love to hold the newborn and have gotten pretty good at getting her to sleep and such. Warming to the 2 year old, a very intelligent girl who loves to test the limits of disobedience, but has a confident and sunny personality. Their parents are wonderful people and in my inexpert opinion, are doing well at their chosen task. They love their kids and their kids love them (I think - you can never tell with those little freaks).  But so far the general message is that parenthood just isn't for me, I don't wanna share my stuff with anybody I guess. 

Why The Internet Is Beginning to Suck

The internet used to be a place where you could find practically anything. More importantly, it used to be a place where you could find what you were looking for, whatever it was, and Google was a fantastic help in your search. But Google seems to be Googling the life out of the Internet.

I don't know if anyone else has search engine issues, but it appears to me that one now only finds what Google is paid to make you find, rather than what you are looking for. Located in the UK, no matter how much I want to find businesses related to my field (I'm a professional voice over) in Hong Kong or Abu Dhabi, UK results relentlessly appear. Why? The point of the internet is that it isn't bounded by borders or limited to geographical location, yet still my search results always seem to be guided ever so subtlety by where I may be at any time. 

Do you remember when YouTube really was about YOU? You could find just about anything on it and post just about anything on it. Then Google happened and the rules changed. What we thought were real life events and people was actually corporate advertising masquerading as real life. What we thought was a place that facilitated freedom of information and expression became loyal to corporate obligation and consumer advertising then subject to litigation and copyright infringement. There is hardly any YOU left in YouTube, and nothing seems to have replaced it as a place for folks to do their thing. Why is this?

The Internet was powerful because it was a communal collective. It was made up of everyone who used it. But its potential for profit has led to all the independent fragments being gobbled up by corporate monsters. Hence the Internet has become centralised. Let's face it, how can you refuse a huge payday as a small business owner, like Facebook's Zuckerburg  or YouTube's Hurley? But as the people cave in, the Internet becomes smaller and less of what it was meant to be. Less of what made it a powerful tool. Sometimes we don't even know when it happens. Nowadays, the Monoliths design their products to appear like boutiques and small creative thinkers - only to purvey a prescribed profit driven agenda that we happily(?) fall for. 

Perhaps we don't fall for it - but it's beginning to feel like we don't have a choice. As corporations appropriate all the cyber-estate and make profit the prime motive of the Netscape, we are left to the mercy of the few. They make rules we have no choice but to follow. Or we succumb to the design and accept it as the only option relinquishing our freedom to create, break boundaries and plumb the depths of Cyberspace.

If not for the continual search to monetize the net, we could be enjoying it in all its piebald, multifaceted, multi-collective glory. And indeed, the demand that the internet should enrich the already dominant media firms seems to be a fait accomplis. But we should stop and ask why their profit must take primacy.

In venting my frustration about the hijacking of the internet and ineffectual search engines, a friend suggested that I conduct more research in order to input more specific search terms, in order to get more targeted results. Only problem is that research is likely to be conducted on...ya. Vicious Circle complete.

Parents: The Greatest Deterrent to Child Rearing (Next to Kids)

My wife and I have always had the same feelings about kids even before we were married: we love everyone else's, but are happy they are...everyone else's.

Now if fate would have it that we have kids (please no) we would love and cherish them, but at present we haven't been hit by the deep need to reproduce that some are apparently overwhelmed by at some point in life. In fact, the more we see others with their kids, the less we want them.

Now we know some awesome parents, and their kids are brilliant. But they all say the same things when we ask what this whole parenting thing is all about. First there's a huge sigh, then 'it's a lot of work', 'it's 24/7', 'you'll always be tired', 'they can drive you crazy', 'you can't take your eyes off of them' and such. Then after all the disclaimers they add (as an afterthought) 'Oh, but no, yea, it's fulfilling. Gosh, so fulfilling', after which the child breaks something, slaps them in the face or vomits on the carpet. Yum, yum.

After many such testimonies, I'm absolutely convinced that there are no good reasons to have kids. I took an informal survey and asked a general audience why they had kids or what good reasons there were to do so. Some actually said it wasn't fulfilling, just interesting. Others said kids made you want to be 'a better person'. Some joked they make good 'remote controls' when the batteries die and can be great sources of income if you get them working early.

I know all the respondents to be upstanding people who are/would make great parents. They admit easily the challenges of parenthood, not so easily the benefits. But the common thread was a deep love, devotion and concern. Something I consider to be a lifetime prison sentence rather than a 'reason' to have kids. The idea that one would be tethered to this creature by an almost painful love is terrifying to me. The potential for disappointment seems endless, what with all the crazy people running around the world who are undoubtedly someone's children. One day, they might be mine! 

You might say, 'what about your parents, aren't you grateful they had you?'. Yes, I am grateful, but I wouldn't want to be them. They had 3 boys - now three men - and we all turned out pretty good (all between 35 and 40). But what a loooooooong wait they had! It is the kind of kid I was that makes me so wary of parenthood.  I always hear that your kids are you, only multiplied. I don't want to deal with me multiplied -  I already have to deal with me  times 1 every day! And that's enough, thank you very much.

Some thought I would make a great dad. That might be the most terrifying aspect about parenthood to me - what if I fail my children? What about the life-threatening delivery process? What if I discipline them too much, or too little? What if they die on me - or kill me for an early inheritance? Some folks say, 'ohh stop waiting, you'll do fine', to which I say, 'if you're gonna pay for 'em I can start tomorrow'. 

Maybe one day, if we are blessed (or cursed) , we will have kids. But for now, looking in from the outside we're really going to need a lot more convincing. Either that, or we get an unexpected 'gift' that we just have to unwrap whether we like it...or love it.

Haiti: Beware of Those Who Profit From Chaos

Quite frankly, chaos can work to the advantage of some more than others. I'm not speaking of petty looters and hungry quake survivors, but multi-national corporations and international human traffickers. 

Naomi Klein's theory, called the Shock Doctrine, would be well applied to Haiti's circumstance. Finding its ultimate incarnation in Bush and Cheney's Iraq War, this theory is about disaster capitalism - exploit disaster and  profit from suffering. The 2004 Tsunami enriched many who appropriated aid money and landed lucrative building contracts along the devastated coastline of Bangladesh.


Haiti will very likely be a target for First World economic colonisation. It may receive billions in aid that will be paid to First World firms to reconstruct the nation. Then, utilities will be privatised and sold to western companies - and the spoils will be divided. In the meantime, the people will continue to suffer while rich foreigners move in for the cushy jobs created by the global companies. 

Even now, hundreds of Haitian orphans are at risk of being sold to the highest bidder. No doubt, a better home with loving parents is exactly what Haiti's orphans need - but not through a black market trade in human bodies. And God knows who can exploit these children should they find themselves in the wrong hands.

Without being too paranoid I only raise the issue because it has happened before, and in the very recent past.

Haiti: Born to Bleed?

They'll come right through it. We've had dental clinics and we run out of Novocain. A Haitian will sit in a chair and you can pull as many teeth as you want. A Haitian can take pain because he's used to pain. That's their life.

Bobby Burnette, Love of Child Orphange Founder, Haiti

This is a statement from an advocate of Haitian welfare. Florida native, Bobby Burnette and his wife,  care for some 67 Haitian orphans in a well equipped picturesque rural area near the Dom Rep border, called Fond Paresien. It is an odd and frightening sentiment that may betray an unconscious mindset typical of the First World denizen. It is reminiscent of Barbra Bush’s musing that the Katrina dead are likely better off for the depravity and poverty in which they lived.

The terrifying implication is what this mindset allows and inspires in its possessor. How do the aforementioned orphan directors treat their wards given their attitude that Haitians are not just used to pain, but it is their lot in life? There seems to be no intent to change that lot, indeed it hasn't occurred to the Burnettes that people who suffer (even in preventable circumstances like anesthetic-free dentistry), should and do not have to live thus. It hasn’t even occurred to Bobby Burnette that people do what they must when they have no other choice or options available. Either live with the prolonged pain of a cavity, or the relatively short agony of extraction. Perhaps some are unaware that anesthetic is even an option.

The further implication is that as members of the so-called ‘Third World’ (perhaps poor and non-white too, as in the case of the American Katrina victims), this is what is expected of them and what, in essence, they deserve. This mindset may be perpetuated in part by how the media, through news coverage and entertainment, portrays the developing world and non-whites in general. The coverage of the earthquake's aftermath has included dead bodies and dying victims. One report showed a small child heaving her last breaths. One could argue that this stark reality will spur sympathy and urge action. But consider how similar tragedies – man-made or otherwise - are treated when they involve either First World or white victims.

How many dead were broadcast in the Finnish shootings, the Columbine massacre, the McVeigh bombing, the Iraq War and even the 9/11 tragedy? I can’t recall any, save the portraits of Saddam and his sons corpses paraded in the international media. I do not want to see the dead bodies of US soldiers or white people, but that is also true of the Haitians. The treatment of Third World tragedy seems so different to that of the First World. Mind you, dead black bodies were seen in the media post-Katrina, but no tearful montages showing the dignity of the victims thereof as is customary otherwise.

The post-Katrina report that came closest to dignity was one covered by Andersen Cooper. He interviewed a white woman who lost her house and all her possessions in the deluge. Cooper himself was brought to tears watching the sobbing woman scrounge for the remnants of her material memories. But he had no tears for the actual dead people. Somehow this white woman’s tragedy was worthy of more sympathy than anyone else’s. Wolf Blitzer contributed by observing how the victims were ‘so poor, and so black’ during the Situation Room’s coverage. That suggests a real sense of pity for the poor, disadvantaged and non-white – but no respect. There seems to be an association between colour, status and suffering – poor, non-whites are expected to suffer – they have for centuries, surely they, like the Haitians, are used to it by now.

Many have pointed out that the suffering of Haiti began long before this Quake, that it stretches back to the enslaved and self-emancipated Africans who founded the Nation, and the French masters who extorted the fledging country into almost irredeemable environmental and economic debt. Some claim that the abuse of the Haitians by the US and France continues to this day, more recently manifested in the illegal and audacious kidnapping of Jean Betrand-Aristide and his wife by the US military, and the high rotation of Haiti’s premiers. This makes Jonah Golberg's declaration that Haiti needs 'tough love' a little unreasonable. He argues that Japan and Switzerland, like Haiti, have few natural resources yet excel economically and socially. He goes on to say, 'Once the dead are buried, the wounded and sick healed and the rubble cleared, it's time for some tough love. Otherwise, Americans will just be back to clear the debris after the next disaster.' But he neglects to mention the part America has played in the perpetuation of Haiti's political, and by extension, social instability.

With terminology like ‘black on black violence’ and the Associated Press observing blacks ‘looting’ and whites ‘finding food’ after Katrina, one wonders about the cumulative effect of this kind of media coverage. Put that together with type-cast non-whites (Asians as terrorists and blacks as…blacks, for example) and we get a world in desparate need of change. It is easier, however, to change the channel than it is to change the world.

Reporting the News & Respecting Haiti's Dead

I was watching Sky News with Live Jeremy Thompson and the main story was, of course, the aftermath of the earthquake that took place 10 miles west of the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince on Tuesday. Not long into the broadcast images of the destruction were shown; the fallen buildings, the wounded and distressed plus 3 dead bodies.

There was no warning regarding the gruesome nature of the content of the report, and it came as a shock that such graphic imagery would be shown at 5pm. I don't know the official track record of reportage regarding such material with Sky News or the Western media in general, but it made me think about how choices of what is shown and when are made.

This might sound picky, but I feel that the broadcast of the dead, in this case, robs them of a certain dignity a dignity that, it seems UK and American soldiers  have - having never seen a dead body of any broadcast on TV. Don't get me wrong - I don't think these soldiers bodies should be broadcast out of respect for family and the dead themselves. But rarely, if at all, does one see the dead bodies of first worlders displayed in the international media for all to see. I can't recall seeing one dead body after the 9/11 catastrophe. I didn't want to see any - but that is also true for this disaster in Haiti. So what's the difference?

Does it have something to do with the nature of the event? Are the dead from natural disasters fine for broadcast, but those killed in violent conflict off limits? Apparently only black folks died in the Katrina disaster in New Orleans, also an acceptable image for the media as is the dead in Iraq and across Africa.

One could argue that there are simply more disasters in the developing world and so the appearance of more dead from the respective locales is only a matter of statistics. But I believe it has something to do with race and class. To be poor is to be overlooked - to be black is to be inferior. To be poor and black is to be pitied - but not respected. There seems to be a sense (and I sometimes see it in myself) that the poor of the 'third world' aren't 'like the rest of us'. They are more like animals - used to living in squalor and therefore not sensitive to pain and distress the way 'us civilised'  folks are. So, they can be treated differently from the more civilised and materially privileged.

If this incident took place in say Chicago, Paris, Oslo or London would it be dealt with in the same way? Likely there would be montages with touching music with crying and distressed humanity - dignified in the struggle to survive (not unlike the white flood victims who 'found' food during the aftermath of Katrina).

These musings may have no basis - but I do believe that with repetition and consistency, the subtleties in how stories and the subject matter thereof are treated have a deep impact on our perception of the world. We get used to certain groups being filthy, starving and fly ridden and other groups being clean, prosperous and dignified and become inured to the suffering of some and sensitive to the suffering of others. The suffering of Haiti began a long time ago, and this earthquake has highlighted the extent of the long existing poverty and only exacerbated the pain. In some indirect way, what we portray in the media, and how it is portrayed, helps to determine what we expect, and ultimately accept in the world.

An Open Letter to the Future: Come Early!

If there's one thing consumers hate it's being teased with what they could have but probably never will. Hence those sexy, efficient and alluring concept cars that look like the future we imagined but, 'have no plans for production' are a complete waste of time and frustrate consumers to no end.

This is why the ongoing CES is overshadowed by the promise of the Apple iSlate/Tablet. Consumers are pinning their hopes on the brand that has delivered the future before in the form of the iPod and the iPhone. Apple's attraction is that it doesn't tease consumers with the future, it puts it in their hands.  The iPhone feels, looks and operates like a phone in the future we anticipated when we dreamt of the '21st Century'. But not many other brands or companies seem to have the ingenuity or the will to turn our longings into reality, and those that may manufacture advanced products only do so for the wealthy elite - Apple has managed to place that, 'feeling of the future' in the hands of the Average Joe. Thanks Steve.

But this is not an Apple ad. The frustration consumers feel is deepened by the sense that companies, in particular car companies, have the technology and imagination to produce items of the future right now, but simply choose not to. Take the famous now non-existent GM EV-1. People wanted it, but it was taken away with no explanation (check out the documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? for more on that).

So what's the hold-up? Why can't we see more sleek, intelligent and innovative designs in...everything? Whether clothes, transport, kitchen appliances, energy production or communications devices? One can't help but feel some contempt for an age where the  designers of the Eurostar couldn't seem to anticipate one of the World's oldest events: winter. Which, ironically, happens at least once a year (except during the Ice Age when it happened every day), and so really they should have thought about that 'snow' thing.

E-readers are all the rage right now, courtesy of the CES but I have little faith in them. I believe they will be a short-lived fad because people want fewer gadgets that do more rather than a proliferation of gadgets with one or two functions.  A dedicated e-reader is of no use to me and will take up more space in my computer bag that already has my phone, iPod, note pad, Macbook etc. If I get an e-reader, it has to replace something else in my bag apart from the latest novel or work of non-fiction...and we're back to the iSlate.

This again is why we place our hopes in Apple. The iPhone has become many , many things apart from just a phone, thanks to the many apps available, and the hope is that the iSlate will be a similar future-object. The excitement surrounding the iSlate is more than just committed Mac users generating hype, it's the deep longing of a generation for the future they've always wanted (seen mostly in works of fiction) and realized only in false starts and sips too small to quench. Indeed, it is about anticipating being completely surprised by a design and approach we would never have imagined, but that makes practical sense while tantalizing our sense of beauty.

We are waiting for the invention that will herald a change in how we design our world. Waiting for the mind that will take the leap and lead the charge. The company that will say, 'screw the progression of models let's give them the concept car right now!'.  So far Apple has come closest, but we will welcome all comers. Just don't keep us waiting it's getting a bit boring.

Technology.