Canberra Sprawl

Australia is on the pointy end of global warming. Many Australian cities are experiencing long spells of exceptionally hot weather, diasterous bush fires have been raging and fresh water is in short supply, with many dams and reservoirs at historically low levels. In a continent that is already very dry the long term direction of the weather is alarming.

Given the potential impact on Australia of global warming, it is particularly depressing to read that Canberra has decided to continue sprawling out and build some 15 more suburbs. Although I don't agree, the reasoning behind the development is not hard to understand. House prices in Canberra are ridiculously high and there is ample land on which to build new houses relatively cheaply. Moreover, there is probably extremely strong demand for more housing stock, and most likely strong demand for the typical Australian home: the three bedroom, wood framed, brick veneer bungalow in the suburbs.

I understand why these new suburbs are being built. Nonetheless, I find the fact that Canberra has simply decided to follow existing practice and build hundreds or thousands of new, single family homes to be depressing. Every new house built will require one or two cars to move the inhabitants from home to work and back again. The folks living there will have to drive to their local supermarket, drive to schools near and far to drop off and pick up their children, and drive to the doctor and dentist. Every house will have its own relatively inefficient heating and air conditioning system that will ultimately come at the cost of burning coal for power.

Are there no other models that Canberra could adopt? The Dutch and Germans seem to be able to organize compact, high-density cities and towns where a very large percentage of the population can, and do, commute by bike and public transport. I live in Germany, don't own a car, ride a bicycle to drop off my children at daycare and walk to pick up my groceries. It is actually very pleasant, although I do miss driving and enjoy the odd times that I get to rent a car. Moreover, the measures that Germany is implementing to reduce CO2 emissions are quite impressive, ranging from substantial fuel taxes and energy taxes through to aggressive implementation of wind power across the country.

So what is going on in Australia? Australia is certainly rich enough to effect change and is already feeling the affects of global warming. If nothing else, I would have thought the fact that one of Australia's leading exports is coal, invariably destined to be burnt in Chinese power plants, would have induced a certain amount of chagrin and concern for doing the right thing as far as possible domestically. So, do Australians think that the Canberra development model is just fine? The Australian dream of a separate house, backyard and multiple cars certainly seems alive and well. The problem however, is that even if every inhabitant of these new suburbs eats organically, grows their own vegetables, cycles to work once or twice a week, carpools or uses park and drive stations, Australia is not going to reduce the amount of CO2 emitted per person.

That Canberra is continuing to follow the standard Australian model of development in late 2009, over a decade after Kyoto, is utterly depressing. It strikes me as an almost wilful failure to acknowledge reality and a profound failure of imagination and will. Can Canberrans only conceive of brand new suburbs as the way to house a growing population? Is this how Australia is going to rise to the challenge of global warming? I would have liked to have thought of Canberra, and Australia generally, as a place of innovation, of being concerned with the challenges of the 21st Century and having the guts to deal with them. But I guess I was mistaken about the Australian character: "she'll be right" seems to have considerable precedence over honesty and guts, even if it is going to hurt our own grandchildren.

Afghanistan

So there is a debate in the US and Europe right now about Afghanistan, and what policy NATO and the UN should pursue. In the US I get the feeling that the debate is somewhat more acute for a number of factors that are interesting in themselves. In any case, much of the debate seems to swirl around whether more US or European forces should be sent into Afghanistan, in the hope that more security can be provided for the civilian population and that the recent Taliban gains can be reversed.

On the other side of the argument are various parties, including some American Republicans and Democrats, along with a fair proportion of the US and European public who are arguing that after eight years enough is enough, and it is time to withdraw.

I feel really torn on this debate, as both sides have strong arguments. Obviously, this is a case of choosing the least bad option, but even viewed from that angle I still can't get my head around a good way to evaluate the choices. Given the size and remoteness of Afghanistan, the forbidding terrain, language and religious barriers, lack of unifying institutions, lack of rule of law, corruption, drug-based economy and a host of other factors, keeping NATO forces in the country seems utterly ludicrous.

Yet, if the NATO forces withdraw, it seems reasonable to believe that the Taleban are highly likely to resume control over the country by force. The obvious worst case, which is by no means a remote possibility, is that a Taliban victory in Afghanistan could potentially destablize Pakistan right next door, and that is a potential nightmare scenario.

I tend to think that keeping such a large troop presence in Afghanistan will have to end at some point, and given that the situation on the ground is not improving, we may as well withdraw sooner than later. But, as I said, I would hate to have to make this particular agonizing call. For what I believe it ultimately means is that we will be consigning the country to the Taliban, which is not a pleasant thought.

But what really gets my goat is when really well informed commentators, including people like Glenn Greenwald, ignore the likely outcome of the withdrawal of NATO forces. I find it highly doubtful that the Afghan people or their leadership will come together and "work it out" as he said in a recent interview on MSNBC. I can see a great many strong reasons to withdraw our troops, but we should at least honestly acknowledge what the likely outcome and cost of that withdrawal will be.

Ambition

One of the good sides of getting older is that you sometimes come to learn things about yourself that were always kind of there, hidden away in the background, but that never quite made it into conscious thought.

One of the things that I am learning is that I am just not that ambitious, at least not as defined by the usual meaning of the word. Although nice worldly goods are pleasant, and I certainly wouldn't be happy living in a complete dump, I just don't desire a huge mansion, shiny new car or high-profile job. Cars depreciate, big houses aren't necessarily filled with joy and a high-profile job would likely be high-stress and extremely busy, all of which just leaves me feeling cold.

I like having time with my family, time to myself to think and wonder, and time to spend with friends. I wish I had more time to write silly blog entries and sit in churches and wonder at history. I only get one chance to live my life, and I don't want to turn sixty or seventy and realize that I spent most of my adult life in an office, chasing promotions or more money, to the detriment of my family and my life.

Apart from my fascination with technology, I guess this is one reason why I like software as an area in which to work. It allows you to specialize, be competent and committed to good work, to work hard yet still able to go home in the evening to relax, while nonetheless earning reasonably good money.

The things for which I now do harbor ambition are much more intangible. I really want my children to have as many opportunities as possible. I want to be surrounded by family and friends and community. I want to listen to music, think and be intellectually engaged. I want to be able to contribute in a direct and meaningful way to society and the community.

In many ways, this is simply what I have always wanted and who I have always been. It has just taken me a while to realize just how important it is for me. And for a very social person who nonetheless finds it hard to make friends, I've never really had enough of a social network for my taste, despite having made many great friends over the years.

Caeden

This is an old photo of Caeden, but it is also one of my favorites. It really captures his blue eyes, and the blue in the photo makes them even more striking. I also love his crazy hair, which captures how he often looks pretty well.

I find it totally crazy that he is coming up to his second birthday. It seems like he was a baby just the other day. And even though I am glad that he is getting older, and stronger and more independent, it is also bittersweet. It is kind of fun having a little baby, and I very much doubt that we'll be having another one.

IQ

I really like this opinion piece from Kristof in the Times. That a child's IQ is highly dependent on the environment in which they are raised makes a great deal of sense to me. Frankly though, it is sad that this article still needs to be published, as though this is not bloody obvious. It is also serves as reminder as to how difficult it will be to help to children in disadvantaged situations, as well as how critical this is.

And now that I get to closely watch and observe my own children growing up, the malleability of IQ really makes intuitive sense to me. Brienna and I basically surround Aralyn and Caeden will stimulating and enriching experiences, loads of love, praise and encouragement, and with as few limits as possible. Our children don't get parked in front of a TV, instead they get their mum and dad questioning and talking with them, reading books and twisting their tongues into knots with strange and long words. And that's when they aren't in day care having to learn a whole different language or out at the zoo looking at the elephants.

So regardless of how smart, or not, Aralyn and Caeden end up, they will at least have been given every opportunity to grown and learn. But not every kid gets the same environment, nor two loving parents, nor the same stability that allows our kids to relax, be happy and just have fun exploring and playing in their little world.

To a large extent, if children grow up in difficult circumstances there is no way the state can make for up this deficit. You simply cannot have a school make up for the years of enriching experiences that you get in families when they work well. Up to this point I think that conservatives, with their theoretical focus on families, have a point.

But articles like Kristof's point out a challenge for the US. For many children in impoverished inner cities or rural areas, not only are their families failing them, but society is as well. It is now clear that intensive, dedicated, early education programs and high quality education can make a huge difference in children's lives. Unfortunately however, in practice, children in these situations often end up in extremely poor performing schools. Obama wrote about much of this in his books and it would be wonderful if, despite all the current crises, at least some progress gets made in this area.

Kid Art

I am sure that all parent have much the same thoughts when their children bring their latest artistic creations home, beaming with pride. "Look what I did today daddy!". The first thoughts that flash through your head are usually curiosity about the item itself coupled with satisfaction that your kid is proud of their work and obviously had a fun day.

But these thoughts are fairly quickly followed by a kind of groan, and a sadness, over what to do with this latest item. Usually it joins the heap in their portfolio, really a box in a corner of their room, or gets hung up somewhere. But how long do you keep this stuff? Do you take it with you when you move? That seems kind of crazy, but it also seems kind of heartless to just through it out.

So, why not share it on the web, so that everyone can get the same joy? Or perhaps more accurately, Aralyn and Caeden's grandparents can admire the handiwork of their grandchildren, and everyone can just move on to the next post. Of course, it also means that Aralyn and Caeden, if they ever wanted to, could go and look back and what they did years later.

So, in this spirit, here are some pieces by Aralyn. Caeden isn't producing too much right now, but I'll post his creations as well. Enjoy!



The item below is a beluga whale swimming around. Aralyn seems to have fallen in love with belugas ever since we actually saw one at the gorgeous Chicago Aquarium.



And lastly, here is a maze that Aralyn developed herself, and then got Brienna to solve. She's moved from solving mazes to making them for others:

Easter

Well, we finally got a vacation worth its name, and it was just gorgeous. The clouds rolled away, the sun came out, and while the water remained a chilly 5 degrees, warm air gently blew in.

Given that in Europe you automatically get a four day weekend over Easter, we rented a car and took off to explore the local beaches and countryside. We spent two days in Prerow, one in Ahrenshoop and another day in Nienhagen. The photo above is of the coast near Nienhagen. All three spots were really lovely, with pristine beaches nestled behind forests, and old fashioned thatched roofed houses in abundance.

Given that Caeden is two and is somewhat high maintenance, our days fell into a pattern pretty quickly. We got up, drove to our destination, wandered around for a little bit and found a nice restaurant, and when Caeden fell asleep, ate a gloriously relaxing lunch. Aralyn often drew or read books, while Brienna and I took turns reading. For us, or maybe myself in particular, there is almost nothing better than the combination of interesting reading material (in my case LRBs courtesy of a good friend), beer or wine, good food, and an hour or two of relatively undisturbed free time. I get positively dreamy just thinking about it.

After lunch we headed for the beach, and splashed, paddled, explored and sun bathed. Aralyn finally got rid of the circles under her eyes and almost immediately started turning brown. Caeden's fair skin mostly managed to avoid getting burnt and both children had a blast. Who wouldn't, with a whole beach to explore, sand to dig and adventures to have?

The Lines a German Won't Cross

This is a fun little article in the New York Times Magazine by Nicolas Kulish about the power of rules and conformity in Germany. The main thrust of the article is that Germany is generally very well run, and that Germans tend to deeply internalize and live their lives according to the law. If there was ever a society that best exemplified the rule of law, it would have to be Germany.

I like the central example Kulish used of the swimming pool, with a line demarcating the shoe and no shoe areas. That this line was treated with respect, despite any mechanism for enforcement, seemed to Kulish to exemplify how Germans approached rules and laws. This example also brings back my own similar, and happy, memories of swimming in Ribnitz-Damgarten, a beautiful pool just a bit outside of Rostock.

I have somewhat conflicted thoughts about this whole thing. Perhaps I just think too much, but literally every time I come to a dratted street crossing, I come face to face with this phenomenon. You will likely have a cluster of Germans patiently waiting for the light to change, and do I step into line and follow their lead, or do I follow my own instincts and just cross?

It seems to me that unthinkingly following all rules has some rather obvious downsides. But these particular rules just cover street crossings, are designed for safety, and are not particularly objectionable. They probably even save lives. Nonetheless, my usual pattern of behavior is to make sure it is safe to cross, then make sure there are no police around, and finally, follow my gut instinct and just cross the damn street.

Why do I have such a hard time following these basic German road rules? I am fully aware that I am a visitor and that this is not my country, and that I really ought to follow the German way of doing things. But given my Australian and American background, and a certain irreverence for authority, I just can't look at any empty street and wait patiently. It is not in my genes.

Ice Bridge Ruptures in Antarctic

Another article, this time by the BBC, reporting more bad news on the global warming front. Sebastian pointed this one out, so I figured I write a little about it too. Apparently the collapse is not good news as it is both an example of the rapid changes in the Antarctic as well as possibly making it easier for the glaciers and other ice flows now on land to move into the sea, possibly affecting sea levels.

Following from that thought, and regarding sea levels, it is paragraph near the end that really gets me:

Such acceleration effects were not included by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) when it made its latest projections on likely future sea level rise. Its 2007 assessment said ice dynamics were poorly understood.

I must admit that I hate reading things like this. It is just scary when, as often happens, you read about a previous worst case output or warming scenario, followed by the statement that actual CO2 output or whatever was dramatically greater again.

East Germans Face Their Accusers

This old article, "East Germans Face Their Accusers", about former East Germans dealing with the communist legacy is still very good reading. Depressingly, the evil that people can do to one another appears to have a deep well spring of creativity.

The Wall Street Journal

The Wall Street Journal is an interesting paper. The news inside the paper is generally first-rate, with often very insightful, original and well written articles. The opinion pages, however, are another story entirely. Given the Journal's reach, prestige, and audience, the editorial page occupies a preeminent position within conservative American political discourse. In this sense, it is intellectually interesting to read their stuff, to observe which issues are discussed and how, as well as the silences when issues are ignored or glossed over.

"Is This The End Of Capitalism", by Daniel Henninger, is a good example. That I generally agree with the point he is trying to make is ironic, but largely beside the point. What I think is interesting in this article is how it sets out a conservative view of the housing bubble and the resulting financial crisis.

This conservative view is interesting for a number of reasons. First, it glosses any involvement of conservative principles or actors in the creation of the crisis. Actual agency by the Bush administration, Congress, the US Federal Reserve Bank, financial banks and insurance firms seems to be missing. Instead, we have a housing "blob" that ate the world, with private banks and insurance as passive victims.

Further, the idea that conservative principles or financial deregulation may have played a key role is not even hinted at. There is something utterly disingenuous about this given the key role the Journal played in pushing these agendas. Instead we get pablum like this:

In a normal environment, the problems revealed by the crisis in mortgage finance would produce fixes relevant to the problem, such as resetting the ratios of assets to capital for banks and hedge funds, or telling the gnomes of finance to rethink mark-to-market and the uptick rule. More energetic reformers might consider Gary Becker's suggestion that as financial institutions expand in size, their capital requirements tighten, so that compulsive eaters like Citigroup can fit inside their capital base.

There are numerous other points that could be made in this paragraph, but Henninger chooses not to discuss the real reforms necessary and instead puts in some relatively mild points so as to not offend the sensibilities of his readers or his editorial page superiors. You can't critique the conservative brand too much I guess.

But the really galling thing for me is that the American citizens are the ones really being suckered here, yet seem to warrant nary a mention. After all, the US taxpayers are the ones who have to foot the bill for the stimulus package, to pay for the bailout of AIG, the recapitalization of the financial system as well as taking on prime responsibility for the toxic debt created by the financial system in the first place.

NATO

So there was a NATO summit in Strasbourg last week. This being the 21st Century and France, there were a series of protests. It looks like the protests turned quite violent, with a couple of hotels and a supermarket set on fire.

I find this all a little hard to comprehend. The protests in London against the G20 meeting almost make sense in comparison. At least with the G20 meeting there is something dramatic to protest: millions of people are now unemployed, and many will be struggling to make ends meet, let alone the millions of people in the developing world who will face severe hardship, because of the greed of a few thousand captains of industry. But what exactly are the NATO protesters protesting?

The BLOCK NATO group seems to be one of the main groups, but I cannot get much sense from their web site, beyond an interest in peace and a visceral reaction to what they term a "war alliance". There doesn't seem to be much to explain or argue their position on their website, though perhaps I missed it.

To be honest, this all just strikes me as pathetic, sad and uninformed. One of the more wonderful things to have happened in my lifetime has been the collapse of the Soviet Union and the escape of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and many other countries from Russian influence. And the military guarantee of NATO membership provided to these countries is to my mind the core foundation underpinning this freedom.

Moreover, several of the key historical reasons that NATO actually became a strong military alliance include the blockade of Berlin and North Korean invasion of South Vietnam. What exactly would these protesters have had their governments actually do when confronted with these situations?

It is not as though I disagree with their desired ends. I too would far prefer more peace in the world, and frankly would rather our political leadership spent their time dealing with global warming, poverty or other myriad issues.

But evil does exist, with Stalin and the early USSR being particularly good examples, and there is a practical matter of what exactly to do about that. The Kremlin seems quite happy right now to deploy rather brutal means to ensure favorable political arrangements within its' zone of 'privileged interest' as described by Medvedev. Given this, I would very much like to know how Block NATO would propose to help Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia maintain real independence from the Russian bear right next door.

Children

What a simple and sweet article. It is so refreshing to read things like this after the debacle of the last two Bush administrations.

Having a daughter makes this a more compelling article for me, and it raises a point that I think about every so often. Specifically, how do you raise your children so that they are confident, curious, but still have just enough street smarts to not get themselves into too much trouble?

To a certain extent, I think the modern world is easier for girls. There are no boundaries, no limitations; just a world to explore, and in our privileged situation, opportunities and life to seize.

Boys, ironically enough, seem more complex. What does masculinity mean in the 21st century? How do you raise boys who are thoughtful and kind, and yet still boys? When I was a boy I was never into team sports or rough housing and given that I grew up in sports mad Australia, the result was that I had a somewhat conflicted relationship with my own masculinity. Ultimately, I became very confident and comfortable in my own skin, but it is a topic about which I still wonder at times.

But perhaps I am just too old school and this just really isn't an issue anymore. Indeed, while I did ponder these thoughts earlier when Caeden was just a baby, I find that as he slowly turns into a happy, boisterous little boy, that it all seems rather natural and easy. We wrestle on the bed, read books and he leads me around the house by a finger, demanding that I sit down and play trains or cars with him.

Every so often though, I can't help but say a short prayer, of the secular humanist form, thanking God that I am doing this now, and not in some decade before, when we can all just be ourselves.

Caeden's Finger

So last week and the week before were not Caeden's best. We had had a great weekend at a beautiful swimming pool, but while there he got a graze on one of his fingers. It bled a little, but it basically looked superficial and we didn't think much of it. Unfortunately, when he went to day care during the following week it became infected with streptococcus.

The poor little guy had to have his whole arm bandaged up to help prevent the infection from spreading, as well as all sorts of ointments and antibiotics. It wasn't one of our better parenting moments. In any case, Caeden didn't seem to mind too much. After all, having a cast did give him something with which to bop his sister's head.

So, given in the last couple of weeks Caeden has had Scarlet Fever, a streptococcus infection and a seemingly limitless supply of catarrh, we are hoping to turn a page with spring.

Communism Lives

One of the fascinating things about living in Rostock is that we are surrounded by monuments to a failed communist past. The photo here shows the workers united, facing the future in the East. It is right next to the extremely modern Max Planck offices, and not too far away from rusting, communist-era shipyards that have now been mostly dismantled. A few huge cranes looming over the Warnow are the most obvious reminder of the past and the many thousands of people who used to work here, building ships for the GDR.

But perhaps the most fascinating thing for me is that there are some people who still seem to think that communism was a sound idea, albeit implemented badly. I actually had a discussion in a pub a few weeks ago where we debated this specific idea. My fellow debater, S, was a very nice American PhD student studying aspects of Russian society, so I guess she counts as an educated opinion.

To a certain extent, I am not really that surprised that this opinion lingers. After all, for most Australians or Americans, the events that took place in Russia and Germany and so many other countries were far away and a long time ago. I also think that many people have a visceral dislike of capitalism, and a yearning for there to be some sort of alternative system. Given the disastrous current economic disaster, let alone the many other shortfalls of capitalism, it is hard not to be somewhat sympathetic to this train of thought.

However, to actually think that communism is still a fine idea in the early 21st Century boggles my mind. To me, the evil is built into the original core idea of communism itself. The notion that there will be a revolution, where a subset of society, the bourgeoisie, will be essentially declared non-persons and swept away is profoundly wrong. Are all of the bourgeoisie monsters? Do they all deserve to die or to be sent into exile? Really? And how is this to be judged?

Further, what exactly does communism mean? The sheer nonsense that one reads about this makes one's head swim. Theoretically, the state is supposed to simply wither away. Yet how will schools and roads and hospitals all get built without a state? Did people really understand how silly this was when they were fighting and dying for it? I am honestly not quite sure whether to laugh or cry when I think about it.

Free speech, religion and global warming

Sebastian wrote a nice article that I've put below in its' near entirety. He echoes my own thoughts nicely. At some point I'll put my own thoughts down about this as I think this is a fascinating topic. I'd also bet that it is going to be a significant, recurring issue in this century.

On Friday, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution that urges members to adopt laws outlawing criticism of religions (read about it here, here, and here).

Now, let's put aside my personal views about religion, and let's just try to analyse this in a pragmatical way (which it won't be, as I am biased anyway).

"Defamation of religious is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence," the adopted text read, adding that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

This is wrong. Deeply so. Most sensible countries got rid of blasphemy laws a very long time ago (or never had them, Belgium for instance). A religion is not a person. It doesn't have feelings. It doesn't have an opinion. It cannot be offended, nor defamed. I feel like we have just warped 200 years backwards. Defamation of religion is very different from say, racism. Religion is something you can choose, race is something you are. You can believe there is a god and still not follow him. To deny someone their race is to deny their existence, hardly the same as calling them a fool for their choice in following a deity.

In the Reuters article I linked to above (second link), a representative of Canada says:

"It is individuals who have rights, not religions," Ottawa's representative told the body. "Canada believes that to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects."

Which makes me feel a bit more better, but still. Making laws to let religious intolerance run rampant is equivalent to committing violence in the name of religion.

I do understand that this is just a UN Forum that passed this non-binding text, as opposed to the UN General Assembly. In other words, you simply have a few guys saying "We think this might be a good idea", but it doesn't change the fact that once again, a lot of countries preferred restricting their power through boycotting the vote, rather than speak up and yell "NO". Why?

I believe that this resolution is aimed at least in part at secular attacks on religion. As Gandhi said, "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."

Atheists have been given the short shrift for a very long time now. First they were burned at the stake, then persecuted, and now they're gradually gaining mainstream acceptance now. We've gone from Bush the Elder claiming that atheists should be considered neither citizens nor patriots to Obama including non-believers in his inauguration speech. Perhaps in my lifetime, it'll be politically feasible for an atheist to hold an elected office.

It's no wonder that the religious old guard is running scared.

Ann Arbor

So right now my thoughts are somewhat occupied with our house in Ann Arbor. Given that we are living in Germany, we are obviously not living in it and have rented it out. We tried to sell it, but as luck would have it, we managed to time our departure with the end of the housing boom in the US.



This was the first house that I had ever owned, so I am pretty sentimental about it. It is also the house where Aralyn first lived when she was a baby, the house where she learned to walk, the house where we lived when Brienna did her PhD, the house where we shared a lot of wonderful moments with friends and family.

Ann Arbor was a really lovely little place to spend five years or so. I never thought that I would ever live in the Mid-West of America, but I am glad that I did. It meant that I got to explore Detroit, got to live in the American heartland and, even if vicariously, got to experience a little bit of one of America's great public universities.

Global Warming Reaction

Looks like Sebastian doesn't quite agree with my recent posts on global warming. I'll post a response when I've thought a bit, and have some time. Check out his post if you have five minutes and see what you think.

Our Local Stasi

Turns out the Stasi had their local headquarters and apartment building just a few doors down from our place. It is actually just behind where the old synagogue was before it got burnt down by the Nazis. Wandering around the place you can still see the old guard posts near the entrances, now all boarded up, but not yet torn down.

The photo below shows the apartment building that used to house the Stasi officials. There's actually a pretty neat mural just below that I'll also post when I manage to get a photo without cars parked in front of it.

The building itself is the largest around and clearly stands out, looming over the old city. I like the contrast between the photo, with the clear blue sky background and how many of the locals probably felt about it before the collapse of East Germany. I imagine that that area was probably actively avoided by a great many folks.

I find it personally difficult to reconcile the fact that the Stasi were one of the largest and most repressive secret police organizations within the communist world with the apparent high opinion that East Germans have of their former government, but perhaps that is just my snarky American attitude coming out.

Egyptian Freed

Now I am not normally paranoid, but let me get this straight. The Washington Post publishes an editorial suggesting that before Obama meets with Mubarak, the president (dictator would be a more accurate term) of Egypt, it would be nice to see some sort of progress on the human rights front.

I have no idea whether the Post was commenting on diplomatic outreaches that were already occurring, or whether Mubarak, or one of his deputies, decided this was a jolly good idea after the article was printed. But, a couple of days after that editorial came out, lo and behold, the suggested 'bone' was thrown.

As much as I detested George W. Bush, he did put his finger upon a thorny issue. Specifically, how should the US handle dictators that happen to dovetail nicely with the American geopolitical strategy? Saudi Arabia and Egypt would be the two best examples of countries whose leadership is both nicely aligned with US interests, yet happen to be utterly undemocratic.

It will be quite interesting to watch how the Obama administration handles this particular issue. And while this is thoroughly excellent news for Ayman Nour and his family, it is far from clear this means anything at all substantial for Egyptians in general.

Happy Tree People

So this photo is of my brother Mitchell and his lovely little daughter Alice. They are currently living in Melbourne, Australia.

The most painful part of living outside of your home country is that it is hard to stay in touch with friends and family. I have yet to meet Alice, who is coming up to one. We are planning to head back to Australia for Christmas at the end of this year, but that still seems very, very far away.

History and Memory

I found this short article in the Economist to be quite fascinating. It is on one of those topics that I have randomly pondered about a bit: how does history get taught in schools in post-communist countries? I've always thought it would be difficult to teach the history honestly and openly, given that the collapse of communism is so recent.

Evidently this is the case, and as a result youngsters are getting confusing messages:

The ignorance is unevenly spread. Young western Germans know more of East Germany’s history. In Bavaria just 39% of schoolchildren had “little or very little” knowledge; in Brandenburg 72% were ill-informed. A third of eastern German students thought that Konrad Adenauer and Willy Brandt, two western giants, actually governed the east. The same proportion judge West Germany’s political system to have been the better; two-thirds of westerners do. Such differences persist even among children of western and eastern parents who attend the same Berlin schools.

Given that one-third of west German students think that the East Germany political system was superior, it is perhaps not surprising that two-thirds of east German students have the same thought. But nonetheless, I find this to be somewhat shocking.

But perhaps I am being too harsh. Perhaps many of these students have families for whom the East German system worked. Perhaps many of them had parents or teachers who did not understand the inefficient or unsustainable nature of the East German system. After all, I would guess that this information was not common knowledge. The context is also critical: this is Germany, and I can't really see much potential harm as these misconceptions are worked out over time. Indeed, I have some faith that this will be worked out as there is a public space where it can be worked out, through peaceful debate and discussion.

This is not the case though in other post-Communist countries such as Russia where such debates are not encouraged. Russia is a fascinating case when thinking about history and memory, and its effects on politics. How do Russians think about the Communist times? How does it get taught in schools? I can easily imagine that Putin would want to put the best possible gloss on these times, but what does that mean for Russian society?

Reading about Russia under Putin's leadership is not particularly pleasant. Under Putin corruption has become endemic, the state is being run by mafia related groups, an already feeble rule of law has been asphyxiated and the Kremlin has worked hard to centralize control over economic activity. And I cannot but think that part of the explanation for the general acceptance of this is a collective societal amnesia.

This is not to say that Putin is trying to recreate the communist, or really socialist, system exactly as it is existed before Gorbachev unwittingly pulled the plug. The means of government control and the economic structure have been updated and are now more subtle, but there are many similarities. But will these similarities be discussed and debated or repressed? Will students be encouraged to think through these issues and to think about better paths that may lie ahead? In Putin's Russia, I doubt that will be on the curriculum any time soon.

Conservatives and Global Warming

David Brooks and George Will are arguably two of the most respected conservative newspaper pundits in the States. I like reading these guys as they are often a good read if you want a well reasoned conservative response to some issue. At times they dodge issues or slide into sophistry, but their columns are also quite often very interesting.

Unfortunately, I found both of their columns today to be quite depressing. Brooks decided to write a piece celebrating the fact that Americans seem to have no desire to live close to cities, but would rather live outside, in the exurbs, and commute. Brooks celebrates this, despite the fact that that structure is obviously dependent upon the car, and requires using huge amounts of energy to inefficiently move Americans between work, home, the supermarket and the mall.

George Will in his article seems to be echoing a theme that has come up recently: there really isn't any global warming at all, but rather global cooling. Actually, Will doesn't even argue that position: much like Brooks, he never seems to state his opinion at all. Instead, he just quotes other sources and other opinions, and avoids giving his own. One gets the feeling reading the piece that he doesn't think global warming is an issue, but then, it is hard to tell.

I guess it just doesn't strike me as fundamentally a conservative position to completely ignore our affect on the planet. We only have one, and many generations to come depend upon us taking care of it. And while there might be some room for error, it seems like the scientific opinion is pretty firmly pointing in one direction: the planet is warming and burning fossil fuels is the primary reason. It would be nice if American conservatives actually engaged with that issue, rather than pretending that it simply does not exist.

Carbon Tax

More depressing, but far from surprising, news showing the clear political limits in the fight against global warming. A carbon tax would be the simplest, cleanest and most efficient way to start reducing the amount of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, it is simply politically untenable in the US, and probably most other places as well. Thinking about it, I reckon that you could almost use support for a carbon tax as a rough benchmark to measure how seriously a society or a polity is actually willing to combat global warming. And by that measure we have a long way to go.

Blue Sky

It is amazing how long periods of cold, snowy and gray days can really make you yearn for some blue sky. We had a lovely day on the weekend, but things seemed to conspire to keep us indoors. So now its back to snow and slush and gray. Fortunately, there aren't too many more months to go till spring.

The photo above was taken by Layne on the frozen Baltic beach at Warnemunde, near the mouth of the Warnow. I have never been on a beach in a snowy winter before, and it is quite odd to walk on hard, frozen sand. It was also a beautiful day, with some folks sailing large powerful kites and the sun gently setting in the West.

Growing up, I never thought I'd ever live on the Baltic coast, it was just one of those things that didn't even occur. For an Australian, the Baltic really does seem like another world away. I just wish it had a little less cloud; there is something wonderful about walking in parks and forests with blue sky above.

Northern Territory

My father just got back from a short stint as the temporary CEO of the Katherine West Health Board in the Australian Northern Territory (NT). The CEO had taken a break for a few months to spend some time in the South, and Alan was ideally suited to help out for a bit. The photo above shows most of the board members. My father, Alan, is the man in the middle with his arms clasped together.

There a lot of challenges in providing health care in remote, often Aboriginal, communities but the KWHB seems to be working well. The Federal Government has provided more funding recently, which has also helped increase health in areas of the NT.

There will probably always be a set of structural challenges in providing high quality health care in such a huge, rugged, country, but in that area at least, things seem to be moving in the right direction.

Worldview Humility Reaction

Sebastian posted an interesting comment about my recent atheism post - and brings in Richard Dawkins into the discussion (Sebastian has his own cool blog here). As Sebastian points out, right now Dawkins is, for better or worse, probably the most high profile atheist out there. Unfortunately, he tends towards the annoyingly evangelical side of things.

I actually wonder why Dawkins is even bothering. The UK is one of the more secular places on the planet, and I have a hard time imagining that atheists are as truly disadvantaged as say, vegetarians, dyslexics, coal miners or recent immigrants from South Asia. I can't say that I really feel the need for either a support group or a political lobby, but whatever.

Oddly enough, I really did not intend to kick off such a long thread about atheism when I first commented on non-believing London buses. I've really enjoyed putting my thoughts down on this topic as it tends to clarify and distill my own flightly feelings, but I swear I am not picking arguments for the sheer joy of it.

When I get through a few other things I'll try to circle back and comment more on Dawkins. He is an interesting character and I should read his book. I also think Obama and his understanding of faith is quite interesting as well - but I need to finish his books first.

Broken Glass II

I already commented on how someone had a attacked the synagogue basically next door to us. Well, it turns out that fifty yards down the road the Nazis burned to the ground a synagogue during Kristallnacht. This was back in November 1938, almost exactly 70 years ago.

Here is the plaque in front of the apartment building that now stands there.

I wonder how many people went to that synagogue, how many naming ceremonies there were, how many births and weddings celebrated? I wonder how someone could throw stones through a synagogue window within sight of this memorial.

Worldview Humility

One of the things that I particularly like about atheism is that I think it is actually a humble worldview. At the core of atheism is the honest assessment that we just don't know what happens after death; that we just don't know much about a good many things. And importantly, part of atheism is the facing and acknowledgment of this reality.

In many ways I think this acknowledgment of these limits is inspiring. After all, it is the not knowing something that causes you to wonder and powers curiosity. It also encourages you to get out and experience life, to live life to the fullest.

Depending upon your perspective, however, there are also negative consequences. If you were likely to experience a lot of heartache and unrelieved hardship would you put up with it? I can see a lot of benefits of believing in heaven if your life on earth is hell. And to be brutally honest, I don't think a group of atheists would have survived the dark ages. Suicide would be a too appealing prospect compared to a life of unremitting toil and heartache.

This is why I think the evolutionary approach to understanding religious belief makes a lot of intuitive sense. Perhaps there's even an amusing irony in there: it may be thanks to many generations of believers who struggled through difficult times that I may now be a happy atheist.

Capitalism and Canada

Fareed Zakaria has a new article in Newsweek that looks at Canadian banks and how they are faring compared to their American counterparts:

Canada has done more than survive this financial crisis. The country is positively thriving in it. Canadian banks are well capitalized and poised to take advantage of opportunities that American and European banks cannot seize. The Toronto Dominion Bank, for example, was the 15th-largest bank in North America one year ago. Now it is the fifth-largest. It hasn't grown in size; the others have all shrunk.

So what accounts for the genius of the Canadians? Common sense. Over the past 15 years, as the United States and Europe loosened regulations on their financial industries, the Canadians refused to follow suit, seeing the old rules as useful shock absorbers. Canadian banks are typically leveraged at 18 to 1—compared with U.S. banks at 26 to 1 and European banks at a frightening 61 to 1. Partly this reflects Canada's more risk-averse business culture, but it is also a product of old-fashioned rules on banking.

I especially like the article because of the implicit point that this economic crisis is not a crisis of capitalism itself. Rather, as the article makes clear the American financial crisis and the collapsed housing bubble are far more directly related to the erosion of the financial regulatory system.

From what I can gather from reading and talking with my father, it sounds like Australian banks are also generally doing okay, again based on better regulation and substantially lower leverage ratios.

Time and space

The Perelli's took this photo of us over the Christmas holidays about a month ago. It feels like it was just a week ago or so, but of course, it isn't. It is already mid-February and will soon be March. On the plus side, the days are starting to stay light much longer, and despite the snow on the ground, you can almost sense Spring coming. The sun's rays are starting to contain warmth and soon we'll be looking for the first early flowers to poke their heads out of the hibernating ground.

It is strange and sad to think that on the other side of the planet my home country is scorched, dessicated and burning. Some nearly 200 people have died in horrible bush fires in Victoria, just south of where my parents live, and just north of my brother in Melbourne. Sometimes being an atheist is not that great: it would be comforting to able to appeal to a higher power.

Economic Anxiety

I really cannot get my head around the economic crisis. The numbers involved are so large that, as many people have remarked, they have become meaningless, like the number of stars in the galaxy. No one seems to really know what is going on, how long it will last or even whether we are through the worst of it.

While not normally an nervous person, if I think too much about this particular crisis I really can get myself anxious. So far we would seem to be fairly insulated from the effects being felt by millions of folks: both Brienna and I have jobs and seem likely keep them, we have plenty of time for our savings to gain some value again, we don't have any debt to speak of and are all in good health. But I feel like much that I thought I knew about finance, about how the world worked economically was illusion. I am left with the impression of skating over thin ice, feeling that at any moment we, our friends or family could plunge into the icy water below.

This video from TalkingPointsMemo, with Josh Marshall interviewing Joe Stiglitz, provides a good overview of the current situation and shadow play in the background. I also like this one. And although a few things in it don't make sense to me (money market accounts are not FDIC insured among others) it does give an insiders view of the magnitude of the issue.

Part of me worries that the worst is actually yet to come. Although millions of people have lost their jobs, there doesn't seem to be any particular reason this couldn't continue. The stimulus package continues to shrink and is still, according to Krugman, probably much smaller than it should be. I doubt that this will rival the Great Depression, but what reasons do I actually have to support that? There seem to be so many unknowns that it is hard to have any confidence that we aren't going to find something else that the Masters of the Universe forgot to mention to the rest of us.

That much of this crisis stems from the policies pursued by the Bush Administration, from the deliberate weakening of financial regulations for ideological reasons, leaves me just dumbfounded. I still cannot quite believe that Alan Greenspan, who draws a significant chunk of blame for this debacle, is not being more widely held in contempt in the States. How do these people sleep at night?

Beneath each statistic of unemployment in the US is a family and often children. Losing a job is no joke in the States, and right now what would be the chances of finding another one? If you did manage to find something, the chances of finding something with the same pay and conditions would have to be remote. That this is happening to millions of folks across the US is just as hard to fathom as the dollar figures for the various bailout packages.

One State

Shimon Peres put down some thoughts today in the Washington Post about the importance of a two-state solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. His piece is in response to an increasing number of articles and commentary pointing out that the two-state solution is rapidly becoming obsolete. In this particular piece, Peres doesn't provide much argument; he basically just asserts the importance of a two-state solution:

Having personally witnessed the remarkable progress we have made with the Palestinian Authority in recent years, I believe that a two-state solution is not only the best resolution to this age-old conflict but one within our reach.

But is it really within reach? Like the many other pundits and writers, who hope, cajole or plead for some sort of resumption of peace negotiations aimed at creating a Palestinian state, he fails to actually address the question of whether it is really possible anymore.

There was an excellent story on 60 minutes a couple of weeks ago by Bob Simon (part 1 and part 2). As covered in depth in the story, it appears as though a tipping point may have been reached. There are now simply too many settlements and outposts and too many Jewish settlers resolutely determined to stay. When interviewed about it later, Bob Simon stated that in his view, history had simply passed the two-state solution by.

The graph below neatly and simply summarizes the situation by showing the number of West Bank settlers, increasing over time. This graph comes from the Peace Now website, which is worth checking out for the factual information that is otherwise hard to locate.



Importantly, at no point has the number of settlers decreased or even held stable. Under Labor and Likud governments, during peace negotiations and conflict, the number of settlements and settlers has steadily increased. It simply strikes me as surreal that Peres, who knows all about this, decides not to address it at all.

Nor does the evacuation of the Gaza settlements provide any real comfort. From my reading, I think there was a general recognition in the settler movement that Gaza was simply untenable, but the West Bank, Samaria, is another story entirely. I would not be at all surprised if there weren't some settlers that would be prepared to die rather than surrender the West Bank. After all, some of these folks, and obviously there are a minority, are prepared to live very roughly, in hostile territory, with their often young families. It takes deep faith, courage and determination to do this in the first place and I am very skeptical that they would simply uproot their lives if some politician in Tel Aviv told them to do so.

One of the reasons that I particularly like the 60 minutes interview is that it shows very clearly what happened when Olmert tried to evacuate just one tiny settlement outpost. The violence that was sparked was traumatic - and Olmert simply didn't try to remove any more.

It is also important to point out that the settler demographics are just one reason why the two-state solution is looking obsolete. The Israeli political structure itself, with the deal making power often being wielded by the far right groups, in itself could also preclude a two-state solution. This situation looks likely to reoccur after yesterdays election. Access to water, and especially the Jordan River, is another extremely complex issue that is fundamentally hard to solve. And critically, with every passing year the conflict becomes systemically harder and harder to solve.

So, increasingly I think that if writers or commentators are going to talk about a two-state solution, the onus ought to be on explaining why exactly they think it is feasible in a very concrete, practical way. I would very interested in hearing about how the settlers are going to be removed, and when for example. But then again, maybe these are questions that Peres would rather not think about.

America, The Rorschach Test

One thing I like about having lived in the States is that gives you some perspective when reading articles about the place. Frequently, what people write about the States is actually far more revealing about themselves, in often completely unintentional ways, than it is about the US itself.

Take this op-ed in the New York Times. The writer Alaa Al Aswany offers a critique of America, and Obama in particular, for his silence on the recent fighting in Gaza. I guess one of his key quotes would be where he summarizes a variety of Egyptian opinion after the recent Gaza fighting:

I thus concluded that no matter how many envoys, speeches or interviews Mr. Obama offers to us, he will not win the hearts and minds of Egyptians until he takes up the injustice in the Middle East. I imagine the same holds true for much of the greater Muslim world.

You could crudely, but more or less accurately, summarize the article as arguing that (1) a lot of Egyptians like Obama, (2) America is not being fair in mediating the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and hence (3) Egyptians are not going to really trust the new administration until it starts addressing addressing injustice in the Middle East, specifically in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

I am often puzzled when I read articles like this. For starters, does the writer really understand American or Israeli politics? To simply say that the States should simply become a fair mediator in the conflict glosses an enormous amount of complexity as well as the limited amount of leverage that the new administration actually possesses. Alaa Al Aswany has lived in Chicago and should have some familiarity with this, but it doesn't come through in his article.

But the most gob smacking aspect is that from Alaa Al Aswany's perspective, America's entire relationship with the Middle East, and somewhat more breathlessly, the entire Muslim world, can be boiled down to this single conflict. Really? And more importantly, should it? American aid to Egypt, over $30 billion since the mid 1970s; American involvement in ousting the Taliban in Afghanistan; American military support for Muslims in Kosovo and strong American support for Turkey are all irrelevant compared to this one issue.

I might happen to agree with Al Aswany's basic idea, that a more even-handed American approach to this conflict would be a good idea. But one of the more ugly side-effects of the Palestinian-Israel conflict is that it seems to suck up American time and energy that could theoretically be better applied to far worse conflicts, such as those in Sudan, Congo or Zimbabwe, where many, many more people are dying.

I would love to read something by Al Aswany on any of these topics: after all Sudan is actually next door to Egypt and Congo sits just below Sudan. The Arab League even has its headquarters in Cairo, though I haven't read much about pressure being applied on Sudan by Arab governments. But then again, I would hate to judge a country by just one aspect of their foreign policy.

Commuting Locavores

So, I was pondering the locavore movement the other day. There are many reasons to eat locally grown food, including better taste, a greater sense of harmony with local seasons and apparently even better behaved bowels. But certainly one raison d'etre of the locavore movement is the desire to reduce the distance that food must travel from where it is grown to where it is consumed, hence reducing the amount of fossil fuels required for food production and transportation.

This makes a certain amount of intuitive sense, but does it really make sense when examined critically? I mean, I love the color and vibrancy of local markets as much as anyone, but on balance, I can't say that I really think they are even a part of a solution to global warming.

I also cannot resist thinking the snarky question about that what matters more, the distance that your food has travelled, mostly likely in bulk and in relatively efficient trucks, or the distance that the consumer travels on a daily basis, to and from work, and to and from their local market or Whole Foods, individually, in a generally inefficient car?

Sleeping Children

Aralyn and Caeden are sleeping now after a busy day out swimming in a lovely indoor pool in Ribnitz-Damgarten. Living in gray and cold Rostock, there is something absolutely wonderful about spending the day nearly naked in a steamy, almost tropical, pool. Especially when you get to simultaneously look out onto frigid Baltic waters only a hundred meters away.

There is also something soft and warm and magical about sleeping children. I snapped this photo of Aralyn a few weeks ago when she was sleeping in our bed after Caeden decided to stay up late and party. Later, I picked her up and carried her back to her own bed, which is one of the many joys of being a dad.

Atheism Redux

First off, Danny, thanks for your response. Although I really enjoyed all our discussions in the past, I feel like writing them down makes the arguments themselves much clearer and more interesting as we can get deeper into the issues.

So, reviewing your argument, you started off by differing with my interpretation of the definition of atheism. I then wrote in my second post that the first definition offered by dictionary.com that "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" was very much the strong form of atheism that denied God's existence. I never intended the first definition to be an example of weak atheism, founded on a lack of belief, as you might have been implying.

However, the second definition "disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings" supports my argument that atheism is an absence of belief, not a positive belief in the non-existence of a supreme being. Going further, the definition of disbelief as "the inability or refusal to believe or accept something as true" concurs exactly with the meaning of weak atheism.

Your quote is quite revealing: “an unbeliever has the proofs (of implicitly, Christianity's truth - my comments) and incurs the guilt of setting them aside”. Wouldn’t you agree that the logic of this quote is grounded in Christianity's truth, which I am setting aside? I am not surprised it is referred to in the definition but can you not see how I might object to that logical starting point?

So I believe that the first argument, that atheism can simply be the absence of belief, is supported by the dictionary.com definitions. If pushed, I would adopt this position as the safest and ultimately most sane response when discussing these issues with religious folks. I like this approach to atheism because it simply sets aside questions of belief, and provides no opening for arguments that atheism is just another belief or just another religion.

*****

Emily also kindly sent me an email related to this discussion suggesting that we clarify what we mean by God in this discussion. So, for the purposes of this discussion I would define God as being any one or more of the many gods and goddesses that have been worshiped by humanity in the last three or four millennia. I would include the contemporary Hindu gods such as Vishnu and Shiva, Norse gods such as Thor and Loki, the Roman gods and so on, as well as the God of the current three great monotheistic religions: Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

However, these gods and goddesses are just a subset of all entities for which there is no empirical evidence for their existence. And while there is a big difference between unicorns and the many gods and goddesses of the various people on earth, all of these entities share the common characteristic of lacking any scientific evidence demonstrating their existence. Indeed, it is one of their defining attributes: one must simply believe.

Circling back to the strong atheism argument, I thus think that the statement "there are no unicorns" is logically the same as "there is no God", and about as reasonable. If we enumerated all the current and past Gods and Goddesses, how many would a Christian be comfortable stating do not exist? And how many people today would think that such statements would be reasonable – akin to stating that unicorns do not exist?

Why exactly does the same logic not apply to the Christian God? For a Christian the answer is obvious. However, for me, and I would suggest for a disinterested observer of the discussion, the answer is not at all obvious.

I also don't think it matters that a great many more people believe in the Christian God or that Christianity is a much more enriching experience compared with a belief in unicorns. Just because millions, or even billions, of people believe something doesn't make it true. That would simply amount to taking the thinking behind the line "if I say it thrice then it is true" to the mathematical limit.

*****

The third argument I would make is based on Sebastian's interesting comment (check it out here). For me, one really interesting part of his email was where he pointed out that every society known has an associated religion or belief system. It appears to be impossible to be human and not have spiritual or religious thoughts.

There is a fascinating article in the latest New Scientist by Michael Brooks that addresses this point. He looks at a number of researchers and their work in trying to unravel the origin of religious belief. One of the key points in the article seems to be that not only are our minds are biologically receptive to religious belief, but that it may almost be the ‘default’ setting.

Having become a parent I can certainly see how this makes sense. Aralyn has had an entire imaginary pantheon of characters for sometime, and it would be simple for her to make a logical step to an imaginary, but powerful God. Such a belief would also be very comforting to her: she has struggled for some time to get her head around death (she came across this while watching the Lion King) which is really hard when you are only four. God would make this so much easier and simpler for her.

Mazing

Aralyn has something of a maze habit, and she's getting pretty good at them. I don't quite understand it myself, but I think she has developed some sort of algorithm for solving them and likes applying it, again and again. Maybe there's something reassuring about being able to solve something regularly, and relatively easily, that's comforting; perhaps her little brain just likes the shapes and looking for patterns.

Anyway, this weekend I printed out a quite a tough one for her. I like to throw in twisters every now and again, just to keep her on her toes. We had to help her once or twice, but she still blew us away - take a look:

Family Formation and Congratulations

One of the highlights of last week was that Social Forces sent Brienna a copy of their latest edition, featuring an article by her. Congratulations!

Inaugural Thoughts

Barack Obama has just been inaugurated as the 44th President of the United States and I thought I'd put down some of my thoughts and feelings about this event.

There are so many meanings in this inauguration, so much history, so much joy and relief, so much hope and so many problems so desperately needing solutions that I find myself hesitating, not quite sure where to start. How does one think about history like this, when it is taking place in front of you?

But perhaps the best, most obvious starting point would be that America has just inaugurated its' first black president, the day after Martin Luther King Day. I find myself getting lost in just this thought. It brings up memories of Helen Arnold, our deeply religious, very lovely, eighty year old black next door neighbor in Ann Arbor. It makes me think of Marlene, another truly lovely friend, and her adopted black daughter and her grandchildren. That Obama is now the President must just bring pure joy to them and their families.

I also find it hard to comprehend just how far America has come in terms of race relations in such a relatively short span of time. I was born in 1971, just barely four years after laws banning interracial marriage had been overturned in the US and three years after Martin Luther King was assassinated. Having grown up in Australia, I don't feel the deep joy that many across America must be experiencing with Obama's inauguration, but it is hard not to empathize and to be inspired by not only his victory, but also by the manner in which he won.

Turning from those thoughts, of the many parts of Obama's speech that caught my ear, I particularly liked this one:

Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

George Bush was seated quite close to Obama, and I wondered as I listened, what thoughts he had as he heard those words. Bush's face during much of the ceremony seemed tired and somewhat forlorn and I wonder if he suddenly felt regret at what he had put into motion, regret on hearing directly, loudly and up close a very possible prelude to history's final judgement on his presidency.

I also wonder if Bush, at the start of his term, had ever heard of the "rule of law". Certainly his actions as president don't suggest that he really understood the concept. Instead, it seems like his approach to the presidency was inspired more by Jack Bauer in the Fox series 24: do whatever you must to keep the homeland safe. I can almost understand that perspective and I certainly think it resonates with a lot of Americans, but it is also very shallow. A core strength of America (and Australia, Canada, and many other countries) is that deep in our souls, in ways that most of us do not even recognize or understand, we understand that no one is above the law, no one is entitled to break laws just for the sake of expediency.

And how do you even begin to think about "I, Barack Hussein Obama..."? How is it that a black American with a middle name of Hussein became president at this moment? I tend to think that American notions of exceptionalism, at least in terms of ideals, are overrated, but here I think I have to make an exception. In how many other countries could an extremely talented and gifted black man like Obama have been elected to the highest political office? I can't think of very many where it would even begin to be feasible. And to steal one of Obama's lines, how absolutely wonderful is it to see American living up to its' best self?

Although I am not an American and do not feel the exact same, bone deep, pride and joy as my American family and friends did with Obama's victory and inauguration, I came pretty close. Our little family watched the inauguration live on Brienna's laptop at our the dinner table in Rostock, Germany. Amidst the food, baby talk and toddler yowls, Brienna and I both had tears in our eyes watching the swearing in ceremony. As Brienna said later, it felt like she had suddenly gotten her wonderful nation, the best of America, back once more.

Obama's Inauguration Speech

Obama's full inauguration speech is below:

My fellow citizens:

I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition. Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans. That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet. These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights. Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics. We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness. In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom. For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth. For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn. Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction. This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America. For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do. Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.

The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good. As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.

Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more. Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint. We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations.

We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.

To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.

As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all. For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate. Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true.

They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task. This is the price and the promise of citizenship. This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny. This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath. So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people: "Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]." America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.