Category: Global Issues

SMART Goals… Maybe There’s A Different Tool For Government

On By WinstonIn Global Issues, Humor, Politics, WarfareLeave a comment

Any of you who work in a corporate environment have probably at some point encountered the S.M.A.R.T. guidelines for decision making.  The acronym stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound.  You can see why I think perhaps  the government uses something different.

Some of the most outstanding examples of this are the “Wars” the declare.  The “War on Poverty”, “War on Drugs”, and my personal favorite, the “War on Terror”.  I believe the decisions to engage in these “Wars” are based on what I like to refer to as the V.A.P.I.D. guidelines.  This stands for Vague, Abstract, Pointless, Imaginary, and Damaging.  I’ll use the “War on Terror” to illustrate my point.

For starters, declaring a “War” on “Terror” seems a tad ill defined.  Not only is it not Specific, it’s actually quite Vague. It’s going to be hard to Measure results because “Terror” isn’t a person, place or thing, it’s an Abstract concept.  Victory could be difficult to Achieve in a “War” against a concept and with “Terror” still going strong after ten years, it seems kind of Pointless.  It doesn’t seem very Realistic to try to eliminate “Terror” from the world, although that Imaginary place would probably be very nice to live in.  With no clear objectives, it makes it hard to create a definitive Ttimeline.  That same blurriness of purpose also distracts from actual issues which is incredibly Damaging.  If you work it through, you will see it’s also true for the other “Wars” I mentioned.

This inability to set appropriate goals is dangerous and unacceptable.  These are the people whom we have charged and entrusted to act on our behalf and in our best interest.  Clearly, they have not.  Clearly this needs to change.  Let’s take a look for a moment at what things might have looked like if they had instead used the S.M.A.R.T. guidelines.

Instead of a “War on Terror”, we might have had a mission statement that looked more like this.  “We will  track down and bring to trial those responsible for the attacks against the United States on Sept. 11th 2001.”  Now let’s break it down.  Is it Specific?  Yes, it clearly states what we want to do and who we want to do it to.  Is it Measurable?  Yes, by having a clear goal, we can see how close we are to reaching it.  Is it Achievable? Yes, tracking down a relatively small group of people is very doable.  Is it Realistic?  Yes, much more so than taking on “Terror”.  Is it Time-bound?  Ye,s when the last trial finishes, the job is complete.  See how much better that is?

So, next time you get get dragged to one of those corporate training sessions, bring along your MP/Congress Person/Senator/Representative.  Who knows, they might actually learn something.  If nothing else, your boss will realize how lucky they are to have you on staff instead of a politician.  That could be just what you need to hold onto your job.

Cheers, Winston

Canadians Not Terrorized Enough?

On By WinstonIn Global Issues, Politics, Society, Values1 Comment

I was just reading an article on Maclean’s  app about how indifferent most Canadians are to the threat of terrorism.  The implication being our need to take it more seriously.  The fact is, we shouldn’t.

Aside from a couple of highly publicized “threats”, Canada isn’t exactly a commonly declared terroist target.  It isn’t amping up the fear factor that the domestic plots appear to have been orchestrated by people with the technical and organizational skills of a sleep deprived chipmunk.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it couldn’t happen.  We don’t get any more of a free pass than anyone else.  I just don’t see it as really likely.  More to  the point, there’s not a thing I can do about it and frankly,  I’ve got better things to worry about.  Like a Prime Minister who feels that mumbling “Islamicist” is going to take my mind off the lack of employment in my immediate future.

Of course the average Canadian isn’t overly worried about terrorism.  We work in a job market where the idea of long term security is considered extinct.  Politicians boast about their job creation records without mentioning whether or not they pay a living wage, offer benefits, or have any career potential.  Young people graduate from secondary school unable to read, write or do even basic math.  This is supposed to be acceptable to us because technology is replacing these skills.  As someone who has experienced them in the workplace, I can assure you this isn’t the case.

There are so many real and immediate threats for the average Canadian to worry about that marginally possible terrorism doesn’t do it.  Even when our Beloved Leader trots out fun and unusual words like “Islamicist”.  It can’t be easy trying to scare people when  your bogeymen won’t cooperate.  I know a lot of people impacted by our economic and employment issues.  I don’t know anyone who’s been threatened by terrorists of any kind.

A foreign policy of military interventionism is hard to justify if the official bad guys aren’t really doing anything bad to you.  It’s even harder if the bad guys you’re trying to sell everyone on are not as bad or dangerous as others.  Muammar Gaddafi isn’t a nice guy nor has he been a benevolent ruler, but he’s no Kim Jong Il.  It’s just a lot easier and safer to bomb Libya.  Likewise, Afghanistan is far from stable and the Taliban were vile by any standard.  On the other hand, it is a rock solid, model of social justice compared to Somalia.  But again, invading Somailia hasn’t been so easy in the past.

North Korea is a nuclear state run by an absolute dictator who also happens to be an absolute nut.  Mr Harper feels this is less of an issue than the nebulous and ill defined “Islamicist”s.  Somailia has no functioning central government, and the only growth industry seems to be piracy.  They also have Al Shabab which is about as “Islamicist” as you get.  Not that it’s likely to be any quicker, more effective, or affordable than the fiasco which is Afghanistan.

So no, if the leader of the nation doesn’t want to address any actual terror threats, we the people aren’t likely to spare much energy for them either.  I mean really, what do they expect.  Do they truly believe that best way to Canada stay strong and vital is to drop bombs on Gaddafi supporters?  How is our pointless and over-extended invasion of Afghanistan creating jobs or improving the quality of life for ordinary Canadians?  Are they doing anything to encourage sustainable development in society or business?  Of course not.  They are useful mainly as distractions.  The contemporary version of the ancient Roman “bread and circuses”.

If Prime Minister Harper can keep us focused on events in Afghanistan, Libya or on “Islamicist” terrorists, we might not notice the real threat.  Contrary to popular (at least with Harper) belief, the greatest threat to our security is the erosion of our quality of life.  Declining education standards, a widening gap between wealthy and poor with a shrinking middle class, a job market defined by temporary/contract positions and health care cuts are just some of the things distracting Canadians from the “Islamicist” menace.  If our elected officials did their jobs and addressed these issues, maybe we could spare some concern for his “vaporware” terrorists.

That’s not likely to happen though.  Then again I’m not likely to lose any sleep worrying about the Prime Minister’s “Islamicist” bogeymen.  I get little enough sleep as it is worrying about my employment options.  Unless his paranoid delusions are going to land me a job, his sole relevance for me is relegated to providing me with fodder for this blog.  Not really what I look for in a leader, but about what I’ve come to expect from Mr. Harper.  I don’t have really high hopes for anyone who’s election campaign was based such classic staples as “in these troubled times, we need to stay the course”, and my personal favorite, “Vote for me because I’m not the other guy.”

No wonder Mr. Harper’s focusing on “Islamicist” terror.  With both the Liberals and new Democrats looking for leaders, there aren’t really any viable targets for personal attack ads.  That just leaves him with fear mongering.  If it weren’t for the teenie-tiny chance of a terrorist attack in Canada, the poor man wouldn’t have a sound bite available to toss out to the media.  Who knows, maybe then they’d ask about something that actually mattes.  Nah, probably not.

Cheers, Winston

Potter Sees Rioters Everywhere… Literally

On By WinstonIn Global Issues, Politics, SocietyLeave a comment

In an article posted Friday, regular Maclean’s columnist Andrew Potter states that riots happen because riots are fun. According to the article, we are ALL potential rioters. Whether it’s Vancouver after the Stanley Cup, or Britain’s recent riots, it’s just fun.

Thank you for clearing that up for everyone Mr. Potter. Here the rest of the world was thinking there might be some problems that needed to be addressed. Silly us! Now that we know it’s such a good time, we can all relax and stop “over-analyzing” things. While the rest of the world was looking at cultural or societal issues, The Amazing Mr. Potter realized THE TRUTH.

To paraphrase the classic line: “We have met the rioters, and they are us.” Apparently, all of us desperately want to chuck a waste-bin through a window and take what we want. Smashing, trashing, looting, mugging and burning; these are the things we want. Not comfort, security, peace. According to Mr. Potter, we all want to riot. Just because.

Aside from being a rampant apologist and incredibly naive, I do have a couple of other issues with this. How exactly did he conclude that all of us would riot if we could? Did he develop this awesome ability to read all of our minds at once? Or, is he just making it up to support his premise. I’m going to go with option two

Contrary to Mr. Potter’s claims, when I look around at the people I know, I don’t see hordes of potential rioters. A couple of them might, but not a majority, and absolutely not all. Maybe his people have a different set of values than mine. Maybe they get together every couple of weeks, have some beers and lament that there aren’t any nearby riots to join. Just for giggles and shits. I don’t claim to know for certain, but his article makes it seem likely.

The bigger problem is that his argument avoids the real reason for riots. It’s called personal responsibility. Maybe he’s right and we all want to join this big party, but most of us choose not to. Not every fan in Vancouver chose to participate in that riot. Nor did everyone in London, or Manchester, Toronto. People don’t riot just for fun. They don’t riot to protest social injustice or corporate greed. I’m dead certain they don’t riot over a hockey game or a football match. They riot because they choose to.

When you make everyone a villain, then there are no more villains. Anyone who smashes shops, burns businesses, cars and homes, they are villains. The person who assaults, loots, rapes or murders under cover of a riot, is a villain. People who choose not to join them, are not, it’s that simple. To claim rioters just do it for “fun” trivializes not only their actions, but also their victims. In case Mr. Potter is too delusional to notice, the people who are killed, injured, or have their property destroyed probably aren’t having any fun at all.

Not all of us are rioters. Not everyone thinks chaos is fun. Even among those who might think that, most people have one thing that separates them from the rioters, and apparently from Mr. Potter. Most people know that hurting people for your own enjoyment is wrong. It’s not the mob, it’s the individuals who make it up.

Each person makes a choice. Some choose to riot. Some choose not to. Some choose to make excuses. I choose to not to.

Cheers, Winston

Hackers Endangering Lives

On By WinstonIn Global Issues, Society, TechnologyLeave a comment

The hacker group Anonymous has released a link to the names, addresses and passwords of 102 members of the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) police force.

In July, members of the BART police force shot dead a homeless man whom they claimed lunged at them with a knife. The incident caused public outrage and led to protests at some stations. Protesters were open about their plans to use mobile phones to organize protests and track and avoid BART officers. In response, the transit authority disabled cellular towers at key locations stopping mobile services. The legality of this is currently being debated along with civil liberties issues, etc. Since the the hacker group Anonymous has staged two retaliatory attacks on BART. The first time, they defaced and shut down their customer services portal. The second time, they published personal information of the BART police officers.

I’m not condoning the shooting. I wasn’t there, so can’t know what happened. Likewise, I don’t agree with denying access to mobile phone services. Deliberately endangering the lives of over one-hundred officers and their families, that’s just wrong.

I’ll say this as plainly as possible. Anonymous may claim to be acting for what they see as the common good, but they aren’t. They are hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet because they are cowards and bullies. They are too lazy and scared to stand up and publicly work for real change. Instead, they choose to hide in the dark and throw their virtual stones. Instead of dialogue, they seek to use force to get what they want. They want people to see them as cyber heroes, bravely standing up to tyranny on the virtual frontier. The truth is, they are what they claim to oppose. A faceless group with zero accountability, doing whatever they feel like. By putting innocent lives at risk, they have shown themselves no better than the very worst of those they have targeted in the past.

It’s past time for law enforcement to deal with this. By actively endangering peoples lives, disrupting government and corporate infrastructure and stealing and publishing sensitive information, Anonymous has set itself up as being beyond any law. It’s time to set that straight. It’s time to acknowledge them as a terrorist organization with all that that implies.

If any member of the BART police force or their families is harmed as a result of this information being published, ANY member of Anonymous who is apprehended should be held accountable and punished to the full extent of the law. Specifically, those anti-terrorism laws no one likes. Those should work nicely.

Cheers, Winston

Funding Fighters, Sort Of

On By WinstonIn Global Issues, Politics, Society, WarfareLeave a comment

I love Maclean’s. Their app gives me convenient access to so much blog fodder I get inspired every time I open it.

Q: When is a mercenary not a mercenary?
A: When the US government says he’s part of a “private security firm” hired to train African Union troops serving in Somalia.

Bancroft Global Development is apparently one of a “growing number of such firms operating in the drought-ravaged and war-torn country”. Bancroft it seems “has been indirectly funded” to turn “bush troops onto urban fighters”. Since the AU troops were able to push Shabab forces out of Mogadishu (the capital) last weekend, it looks like money well spent.

I may have some issues with this clever way of getting boots on the ground without making it obvious to the American people.

The US government is well aware that the voters might not want to get involved with another expensive foreign adventure. Instead, they’ll send in rent-a-war. You may remember these guys from Iraq. Back the they were called PMCs. That stands for Private Military Contractors. I guess that sounded too Bush era, so now they’re “Development Firms”. The only thing these firms are looking to develop are huge paydays. No matter what the latest cute euphemism may be, they are pay-to-play mercenaries.

I don’t have anything against mercenaries or the people who hire them. Every major conflict that I can think of going back at least to the crusades has involved them. The problem is more one of motivation. Not for the “Development” people, they’re easy. I’m talking about the people paying them. You know, the US government. How does it benefit America to spend large sums of cash it doesn’t have, sending rent-a-war to Somalia? Did anyone say, “Fighting The Spread Of Radical Islamist Terror!”? Don’t be embarrassed, it just means you’ve been watching the news.

Officially, Al Shabaab is lumped in with all the other “Radical Islamist”s. This is like assuming the Pope is the same as convicted pedophile and polygamous, sect leader Warren Jeffs because they both talk about Jesus. What this group is doing in Somalia is an atrocity beyond my power to imagine. I just don’t think they’re a big threat to the US.

Maybe the American government just wants to ease the humanitarian crisis facing the country. After all, they’ve got a long and distinguished track record of using their wealth and might to selflessly fight oppression the world over. There was that time they went to North Korea to stop the government from starving the people. Oops, that wasn’t it. How about when they went into Rwanda to prevent genocide? Umm, not so much. The list goes on.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying they owe the world anything. I’m just saying that when the US gets involved in an ongoing conflict, their primary goal is not usually to make life better for anyone but themselves. Nor should it be if they don’t feel the need to do so. The likelihood of benevolent motive gets smaller in light of the lack of publicity. If this was a feel-good humanitarian gig, there would have been press conferences and photo-ops galore. I read a lot of news, and so far, so quiet They aren’t keeping it a secret, just low profile.

That’s why this keeps coming back to motive for me. I’m certain there are any number of conspiracy theorists slaving away to answer this for me. I appreciate their efforts, but I doubt it’s going to be anything that interesting. I fully expect it to be the usual mundane one. Profit. I’m just curious to see what they expect that profit to be.

I’d like to finish with a little bit of humor. Given the cost of a rent-a-war, the sub-title of the article “Company’s Help Fight Islamists” proves Maclean’s.ca either has an awesome sense of humor or absolutely no sense of irony. You decide.

Cheers, Winston

Don’t Shoot The Doctor!

On By WinstonIn Global Issues, Politics, Society, WarfareLeave a comment

On CNN’s website, I just read two current articles about attacks on medical personnel in conflict zones around the world. I understand their outrage. After all, until quite recently, it was understood by all involved forces that medical facilities and personnel were off limits. It was an entry level piece of every professional soldier’s training. Therein lies the problem. Most of the conflicts listed: Somalia, Sri Lanka, Columbia and Afghanistan to name a few, are being fought by amateurs.

The only “training” received by many of the combatants consists of basic weapons use and a lot of propaganda. They don’t possess our cultural history of regarding all things medical as neutral. By their understanding, everyone not them is either an enemy or a victim. Preferably both.

The International Red Cross has condemned the attacks. “Violence against medical facilities and personnel must end. It’s a matter of life and death.”, said Yves Daccord, Director General of the organization. He then explains that huge numbers of additional people are dying because these attacks prevent timely medical assistance.

A different article spoke of the need for communities to protect medical personnel. It advised using “unified community pressure to hold the perpetrators accountable”. Apparently this is intended to prevent further attacks on health workers. It’s based on traditional, community based tools for limiting internal strife. While I think this is a noble concept, I don’t think it will work any better than the head of the Red Cross telling them to stop.

Both approaches assume the perpetrators actually care what anyone thinks. If Al Shabab will block humanitarian aid shipments while thousands starve to death, do you really think they’re concerned about “community pressure”. The same is true everywhere. Those fighting to force society to conform to their views are probably used to being unpopular. I’m guessing no-one in these conflicts got the press kits announcing the unhappiness of the Red Cross, the World Health Organization and all the others. If they did, I can probably guess their reaction, and so can anyone else.

“If we attack medical facilities and personnel, we cause a lot of other people to die because they don’t receive care in a timely manner. That’s awesome!”. It’s like getting bonus value for every bullet and bomb they expend.

The outrage over these attacks, while genuine, is irrelevant for two reasons.

First, moral outrage requires a shared set of moral values. Otherwise it’s like a child on a playground telling the bully it’s not fair when he beats him up. The bully knows it’s not fair, that’s why he does it. If no one stops him, he’s going to keep doing it.

The second problem is the message. “Don’t Shoot The Doctor” is a noble sentiment. It also fails to address the real problem. When thousands are being murdered, starved, raped and brutalized; it seems naive to think that medical personnel, would be exempt.

All the condemnation and outrage aren’t going to make a difference. Anyone reading CNN, or seeing coverage of the press conference on the evening news, already knows it’s wrong to kill doctors. They also know it’s just as wrong to kill anyone else. This blog has as much chance of stopping the killing as they do, and with a much smaller budget.

If no one else is listening, maybe it’s time to change the message. If you want to claim the moral high ground you need to be a bit more inclusive. None of those who need to hear will listen, but I like this one better.

“DON’T SHOOT ANYONE!”

Cheers, Winston

South Africa Shines On Healthcare

On By WinstonIn Global Issues, Politics, Society2 Comments

South Africa has announced plans to implement National Health Insurance. Acknowledging the great disparity in quality of service between private and public services, the Minister of Health stated 80% of the people cannot afford private insurance.

The plan at present calls for the first ten areas to be up and running by April 2012, with full implementation in 2014. The government will issue a green paper this Friday providing further details. It will then go back to Parliament for further discussion before becoming law.

Health Minister Aaron Motsoaledi went on to say, “If you make more than a certain amount, you will be required to contribute to the NHI fund. It will not be possible to opt out of the responsibility.”. Some people are already questioning having to pay for a system they won’t be using.

This initiative by the South African government is a step towards addressing the country’s gaping social divide. Currently, they regarded as having one of the most unequal systems in the world. In the words of Mr. Motsoaledi, “The central challenge to the stability and well-being of our nation is reducing the deep inequality between rich and poor, between privilege and deprivation. This goes to the heart of South Africa’s future,”

Massive internal struggle combined with pressure from the global community ended apartheid. This was a massive accomplishment that started South Africa on the road to social justice and equality. The National Health Insurance plan is a significant step on that road. Perhaps the most significant thing about it is this. The African National Congress, the current ruling party, isn’t doing this because of massive riots. They aren’t doing because of international sanctions or intervention. The government is instituting universal health care because it’s the right thing to do.

I’m not saying that that South Africa is a social justice role model for the world. Far from it. What I am saying is, they’ve taken a step. That is something to celebrate. For that step, I honor them.

Cheers, Winston

UN Says Equal Opportunity Employment Legislation Is Racist

On By WinstonIn Global Issues, Politics, SocietyLeave a comment

This one comes straight from the “They Said What?” file.

According to a recent article on Maclean’s magazine website, the UN has filed a formal complaint of racism against the Canadian government. After a thourough review of the dreadfully racist policy, a Canadian delegation must now appear before a UN review panel to explain our vile deed. Can you guess what horrible crime we committed? We passed legislation prohibiting discrimination in the workplace against visible minorities. Wow, are we evil, or what?

Apparently, the UN takes issue with the phrase, “visible minorities”. They believe it carries the implication that caucasians are the norm, and so demeans all other ethnicities. The legislation is actually designed to ensure equal treatment of all ethnicities in the workplace and provide a mechanism for resolving allegations of discrimination. Again, evil or what?

What the legislation says is: “It doesn’t matter if someone looks or sounds different from you. We guarantee you will be treated fairly in the workplace or else.” What the UN hears is this: ‘White people are the norm here and if you aren’t white, you aren’t normal.”

I’m not saying that Canada has a spotless record on human rights and equality. Our treatment of our indigeneous peoples is a historic disgrace which we are even now struggling to address. We have our share of social injustice. If we didn’t, we probably wouldn’t need legislation to guarantee rights to visible minorities, or women, or children. We arent’ perfect, but through this legislation and others like it, we are trying to change.

There are far more immediate issues to address, both here and elsewhere, than the wording of a document designed to protect people from harm. Of course not many of them are as easy as bickering about semantics nobody else really seems to care about. The UN is apparently okay with our opposition to discrimination, it’s our total failure to fudge the truth that has their knickers in a twist. The idea of visible minorities acknowledges two facts: caucasians are the majority ethnicity in Canada, and other ethnicies are visibly different from caucasians. That’s the big secret we let out of bag. According to the UN, by accepting that some people will discriminate based on the appearance of ethnicity, and in trying to prevent that, we are promoting racism.

Of course we are… because of our secret racist agenda. Like our other secret plan to undermine the UN misssion in Afghanistan by putting the brave and dedicated, men and women of our armed forces (including my nephew who went back three times and is one of my personal heroes) and a large number of non-military personel in harms way. See how totally evil we are? Good thing the UN is there to keep the world safe from us.

Maybe next time the UN wants some muscle they should ask Kim Jong Il. I’m guessing they won’t have to proofread too much legislation protecting minority rights in North Korea. Then they wouldn’t have to compromise their high moral standards by associating with a blatantly evil country like Canada.

I’ve lived here my whole life. Without the help of the UN, I might never have realized how evil we really are. That’s probably why they haven’t called to offer me a job with the Carefully Selected Transnational Panel To Find Fault With Countries That Support Us Because It’s Easier Than Dealing With The Unpleasant Ones. I don’t think I’d fit in anyway. I’m probably too evil because I’m Canadian.

Cheers, Winston

p.s. For the record I do support the idea of the UN. Unfortunately, the implementation of that idea, like many others, sometimes leaves something to be desired. For anyone not paying attention; this would be one of those times.

W

Internet Access: Basic Human Right?

On By WinstonIn Global Issues, SocietyLeave a comment

Earlier today I was browsing conversation threads on TED.com when the following subject caught my eye. “How we can use social media on a world scale to launch a global campaign to recognize Internet access as a basic human right?”

My initial response was, “Excuse me. Could you repeat that please.”. As I read through the thread, I was able to put the idea into context. This allowed me to give a bit more constructive thought to the question.

The idea is to enshrine Internet access in the U.N.Charter of Universal Rights. That seems harmless enough since nobody enforces that thing anyway. But let’s consider for a moment why that’s supposed to be a good thing.

If you are reading this, it’s a pretty safe bet that you already have internet access (and some spare time). You have the luxury of tapping into mind-bogglingly huge amounts of stuff. There are the writings of great thinkers, practical “how-to”s for almost anything, random Blogs by people you’ve never heard of (Hello I’m Win. Nice to meet you.), and a universe of other stuff. There are also the communication aspects of it. How great would it be if a doctor in a rural village in Ghana could get a realtime consult with a pediatrician in New York? What if a teacher in Kosovo could give their students a live connection to classrooms around the world to share and learn in a global context? Who knows what changes might come from such democratization of access and communication?

Which is what I want to know. Who can predict those changes. Obviously, those who want to lobby for this right believe they know the outcome. The fact is, people are notoriously lousy at predicting the impact of their actions. Even more so when personal beliefs or emotional attachments are at stake. It’s nice to think of a doctor in New York helping the doctor in Ghana save a child’s life. It’s not so nice to think about Al Shabab using the collaborative power of the internet to unify and better manage their operations allowing them to vastly increase the suffering in Somalia.

We all tend to focus on our own desired outcome. It is immensely difficult for us to honestly look at other options. We don’t want to acknowledge that there are as many opportunities for abuse as for use. That just because we have this thing does not mean that it is good for everyone else, or for us. Even those who have been exposed to the internet since it’s public inception struggle with the existence of this ethical and moral void in our midst.

The internet is not a discreet entity. It had no ethics or morality beyond those of it’s creators. There are technologies which allow people, organizations or governments to block undesirable content. There are also technologies to bypass those blocks. Censorship, whatever it’s motive, is at best a stopgap solution. In our society, we have had a process of of information exposure and even we are suffering “information overload”. How much more devastating the potential impact of the internet on a community without so much as a TV. What of the erosion of that culture by exposure to every other cultural expression in the world?

Would universal internet access be a blessing, or the single greatest act of cultural colonization since the Romans, the British or the Catholic Church?

Only time (and an unlikely transfer of technology) will tell.

Cheers, Winston