Trends in Fashion

Orlando asked me to do a post on male business fashion in accordance with the stated aims of Disco. We have also agreed to debate together in 2007, and so I am trying to think up a team name combining the themes, knowing that Orlando has a penchant for inappropriateness.

Anyway, here are my high level thoughts on male business fashion:

Find the centre of an equilateral triangle the sides of which are labelled: "Your Personality", "Current Trends" and "Classic Style."

Appropriate length of tie is the single most important detail to get right.

Shoes are next. But women who judge men by their shoes may have "issues" ("OMG 'is shoes!"... get it?).

Dark colours are easy to match - but not with each other.

No colour is out. But the older you get, the more you should use primaries. Also, brown is not a colour.

Use classical mechanics when choosing patterns. People need to know both how fast the pattern is moving and where it is. The world is not ready for quantum check.

Cattle wear brands. But only because they can't afford Armani.

Finally - no matter what you wear, how much you spend, what company you keep and how good your clothes look, remember that beauty is only skin deep, so you have to moisturise regularly.

Pod People

I'm not sure how podcast-savvy Disco is - so please excuse any overly simple or redundant explanations.

I have a 45 minute commute which takes place on public transport. There is not enough music in the world to make this ok. As a result I turn to facts and people who tell me about them.

'Podcast' is really just another name for 'audio file' - you don't need to have an iPod, you can play the file on your computer. The big deal is that you can subscribe to a Podcast and the latest episodes are downloaded automatically so it becomes more like a TiVo/Foxtel iQ situation.

The rise of Cable TV in the US opened the playing field for independents by lowering the barriers to entry of producing and distributing a TV show. Suddenly there were hundreds more channels with not much on them. The internet combined with increasingly sophisticated consumer broadcast technology has meant that it has never been easier to have your own online 'channel' (see RK's YouTube post). So there is a lot more mediocrity on its way (again, see YouTube).

The important difference here is that the Internet is a la carte. Timeshifting and aggregation are native to the online environment. So where cable lies groaning* under the weight of mediocre shows, the internet makes it possible to see only the diamonds in the rough by filtering out all the amateur detritus.

In that spirit, here are my recommendations:

• triplej's Hack Daily (no need for smh.com)
• Andrew Denton - Enough Rope (it's great to be able to pick the interviews you want when you want)
• Stanford School of Engineering - Entrepreneurial Thought Leaders (some really interesting people talk about their careers)
• Adam Kempenar, Sam Van Halgren - Filmspotting (The best + least pretentious podcast about film)
• The Economist (some sound quality + programming issues but getting better)
• The Ricky Gervais Podcast (only if you're a fan)
• TVO Canada - Big Ideas (requires further filtering to find the good lectures but listen to Jessica Stern on Terrorism)
• Lars Brownworth - 12 Byzantine Rulers: The History of the Byzantine Empire (History's 'other' empire)

To access all of this goodness download the latest version of iTunes. Start iTunes, click on the Podcasts tab in the pane on the left. Then click 'Podcast Directory' on the bottom right. This will take you to the iTunes music store where everything is free (except music). Search for these podcasts or subscribe to others.

Any Disco members who share my commuting pain and podcast love, let me know what you're listening to...

I See Red

Your old pals – James and Kato – caught up for a lovely evening of discussion about war crimes. The panel of 6 had been put together by the Australian Red Cross and featured luminaries such as:

• Graham Blewitt AM - Director of the Australian Nazi War Crimes Unit and Deputy Prosecutor for the ICTY.
• Justice David Anthony Hunt AO – NSW Supreme Court Judge, Judge on the ICTY, and the ICTR.

Some thoughts from the panel – and some from me.

Location

Where do you put a Tribunal? Outside the country eg. The Hague? Or inside eg. East Timor’s courts?

The ICTY was able to successfully interview rape victims as witnesses primarily because they were taken outside of their communities where their lives would have been made hell. Cf. Iraq where there has been intimidation and assassination.

Domestic courts can be desirable. Proximity to victims makes their verdicts more “meaningful”. However sometimes they are just the cheaper option. In East Timor a shortage of jurists, lack of funds and inability to extradite criminals from Indonesia meant that the shortcomings of the courts were patently apparent to the victims.

Cost

Trials are expensive. The ICTY cost $275 million per year. The ICC is more expensive again.

The “International Community” should pay because they provide a deterrent, which is good for everyone. In Macedonia, when military officers were briefed by the UN about the trials in the ICTY and told that its jurisdiction was continuing, there was a deterrent effect.

It’s a bargain compared to waging a military campaign or to allowing the cycle of violence to continue.

The US

A case against the US for high level bombing in Kosovo was not explored because it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt – however this was the wrong test. It was enough to prove that there was a case to be answered.

Rumsfield has been indicted by a court in Germany.

Sharon has been indicted by a Belgian court.

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs)

• Can process more people.
• They limit the scope of “permissible lies” – it becomes impossible to say atrocities did not happen.
• Often what is wanted by victims is that their pain is recognised rather than that the perpetrators are gaoled – example was West Papua. We should “listen to the victims.” (?)
• Make it easier to live together again as a society (?)
• Do not provide a deterrent for soldiers in other conflicts.
• The “amnesty” granted is a murky area of international law because the Geneva Conventions require states to prosecute war criminals.

Trials and TRCs

A study by Oxfam in East Timor suggested that people wanted violent crimes prosecuted, while the less serious crimes could go through a TRC. This sounded good on paper but the failure of the courts meant that minor criminals were doing penance while the major perpetrators were walking free.

The South African example is often used to show how giving amnesty works instead of trials. However of the 7000 people who applied for amnesty, 5000 were knocked back. So there was still lots of prosecution.

My Thoughts

Unfortunately the event was poorly moderated and as you can see the panelists did not really get stuck into any particular issue. I would have loved to see more discussion on whether TRCs can work with Trials, what makes up this “International Community” and what are the machinations required to get your conflict taken seriously enough to warrant the enormous bill that this type of action requires.

However the most fascinating question was simmering under the surface of the panel. There were those who were fixated on “listening to the victims” and working out what they wanted. In contrast to that approach there were those who seemed more enthusiastic about building a formidable international criminal deterrent. To me, this raised the moral quandary of a “greater good” and of ends justifying means.

It would be simple if the law was only concerned with victims. However (as one panelist argued) dealing with the past is a big part of creating a future for a country that has been torn by war. So doesn’t this mean that there a responsibility to the rest of the country and to those who would be caught up in fresh violence? What about victims in other conflicts who would stand a better chance if the rampaging military knew that impunity was not available?

What does Disco think about these questions?

Saddam to Hang

I am interested in comments made by Greens Senator Kerry Nettle who argues that the Australian government's failure to object to Saddam Hussein's death sentence will make it harder for it to object when Australians face a similar punishment overseas.

What are the real issues at stake here?

1. Are people who are against the death penalty for Saddam those who are against it in general? If you are pro-DP for Saddam, are you against it otherwise? Is there such a thing as a special case?
   
   
2. Is SH the same as Australian drug traffickers who are executed in parts of Asia? Is this a matter of degrees or is there no such thing?
   
   
3. Is the DP a good enough punishment? Should we instead, as Josh Lyman from the West Wing says, sit them in a room watching hours upon hours of home video footage of their victims, of their families forever?
   

Thoughts? Puns?

Mufti Day

What do we think about the recent comments regarding women's clothing and its relation to rape from Sheik Taj el-Din al Hilaly?

This cartoon by Leunig (not always a fan, but occasionally he comes up with some interesting ones) is interesting viz notions of entrapment in clothing in general.

A few thoughts...some from some friends who have also had this discussion.

1. That women's dress influences men's behaviour is not a new thing - Catholic school uniforms, nuns' habits, brethren scarves have all made statements about modesty and religion. But to make claims like Sheik's which assume that anything less than head to toe covering will lure men and trigger their hormones/lust seems seriously not only anachronistic but just silly. As my friend Alex pointed out, it also takes all control over the female aesthetic out of the hands of women, as it conflates beauty with sexiness, which is disempowering.
   
   
2. "Irene Khan made some interesting comments about this issue to the effect that it was a red herring precisely because the experience of women in countries such as Afghanistan under the Taliban made it clear that sexual violence occurs whether or not women are completely covered. They are still women. Men who wish to attack them still can. That wish does not seem to be strongly empirically linked to what those women are wearing."
   See: wikipedia entry
   
   
3. Or really, is the issue more broadly nothing to do with the fact that a contorvsersial Mufti has outrageous views, but that these same outrageous views* when expressed by others aren't given the same degree of public outrage and mortification? (e.g. the rape case in Italy (requires access) which claimed a women wearing jeans must have consented, as jeans are hard to take off )
   

Some fabulous puns that came out of the discussion:

• Am I a wolf in sheik's clothing?
• Is this the pot calling the mufti crap?
• My! You look sheik.

iPod => iAm

I've been interested in music for as long as I can remember.

First it was the mathematics of harmonics and resonance (or is that doubling up?)

Then it was all about the beats.

Now it's all about the melodic memes (aka samples). When you listen to a remix or even better, a mash-up, you get the pleasure of listening to the old song(s) with all the emotional associations that go along with that plus the revitalisation that comes with new beats, new arrangements and new emotional associations.

It's like when a second meaning emerges from the literal meaning of the words.

We were talking about another form of melodic memetics with revitalised associations on the weekend - playlists. Rather than get into the symbiotic relationship of Flash Memory, MP3 and Gens X&Y, here's my playlist contribution:

1. Shirley Bassey - Where Do I Begin? (Away Team Remix)
2. Pink ftg Redman - Get This Party Started (Sweet Dreams Remix)
3. Fugees ftg Aphrodite - Ready or Not (Jungle Remix)
4. Michael Jackson vs Royskopp - Remember the Time (DJ Fab Remix)
5. Madonna vs Tone Loc - Funky Cold Madonna
6. Busta Rymes - Turn It Up (Remix)/Fire It Up
7. Jessica Simpson - These Boots Are Made For Walking (Scott Storch Remix)
8. Cold Cut - Autumn Leaves (Irresistible Force Mix Trip 2)
9. Bug Powder Dust ftg Justin Warfield - Bug Powder Dust (LA Funk Mob Remix)
10. Living Color - Love Rears Its Ugly Head (Soulpower Remix)

Just a Thought

"Whether he (sic) likes it or not, a man's character is stripped bare at the poker table; if the other poker players read him better than he does, he has only himself to blame.

Unless he is both able and prepared to see himself as others do, flaws and all, he will be a loser in poker, as in life."

--Anthony Holden

Who's Domain?

You may want to turn the sound off on this graphical representation of sandpile power law. After a while it starts to look like critical phase transitions like when you magnetise some iron.

Hours of fun.



Oh and my hi score is 4009.

Merry Socks Day

Merry Socks Day to Kato.

Big Kim

Kato and I went to the Lowy Institute last night to see Kim Beazley talk about Australia's foreign policy. I scrawled some notes on a piece of paper which I then left at Wagamama, but here is what I remember about what he said and what I thought:

[BK] Australia is now involved in a civil war in Iraq which is basically clan against clan.

[JT] Seems to me that it's more complex than that. Iraq has become a testing-ground in which nation states like Iran and the US are struggling for pre-eminence in the region. Also seems like it's in BK's interest to characterise the war as a mess with no broader strategic importance because it's Howard's war.

[BK] Iran has very successfully done nothing while the US handed them dominance by taking out Iraq then getting stuck there.

[BK] Iraq is different from Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, America had been attacked and thus Australia was obliged to engage under the ANZUS treaty. Also there was an unprecedented global coalition. It was in our interest to be there.

[JT] Not sure the ANZUS treaty applies because Afghanistan did not attack the US (Kato's point). But the conflict can still be characterised as different from Iraq in terms of its international support. The question then becomes on what terms do we engage globally?

[BK] We should be the ally America needs not the ally this current administration wants. "Mates talk straight."

[JT] Vomit-inducing quote aside, actually a good point here about how we are their only friend in an important region. Our long-term value to them is in things like Pine Gap and our regional capabilities. While it may be politically advantageous in the short term to go crusading with the US, we should instead make ourselves into a really useful regional force.

[BK] We need to focus on our region in both alliances and spending. Buying two large amphibious vessels, and investing heavily in the JSF without a stop-gap measure gives Australia small amounts of global capability with large risks of overstretching and of losing air dominance in the region. Instead we should be spending more on smaller amphibious vessels for regional incursions, like the ones hired at great expense for operations in East Timor recently. We should also utilise our great local industry in fast catamarans which the US have purchased for their SEAsian forces.

[JT] However B also said that regional vs global engagement was a "false choice". I don't understand this. If you have $X and you can either buy aircraft carriers to take tanks to Africa or smaller ships to send troops to the Solomons, it seems to me like there is a choice to be made. More on this below.

[Q] There was a question on whether region matters in our more global age. You've talked about the importance of the Afghan conflict. Is Afghanistan part of our region?

[JT] I thought this was a good question because it showed up the inherent difficulty of criticising procurement of global platforms and emphasising regional engagement while also supporting Australia's role in some global conflicts but not others. Maybe the "false choice" idea was B's way of saying that there can be no hard and fast rule about where and when Australia should engage, only different emphasis and different capabilities.

[BK] However B didn't say that. He said "Of course your region matters, it's where you live."

[JT] Penetrating insight of the quote aside, I tend to think that region does matter. Movement of people is still heavily restricted by both physical limitations (as we have not yet got jetpacks or teleporters) and national barriers. So the people closer to us can still hurt us more easily. I'm not sure if this means that our foreign policy should be defined more by regional than by global interests but I think region still matters.

[BK] We need a Department of Homeland Security in Australia.

[JT] Does another department bring the desired coordination among different services such as intelligence and border security? Not sure the experience in the US has been entirely positive.

The (Pros and) Cons of the Neo-Cons

Bush is Not Incompetent

This article, co-written by George Lakoff of "Don't Think of an Elephant" fame, explores the reframing crucial to actually attacking conservatism rather than easily scapegoating Bush.

The authors argue that although it is easy to attack Bush for his failures, his failures are actually a product of conservative governance. Although Bush won't run again in the next election, another conservative will, so energy should be focussed on speaking out not just against Bush, but against the Neo-Con movement as a whole.

Although it is important to note that speaking out against Bush is a necessary - and can be a creative - exercise.

Antarctica - does anyone still care?

Midnight Oil wrote a song about it as the last untouched wilderness... now the Russians are drilling into a lake buried for 14,000 years under 4km of ice (they say they've figured out how to prevent the oil in the drill from entering the lake... ) and India is building a new research station in an environmentally sensitive location (goodness, I think the whole place is environmentally sensitive!) - see http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/black-ice/2006/07/16/1152988408997.html

Should we respect Antarctica as the last wilderness and try to protect it as such (note: international law shenannigans have rendered this rather ineffective to date), or do we need to move forward and recognise that we can no longer afford to reserve a place on this planet without a significant human footprint?