The Capital Letter

Yesterday I was reading an article about Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations. I was reminded of his predecessor in that position, one Mr Boutros Boutros-Ghali. And I got to thinking that his is a truly spectacular name. It is positively sonorous. It rolls delightfully off the tongue. It sticks in the memory. So, for your viewing pleasure, here is a light-hearted and hastily cobbled together list of the top ten politicians, leaders and heads of state past and present whose names I find delightful. This is, mind, not an endorsement of their politics, or of them as people. I just reckon their names rock.

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former UN Secretary General

Benazir Bhutto, former Pakistani Prime Minister

Mahatma Gandhi, former Indian Prime Minister

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, President of Indonesia

Desmond Tutu, South African Bishop

Tutankhamun, Egyptian King, died 1343BC

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic

Olafur Grimsson, President of Iceland

Ratu Sir Kamasese Mara, former Fijian Prime Minister

Taufa'ahau Tupou IV, King of Tonga

I'd be interested to hear your favourite picks for prominent people with sonorous eponyms (they don't have to be politicians or leaders). Hit me with them.

And now you know.

It's late and I was going to go to bed, but I just spotted this article on the BBC website and had to share it before I hit the hay.

It is only very infrequently that New Zealand rates a mention on the front page of the BBC News website, but today my little South Pacific country made it big. And what for? Well, since you asked, it seems that in January of this year, just before she won her Oscar for her role in Million Dollar Baby, Hilary Swank got done for trying to bring fruit into New Zealand, and was fined NZ$200 for her offence.

You gotta laugh, or else you cry. With the exception of the whole Lord of the Rings excitement, we only ever get a mention around these parts when something curious and trivial like this happens. (The last one I remember was when they discovered Shrek, the sheep who had evaded shearers for six years in May last year.) Tragic. Anyone would think we don't generate actual news.


Anyway, moping on my part aside, according to the article:
"Swank, 30, breached quarantine laws by failing to declare an apple and orange when she flew into Auckland in January.

The actress, who won her second Oscar in February, was fined but appealed against the penalty, defending herself in a letter.

Her appeal was rejected by the Manukau District Court, who ordered she also pay NZ$30 (£11) in costs."

The best bit, though, is her defence. It seems that after her 20 hour flight she "simply forgot" that she had the fruit with her. To anyone who has never travelled to New Zealand or Australia, that may sound completely plausible. But, I can assure you, it ain't.

As you enter any airport in both New Zealand and Australia, you are assailed by dozens of signs warning you that it is an offence to bring foodstuffs such as fruit into the country, and mapping out the penalties very clearly. Moreover, you have to walk past at least ten specially designed, brightly coloured bins into which you are meant to drop any fruit etc. you might be carrying before reaching customs. It's not that hard. The reason for this, as the article points out, is that "New Zealand has strict biosecurity regulations aimed at keeping it free of pests and diseases." In particular, they are trying to keep out fruit flies, but there are other pests too that we have thus far remained isolated from because of our remote island status. This is the same reason that Ministry of Agriculture officials get on your plane after it lands in New Zealand and spray the overhead lockers with pesticide spray - a constant source of hilarity and wisecracks from passengers.

I accept that, to many, New Zealand's biosecurity laws might seem a little draconian, and perhaps they are. But, whether you like it or not, those are the laws of the land, and they are made patently obvious to everyone who arrives. Despite my caveats above about embarrassing news from New Zealand, I'm pleased that in this case Swank's (weak) appeal has been rejected and that she has been forced to cough up. To me, it shows that the authorities in New Zealand have treated her like everyone else, rather than just letting her off because she is famous and high-profile.

Still, it's kind of embarrassing that this sort of thing is the only coverage we get over here. It makes us sound much quirkier than we really are. Ah well.

And now you know.

News that should surprise no-one: As reported today over on Scoop. According to a newly released study, conducted by the National Sleep Foundation, or NSF, 50% of Americans are too tired for sex. Furthermore, the study finds that idleness caused by lack of sleep is a factor for connubial problems and neglect of marital duties.

Even less surprising, I think, is another finding from the same report:

"On the other hand however, U.S. teenagers are "very interested" in the intimate practice."

Really? Well slap me with a mullet if that is not astonishing.

Figures from the study which did surprise me were these:

1) 75% of the 1500 people questioned for the study "consistently complained about sleeping problems."

So, does that mean that only 25% of Americans can sleep? That seems remarkably high to me, if encouraging, since I fit into the 75% category (except for the American bit, of course).

2) 60%(!!) of the subjects said that "they would drive a car while overtired" and another 4% admitted that they had "already had a motor vehicle accident caused by micro-sleep."

What?! 4% of people have had an accident caused by micro-sleep? That is terrifying. I think I'll stick to the trams and S-Bahn.

3) Those people who do have sleeping problems have different tactics for dealing with them: "87% of affected people watch TV, 64% read and 47% have sex with their partner."

OK, I have a couple of issues with this point. Firstly, 87 + 64 + 47 = 198, which means that almost all people must be employing at least two if not more tactics to deal with their sleeping problems. I wonder if they read while watching TV, watch TV while having sex with their partner, or have sex with their partner while reading? The mind boggles. I wonder what Ms Bear would say if I tried these combinations of tactics? Secondly, I wonder how many of the people with sleeping problems have partners without sleeping problems? And of that group, I wonder how many use having sex as a tactic to deal with the problem? And, more importantly, I wonder if the partners without sleeping problems know that they are being shagged while they sleep soundly, or alternatively mind that their own unproblematic sleep is interrupted for sex just because there's nothing on the telly or no good, unread books left in the house? As I say, the mind boggles.

4) "More than a third describe themselves as bad sleepers and consider it as a fundamental problem for their intimate life as they are often just too tired for sex. Another 25 per cent of test persons living in a partnership said they would "get laid" less often and increasingly lose interest in sex."

OK, my surprise at this is not so much to do with the statistic. It's about the formulation. Who, realistically, when being interviewed by an academic - and a sociologist at that - for a formal survey, is going to refer to sex as "getting laid"? I mean, come on.

Anyway, enough on the actual study itself. I have more:

Never one to just accept what he reads, BerlinBear did a bit of his own research, and got in touch with a former dancer, based in Dallas, Texas. He wishes only to be known by the name Anthony (pictured below, at the height of his career), to ask him a few questions about his sleep patterns.


"Anthony", of Dallas, Texas

When asked whether he ever had problems sleeping, "Anthony" told me: "Yeah man, all the time. Especially when I was still dancing, it was a real drag. I'd come home from a gig, exhausted, and need to sleep to gather my energy for the next day. But instead, I'd just lie there, totally wired, for hours on end. Really frustrating, and it had a terrible effect on my dancing sometimes."

So I asked him whether he felt that his sleeping problems might have affected his sex life, to which he replied: "Well, I've never had any complaints! No, seriously man, yeah, of course it did. If you're as physically exhausted as I sometimes am when my sleep problems get really bad, there's no way you can perform all the time. It's really depressing when that happens, but it does happen. Definitely."

I then questioned Anthony on his tactics for getting to sleep when he was having problems, and specifically whether he had ever used sex as a sleep-inducing tactic: "What?! You must be joking. That's just downright rude. What would my partner say if she woke up to find me there, just going for it, and I was like "sorry love, can't sleep"?" That's just selfish man. Nah, I generally stick to counting sheep, like my Mom taught me to do when I was a kid. My record is 1,876,243. I hit that one time when I couldn't sleep for two days. I'm pretty proud of that actually. There can't be many former dancers from Dallas who can say that."

(OK, OK, the bit about "Anthony" is all bollocks, but the National Sleep Foundation and the study are absolutely for real).

And now you know.

Just a really quick post this one, to let you know that Che Tibby, whom I linked to yesterday for his comments about race-relations in Australia, has today offered a second post on the same topic. He responds to feedback from his first post and explains his thinking on this issue a little further. The post is here for those who are interested. You will note that he is not really talking about racism as such, but about a multicultural vs bicultural vs diversity paradigm. He differentiates much more clearly than I did yesterday between the treatment in Australia of the indigenous Aborigines as opposed to other foreigners and immigrants. It is a good read and I highly recommend it.

And now you know.

According to this story over on Stuff, Laurence Fishburne has revealed that when he went to Syndney in 1997 to film the first of the Matrix movies, he found a distinctly "racist vibe". This was, he maintains, not because he is African-American, but rather because his appearance led Australians to believe that he was "a Maori bloke".


Laurence Fishburne a Maori bloke? I think not.

Source: stuff.co.nz

In the article, Fishburne is quoted as saying:

"If you asked someone who was a Maori about how they felt about how they were treated in Australia, or New Zealand, you'll get an answer," he says. "They'll have something to tell you. And you might not like what you hear. And when I got to Australia a lot of people did not know who Laurence Fishburne was. I was a big guy walking around with no hair on my face and no hair on my head. And most people assumed I was Maori back in the late 1990s.

"There was a definite vibe. No one called me a name or any of that stuff. I could sense - I wouldn't even say it was hostility - but there was a wariness, an unease. When I came back to do the next two movies, after the first film came out, everyone knew me and it all changed."

Having spent time in Australia on numerous occasions, and having befriended many Australians and made the acquaintance of many more, I am not surprised. I believe that, on the whole, Australia does have a racist vibe. Let's face it, any country where it is still relatively common practice - and goes without public sanction - to refer in the vernacular to the native Aborgines as "Abos" and to other dark-skinned people, such as Greek immigrants, as "Wogs", is not exactly leading the charge in stamping out racism, is it? Don't get me wrong: I am not suggesting that all Australians are racist, by any means. I am merely suggesting that Fishburne's claim that he faced "wariness" or "unease" from those who thought he was Maori, is, in my experience, quite likely to be true. In an insightful piece, Che Tibby, a New Zealander living in Melbourne, recently blogged about race relations policy in Australia here.

To be fair, Fishburne goes on to temper his criticism, saying:

"But I have since come into a new sort of connection with Australia ... In 1997, on race issues, I thought it was a bit like [the US] in the 1950s and 1960s. But when I went back after the Olympics, to do the next two films, I found it a lot different. Like a whole new injection of people and attitudes had happened. I think any city that does the Olympics takes on the world and has to grow and has to kind of assimilate all sorts of folks."

While I would hesitate to attribute any progress made on this issue in the last 8 years purely to Sydney having hosted the Olympics, I am perfectly prepared to accept that attitudes are beginning to change in Australia. I certainly hope that is the case.

Of course, it would be unfair to suggest that Australians are the only ones guilty of racism. Unfortunately, it remains a widespread scourge, and has been evident and easily observable in some form in every country I have ever lived in or spent time in. For example, (as Fishburne himself hinted above) I do not consider it at all unlikely that Maori people living in New Zealand - where they are from - face "wariness", "unease", or a "racist vibe" based on their race on a regular basis. The very fact that race relations will be, as ever, a prominent issue at this year's general election in New Zealand (as discussed here and shown in this poll), should be an indication that things are not all rosy in New Zealand either.

Equally, I found racism and racist views to be widespread in the UK when I lived there, and not just against dark-skinned people, but also against other Europeans, especially the French and the Germans. And in the political arena, the ground gained in recent years by the racist British National Party in the UK, (discussed here) and the Neo-Nazi NPD party here in Germany (whose political succes, popular support and penchant for public rallies have forced German politicians to act to tighten the law governing the rights of protest and assembly), offer sobering indications that even extreme racism does not receive the universal condemnation it deserves, and that racist attitudes are not likely to go away in a hurry.

Perhaps one day racists will be universally condemned the world over for the small-minded, blinkered, ignoramuses (or ignorami?!) they are. I certainly hope so. But I'm afraid that my travels in the world thus far have not given me much cause to hope that such a day is just around the corner.

And now you know.

Source: BBC News

In very sad news, I learned today that former Split Enz and Crowded House drummer Paul Hester has been found dead in Melbourne, Australia. As reported here, here, and here, Hester apparently hanged himself in a Melbourne park sometime between Friday night, when he was last seen alive, and Saturday afternoon, when his body was found:

"Ambulance officers said he had "attempted suicide" and died from strangulation. He was already dead when they arrived at the scene. ... Police have said the death was not suspicious."

Predictably there is now speculation that Hester had been suffering from depression, though as the articles linked to above attest, his close friends and colleagues have said that they saw no indication recently that he was in a bad way.

Quite apart from the fact that this is a great loss to the music and entertainment industry, perhaps the saddest thing is that he leaves behind him two daughters, aged eight and ten. I feel desperately sorry for them.

I have long been a fan both of Split Enz and of Crowded house, and am saddened by this loss. His former bandmate in both of those groups, Neil Finn, has said he is devastated, adding: "I have lost one of my best mates."

There is a whisper about that the Finn brothers, who are currently on tour in Europe, may cancel some of their tour dates to travel to Australia in the wake of Hester's death. From a purely selfish point of view, I can only say that I hope they are back on tour by April 18th, which is when I have tickets to see them here in Berlin. Not sure what will happen there, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they don't make that date. And that too would be a real shame.

And now you know.

A couple of developments here. Firstly, according to the Economist (hat tip to PeterVladimir), I can't spell Kyrgyzstan yet at all, despite all the coverage. In this article from the Economist, they spell it like so: Kirgizstan. Personally though, I like all the y's alongside the z (think of the Scrabble score!), so I'm going to stick with that.

The Economist also informs me that the Kyrgyzstan upheaval is known as the tulip revolution, and indeed a Google News search seems to indicate that that has indeed become the sound-bite-compatible catchphrase I was wondering about. That was quick.

In speculating about which Central Asian country might be next on the revolution-with-a-cheesy- name list, the Economist article disagrees with my stab in the dark of Turkmenistan, plumping instead for Tajikistan:

"Kirgizstan’s neighbours are also watching closely. It has a tricky relationship with Uzbekistan, whose dictator, Islam Karimov, has cracked down heavily on Islamic militants. ... A new Kirgiz government might show more consideration for ethnic Uzbeks in the south, which could perhaps improve relations with its bigger neighbour.

Events in Kirgizstan are unlikely to have much effect in Turkmenistan, a North Korea-style dictatorship in the region. But Kirgizstan’s other neighbours, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, may feel tremors. In Kazakhstan to the north, the president, Nursultan Nazarbaev, has doled out money and favours (from the country’s mineral wealth) to keep himself in power. But there is a visible and lively, if so far unsuccessful, opposition. Tajikistan, which is poorer and endured a civil war in the 1990s, could be shakier. Recent elections, criticised by international observers, strengthened the party of the president, Imomali Rakhmonov. Might he be the next to succumb to Central Asia's new-found people power?"

Well, we'll see eventually won't we? Still, it would be a troubling time to be a Central Asian leader at the moment, wouldn't it?

In other Kyrgyz developments, it seems that for a while there was a situation of duelling parliaments, with the new interim President and acting Prime Minister, Kurmanbek Bakiyev backing the "old" parliament, i.e. the parliament that was in place before the contested elections which sparked the revolution, while Kulov, the newly appointed security chief, came out in support of the "new" parliament, i.e. the recently-elected, heavily disputed parliament which, when elected, was widely considered pro-Akayev (the now ousted President). Both parliaments met - in the same building - on Sunday, to discuss their respective stances. It appears now, following further meetings today, that the old parliament is prepared to make way for the new parliament, in return for confirmation of Bakiyev as the interim leader. Confused? You're not the only one!

You can get further info on the duelling Kyrgyz parliaments from ABC News, Deutsche Welle (in English), and an excellent analysis of who might be in change from Spiegel Online (also in English).

And now you know.

Source: BBC Sport

I know you're all just waiting with bated breath to hear what happened in the 151st Boat Race, the lead-up to which I blogged about here. Well, the dark blue boat of Oxford soundly beat the light blues of Cambridge, with a winning margin of 2 lengths.

Oxford, the heavier crew by some 10kgs per man, got off to a great start, opening up a lead of about 1/2 a length in the first couple of hundred metres. Cambridge then recovered from their comparatively poor start to cut that lead back to just a few feet at one point. But that had taken considerable effort, meaning they were unable to respond to the big push from Oxford which followed almost immediately. As a result, Oxford quickly opened up a lead of almost a full-boat length, held that lead for much of the rest of the race, and then pulled away in the final quarter. The smaller Cambridge crew, despite their excellent technique, had no answer to the superior strength and power of Oxford, and the result was a resounding win for the dark blues.

This was Oxford's 72nd win in the Boat Race. Cambridge have won the Boat Race 6 more times than Oxford, with 78 wins. There has also been one dead heat.

The relatively fast pace of the race - Oxford won in 16 mins 41 seconds - is a reflection both of the extremely high quality of both crews (which boasted four Olympians each), and also of the calm weather and relatively flat water conditions on the Tideway today.

I was particularly impressed with the performance of Oxford strokeman Andrew Triggs-Hodge, who put in a commanding performance setting the rhythm for the dark blues. His rhythm was perfect and throughout the race he looked a picture of concentrated but relaxed determination.

You can get more info and reports on the race here, here, and here

And now you know.

So, this has been the week in which the Western world learned how to spell Kyrgyzstan. The more alert amongst us might also have gleaned some basic facts about this Central Asian republic, or even now be able to locate it on a map. Jolly good. About time too.

What has surprised me about recent events in Kyrgyzstan is the pace of the developments. It was only just over a week ago that we were getting the first reports of civil unrest and anti-government protests in the wake of the second round of presidential elections. And now, it seems that the government has been toppled; the former President Askar Akayev has been ousted and has fled (possibly to Russia); a new acting Prime Minister and interim President have been named - and they are the same person! - Kurmanbek Bakiev; a date for new Presidential elections has been named. When compared with what went on in the Ukraine, and in Georgia, in recent months and how long those revolutions took, this all seems to me to have happened very quickly.

Though I have been following the news reports on the developments in Kyrgyzstan, I still have a few unanswered questions. Here are five which intrigue me:

1) If you are conducting a revolution to oust a government you consider to be unaccountable and undemocratic, isn't it just a little odd and a little risky to name the same person as interim President and acting Prime Minister? Isn't that consolidating a little too much power in one pair of hands in a time of turmoil and hence asking for trouble?

2) How was the Kyrgyz government so easily and so quickly toppled by what appears actually to have been a spontaneous uprising that was not even especially well co-ordinated? In this situation, in contrast to, say, the orange revolution in the Ukraine, the opposition parties do not appear to have been presenting a unified, co-ordinated, front. They do not even appear to have been clear in advance on who they wanted to replace President Akayev in the first instance. Why was the previous Kyrgyz government that precarious? And if it was that precarious, why has it taken until now for it to be overthrown?

3) How long will it be before we get a catchy, emotive, sound-bite-compatible nick-name for this revolution, such as the orange revolution in the Ukraine, the purple revolution in Iraq, the rose revolution in Georgia, the cedar revolution in Lebanon, or the velvet revolution in Easter Europe in 1989/1990? And what will that name be when we get it?

4) If, as reported here the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov have spoken on the telephone and "saw eye-to-eye on the situation", and have agreed for Russia and the US to work together to promote a "sense of order" in Kyrgyzstan, and if Vladimir Putin has criticised the overthrow of the Kyrgyz government as "illegal", despite being willing to co-operate with the new leadership in Bishkek, does this mean that the United States also considers the overthrow illegal? I'd be very interested to know.

5) Which Central Asian country is next for a largely bloodless revolution? My money's on Turkmenistan but we'll just have to wait and see.

Anyway, those are just a few of things I haven't yet seen answers to in the news reports I've seen. I can spell Kyrgyzstan now without looking it up though, so progress has been made.

And now you know.

This coming Sunday, the 27th March at 15:05 GMT, the crews of Oxford and Cambridge University will be squaring up on the Thames once again in the 151st Boat Race. For those not in the know, this is a 4 1/4 mile (approx. 6.8 kms) rowing race up the river Thames from Putney Bridge to Mortlake. It was first contested in 1829 and has a quirky and interesting history. Only two boats compete, head to head, namely Oxford and Cambridge. It is brutal. To put it in perspective, rowing at the Olympics and World Champs is contested over a 2km course. So, we are talking about a race that is over three times that length. I have raced over this course - though not in the actual Boat Race I must stress - and it hurts. A lot. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the guys who make it into the two crews, as I do for the guys who trial and miss out. They are very impressive athletes. Even if they do have to wear lycra! This year, both the Oxford and Cambridge crews contain Olympians. It will be a tight battle.

Given my affiliation, it is obvious that this year, as every year, I will be cheering for Oxford on race day. They lost last year's race in very controversial circumstances, so I would love to see them turn the tables this time around. The Oxford crew has weighed in as the heaviest crew in Boat Race history, at an average of 98.35kg or 15 stone 6.8 lbs per man. That is huge, especially when you consider that next to none of that weight is body fat. By contrast, Cambridge weighed in at a comparatively weedy 88kg (13 stone 13.1lbs) per man.

Sir Steve Redgrave, widely recognised as the best Olympic rower ever, is picking Oxford this year. This is partly based on their superior size and weight. He says:

"Having a heavier crew tends to be more of a positive than a negative. It's a strength sport - the bigger you are, the stronger you are."

While he's right if conditions are good and the water is relatively flat, that extra weight can be a considerable disadvantage if the weather is bad and the water is choppy, as often happens. So, I for one will be hoping for good weather and flat water on London's tideway on Sunday.

So bring on the good weather. And come on dark blue!
And now you know.

Now here is an interesting story from Japan. BBC news reports on a dispute in sumo circles about whether or not wrestlers should be allowed to wear, uh, pants. Honestly.
According to the article:

"Traditionally, sumo wrestlers compete naked, apart from a small arrangement of wrapped cloth, known as a mawashi.

With fewer children adopting the sport, Japan's amateur sumo association suggested a switch to shorts, the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reported."

But it seems that the Japanese professional sumo association have blocked the move. A spokesman has said:

"The national stadium has its rules and ways of doing things," a spokesman said.

"We have no intention of allowing children in pants into the ring."

Quite right too. Especially since the shorts they are proposing supposedly resemble cycling shorts. And cycling shorts means lycra, or spandex to the Americans amongst you. And everyone knows that it takes someone very trim and ripped indeed to look good in lycra. And female.

Let's face it, men look terrible in lycra. Men have appendages that lycra is just not capable of flattering. A quick glance at any professional cycling race or rowing regatta will tell you that. And those guys are fit and carrying next to no body fat. So what hope could there possibly be for sumo wrestlers, who by definition are expected to be carrying truckloads of body fat? The result has the potential to be something truly horrific, and certainly has no chance whatsoever of fulfilling the stated aim of the proposed change, namely:

"One amateur sumo official told the paper: "Pubescent kids are not going to take part if they don't look cool.""

So, in short, forget the pants sumo. Stick with your mawashis.
And now you know.

The other day I blogged about a case of and asked for suggestions of prominent people you'd like to see accidentally get made up as someone or something else at the BBC Cardiff studios. Thanks to those of you who replied with suggestions. Here they are in all their (insane) glory:

Tony Blair as Donny Osmond

Helen Hunt as George Washington

Tom Cruise as Tarzan's furry sidekick

Vladimir Putin as Dobby from Harry Potter

Thanks for those.

And now you know.

A friend of mine sent me this today and I just about fell of my chair laughing. A bit of light relief to help you recover from the Brain Drain rant of yesterday.



And now you know.

Yesterday I blogged about the NZ brain drain debate. That post focussed mainly on background and the debate thus far, but didn't have much on what I think about the issue. So that is what I will address in this posting.

Let me say right from the off that I fully accept the argumentation that many of the New Zealanders who leave do so for financial reasons. New Zealand is a small and fairly empty country, so it is a small market - whatever sector you're in. As a result, New Zealand employers simply cannot compete in income terms with employers in much bigger markets such as the US, the UK, Japan, or even Australia. If you want the big bucks, you have to head off-shore. So I am not arguing here that economic and financial considerations don't play a role. They do. One of the things I object to though, is the reduction of the reasons for leaving down to pure economic considerations. I just don't think that tells the full story. For absolutely everyone who decides to leave New Zealand, myriad factors have to be taken into account. They have to weigh up possible financial, cultural, historical, personal and lifestyle advantages, and possibly a strong desire to travel and see the world, on the one hand, against possible disadvantages on the other hand. These might include, for example, missing family and friends, missing the lifestyle they had in NZ, lack of a social network in their new destination, visa, right of abode and work permit difficulties, logistical difficulties, banking complications etc. And if they didn't weigh up those factors before they left, then at the very latest you can bet that they weigh them up when, a little further down the line, they are making the "should I stay or should I go?" decision regarding their long term place of abode. For this reason I think it is simplistic, reductionist nonsense for the likes of Don Brash and others to argue that the fact that incomes are higher in Australia is the sole, or even principal, reason for the brain drain. But to be honest, I think they know that too. I think they are just hoping that no one will call them on it.

Now to my objections to the concern about the brain drain and its effects: the first is the framing of the debate. The very name "brain drain" and the oft-repeated assertion that it is New Zealand's "brightest and best" who are leaving smack for me of intellectual arrogance. By what measure, I wonder, does having a tertiary qualification automatically grant access to the ranks of the brightest and best? I have met a lot of people with tertiary qualifications, even several qualifications, whom I found to be distinctly unimpressive intellectually-speaking and, well, just not very bright. Equally, I have met lots of people who have never been near a university or polytechnic, but who are sharp as tacks and leave supposedly better-educated people in the shade. Having a tertiary education does not, in and of itself, mean that you are particularly intelligent. And it certainly doesn't mean that you are one of the "best". Also, as far as I know - though I stand to be corrected on this - there is no evidence to show that those New Zealanders heading overseas are the smartest or best-performing students in their courses or years. Instead, in the brain drain argument, the equation always seems to be "tertiary qualification = brightest and best; the bright ones are leaving, only the dumb ones are left behind" and I just don't buy it. Nor, for the record, does Kerre Woodham, whose column on this issue I mentioned in my last post. She writes:

"That doesn't mean I accept the premise that we are indeed losing our best and brightest. This is a mantra that's become a "fact" through repetition. Who says the students who head off overseas are the top of the class? ... The ones heading off overseas may have been the ones who weren't picked for the plum jobs in this country."

Secondly, contributions to the brain drain debate often fail to take into account that much, if not all, of the drain is replaced by an influx of highly-qualified immigrants. The more so because New Zealand has a highly selective points-based immigration system, under which, amongst other things, having a tertiary qualification is rewarded. This means that applicants with degrees etc. have better chances of being granted permission to immigrate. To be fair, the Herald article at least acknowledges this:

"Both countries [NZ and Australia] have a lot more foreign-born immigrants than emigrants. ... New Zealand has 624,405 foreign-born (18 per cent) [compared with 464,465 NZers living abroad in OECD countries], excluding Australians."

"The report shows that immigrants to both countries are more highly educated than the average Australian or New Zealander, reflecting selection systems in both countries which target skilled migrants."

But all too often, these highly educated and skilled immigrants are left out of the equation in the wailing and hand-wringing about how many New Zealanders are living abroad.

My third problem with this issue is that a great many of those who leave New Zealand after finishing their studies eventually return. I'd put my money on more returning than not, though I confess I only have anecdotal evidence to support that assumption. Many return after a couple of years or less. Some stay away for longer, say five years, or until they've paid off their student loan, or until they're ready to have kids, or until their children reach school-age, and so on. But the figures don't reflect this. They can't possibly, as they are based on census data, which are by definition synchronic snapshots of population and population movement. The Herald article on brain drain sort of mentions this, but only in passing and it completely fails to develop this important point. The journalist writes:

"No age breakdown of the expatriates is available, but Waikato University population expert Richard Bedford said they would include both young people on short-term overseas experience (OE) and others lured by bigger overseas incomes to help pay off student loans now averaging $14,424 for each student."

No attempt, you will note, to provide any inkling of what sort of proportion might be only short-term absentees, nor any indication that this might make a considerable difference to the figures, or that there might actually be some benefit for New Zealand and its economy to be had from many of its young people spending time overseas and then returning. Such advantages might include: a better financial situation than when they left, more of an appreciation for other countries and cultures, a clearer understanding of New Zealand's place in the world in relation to the countries they've been to and lived in, foreign language skills, extra maturity, particular professional experience and skills they might have picked up while working abroad, the list goes on.

I would argue that a failure to make the distinction between permanent departures and short-term "overseas experiences" greatly distorts the picture, making the whole brain drain problem seem much worse than it is. Let's assume for a moment, purely hypothetically, that there's a 60-40 breakdown of those who stay away for ever and those who head home. That would mean that something like 15% (i.e. 60% of the almost 25% who head abroad in the first place) of all tertiary educated New Zealanders had lived abroad and then returned, armed with their extra experience, maturity and understanding. That, surely, would be a good thing? That is something to be encouraged. That is something that can work in our favour, as an antidote of sorts to insular, blinkered and purely NZ-centric thinking. I, for one, would rather New Zealand were a country like that, than a country where people never feel the need to look beyond their own borders.

But I believe that even those New Zealanders who leave and never return are not necessarily lost to New Zealand forever. People who grew up in New Zealand, went to school there and went to university or polytechnic there have spent their formative years in New Zealand. Even if they leave, never to return, the ties will still be there. Almost all of them will have family, friends, and colleagues who remain in NZ, not to mention some good memories. The ties, therefore, are strong. I think it would a very rare ex-patriate indeed who severed all ties to his or her country of origin. They will be predisposed to, for example, invest in New Zealand, deposit money in New Zealand banks, perhaps buy a holiday home, perhaps buy shares of New Zealand companies on the stock market, etc. This, I would think, is exacerbated by the fact that they know and understand the New Zealand system and are therefore likely to be aware of at least some of the options, and by the fact that many emigrants will be in a financially stronger position overseas than they would have been at home, thus having more money to invest. So, in many cases, there will be money flowing into the New Zealand economy from overseas, put there by ex-pats who are thus contributing in some way to the New Zealand economy, despite their absence.

Similarly, the brain drain argument regularly overlooks the fact that every New Zealander who goes abroad, even if they stay there forever, is a kind of travelling ambassador for New Zealand, with the potential to positively influence the way New Zealand is viewed in other countries, and to get people thinking about New Zealand who might not otherwise have given it a second thought. I have lost count of the number of times that I have been asked, once people discover that I am from New Zealand, about whether I would recommend it as a tourist destination, where the best places to go are, how long one should stay there, whether or not Australia is also worth a visit in the same trip, and so on. And I know for a fact that people have visited New Zealand as tourists exactly because they had met me and got talking about where I come from. Looked at from this perspective, every New Zealander abroad could be viewed as a walking-talking advertisement for New Zealand as a tourist or immigration destination. And if that's the case, perhaps our "brightest and best", and nicest, friendliest, and generally most impressive are the ones we should be sending!

The brain-drain-wailers are also guilty of a bit of historical obfuscation. Some of the most famous New Zealanders, and those we hold up as heroes and admire the most, left New Zealand never to return. That does not make them any less New Zealanders, or any less great, and nor does it diminish their contribution to New Zealand's place and reputation in the world. Just off the top of my head (and I'm sure a little research could turn up many more) I can think of Katherine Mansfield, Ernest Rutherford, Peter Snell and Robert Burchfield, who all left New Zealand never to return, but are today heralded as some of NZ's finest sons and daughters. I have never yet heard anyone say "Ernest Rutherford, jolly good scientist that bloke" only to add disapprovingly: "Shame about the brain drain".

The Rutherford example leads me nicely into my next problem with the brain drain argument. Namely that many of those who leave and stay away quite simply have to leave, because their interest or expertise lies in an exclusive niche which is not and cannot be adequately supported in New Zealand. If you are a rocket scientist, a nuclear physicist, or a cutting-edge software entrepreneur or robotics engineer, and you're really good at what you do, the chances are very high that the jobs and opportunities are just not going to be there for you. And so you do the only sensible thing and head overseas, where there is enough research funding or critical mass for your niche. Some of the ex-pats who make up the numbers in the OECD study, therefore, are overseas because they have no choice professionally. It is pointless, as a tiny country with limited resources, to lament those losses. We simply can't compete. Rather, we should congratulate those who gain top jobs overseas in their niches, and encourage them as best we can to keep their ties to New Zealand as strong as possible despite their absence.

My final point about the whole brain drain issue is this: I have a problem with the moralistic implication that lies behind complaints and worries about New Zealanders heading overseas, that every New Zealander's first loyalty ought to lie with his or her country. The argument runs like this: "Many well-educated New Zealanders are heading overseas. Some are not returning. That is bad. New Zealand needs them. What they ought to be doing is staying here and supporting the economy, doing some good for the country. Tut-tut, isn't it sad and worrying? Whatever will become of us?"

Not only do I find that unrealistic in today's tiny and hyper-mobile world, but also alarmingly parochial and patriotic (in the uncomfortable sense of the word). I am much more comfortable with the idea of every New Zealander who has the means to do so first deciding whether or not to head abroad for a stint and then, a bit further down the track, assessing things and deciding whether or not to come back, for entirely personal reasons. These could take any form at all. And let's face it, the good ones who stay away will be making a worthwhile contribution to the society that they settle in, wherever it is, and I believe that that is all we can realistically ask of people, not some sort of higher obligation based on an accident of birth. Furthermore, I find it hypocritical of those who have chosen to stay in New Zealand to imply, as some do in this debate, that they have done so for the good of the country first and foremost. That is nonsense. While there must be the odd exception, they will for the most part, I am certain, have chosen to stay in New Zealand for other reasons, like a good job, a close family unit, a great lifestyle, good friends, a relationship, great wine and food, a nice house, proximity to the beach, or because they never had the opportunity or the desire to leave in the first place. To take the implied moral high ground based on those personal decisions and reasons is, to my mind, disingenuous.

And that's it, apart from two final appeals to the brain drain whingers: First, don't discourage young New Zealanders from heading abroad; encourage it! As a country New Zealand stands to gain greatly from the knowledge and experience of those who strike out for new pastures and then return when they are ready. And secondly, don't underestimate the potential of ex-pats living abroad to contribute to New Zealand, despite their absence. They might be gone, but New Zealand is such a special place that you can be certain they will not have forgotten, and most will want to do their bit in whatever way they can, no matter where they have ended up.

And now you know.

Attention chocaholics. I knew it! According to this story on BBC News a recent study has found that eating dark chocolate can help to lower blood pressure and help control diabetes.

Apparently, it's all down to a little magic ingredient called flavanols:

"The team said an antioxidant called flavanol was responsible for the effect because it neutralised potentially cell-damaging substances known as oxygen-free radicals, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reported."

According to the study, eating 100g of dark chocolate a day significantly lowers blood pressure. But if, like me, you were thinking that eating 200g or more a day would double the benefit, beware! Dr Claudio Ferri has a few words of advice:

"But despite the benefits of dark chocolate, lead researcher Dr Claudio Ferri said people should be careful about chocolate consumption. "Dark chocolate contains antioxidants, but also a lot of fat and calories. People who want to add some chocolate to their diet need to subtract an equivalents amount of calories by cutting back on other foods to avoid weight gain." "

Darn it, foiled again Batman! Ah well, 100g should do me nicely though.

For the record, tea and wine are also in Flavanol Country and have similar effects. Pleased to hear it.

And now you know. (That, by the way, is my long-sought new sign off. Please put any attributory queries on the back of the regular postcard.)

Back in New Zealand they are worrying about the so-called brain drain again: the phenomenon whereby New Zealand's "brightest and best" up sticks and move overseas once they finish their tertiary education. About once a year this issue gets trundled out and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth and speculation over why it might be that so many New Zealanders leave. This year's round was kicked off by an article in the New Zealand Herald citing an OECD report which has found, amongst other things, that based on 2000 and 2001 census data in the OECD countries:

"Almost a quarter of New Zealand's most highly skilled people have left the country - the biggest exodus of skilled workers from any developed nation."

and that:
"Only two other nations come anywhere near this level of "brain drain" - Ireland (also 24.2 per cent, though marginally behind New Zealand) and tiny Luxembourg (22.2 per cent)."

I think that the report in question is this one, which is due to be launched properly tomorrow, though of course, the New Zealand Herald being the quality publication that it is, the journalist doesn't name the report.

On the same day as that first article, this one appeared, documenting ex-patriate New Zealanders' responses to a new government campaign designed to attract them back home. Those responses which made it to print, just a tiny sampling of over 200 responses the paper received, were overwhelmingly negative and included such gems as:

"I would not want my (yet to materialise) kids in the NZ system. NZ seems to be on a steady slide to mediocrity. The result of all the politically-correct nonsense is that school-leavers have third-world literacy and numeracy skills, yet they all pass NCEA."

and:

"I have a problem with the thought of living in a country where my children will be discriminated against because they are not defined by NZ law as belonging to the Maori race."

Predictably, the leader of the opposition National party, Don Brash - whose principal political tactic appears to be to attempt to scare voters into voting for his party by making the situation in New Zealand out to be worse than it really is, regardless of the issue - picked up the brain drain story and ran with it in his weekly dispatch last week. You can view it as a pdf file here. By then he had, of course, reduced the entire "problem" to the difference in incomes between New Zealand and Australia, which is his current bugbear:

"I was acutely conscious of the gap in incomes between New Zealand and countries overseas, a gap which used to be negligible but which now finds Australian incomes, even after adjusting for cost of living differences, some 30% higher than New Zealand incomes. That is why more than 28,000 New Zealanders headed for Australia in 2004 – an astounding 550 people per week."

In my opinion, this is a misrepresentation, or at the very least a spectacular over-simplification, of the motivations of people for going overseas. Note also the sleight of hand with which he proceeds from "the gap in incomes between New Zealand and countries overseas" in the first clause, to just the gap between New Zealand and Australian incomes in the second. Clever, because it allows him conveniently to leave aside the New Zealanders mentioned in the OECD study who left New Zealand for 25 countries other than Australia, but who aren't currently useful in advancing his political argument, which unrealistically pegs measurements of New Zealand's economic success to our much larger neighbour.

Just when I was beginning to despair of ever finding a sane and reasoned response to the Brain Drain issue, I discovered that there actually was some sense being talked out there. A search in the NZ Herald archives revealed that columnist Kerre Woodham had it bang on when she wrote about this issue in December last year. In particular, I like her summary:

"We need the intelligence to understand that young people have always travelled and always will. We should be grateful that they do. It would be dumb to think this country would be better off if they stayed at home."

But that wasn't all. The formidable Russell Brown then stepped up to the plate and restored sanity to the issue in an excellent and balanced column, in which he also found time to have a little sideswipe at the worst of the disaffected respondents to the Herald survey I mentioned above. In that column, he asked for comments from ex-pat New Zealanders about their take on this issue, and was overwhelmed by the response. He is now serialising those responses as The Ex-Pat Files, over on Public Address. He's up to 2 so far, with, I think, a further 2 to go. Those posts are long, but there are some very eloquent responses hidden in there, so I would really recommend them to anyone interested in the brain drain issue, regardless of what side of it you're coming from.

All that by way of extensive introduction to my next post, in which I'm going to discuss my own take on New Zealand's obsession with the brain drain and explain why I just don't buy it. But I'm afraid you'll have to wait until tomorrow for that one.

Still searching for that knockout sign-off.

This [BBC News] story is just great. It seems that the Welsh First Minister, i.e. a pretty senior politician, was involved in a mix-up at the BBC's Cardiff studios. He arrived at the studios to be made up to appear on a political talk show, but was mistaken for an actor and ushered in to the wrong dressing room. The make-up artist then came in and was about to start making him up as, I kid you not, a tree, to appear in the latest series of Doctor Who, which is due to start this week. The mistake was noticed in time though, (a shame, I reckon!) and they rushed him to the other dressing room and made up for the right show. Fantastic!





Don't you think he looks like the perfect sidekick for this character?

Now, I know it would never happen because they're too well and recognized by pretty much everyone within their respective spheres of influence, but I wonder if this sort of mix-up were to happen to, say, Tony Blair, or Joschka Fischer, or Helen Clark, what the ideal character to make them up as might be?

My picks, in the first instance, would be:

1. Tony Blair as a Teletubbie
2. Joschka Fischer as Bungle from Rainbow
3. Helen Clark as Xena, Warrior Princess

Go on, admit it, you know it works!

I look forward to hearing your suggestions for the best mistaken identity make-up blunders. Answers, as usual, on the back of a postcard ...

Still searching for the perfect sign off.

And while we are on scents and smells, this story is unbelievable! Somebody actually makes candles that smell of Jesus. And even more terrifying than that is that 10,000 people have bought them, at US$18 a throw. Now that is quite something.

Perhaps if I paid more attention in Bible Class, that could have been my idea. Or perhaps not.

An alert reader identified my previous sign off as being from someone else, and even knew who it was from, so I'm going to have to come up with something new. Not that said person has a patent on that particular phrase or on calling it like he sees it, but still, one likes to be original wherever possible. A shame, because I kind of liked it. Hopefully I'll have something in time for the next post, but don't hold your breath.

PS: Thanks to Dave Barry's blog for the story.

An article on the BBC website (here) about a 4,000 year old perfume factory caught my attention today. Well, actually, it first caught Ms. Bear's attention, and she pointed it out to me. *Nods appreciatively to Ms. Bear*

It seems that even during the Bronze Age, industrialists in Cyprus were manufacturing perfumes from plant essences such as laurel, cinammon and myrtle. That got me thinking about the times I've wandered through or past the perfume departments in modern stores and have been assailed to the point of gagging with the myriad sickly smells of modern perfumes. Perhaps today's perfume manufacturers would do well to take a leaf out of the ancient Cypriots' book, and return to that sort of simplicity? (Someone tell the Bodyshop!)

I also couldn't help wondering whether, if it hadn't been for the earthquake mentioned in the article which destroyed the factory in question, maybe the poor blighters in Europe in the Middle Ages, wouldn't have stunk as much as they evidently did. We'll never know.

That's the way I see it, and that's the way I'm gonna call it.

Of course, I am not the Berlin Bear. I am just a Berlin Bear. But then, I am not the bearer of my real name either, just a bearer of it. In fact, I share my real name with an international rugby player, a professional snooker player, an American College Football star, and a distant cousin of mine. And those are just the ones I know about.

The real Berlin Bear's actual name is Tilo, and in contrast to me, he has two "wives", whose names are Schnute and Maxi. If you're interested, you can check them out here. I'm afraid much of the site is in German, but you'll find a summary in English in the sidebar under Die Berliner Stadtbären. The bear is the official heraldic symbol of Berlin, and has been since the 13th century. So, I'm tapping into a long, long line here. I'm sure they won't mind sharing though.

Since long before we moved to Berlin, my girlfriend's nickname for me has been Bear. I like to believe that this is because I am strong, powerfully built, have brown hair, like salmon, and am unique and worth protecting. But she would probably tell you that it's really because I'm a bit clumsy, bumbling and ponderous, and growl a bit too often, even if I do give good hugs. Either way, now that I'm living here in Berlin, I have no hesitation in adopting BerlinBear as my nom-de-web for this blog.

That's the way I see it, and that's the way I'm gonna call it.

Before starting this, I have looked around at a lot of blogs, and in particular how other people got their blogs started and what their first entries were like. I've come to the conclusion that there are no hard and fast rules for, or even a uniform way of, getting things going. So I figured it is best just to bite the bullet and take the plunge...

Let me start with a bit of background information. Apart from the odd snippet which trickles through when relevant in later posts, this is likely to be the only personal information you get about me, so enjoy it while it lasts.

I am from Auckland, New Zealand, but am now living in Berlin. So I guess that makes me an ex-pat Kiwi. I don't really like the finality inherent in the expression "ex-pat", but there you go. I moved to Berlin in the latter half of last year, partly to carry out research, but principally to be with my girlfriend. We'll call her Ms. Bear. I am working on a doctorate in German linguistics, looking at the recent influence of English on German vocabulary. It has been, and remains, tough going and it has taken much longer than originally intended (don't they all?). I'm doing my doctorate at Oxford University, which is where I lived for five years before moving here. So, all told, it's been the better part of six years since I last lived or spent any considerable amount of time in New Zealand. Nevertheless, I still feel closely attached to New Zealand and very much a New Zealander, and I assume I always will. As a result of where I've lived, I guess my principal spheres of interest and understanding lie in New Zealand, Germany and the UK, though not necessarily in that order at all times. This will, no doubt, be reflected in this blog.

My interests are broad and eclectic. They include, but are absolutely not limited to: current affairs, politics - especially foreign policy, sport (of all kinds, but in particular European football, rugby, Australian Rules, cycling, rowing and horse racing), cinema, theatre, language in general as well as particular languages, literature, international travel, eating out, history, biography etc, etc.

That brings me on to the nature of this blog. Perhaps it's easiest to start with what this blog will not be. It will not be an online diary, or certainly of not one of the "Dear blog, today I ..." type. It will also not be a vehicle to showcase my writing, as I don't consider myself a writer. (I suppose that could change, but for now I certainly don't). It will also not be an out-and-out political blog, though I read plenty of those and am interested in politics here, in New Zealand and in the wider world. In fact, this probably won't be an out-and-out anything blog. Rather, it's likely to be a reflection of my interest in all sorts of things. Basically, it is intended on the one hand to be a collection of musings on topics which grab my attention either online or in the real world, and on the other hand a collection of reflections on life in Berlin and Germany, in my relatively new role as a "Wahl-Berliner", or "Berliner by choice." In that sense it is perhaps intended as a sort of dispatch from Berlin to New Zealand or wherever else potential readers might be. I am bound also to comment from time to time on things that are going on in New Zealand and the UK too. If I could give this blog a subtitle (perhaps I will figure out how to do that when I'm a bit more savvy!) it would probably be something like: "Musings of a dis-located New Zealander in Berlin". The inspiration for the title, by the way, comes from a regular Guardian column entitled Capital Letters, (for example here) in which correspondents write a dispatch about any topic from a capital city around the world. And since I'm in a capital city of my very own, but only one, I thought I'd plump for The Capital Letter.

I've opened comments up to all and sundry in the first instance to see how that goes. Depending on the response, I might have to review that in future. For now though, I have faith. Of course, I reserve the right to remove any comments I consider inappropriate without warning.

That's the way I see it, and that's the way I'm gonna call it.