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:
Sunday, January 25, 2009
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:
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!
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Inaugural Thoughts
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.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
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.
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.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Worship
So while I am thinking about my reply to Danny, I thought I'd write down something about my own thoughts about life and meaning. I've written this quickly, so I might have to come back and revisit certain sections, but I wanted to put something down.
The core of how I understand the world is very much based on a desire to face the world and life as it actually is, to understand and learn and explore as much as possible. To suck the marrow of life as the saying goes. And a critical part of that approach is honesty. Honesty in the sense trying to come up with the best, most valid, most logical explanations for all the things that we experience.
So, from my perspective, belief itself is the antithesis of what I was interested in for myself. I wanted to come up with my own understandings of the world that were founded in reason and science and were not based on the suspension of disbelief. I wanted a solid ground that was reproducible.
This is not to imply a lack of respect for religion or a failure to appreciate some of the amazing wonders that have been created in the name of God. Many people, some of the best people that I know, are deeply religious and I honor that. From my perspective, whatever meanings get you through life are fine by me. Indeed, who am I to judge, assuming that your beliefs do not affect me?
So if you wanted a specific set of terms, then humanism and rationalism seem to best describe how I approach and understand life. I really haven't read that much about these terms, nor do I know much about their history, so I may need to come back to this. To a large extent, I don't even like having to come up with a single term to describe my own outlook. It seems like such a process of simplification when so often one doesn't even know one's own mind.
To me there is so much in nature, in the universe to marvel at and to glory in that it is beyond comprehension. I have no way to conceive of the number of stars in just the Milky Way, which is just one minor galaxy. And photos of the earth, our one single precious fragile planet, just bring a sense of awe.
Love is other strand that I think is critical in our lives, and certainly in mine. Despite all our terrible failings and our faults, I like being human and I love our capacity for love and empathy and altruism. And I don't think I truly realized all that this meant until I had Aralyn and Caeden, until I saw all the different connections that we have with other people, and until I had realized how much I love community.
So I guess at base I like to think of us, of humanity, as being organically bound together and integrated with the cosmos. Matter is really just energy, and as I told Aralyn when trying to comfort her in a discussion about death, when we die we just turn back into energy. And there is something to glory about in that, to think that we are made up of matter that was once space dust, exploded stars and planets. That is something to worship I think.
More Agnostic Dissent
Danny very kindly posted a great reply to my last post on agnosticism, which I put below:
You define atheism as:
"1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
You go on to argue a "weak form" of atheism: "absence of belief in God."
Where is the weak form, or passive disbelief in this definition? Certainly not definition 1. As for definition 2, the word disbelief describes an active, not passive sentiment.
The relevant definition of disbelief according to dictionary.com: "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true." The definition page also includes this highly relevant aside from Websters, contrasting the word “unbelief” to “disbelief”: “One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects.”
The whole issue boils down to semantics. I don’t think our sentiments are far apart.
Another comment of yours got me to reconsider one of the statements I casually tossed out before: that God is unknowable. This implies that it is in principle impossible to discern whether God exists or not. Now, while it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist, it is not logically impossible to prove that God DOES exist. If some entity were to show up and start throwing around lightning bolts, raising the dead, ressurecting Michael Jackson's career (requiring both of the above), etc... only a hardened skeptic would continue to deny the possibility of a supernatural omniscient diety. But I require first-hand or verifiable -– preferably repeatable -- empirical evidence to even begin to admit God’s existence.
I still doubt whether we can ever know God on a scientific basis. Consider this theorem: If science could understand God, then by definition God wouldn’t be supernatural. And if God isn’t supernatural, well, then God just ain’t all he’s cracked up to be.
Can we ever know God on a non-scientific basis? Perhaps. But when we throw away science, what are we left with? Anything goes.
One more comment on your definition of agnostic.
The part of definition you provide of agnostic that resonates most with me is the notion “that human knowledge is limited to experience.” But that can’t be the whole story, can it? I would claim to know certain things I have never experienced. We rely on other’s experiences to help inform our understanding of the world. Humanity could hardly progress without that. Now, some people have had genuine religious experiences, in which they say (and believe) they have communed with God. Why do I reject the evidence of those experiences out of hand, but not the imputations of a scientist describing the moment after the Big Bang? I need to ponder that, and I pose that as a question for you, Brod.
As for your questions:
1. The Big Kahuna argument you suggest earlier seems correct. God: alleged all-powerful creator of the universe. Unicorn: Alleged horse with a horn sticking out of its head. God gives much of the population of the earth a reason to get up in the morning. Unicorns give much of the female 5-9 demographic a reason to stay up past bedtime. 'Nuff said.
2. The definition of atheist you cite is that it is the belief that there is NO God. So no, a Christian atheist seems impossible, as they do believe in A God, though not the God of other religions. Interesting idea, though.
You define atheism as:
"1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."
You go on to argue a "weak form" of atheism: "absence of belief in God."
Where is the weak form, or passive disbelief in this definition? Certainly not definition 1. As for definition 2, the word disbelief describes an active, not passive sentiment.
The relevant definition of disbelief according to dictionary.com: "the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true." The definition page also includes this highly relevant aside from Websters, contrasting the word “unbelief” to “disbelief”: “One may be an unbeliever in Christianity from ignorance or want of inquiry; a unbeliever has the proofs before him, and incurs the guilt of setting them aside. Unbelief is usually open to conviction; disbelief is already convinced as to the falsity of that which it rejects.”
The whole issue boils down to semantics. I don’t think our sentiments are far apart.
Another comment of yours got me to reconsider one of the statements I casually tossed out before: that God is unknowable. This implies that it is in principle impossible to discern whether God exists or not. Now, while it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist, it is not logically impossible to prove that God DOES exist. If some entity were to show up and start throwing around lightning bolts, raising the dead, ressurecting Michael Jackson's career (requiring both of the above), etc... only a hardened skeptic would continue to deny the possibility of a supernatural omniscient diety. But I require first-hand or verifiable -– preferably repeatable -- empirical evidence to even begin to admit God’s existence.
I still doubt whether we can ever know God on a scientific basis. Consider this theorem: If science could understand God, then by definition God wouldn’t be supernatural. And if God isn’t supernatural, well, then God just ain’t all he’s cracked up to be.
Can we ever know God on a non-scientific basis? Perhaps. But when we throw away science, what are we left with? Anything goes.
One more comment on your definition of agnostic.
The part of definition you provide of agnostic that resonates most with me is the notion “that human knowledge is limited to experience.” But that can’t be the whole story, can it? I would claim to know certain things I have never experienced. We rely on other’s experiences to help inform our understanding of the world. Humanity could hardly progress without that. Now, some people have had genuine religious experiences, in which they say (and believe) they have communed with God. Why do I reject the evidence of those experiences out of hand, but not the imputations of a scientist describing the moment after the Big Bang? I need to ponder that, and I pose that as a question for you, Brod.
As for your questions:
1. The Big Kahuna argument you suggest earlier seems correct. God: alleged all-powerful creator of the universe. Unicorn: Alleged horse with a horn sticking out of its head. God gives much of the population of the earth a reason to get up in the morning. Unicorns give much of the female 5-9 demographic a reason to stay up past bedtime. 'Nuff said.
2. The definition of atheist you cite is that it is the belief that there is NO God. So no, a Christian atheist seems impossible, as they do believe in A God, though not the God of other religions. Interesting idea, though.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Agnostic Dissent
Danny posted a comment on my recent post on atheism, setting me straight on the difference between agnosticism and atheism. I remember a number of good discussions about this, sometimes involving whiskey, at his place with Emily and Brienna. He writes:
Agnostic is the term people use to describe your last sentiment. Alas, agnosticism is one of the less fashionable -isms.
Atheism is a belief system that has exactly as much logical validity (or empirical support) as theism, and can be executed with just as much arrogance.
It is not a sign of weakness to admin that one doesn't know the unknowable. In fact, to claim otherwise is by definition foolish. (How 'bout that for arrogance)
It is an interesting point and one I've heard a number of times from people. I don't really agree, so I thought I'd set out a response, this time sober and hence hopefully with a little more logic and thoughtfulness, and with a little less volume and bombast.
To start off, I will admit that many dictionaries perhaps give such a definition, but dictionaries don't give much space for a lot of philosophical nuance, and these are very contested terms. In any case, this being the internet after all, dictionary.com actually gives a different definition:
I also tend to like the weak form of atheism because it closely matches the meaning of the word itself. Atheism to me implies that it is outside of any theistic system. I guess the best analogy would be the word amoral. You can talk about people or their actions being moral or immoral, but the actions of ants, for example, are neither, they are simply amoral. The notion of morality simply doesn't apply on an insect level: inserts possess neither consciousness nor free will. Tying this back to atheism, the term itself to me very simply means that it is entirely outside of any theistic system at all.
But lets consider the strong form of atheism as well for a moment. The statement that "I believe there is no God" might well be a leap of faith, but is it really comparable to the statement that "I believe there is a God"? After all, I will quite comfortably tell my children, as a statement of fact, that vampires, unicorns and martians do not exist. But I can't prove that. No one on Earth, in fact, can actually prove the positive non-existence of any of these things, and yet we would all feel quite comfortable saying similar things. Does God get some sort of special dispensation against this because he's, well, kind of bigger in a cosmic way?
Agnosticism is, I think, a wholly different animal. Again, from dictionary.com:
This definition also has the advantage of according with what the word itself means. The term agnostic was coined by Huxley and is based on the Greek agnotos, meaning "not known" or "incapable of being known". Hence, and as Wikipedia points out, it would be an entirely logical position to be an agnostic Christian.
However, I don't seen any particular reason why God, if he or she exists, should be beyond all human conception. If we can study what happens in the first few seconds of the birth of the universe, why couldn't we conceivably figure out some way to study God eventually. I guess this is why I don't think of myself as an agnostic. Besides, and more tellingly, how do agnostics know that God is unknowable. That, in itself seems like a big leap of faith. From my perspective it seems like agnostics may have a positive belief that anything to do with God is beyond human conception. What is their basis for that?
I guess I have a couple of questions of my own back for Danny:
Agnostic is the term people use to describe your last sentiment. Alas, agnosticism is one of the less fashionable -isms.
Atheism is a belief system that has exactly as much logical validity (or empirical support) as theism, and can be executed with just as much arrogance.
It is not a sign of weakness to admin that one doesn't know the unknowable. In fact, to claim otherwise is by definition foolish. (How 'bout that for arrogance)
It is an interesting point and one I've heard a number of times from people. I don't really agree, so I thought I'd set out a response, this time sober and hence hopefully with a little more logic and thoughtfulness, and with a little less volume and bombast.
To start off, I will admit that many dictionaries perhaps give such a definition, but dictionaries don't give much space for a lot of philosophical nuance, and these are very contested terms. In any case, this being the internet after all, dictionary.com actually gives a different definition:
- The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
- disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
I also tend to like the weak form of atheism because it closely matches the meaning of the word itself. Atheism to me implies that it is outside of any theistic system. I guess the best analogy would be the word amoral. You can talk about people or their actions being moral or immoral, but the actions of ants, for example, are neither, they are simply amoral. The notion of morality simply doesn't apply on an insect level: inserts possess neither consciousness nor free will. Tying this back to atheism, the term itself to me very simply means that it is entirely outside of any theistic system at all.
But lets consider the strong form of atheism as well for a moment. The statement that "I believe there is no God" might well be a leap of faith, but is it really comparable to the statement that "I believe there is a God"? After all, I will quite comfortably tell my children, as a statement of fact, that vampires, unicorns and martians do not exist. But I can't prove that. No one on Earth, in fact, can actually prove the positive non-existence of any of these things, and yet we would all feel quite comfortable saying similar things. Does God get some sort of special dispensation against this because he's, well, kind of bigger in a cosmic way?
Agnosticism is, I think, a wholly different animal. Again, from dictionary.com:
- a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate case, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
- 2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
This definition also has the advantage of according with what the word itself means. The term agnostic was coined by Huxley and is based on the Greek agnotos, meaning "not known" or "incapable of being known". Hence, and as Wikipedia points out, it would be an entirely logical position to be an agnostic Christian.
However, I don't seen any particular reason why God, if he or she exists, should be beyond all human conception. If we can study what happens in the first few seconds of the birth of the universe, why couldn't we conceivably figure out some way to study God eventually. I guess this is why I don't think of myself as an agnostic. Besides, and more tellingly, how do agnostics know that God is unknowable. That, in itself seems like a big leap of faith. From my perspective it seems like agnostics may have a positive belief that anything to do with God is beyond human conception. What is their basis for that?
I guess I have a couple of questions of my own back for Danny:
- Should we draw a distinction between God and other mythological creatures, such as unicorns, or even earlier polytheistic beliefs? If so, why?
- Given that Christians positively deny the 'truth' of other religions, does that make Christians also atheists (strong form) with respect to earlier or different religions, for example, the polytheistic Norse Gods?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Capitalism ist Kaput
One unfortunate feature of Germany, and especially the old East Germany, is persistently high unemployment. This was and is particularly sad in East Germany. When Communism collapsed, so did many of the old, inefficient and noncompetitive state owned enterprises, throwing their workers into unemployment.
Now, Germany is not the US, and losing your job does not mean that you lose health care for yourself or your family and the state does provide considerable benefits. But, however you look at it, losing your job is still going to be devastating and moreover it might be quite difficult to find another job, especially if your skills were based on obsolete technology or machinery.
Arguably however, there was no real way to move from the inefficient and unsustainable Communist style command economy to a more capitalistic system without a lot of state enterprises closing. The factories were too old, based on obsolete technology and simply depended upon state subsidies to remain operational. It all sounds very logical and sensible, but the hardship and pain this caused people and families as they had to deal with these changes was very real.
Many former Communist countries, from China through to Romania have had to deal with these changes in the last several decades. East Germany though had the unique good luck to have been dissolved entirely and integrated into its Western twin. West Germany invested heavily and funded the transformation and modernizations. Of all the former Communist countries, the old East Germany has probably had the easiest time adjusting to the new political and economic structures.
Which is perhaps why I find it so funny, and ironic, that one finds the odd sign around Rostock saying "Capitalism ist Kaput". Admittedly, this was spray painted on the outside of what was probably either some sort of anarchist share house or squat, but really!
Now, Germany is not the US, and losing your job does not mean that you lose health care for yourself or your family and the state does provide considerable benefits. But, however you look at it, losing your job is still going to be devastating and moreover it might be quite difficult to find another job, especially if your skills were based on obsolete technology or machinery.
Arguably however, there was no real way to move from the inefficient and unsustainable Communist style command economy to a more capitalistic system without a lot of state enterprises closing. The factories were too old, based on obsolete technology and simply depended upon state subsidies to remain operational. It all sounds very logical and sensible, but the hardship and pain this caused people and families as they had to deal with these changes was very real.
Many former Communist countries, from China through to Romania have had to deal with these changes in the last several decades. East Germany though had the unique good luck to have been dissolved entirely and integrated into its Western twin. West Germany invested heavily and funded the transformation and modernizations. Of all the former Communist countries, the old East Germany has probably had the easiest time adjusting to the new political and economic structures.
Which is perhaps why I find it so funny, and ironic, that one finds the odd sign around Rostock saying "Capitalism ist Kaput". Admittedly, this was spray painted on the outside of what was probably either some sort of anarchist share house or squat, but really!
Atheism
Atheism seems to be a minor theme that has popped up more recently in the last year or so. There was a spate of books, with one of the leading being The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. My parents-in-law gave us a copy for last Christmas, though I have to admit that I haven't read it. I had a hard time finding the motivation I guess, already being an atheist. I also tend to prefer reading and looking at arguments with which I don't agree , rather than reading something that tries to convince me to become something I already am. It's just fundamentally more interesting.
Anyway, Dawkins popped again within the last week or so ago, leading the charge on atheism in the UK, by supporting an advertising campaign on public buses of all things. It seems a little overblown; the UK is already very secular and the Church of England seems to be on life-support, with dwindling church attendence rates.
However, one thing did catch my eye in the article about the non-believing buses. It was a quote from Dawkins about the term atheism itself. He pointed out that he didn't believe in unicorns, which made him, using parallel naming logic, an aunicornist; he also doesn't believe in martians, consequently also making him an an amartianist. It is a good critique of the term. In any case, it is a bad idea to be defined by that which you deny, no? Such a definition doesn't seem like a promising start if you want something founded on reason and logic.
Up till now though, I haven't come up with a non-lame alternative term. Humanist? Rationalist? Empiricist? Realist? I kind of like realist, as it confounds a number of other meanings of the term and also connotes some sort of connection to reality as opposed to mythology and faith.
But perhaps that's the wrong approach. Do we need a term? Why? After all, I am not positing the existence of a supreme being or any other mythological creature. I am accepting the contingency of life, and accepting that we only possess a thimble-full of error filled knowledge. I am not proposing something to make me feel better about that.
And no, just for the record, I don't think that being an atheist, if we have to use that term for the moment, involves denying the existence of God. I have a sneaking suspicion that some Jesuit theoretician somewhere came up with that self-defeating definition. It always struck me as being far more sensible to simply argue that just like martians, there was really no way to scientifically test for the existence of God. He's up there with flying pigs, unicorns and martians, smiling away.
Anyway, Dawkins popped again within the last week or so ago, leading the charge on atheism in the UK, by supporting an advertising campaign on public buses of all things. It seems a little overblown; the UK is already very secular and the Church of England seems to be on life-support, with dwindling church attendence rates.
However, one thing did catch my eye in the article about the non-believing buses. It was a quote from Dawkins about the term atheism itself. He pointed out that he didn't believe in unicorns, which made him, using parallel naming logic, an aunicornist; he also doesn't believe in martians, consequently also making him an an amartianist. It is a good critique of the term. In any case, it is a bad idea to be defined by that which you deny, no? Such a definition doesn't seem like a promising start if you want something founded on reason and logic.
Up till now though, I haven't come up with a non-lame alternative term. Humanist? Rationalist? Empiricist? Realist? I kind of like realist, as it confounds a number of other meanings of the term and also connotes some sort of connection to reality as opposed to mythology and faith.
But perhaps that's the wrong approach. Do we need a term? Why? After all, I am not positing the existence of a supreme being or any other mythological creature. I am accepting the contingency of life, and accepting that we only possess a thimble-full of error filled knowledge. I am not proposing something to make me feel better about that.
And no, just for the record, I don't think that being an atheist, if we have to use that term for the moment, involves denying the existence of God. I have a sneaking suspicion that some Jesuit theoretician somewhere came up with that self-defeating definition. It always struck me as being far more sensible to simply argue that just like martians, there was really no way to scientifically test for the existence of God. He's up there with flying pigs, unicorns and martians, smiling away.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Fairy Princess
Up till now Aralyn has simply not been interested in princesses. All that hair brushing and waiting for princes hasn't appealed I guess. Perhaps "The Paper Bag Princess" had something to do with it. Perhaps Diego and all those animal rescues as well as The Lion King packed just the right amount of adrenalin to stimulate four year synapses.
In any case, a couple of weeks ago though things started to change a touch. Aralyn tried on a couple of princess outfits that had been presents but were up till now moldering away in a box. She even went in for the inherited ballet slippers, fairy wings and gorgeous pink fluffy tiara. Of course, there is only so much you can do in a tutu, so she turned back into a lion cub again about ten minutes later.
Broken glass
We live on Augustenstrasse, two houses from a synagogue just down the street. The synagogue itself is somewhat subtle, with an unobtrusive Star of David imprinted on the glass above the front door, which is tucked into an alcove. I only realized that it was a synagogue when I noticed clumps of people speaking Russian outside every so often which caused me to look closer at the building. I thought about how bizarre the world was, with an Australian/American in old East Germany wondering at what stories these Russian Jews could tell.
I have only been inside a synagogue once, for a naming ceremony for a baby girl of two friends of ours, A and E, in Madison, Wisconsin. It was a really lovely ceremony, conducted in Hebrew, and just full of warm community spirit. In that instance, and from an outsiders perspective, there was something wonderful in being able to combine ethnicity and tradition with religion. A and E had only just arrived in town, but regardless of their specific views on religion, they felt very comfortable attending one of their local synagogues.
So seeing that someone had thrown rocks and smashed three or four windows of our local synagogue is chilling. I know these kinds of things happen all the time, across Europe and in the States, but it is always bracing when you see it. What is somewhat surreal is that we live in a nice part of town, an area where I feel thoroughly safe, and yet this happens. The fact that we are living in Germany, with all the concomitant historical overtones, is what finally renders this act so especially chilling.
You might not like what Israel is doing right now on the other side of the planet. You can construct a strong argument that even the Wall Street Journal will publish, that Israeli actions are war crimes. However, Germany is a democracy and there are many avenues for peacefully expressing your opinion, without attempting to intimidate the very small Jewish minority that may or may not even agree with Israeli actions.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Gaza III
Roger Cohen has a great column in today's New York Times. If I was in his shoes I think I would also feel the same awful sadness and despair.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Rostock
This is a picture of dune grass in Warnemunde just near the beach. The photo itself was taken by my father-in-law when we were all on a family outing to Warnemunde, which is that part of Rostock directly on the Baltic coast.
Rostock is where we are all living and working right now. The city itself is quite small and beautiful and is built around where the river Warnow runs into the Baltic. The shape of Warnow makes for a magnificant port, and hence the city is very old, having been used by the vikings, the Hanseatic trading league and no doubt many other travellers over the millenia.
Rostock was one of, if the not the prime, port for the old GDR, or East Germany. During the communist time, there was a large ship building industry here as well, although it rapidly fell apart in the early 1990s once the GDR collapsed.
I've had a few conversations with folks who were here in Rostock when all those changes took place. Perhaps not surprisingly, a great many people still reminisce about the Communist times, about the greater economic securty and, oddly enough, the meaning that the Communist system provided. Out of interest, I've pushed a few folks on whether there were any issues during those times, and I have yet to have anyone acknowledge anything really, other than simple limitations on overseas travel.
One young student who helped us move into our current apartment was, so far, the sole exception. I don't think he was old enough to have really experienced the Communist system, but he did tell me that his grandfather was shot and killed trying to escape. He just stated this calmly and fairly matter of factly. He didn't seem particularly bitter, and may have just accepted this as a fact as a part of family history.
It is really hard to grasp all the history surrounding us here in Rostock. The Allies destroyed this town during World War II with bombing raids, the Russian army moved through and occupied it and Communism was installed and collapsed. And this is only in the last half of the Twentieth Century. When I am in some of the gorgeous old churches here I sometimes wish that I could sit down with a column or a painting and have a conversation about all the things that it had witnessed and talk of things past.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Berlin I
Well, my family and I actually made it to Berlin in the holidays. Berlin is the one city in Europe that I really wanted to see. This is not to slight any other cities, it is just that for some reason this city resonates with me in much the same way that New York did when I was living in the States. Anyway, it was early Friday morning, we were bored and feeling spontaneous and adventurous. So, lets go see Berlin rapidly morphed from an idea to a mad frenzy of packing, planning and then racing to the train station.
However, it didn't quite work out as well as we were hoping. The train trip down to Berlin wasn't a disaster exactly, but Caeden certainly wasn't a happy camper and really didn't want to make our trip much fun. We did however do a lot of 'sploring', which basically meant walking literally the length and breadth of the train, smiling at myriad strangers as we wandered through the carriages and checking out every lavatory on the train to find a suitably clean one for my very particular daughter.
Things pretty much went downhill from there. The management company through which we booked an apartment at the last minute didn't get back to us (can't say I blame them, they were in Spain, probably enjoying a well deserved holiday just like we were trying to do) which meant that we were standing in the Berlin central train station (hauptbahnhof or HBF for short), coming up to munchkin dinner time, without a place to stay. As two people who use their brains to earn their bread, this was somewhat embarrassing. But no problem, and staying optimistic, we'll just give the apartment people some time and go check out the Reichstag and Bundestag in the meantime.
This is where we ran into the next major problem. It was absolutely freezing outside. I normally don't feel the cold that much, but I was cold in Berlin. And unfortunately, I think both kids where right there with me, shivering away in our thin pants (yes, flabbergastingly enough, we had actually decided not to bring the snow pants), with our little pink fingers slowly turning purple. We only lasted about 20 minutes or about 400 meters from the HBF before nixing that idea and trudging back.
After a fairly functional dinner (don't ask), we found a very helpful information woman who recommended and booked another apartment for us. Great! So off we set, straight out of the frying pan and into the fire. We took an S-bahn to the stop and then proceeded walking to our apartment. That was another mistake: if you don't know the area that well, it's late at night and you have small children, I recommend taking a taxi. But anyway, we walked and walked. And after a little while I noticed one of the biggest sex shops I think I have ever seen. I mean I don't normally take note of these places, but this was almost the size of an American big box store. And then I noticed another one, about the same size across the street. About that time I realised that we had wandered into a mini red light district, late at night with two children in tow. Again, no big deal, it still felt safe and I am definitely not on the moralistic side of things. I also saw a small hotel right next to the sex shop, and the proximity of the two did raise a question mark in my mind, but again, no big deal. It certainly wasn't a place I'd want to sleep in though.
Anyway, we took a long detour to get to the other side of the main street, got onto our street and then started schlepping up the street to find the apartment. After about 20 minutes (remember, it is freezing out there) and encouraging poor Aralyn to keep up with her completely nutty parents, we make the horrible realization that we long ago passed number 14. The kind woman at the HBF help desk had highlighted the road, so we assumed that she meant go to the end, but she must have meant it is somewhere along this road, but I'm not exactly sure where. So, nothing for it but to turn around and trudge back. About this point, visions out of a Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich began flashing before me.
Eventually we got back to the main road, and I began to feel a certain sense of dread. And sure enough, as we slowly but surely tracked down number 14, we got closer and closer to the hotel right next to the sex shop. When we finally got inside it, talked to the suitably dubious proprietors and got into our room, it wasn't as bad as it could have been. Of course there wasn't a crib so Caeden had loads of fun running around when we was supposed to be sleeping, and I think that was the highlight of his day.
I finally pulled the plug the next morning. It was just too cold and too unfair on the little ones. We wanted to go to Legoland, but unfortunately I didn't think it was worth freezing the children into ice blocks to do it. Funnily enough, once we were all resigned to heading back home in defeat we actually had a wonderful meal in a classy restaurant (with Caeden sleeping!) and an almost pleasant trip back home. Irony I guess.
So, I am really looking forward to my next trip to Berlin, sometime when it is warm and when we can stay in a somewhat more salubrious establishment. I'll keep you posted.
However, it didn't quite work out as well as we were hoping. The train trip down to Berlin wasn't a disaster exactly, but Caeden certainly wasn't a happy camper and really didn't want to make our trip much fun. We did however do a lot of 'sploring', which basically meant walking literally the length and breadth of the train, smiling at myriad strangers as we wandered through the carriages and checking out every lavatory on the train to find a suitably clean one for my very particular daughter.
Things pretty much went downhill from there. The management company through which we booked an apartment at the last minute didn't get back to us (can't say I blame them, they were in Spain, probably enjoying a well deserved holiday just like we were trying to do) which meant that we were standing in the Berlin central train station (hauptbahnhof or HBF for short), coming up to munchkin dinner time, without a place to stay. As two people who use their brains to earn their bread, this was somewhat embarrassing. But no problem, and staying optimistic, we'll just give the apartment people some time and go check out the Reichstag and Bundestag in the meantime.
This is where we ran into the next major problem. It was absolutely freezing outside. I normally don't feel the cold that much, but I was cold in Berlin. And unfortunately, I think both kids where right there with me, shivering away in our thin pants (yes, flabbergastingly enough, we had actually decided not to bring the snow pants), with our little pink fingers slowly turning purple. We only lasted about 20 minutes or about 400 meters from the HBF before nixing that idea and trudging back.
After a fairly functional dinner (don't ask), we found a very helpful information woman who recommended and booked another apartment for us. Great! So off we set, straight out of the frying pan and into the fire. We took an S-bahn to the stop and then proceeded walking to our apartment. That was another mistake: if you don't know the area that well, it's late at night and you have small children, I recommend taking a taxi. But anyway, we walked and walked. And after a little while I noticed one of the biggest sex shops I think I have ever seen. I mean I don't normally take note of these places, but this was almost the size of an American big box store. And then I noticed another one, about the same size across the street. About that time I realised that we had wandered into a mini red light district, late at night with two children in tow. Again, no big deal, it still felt safe and I am definitely not on the moralistic side of things. I also saw a small hotel right next to the sex shop, and the proximity of the two did raise a question mark in my mind, but again, no big deal. It certainly wasn't a place I'd want to sleep in though.
Anyway, we took a long detour to get to the other side of the main street, got onto our street and then started schlepping up the street to find the apartment. After about 20 minutes (remember, it is freezing out there) and encouraging poor Aralyn to keep up with her completely nutty parents, we make the horrible realization that we long ago passed number 14. The kind woman at the HBF help desk had highlighted the road, so we assumed that she meant go to the end, but she must have meant it is somewhere along this road, but I'm not exactly sure where. So, nothing for it but to turn around and trudge back. About this point, visions out of a Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich began flashing before me.
Eventually we got back to the main road, and I began to feel a certain sense of dread. And sure enough, as we slowly but surely tracked down number 14, we got closer and closer to the hotel right next to the sex shop. When we finally got inside it, talked to the suitably dubious proprietors and got into our room, it wasn't as bad as it could have been. Of course there wasn't a crib so Caeden had loads of fun running around when we was supposed to be sleeping, and I think that was the highlight of his day.
I finally pulled the plug the next morning. It was just too cold and too unfair on the little ones. We wanted to go to Legoland, but unfortunately I didn't think it was worth freezing the children into ice blocks to do it. Funnily enough, once we were all resigned to heading back home in defeat we actually had a wonderful meal in a classy restaurant (with Caeden sleeping!) and an almost pleasant trip back home. Irony I guess.
So, I am really looking forward to my next trip to Berlin, sometime when it is warm and when we can stay in a somewhat more salubrious establishment. I'll keep you posted.
Gaza II
Juan Cole has a very good historical summary of the conflict and how it has evolved from the early conventional wars into terrorism and micro-wars. Juan Cole is an interesting chap: he has an almost unsurpassed detailed knowledge the various issues that he discusses that makes it hard for neo-conservatives to debate his positions. I am not sure I agree with everything of his that he has written, but he is always interesting reading.
Andrew Sullivan has an analysis of the Israeli attack on Gaza from a just war perspective. The bottom line: the Israeli attack is not defensible using that particular theory. I'd have to say I agree.
Lastly, Gideon Levy has a very sad and thoughtful piece in Haaretz. Bizarrely enough, when I was young I secretly wished my family had been Jewish (anyone familar with 1980's Canberra Australia and the associated cultural desert might sympathize) and to some extent identified with the challenges and struggles of Israel. But now, how would I feel if I actually was Jewish? I think I would share most of Levy's sad and despairing feelings.
Andrew Sullivan has an analysis of the Israeli attack on Gaza from a just war perspective. The bottom line: the Israeli attack is not defensible using that particular theory. I'd have to say I agree.
Lastly, Gideon Levy has a very sad and thoughtful piece in Haaretz. Bizarrely enough, when I was young I secretly wished my family had been Jewish (anyone familar with 1980's Canberra Australia and the associated cultural desert might sympathize) and to some extent identified with the challenges and struggles of Israel. But now, how would I feel if I actually was Jewish? I think I would share most of Levy's sad and despairing feelings.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Russian Miasma
Masha Lipman has another op-ed in the Washington Post today. He writes quite interesting articles and op-eds about Russia fairly regularly, and this one is no exception. The basic thrust of Lipman's op-ed is that the foundations of the current Russian political structure rest on high oil prices. High oil prices have provided the Russian elite with plenty of lucrative opportunities whilst simultaneously allowing Putin to provide social support to the less wealthy. In return, Putin has taken a more-or-less free hand in running the country.
Lipman correctly identifies a key flaw with this approach: what happens when oil prices crash like they have now? What then? To some extent this may be a temporary issue: I am sure in the not-too distant future oil prices will rise again and Putin's prefered method of governance will again become financially feasible. Of course, oil will run out at some point, but I doubt anyone is giving that particular issue much thought.
But what is happening to Russian society in the meantime? Russia used to be moving towards some sort of democracy, where political power could (potentially) be transferred to another party through (relatively) peaceful means. In gathering power to himself personally and in weakening governing institutions it would appear to make any type of peaceful transistion of power much more problematic and potentially destabilizing.
There is a theme in work by Russia specialists, area studies and legal folks to focus on the rule of law, and I can't say that I am surprised. It strikes me as a really critical and interesting area of work. Although most Australians or Americans would look completely baffled if you mention "rule of law" to them, it is bedded deep within our societies and souls and is an invisible source of strength for Western societies.
Arguably however, the notion of the rule of law is simply not deeply embedded within the current Russian polity or economy. Putin's government itself seems to consider the law as a cudgel to be used on opponents, rather than something that ought to be obeyed. This deficit, and Putin's apparent complete lack of interest in correcting it, looks to me as a left over cancer from the Communist era that is infecting everything moving forward.
There seems to be a very deep irony at work here. Putin, who seems to be trying with all his might to reforge a Great Russia, is, by the very policies he is putting in place, literally undermining any chance of longer term Russian economic and political success. He might be very popular now, but I wonder how things will look in another ten or twenty years.
Lipman correctly identifies a key flaw with this approach: what happens when oil prices crash like they have now? What then? To some extent this may be a temporary issue: I am sure in the not-too distant future oil prices will rise again and Putin's prefered method of governance will again become financially feasible. Of course, oil will run out at some point, but I doubt anyone is giving that particular issue much thought.
But what is happening to Russian society in the meantime? Russia used to be moving towards some sort of democracy, where political power could (potentially) be transferred to another party through (relatively) peaceful means. In gathering power to himself personally and in weakening governing institutions it would appear to make any type of peaceful transistion of power much more problematic and potentially destabilizing.
There is a theme in work by Russia specialists, area studies and legal folks to focus on the rule of law, and I can't say that I am surprised. It strikes me as a really critical and interesting area of work. Although most Australians or Americans would look completely baffled if you mention "rule of law" to them, it is bedded deep within our societies and souls and is an invisible source of strength for Western societies.
Arguably however, the notion of the rule of law is simply not deeply embedded within the current Russian polity or economy. Putin's government itself seems to consider the law as a cudgel to be used on opponents, rather than something that ought to be obeyed. This deficit, and Putin's apparent complete lack of interest in correcting it, looks to me as a left over cancer from the Communist era that is infecting everything moving forward.
There seems to be a very deep irony at work here. Putin, who seems to be trying with all his might to reforge a Great Russia, is, by the very policies he is putting in place, literally undermining any chance of longer term Russian economic and political success. He might be very popular now, but I wonder how things will look in another ten or twenty years.
The Cold War, Global Warming and Hope
The end of the Cold War and the collapse of Communism in the early 1990s were critically important historical turning points. I remember growing up in the 1980s and debating with friends whether or not a nuclear war was likely, and if so, what we'd do. On reflection now, I am very glad my own children won't have to worry about that particular issue nearly as much as I did.
Thinking about the Cold War also helps me to put global warming issue into perspective. Yes, it is still a monumental global challenge, but at least it is a challenge for all of the world, that will only really be resolved when the different governments actually come together to co-operate, peacefully. Just as importantly, the difference between a nuclear holocaust and global warming is quite stark, as are the time frames with which we can attempt to mitigate and prevent such outcomes.
This is a different argument than that made this morning by James Lee. He argues the fairly obvious argument that global warming may lead to greater scarcity of resources, large scale migrations and other affects that are thus likely to lead to increased conflict.
While not necessarily disagreeing with Lee's analysis, I think it is also important to point out the extent to which global warming will also serve to bind humanity together. We will all rise or fall together on this issue. Nearly all nations on earth will be affected by rising sea levels and the acidification of the oceans. Even if it takes humanity much longer than it ought, with more tragically preventable consequent damage, and yes, with Lee's concomitant conflict, ultimately, if humanity deals successfully with global warming, more than just that the resolution of that one issue will have been achieved. This would be perhaps my first source of hope that global warming will ultimately be addressed in a meaningful way.
It is also very important to note how amazingly rapidly public opinion on global warming has shifted around the world. I am not convinced that we face scientific problem in global warming as much as we face a political and social problem. The key to solving those impediments is changing public opinion. And on this front, to have gone from a complete lack of public interest and knowledge to where we are today in less than 10-15 years, gives me my second source of hope.
Thinking about the Cold War also helps me to put global warming issue into perspective. Yes, it is still a monumental global challenge, but at least it is a challenge for all of the world, that will only really be resolved when the different governments actually come together to co-operate, peacefully. Just as importantly, the difference between a nuclear holocaust and global warming is quite stark, as are the time frames with which we can attempt to mitigate and prevent such outcomes.
This is a different argument than that made this morning by James Lee. He argues the fairly obvious argument that global warming may lead to greater scarcity of resources, large scale migrations and other affects that are thus likely to lead to increased conflict.
While not necessarily disagreeing with Lee's analysis, I think it is also important to point out the extent to which global warming will also serve to bind humanity together. We will all rise or fall together on this issue. Nearly all nations on earth will be affected by rising sea levels and the acidification of the oceans. Even if it takes humanity much longer than it ought, with more tragically preventable consequent damage, and yes, with Lee's concomitant conflict, ultimately, if humanity deals successfully with global warming, more than just that the resolution of that one issue will have been achieved. This would be perhaps my first source of hope that global warming will ultimately be addressed in a meaningful way.
It is also very important to note how amazingly rapidly public opinion on global warming has shifted around the world. I am not convinced that we face scientific problem in global warming as much as we face a political and social problem. The key to solving those impediments is changing public opinion. And on this front, to have gone from a complete lack of public interest and knowledge to where we are today in less than 10-15 years, gives me my second source of hope.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Shirin Ebadi
Two great columns in the New York Times today. Paul Krugman writes about the failure of the Republican model of political dominance with a focus on the ugly implicit racial messages. I agree with everything he writes and I must admit I have never quite understood how quite a few black Americans, including people like Colin Powell, would be willing to sign up with such a party.
I also liked this editorial in the Times. Iran is not the world threat that many make it out to be, but neither is the current regime particularly pleasant. Anytime a regime needs to shut down and intimidate unarmed human rights workers you know something is wrong. I would add that a single brave and hardworking woman should not be a threat to any government, regardless of what she said, but clearly that isn't the case. What does it tell you about the Iranian regime that it feels the need to squelch such a tiny flame of independent thought and compassion?
I also liked this editorial in the Times. Iran is not the world threat that many make it out to be, but neither is the current regime particularly pleasant. Anytime a regime needs to shut down and intimidate unarmed human rights workers you know something is wrong. I would add that a single brave and hardworking woman should not be a threat to any government, regardless of what she said, but clearly that isn't the case. What does it tell you about the Iranian regime that it feels the need to squelch such a tiny flame of independent thought and compassion?
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Gaza
The renewed fighting in Gaza is getting lots of coverage in the press and in the blogosphere. It really is awful to read about all about it, and there is something especially awful in the complete predictability of it.
Andrew Sullivan has a good summary of various reactions and opinions across the political spectrum. The vast majority of commentators spend time discussing the reasons why this particular burst of fighting occurred, or what exactly the US, or other states, should try to do about it.
One thing that is not discussed very often though is the degree to which other countries or states can actually have any significant influence. On the Hamas side, my thoughts are that there probably is a fair amount of leverage that could be exerted by Iran or Syria if they wished to do so. Everything I have read suggests that Hamas, much like Hezbollah, receives a large amount of its funding from Iran. However, is it really in Iran's interests right now to have this particular set of hostilities resolved easily or smoothly?
On the Israeli side though, I actually wonder how much leverage the US and other actors ultimately possess. Yes, the US provides billions of dollars of aid, materiel and technology transfers, but is this usable leverage? Could the US even attempt to use this support as a bargaining chip to force Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank as many people seem to believe ought to happen?
Frankly, I believe that on this particular issue, the Americans have lost control of their own foreign policy. AIPAC and other pro-Isreali lobby groups in Washington are incredibly smart operators and the cost for any member of the Senate or the House of Representatives to oppose aid to Israel is generally to high. The president has a lot more room to maneouver and perhaps Obama has some ideas here: he certainly can't do any worse than Bush.
The conventional wisdom is that the US will have to broker any final deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis. I would add an addendum to that, which would be that any final peace will only occur once the Israeli population really wants peace and is willing to confront the radical Zionists who make up the core of the settlers in the West Bank. From my reading of the situation this is not yet the case. There is something in the core of the Israeli soul that still dreams of a Greater Israel, and to confront that shadow side and the settler movement, seems like a step for which the Israeli people are not yet ready.
This is not, by any means, to exonerate the PLO or Hamas for their own unique and destructive contribution to the current political quagmire. Many writers have catalogued these in considerable detail. However, in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict it is Israel that occupies the land and has the overwhelming military advantage. To be blunt, they won the wars and hence hold most of the cards when it comes to negotiating any peace treaty.
If you put this altogether, especially given the current situation of settlements in the West Bank, I'd have to say I am pessimisstic on this particular issue being resolved any time soon. Nor do I have any confidence that any US administration, even one headed by Obama, will be able to do much to alter the fundamental dynamics that have taken hold of this conflict.
Andrew Sullivan has a good summary of various reactions and opinions across the political spectrum. The vast majority of commentators spend time discussing the reasons why this particular burst of fighting occurred, or what exactly the US, or other states, should try to do about it.
One thing that is not discussed very often though is the degree to which other countries or states can actually have any significant influence. On the Hamas side, my thoughts are that there probably is a fair amount of leverage that could be exerted by Iran or Syria if they wished to do so. Everything I have read suggests that Hamas, much like Hezbollah, receives a large amount of its funding from Iran. However, is it really in Iran's interests right now to have this particular set of hostilities resolved easily or smoothly?
On the Israeli side though, I actually wonder how much leverage the US and other actors ultimately possess. Yes, the US provides billions of dollars of aid, materiel and technology transfers, but is this usable leverage? Could the US even attempt to use this support as a bargaining chip to force Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank as many people seem to believe ought to happen?
Frankly, I believe that on this particular issue, the Americans have lost control of their own foreign policy. AIPAC and other pro-Isreali lobby groups in Washington are incredibly smart operators and the cost for any member of the Senate or the House of Representatives to oppose aid to Israel is generally to high. The president has a lot more room to maneouver and perhaps Obama has some ideas here: he certainly can't do any worse than Bush.
The conventional wisdom is that the US will have to broker any final deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis. I would add an addendum to that, which would be that any final peace will only occur once the Israeli population really wants peace and is willing to confront the radical Zionists who make up the core of the settlers in the West Bank. From my reading of the situation this is not yet the case. There is something in the core of the Israeli soul that still dreams of a Greater Israel, and to confront that shadow side and the settler movement, seems like a step for which the Israeli people are not yet ready.
This is not, by any means, to exonerate the PLO or Hamas for their own unique and destructive contribution to the current political quagmire. Many writers have catalogued these in considerable detail. However, in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict it is Israel that occupies the land and has the overwhelming military advantage. To be blunt, they won the wars and hence hold most of the cards when it comes to negotiating any peace treaty.
If you put this altogether, especially given the current situation of settlements in the West Bank, I'd have to say I am pessimisstic on this particular issue being resolved any time soon. Nor do I have any confidence that any US administration, even one headed by Obama, will be able to do much to alter the fundamental dynamics that have taken hold of this conflict.
2000W
Global warming is one issue in which I am particularly intrigued. In much the same way that the Cold War was one of the defining threats for the second half of the 20th century, I believe that global warming is likely to be one of the few, if not the, key theme of the 21st century. As Ross Garnaut depressingly wrote in his White Paper for the Australian government, global warming is a truly diabolical policy problem without easy solutions.
Many talented writers and thinkers have written a lot about the challenges of global warming. A lot has also been written about the need to reduce our carbon output on a personal basis. One question that doesn't seem to get nearly as much attention however, is how much carbon, or how much energy, we should be using in total.
Reading through the many suggestions on the web, along with Gore's advice on what we should be doing (changing light bulbs, growing vegetables, winterizing houses, car pooling etc), I can't help but thinking fine, these are good suggestions that ought to be done, but are they enough? More simply, if everyone in the developed world actually did this, would it actually make any difference? Sure, at some level there would be less carbon going into the atmosphere, but would it be enough? Would it be anything more than a statistical blip on an otherwise straight line of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations?
Moreover, could some of these suggestions actually be confusing people about the scale of change that will actually have to take place? Looking over some of the facts involved: that passenger cars are a substantial proportion of CO2 output in the transportation sector, the fact that residential heating and cooling requires enormous amounts of power seems to me to demand a more systemic and structural response than simply growing vegetables in your back garden. In fact, maybe everyone having their own backyard with all the associated logistics and transportation thereby required, is a key part of the problem.
The 2000 Watt society seems to me to be a step in the right direction. At least they have come up with a target level of energy use, rather than a list of suggestions on how to reduce your carbon footprint. Are there better measures? I'd really love to hear about alternative proposals. Perhaps it would be better to simply measure the total carbon output, but a few issues with that approach come to mind.
The implications of coming up with a energy use target are particularly interesting. How would you live within 2000W on a daily basis? It really isn't much energy at all when you think about it: using a single 75W light bulb for 10 hours equates to 750W for just a single light source. What would be the effect on society and the economy? How could we adapt our cities, transportation links, food production systems to achieve the necessary power reductions? These are some of the topics that I think are particularly fascinating.
Many talented writers and thinkers have written a lot about the challenges of global warming. A lot has also been written about the need to reduce our carbon output on a personal basis. One question that doesn't seem to get nearly as much attention however, is how much carbon, or how much energy, we should be using in total.
Reading through the many suggestions on the web, along with Gore's advice on what we should be doing (changing light bulbs, growing vegetables, winterizing houses, car pooling etc), I can't help but thinking fine, these are good suggestions that ought to be done, but are they enough? More simply, if everyone in the developed world actually did this, would it actually make any difference? Sure, at some level there would be less carbon going into the atmosphere, but would it be enough? Would it be anything more than a statistical blip on an otherwise straight line of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations?
Moreover, could some of these suggestions actually be confusing people about the scale of change that will actually have to take place? Looking over some of the facts involved: that passenger cars are a substantial proportion of CO2 output in the transportation sector, the fact that residential heating and cooling requires enormous amounts of power seems to me to demand a more systemic and structural response than simply growing vegetables in your back garden. In fact, maybe everyone having their own backyard with all the associated logistics and transportation thereby required, is a key part of the problem.
The 2000 Watt society seems to me to be a step in the right direction. At least they have come up with a target level of energy use, rather than a list of suggestions on how to reduce your carbon footprint. Are there better measures? I'd really love to hear about alternative proposals. Perhaps it would be better to simply measure the total carbon output, but a few issues with that approach come to mind.
The implications of coming up with a energy use target are particularly interesting. How would you live within 2000W on a daily basis? It really isn't much energy at all when you think about it: using a single 75W light bulb for 10 hours equates to 750W for just a single light source. What would be the effect on society and the economy? How could we adapt our cities, transportation links, food production systems to achieve the necessary power reductions? These are some of the topics that I think are particularly fascinating.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)