Monday, 31 December 2007
I said we didn’t, but I also asked in return whether it’s the Xmess tree that defines a Christmas celebration. There was a bit of a puzzled look there for a second, and then the question turned into – “do you and your wife exchange gifts?”
I said we didn’t and repeated my former question – is it the exchange of gifts that defines a Christmas celebration?
At which point they gave up.
For the record, I don’t have a problem with Christmas trees, not even with the pagan symbolism involved in the act, other than the obvious ecological one and not so obvious ethical one: if you were a tree, and bearing in mind that as with all living creatures trees are our cousins, would you like to be cut off just for someone’s stupid ceremony? I’ll shut up with this question for now, though, because it applies to too many of the things that we do and thus it is too complex to address here.
I also don’t have a problem with exchanging gifts. But it’s not the gift itself that counts; it’s the effort that goes into finding a gift that the receiver would like to receive, and to be frank in the displays of Xmess gift giving I have witnessed so far that effort was practically tramped over by acts of sheer consumerism. Xmess gifts are more like Xmess waste. And even if one likes receiving quantities of trash, what values does one inherit from such an act? A photo of a child (excuse the lack of identifying details) standing next to a pile of gifts larger than the Everest has quite horrified me: no matter how good the gifts are, no one should be receiving so many gifts at a single point in time! I foresee a problem with Dylan's birthday parties...
At this point I’ll repeat myself and state that in my opinion, Xmess is about all of the above – trees and gifts, throw in some food that I can’t stand – but mostly about being with one’s family. Given that we don’t have much of a family with us, we have adopted a different ritual: we go away somewhere nice instead and have ourselves picnics (not like we have a choice there; everything’s closed on Xmess day). While this year things went a bit astray for us (I blame Dylan), I think that in general I can safely say we do celebrate Xmess. It’s an unconventional celebration, but then again – who cares?
The above mentioned confrontation between people coming from different religious backgrounds demonstrates a nice problem that religion imposes on us.
For argument’s sake, let’s say that you live in England. England is a country with a long Christian tradition, god shave the queen and all. Lately, however, things are changing: people of other cultures are beginning to raise their heads, and suddenly you have Muslims and Hindus around you as well.
Let’s say that you’re a Christian English boy. Everything around you tells you that Christianity is the way to go: you’re told how great Jesus was, how nice god is, how Christianity leads to salvation, etc. It’s probably never literally said but it’s very well implied that as a Christian, you’re better than everyone else simply because you’re on the right channel to god. If you’re a Catholic you’re even repeatedly told you have better reception than the Anglicans, but let’s ignore sects for now.
Then you go to school and you learn that all people are equal; a nice modern value. And then you bump into Muslim kids. Muslims are similar to you: they also believe in a god that does nice things; but they’re different to you because as far as they know their way is the true channel to god.
Thus you end up with a cognitive dissonance: on one hand, you know that Christianity rules and therefore Islam is inferior; on the other you know that all people are equal. How can you live with these contradictions? In the past, with the absence of the equality value, this was an easy question to answer – either “kill them all” or “convert them all”. With equality, however, comes complexity.
The answer supplied by modern day society is called “respect”. You are taught that while you should think highly of your own religious beliefs, you should unconditionally respect others’ beliefs. Offending someone by ridiculing their beliefs is a no-no. They may be inferior ignorants, but you must respect them for their inferiority and keep those notions to yourself! There may not be much true respect in this enforced “respect”, but religion gets yet another free get out of jail card here (in addition to its well established tax freedom): if you are to criticize religion you guarantee yourself the wrath of the politically correct camp as well as the expected wrath of the fundamentalist.
What do I make of all this, personally? Two things:
1. People are not always equal to one another. Anyone telling you that Bill Gates is equal to a street bum is a liar. People, however, should all have equal rights.
2. The “respect” solution is bullshit. Respect should never mean the cancellation of all legal permits to question a concept. Instead, everything should be open to criticism and scrutiny, including religion; that, by the way, happens to be the basis of the scientific approach. People should be taught and raised to think and question, and if they happen to find that a certain religion answers their questions best then so be it. So far, however, the mainstream scientific community – society’s heaviest practicing scrutinizers – have failed to find the slightest proof to support any of humanity’s religions.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is my impression that most religious believers have never asked questions about their beliefs; they just accepted as fact what their elders told them. And that is wrong! You don’t accept a used car salesperson telling you the car they offer you is a gem, you go and have that car tested by an expert; why would you then go on to accept an entire system or morals based on blind faith and blind faith alone?
Which naturally leads me to re-discuss Tony Blair. I have previously expressed my disappointment of his recently exposed religious tendencies and of his confession that religion had a lot to do with his policies, including his invasion to Iraq. That post has earned me some heavy criticism (which you’re welcome to read together with the post here), so I would like to reiterate my opinion on Blair.
At the time the Iraqi war was initiated we were all told the reason behind it is the stockpile of weapons of mass destruction accumulated by the then Iraqi regime. As it turned out not that long afterwards no such weapons existed, and worse – all the leaders sending us to this war knew this was the case and yet they have continued lying to us (remember Colin Powell presenting fake evidence before the UN council?). The war itself went on to create more casualties for the West than Bin Laden achieved on 11/9/01, not to mention casualties on the Iraqi side which are six figures high. And then you have all the resources that were wasted on the war, which could have solved the world’s global warming problems on their own or which could have annihilated all poverty in this world and probably the next one, too.
The question is, what was it then that drove those world leaders to invade Iraq if weapons of mass destruction weren’t the reason? This is a very serious question, especially as it is still a very small number of people in the world that control the fate of entire nations by determining whether to wage war or not. Jo has recently finished reading the excellent book “Guns of August”, a book that discusses the historical events leading to World War 1. With the retrospective gained through a century gone by, we look back at World War 1 and we say to ourselves “what a foolish war” and “what a stupid reason to have a war for”. President Kennedy has cited the book as one of the reasons why he chose to disregard his advisers and not attack Cuba during the crisis there, a decision for which we still have a world to live in. President Bush, however, probably never read the book before deciding to invade Iraq (and probably afterwards, too), and thus failed to learn from history. Why was it, then, that Blair – obviously an intellectual – followed Bush on this foolish affair?
I think it is pretty safe to say that the Iraqi war was waged for economic reasons: the West wanted control over Iraqi oil, and the USA especially wanted to ensure American Dollars are still the world’s currency at a time in which Iraq was considering a move to Euros (thus helping explain why France was so opposed to the war). Blair, however, broke the deck of cards when he announced that religion was involved in the decision making process: we all know that Bush and god have a special relationship, but we didn’t know Blair has had one as well.
I suspect most people, including myself to one extent or another, forgive Blair for that. After all, Blair follows the Christian religion, and this dogma is so nice and forgiving, isn’t it? Well, that depends on who you ask. Allow me to recite a few quick examples for the opposite off the top of my head:
1. The Christian god is the same as the Jewish god, and that Jewish god was one mean nasty piece of work: remember what he did to innocent first born Egyptians? Or to the people that lived in the land of Israel when Joshua came along for a visit?
2. Remember the Spanish Inquisition?
3. Remember the suppression of one Galileo Galilei? You may argue it is an irrelevant old story, but when Blair converted to Catholicism a couple of weeks ago he was accused of not fully agreeing with the Vatican’s position on abortions, thus taking an oath in vain. Are all Christians expected to blindly follow the leader in the face of facts?
4. Remember all that was done to, say, Jews in the name of Christianity? Hitler didn’t invent antisemitism, you know. The church, however, practiced it for more than a millennium before he came along.
5. Jesus advocated to turn the other chick and to do unto others as you would like the others to do to you (aka the golden rule). Sounds so nice and cool, but is it really practical? Not in the least, which is perhaps why no one, Pope included, follows suit. So Christians may preach one thing, but they certainly do another thing (and to reiterate the point, there’s nothing wrong with that; it’s the policy that’s impractical, not the actual actions).
When questioning them, then, Christian values and their real world implementations are suddenly not that nice and sound at all. You may argue that Blair is beyond the Spanish Inquisition, and I will definitely support you on that, but the question still remains – what is it, then, that Blaire took out of religion and inserted into his decision making process?
And to go to the extreme, in what way are the elements Blair took out of religion and into his decision making process different than the elements taken by Bin Laden out of his religion when he decided to blow the Twin Towers down, given that as demonstrated above both religion can be twisted enough to support any argument one could seek support for? What is it that makes Blair’s religious justifications better than Bin Laden in a world where we should all practice “respect” for each other’s religion?
Another question raised in my head is this: Why did Blair follow his advisers’ line to hide the religious aspects of his decision making from the public? Is he, as the number one public figure in the UK, entitled to keep such information to himself?
For all we know, Blair could have suddenly exposed himself to be a follower of Kali, that nice goddess from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and expose himself as a war monger. I know, I know, this sounds like a particularly silly argument to make; Kali is just a fable, as real a god as Zeus or Thor. And I fully agree; my point is that due to the lack of foundation to the belief, tomorrow’s Jesus will be regarded the way today’s Kali is.
Whichever way you look at it, some foul play was involved in the decision to invade Iraq. We, the people of this world, have a duty to ensure the survival of our species and the survival of this planet we live on, and in a world of World Wars and weapons of mass destruction we cannot allow ambiguous decision making to go on unattended. If religion was involved in the decision making process, then religion should have been exposed as such at the time so that the public can make their own decision on whether a war (any war) is justified.
That’s it for this year.
Sunday, 30 December 2007
As far as I can tell, there are two things to take from that story: First, there is not much happening this time of the year and the papers would take anything to fill up their pages. The second is that the marketing machines of the big TV makers did its job and did it well. And that's pretty sad.
It is a not well known fact that per a given screen size, no TV gives you as much quality for your dollar as a rear projection TV. The reason why this is not well known is that marketing machinery that did its best to convince people that what they really need are relatively thin flat panels, most of which are currently in the shape of LCD or plasma panels, as opposed to the thicker (and we're only talking about 8" thick) rear projection screens. Most people don't hang their TV's up on the wall anyway, and if you have a proper home theater system you wouldn't want to hang your TV on the wall anyway for acoustic reasons; so why do the manufacturers want you to buy "flat" panels? Simply because they cost you more so they can make more money.
To be blunt, Sony's announcement about abandoning rear projection in order to focus on LCD technology is pure bullshit. Sony does not intend to discontinue its front projectors, which essentially use the same technology as its rear projectors (other than the screen, which is bought separately in front projection setups). The saddest thing about is that Sony's lineup of rear projection TV's utilizing LCOS (Liquid Crystal on Silicone) technology, dubbed the SXRD lineup by Sony, is the best TV out there by a very long mile. And generally speaking, the technologies that deliver the best picture quality - LCOS and DLP - are technologies that work only in projection systems.
Without Sony in the picture, Samsung remains the only manufacturer of rear projection TV's that you can actually acquire in Australia. They're also the only ones that seem to invest in the technology, recently introducing LED lighting to replace the projector lamps on its DLP TV's. The problem with the Samsung is that by now no shop carries rear projectors in their store displays. If you want to buy a rear projector you have to buy it blind.
They have won and we have lost.
Saturday, 29 December 2007
How exciting! A whole new world of mess is ahead of him (and more importantly, us). Puke will not be the same again, and neither will shit.
Talking about Dylan changing with time, one thing that really scares me as yet another sign for what the future has in store is that it only took Dylan two weeks from his previous cold to catch another cold. And as before, both Jo and I now have it, too. Luckily, it's not as bad as the last one; we're mostly functional. But I really don't want to go through an entire year carrying a cold while impatiently waiting for Dylan's immune system to develop.
They never tell you these things when they discuss babies!
Friday, 28 December 2007
They say that miracles happen from time to time. Well, those that say it seem to be stupidly wrong; by definition, a miracle is an event where the laws of nature have been put aside for a minute in order for someone to enjoy something, and let’s face it: there is no proof whatsoever that the laws of nature can or have ever been set aside. And it’s good that things are this way, otherwise we would be living in a very chaotic world.
So miracles don’t happen, but lots of other good things do happen. For example, friends can often make things happen, and a week or two after I wrote about our ceiling fan aspirations friends of ours gave us a brand new ceiling fan they’ve had no use for. And it was even one of the models we have already shortlisted for purchase! Obviously, they could have gone a step further and installed it for us, but I was still thankful (and I still am).
The fan is not a standalone example. Friends have been helping us a lot, especially since Dylan came on the agenda. Financial help, as in the form of the fan and the tallboy we received earlier this year is the most noticeable, but tips and advice and the good old “just being there” are just as good if not better. I guess what I’m trying to do is to thank all those that have helped us lately.
I will go a step further, though, and extend the thanks to all those that have been reading this blog. Although the blog is highly eccentric, I cannot think of any better way for people who are not with us in our daily lives to get to know what is going on in my mind, which in turn is a reflection of a lot of what is going on in our lives. I would say that as far as I can tell, it's the second best thing to actually being there. I know it’s strange and I know it may offend certain family members when I say this, but the reality is that I feel much closer to those that read the blog and respond to it than to most other people, regardless of physical distances and regardless of how much of our genes we're sharing. I know that I am also fairly unique in running a very personal blog, but the benefits are there to be reaped: through the feedback I get to know what goes on in the lives of my friends who do not necessarily maintain a blog or anything similar. Most of my friends do a very good job keeping to themselves, so anything coming from their direction is a big bonus.
That, plus I get to have a free ceiling fan from time to time.
I will actually abuse my blog and move on to list the things I would like to have. I mean, it worked with the ceiling fan, maybe it would work again and some friend will just happen to have a spare of what I would like to have.
So here goes, in no particular order of wanting:
1. Nikon D300 SLR camera: Now, that’s one mean camera! Think of all the ways I could shoot Dylan with such a camera! Thing is, however, my current camera – a Nikon D70 – is not that bad either. Sure, it’s a few generations behind by now, but the D300 will be a few generations behind shortly anyway. The reality is that I really like my D70 and I’m not feeling like I’m missing anything. The D300 is nice and I would gladly buy it for $10; it's not, however, $2500 nice.
2. Nikon 18-200 VR lens: This new generation Nikon lens offers stabilization, allowing photos to be taken in darker conditions without the aid of a flash and still look sharp. The 18-200 range also sounds too good to be true, covering everything from wide angle to quite a high zoom. Thing is, it is too good to be true: as the linked review says, any lens covering such a range has to suffer significant compromises, and that’s while ignoring the hefty $1000 price tag compromise. Looks like I’ll stick to my 18-70 lens, vignetting issues or not.
3. Nikon SB-600 flash: An external flash can do miracles. Unlike most cameras’ built in flashes, the power an external one has means that it doesn’t have to ruin your photos when you use it; it can just add a touch of light, and you can even adjust it so that it provides its light indirectly. For indoor baby photography, a flash would be very good. Thing is, so far I have been using my camera hand held even in the darkest conditions and the results have been quite good; there’s not enough of a motivation for me to go out and spend north of $400 on a contraption I’m not sure I’d be bothered to use or carry around in the first place.
4. Asus Eee PC: As has been recently discussed in a post that broke this blog's record for number of feedbacks that are not mine, a small portable notebook would serve as an excellent blogging facility for me. I could blog on the train, blog in the toilet, blog all over the world. Not that I feel inhibited by my current blogging facilities, though.
The thing that most noticeable to me about the above list is its shortness. I’m not asking for a Ferrari and I’m not asking for lots of other things that people could wish for if they had the opportunity to ask for anything they could think of.
The second most notable thing is that none of the above mentioned items are things that I truly need, nor do I have any hopes of them solving all my problems upon this earth; they are all compromised by design, and acquiring them just means exchanging one set of compromises with another.
The reality is that I’m very happy with the things I already have, and the main things I wish for are not things that money can buy. Until someone comes up with a working design for a time machine, time is not something I can buy, and time is the one thing I want the most: time as a healthy person, quality time with friends and family, leave time, sleep time.
It looks like the reality is that I am quite a happy chappie. And it didn’t even take a winning lottery ticket to achieve that.
So thank you all.
Wednesday, 26 December 2007
Today, Muhammad Ali day (otherwise known as Boxing Day) is the day in which I am going to tell you about the main lesson from our holiday's adventures, namely - how is it like to go out for a few days with a 5.5 month old baby?
Funny you're asking.
Well, lesson #1 in going out with a baby is to do with the room arrangements. Simply put, it's a problem to share your room with the baby. Honestly, as a parent who has had the baby in the baby's room as of day 1, I can't understand parents who have their babies with them in their bedroom. It's bad enough with the baby monitor, but how can you sleep with every slight nudge or moan coming from the baby?
It gets worse. Our routine dictates putting Dylan to bed at around 19:30. Which is great, because it gives you the night for yourself, but is also severely limiting when you're in the same room with Dylan. For a start, he kept looking at us, thus staying awake instead of sleeping. Then we had to lower the volume on the TV or even turn it off altogether, because the sound/light attracted too much of his attention. Then we had to lower the lights. The result? Dylan finds it hard to fall asleep and we can't do much at night: reading in the dark is pretty tough! I was thus forced to play the Nintendo DS (set to a low volume).
As the days went by we became more clever, turning Dylan's cot so that the blind side faces us or so that he can't see the TV. Eventually, we placed the cot as far away from us as possible - right next to the room's door, the closest thing to a separate room we could muster. But that's my entire point:
If you travel with your baby, try and arrange for separate rooms. And if you're sharing rooms at home, please go to your nearest psychiatrist and have your mental health assessed.
Lesson #2 is to do with sticking to routine.
On day one we didn't do much after arriving at the resort we stayed in, which was fine with everybody. On day two we had a tour of wineries in the area we stayed at, so we kept on taking Dylan in and out of the car. He didn't like it; it really seems as if there is a very finite number of times he would take being taken out of the car before going berserk. Worse, this ritual meant he couldn't sleep his usual number of sleep cycles during the day.
The result is that by afternoon time he became an intolerable zombie: so tired he couldn't even fall asleep, and we had a crying/yelling baby on our hands. That's one tough thing to handle! We're lucky that overall Dylan is a very good baby: come the evening routine of bath/feed he was alright again. One thing is very clear, though: if you're keeping your baby awake during the day so they would sleep better during the night you're doing the wrong thing; we find that Dylan sleeps better if he gets the sleep he needs when he needs it. A sleepy day guarantees a sleepy night.
On the subsequent days we adjusted accordingly. Instead of taking Dylan in and out of the car, we went on long drives that guaranteed good sleeps and only took him out to major events. Given Australian scale for distances, that is not hard to achieve. At some places we took turns getting out of the car to check the local attraction, so that the other can keep an eye on a sleepy Dylan in the car. That's bad for touring, but good for the baby; a bit of a worrying thought, though, given our near future Tasmanian tour.
Thus lesson #2 is: plan your trip around the baby, not the baby around the trip.
We came back home as relaxed as a Sicilian waking up to find the head of a horse next to him in bed. It was nice to escape routine, but it was hard, too.
The pinnacle was watching a Christmas movie at night, back at home, relaxing on the sofa with Dylan asleep in his own cot. The latest Die Hard sure fit the occasion!
Friday, 21 December 2007
It's comes down to this: Virtually everyone around me is in this seemingly lunatic holiday mode; I'm not. Now there's nothing wrong with being in a seemingly lunatic mode; some great fun can be had in the process, and in this regard losing yourself to Xmess is not that different to losing yourself at a football game.
Problems start, however, when you lose your grip on reality in the process. If you continue behaving like a loony long after the game of football is over, or if you let your life get totally consumed by the football experience, everyone around you would say that something is wrong with you. Yet people all around me are totally consumed by Xmess, mostly locked in this frenzy of gift shopping and family coordination to the point of excessive loss of grip on reality (as in, the world would continue being the same as it is after Xmess, high hopes should not be placed on Xmess because a date on the calendar does not change a thing in your life, and things would go along just fine even if you don't get uncle Mike his favorite perfume).
People are so into "celebrating" Xmess they don't even realize that they are, in fact, lost. It's only me, a person for whom celebrating Xmess is the exception rather than the rule, that sees things this way. I am the Gulliver!
The reasons why people are so locked into the Xmess fever is clear: most of them do not know better. Most of them have never experienced anything else during this time of the year, and some of them are even willingly committing themselves to the ordeal in the name of religious reasons. Anyway you put it, it comes down people simply not thinking about the "why" when they do the things they do; they just do it, usually because enough people around them do the same thing.
What I find most thought provoking about all of the above is this: How many things do I do just because of a force of habit? How many things I can do without or do differently to come up with a better result, yet I don't because I'm too much of a stupid ignorant to realize that I'm a stupid ignorant? I suspect the answer is "quite a lot" and more than likely "much more than what you can ever dream of". I guess all I can do is read and travel, the activities that so far I have identified as the most eye opening of them all (and no, watching TV doesn't help; it only makes you dumber).
Another potentially interesting way of countering this ignorance is through parenting: by striving to be a good father to Dylan, I can probably learn quite a lot in the process of teaching him how to live.
Thursday, 20 December 2007
I am very tired of hearing how people are behind in their Christmas shopping or hearing work colleagues negotiate their way around their Christmas shopping. It's just amazing how widely people can open their wallets, and for what? It's all stuff that the recipient does not necessarily want, and most of it is as original and as useful as used toilet paper. Want my advice? Do something good with your money and give some of it to Oxfam instead.
The things that annoys me the most is the waste. By now everyone agrees that global warming is a major issue (Melbourne's freak weather makes sure people are aware of that), but no one seems to be able to or to want to make the connection between that the indiscriminate consumption that is the Xmess season.
Take wrapping paper, for example. Who the hell needs wrapping paper? What is the point of wrapping paper? Is it to hide the poorness of your gifts?
You receive a wrapped up gift, you struggle with the wrapping paper for a few seconds, you chuck it aside, and that's it for the wrapping paper. On the way, however, you caused trees to be cut for the paper, oil to be burnt for processing the wood and turning it into paper, chemicals to be released in the making of the paper, and more oil to contaminate the planet for transporting the wrapping paper all the way from its plant in China to the shop near where you live. And a few second after it heads down to the nearest landfill site.
Wow! What a sense of purpose!
Talking about the festive season's sense of purpose, I have to say I'm really annoyed with the way the news covers fatalities on the roads. "The 26 year old dying on the eve of Christmas is the most tragic thing", they say (with slight variation, depending on the background of the deceased).
I can see it how it works. During the rest of the year, the father of the 26 year old tells the mother, "pass me the beer can, and, by the way, almost forgot, our son's dead". However, during the holidays, the conversation is entirely different: "Look at our son, how he managed to ruin our Christmas with his death".
The media is trying to go for a cheap headline, but what they end up doing is making people lives feel cheap. Any one person is worth much more than all the Xmesses throughout history.
Wednesday, 19 December 2007
For the record, that particular huntsman that seems to like our mailbox so much is h-u-g-e! And hairy! It's one of those spiders that would feel right at home in an Indiana Jones sequel (given that sequels must always outdo the originals).
I guess exotic spider are one of those things you need to get used to when you live in Australia. Especially when redbacks, a spider that can actually kill you, are quite common (you do have to go out of your way, however, to get into trouble with them).
Tuesday, 18 December 2007
Why should I really care when the team started the season with rumors concerning an American millionaire trying to take control over it and a vice president being chucked out because of his support of said millionaire, only to be replaced by news about a very corrupt Russian billionaire who ended up buying the shares of said vice president and now owns a significant portion of the club? Where am I, a lowly supporter, in this picture? And what values does the club represent in order to merit my support, other than a continuous hunger for more money?
They also say that the English Premiership is the best football league in the world. I strongly disagree: how can it be so good if only four clubs have a realistic chance at the title? Arsenal supporters bitch and moan when a season goes by and no title is acquired, but look at the vast majority of teams out there: they have nothing to aspire to.
This lie about the superior quality of the English Premiership reminds me of a blog post I read the other day (Hebrew warning!)
discussing how hard it is to be skeptical of ideas. While I would add that it should take more than a post in someone's blog for me (or you) to support a certain theory, the theory raised there is, indeed, quite interesting: Basically, it says that once an idea is ingrained in one's head, any discussion about that idea - even a discussion that is supposed to counter it - actually helps in reaffirming that idea.
It all comes down to the way evolution has shaped our minds to acquire its perception of the world, but the basic premises is that once you hear an idea the first time it would be very hard for anyone to convince you that the opposite is actually true. Say, if a politician called John Howard was to repeatedly tell you he's incredibly good at financial management, it wouldn't help if financial experts would tell you that international debt has actually peaked during Howard's time at the helm and that the prosperity we're all going through is more to do with selling stuff we dug out of the ground to China and with the general prosperity of the world than anything Howard has done. Such an act would actually do further damage - it would reinforce the idea that Howard is a good financial manager in your head.
You can see how this theory explains why some people stick with truly irrational ideas. Say, religion. You can also see how children are very susceptible to external influences shaping their world views for the rest of their lives. Indeed, being there first for a child can be a mighty strong weapon at the wrong hands!
Again, the lesson for me as a parent is simple yet hard to implement. One way to make sure Dylan's mind is not contaminated is to counter a bad idea implanted in his head by implanting other ideas; instead of telling him that "no, John Howard is not a good financial manager", I can tell him "John Howard is really bad in macrame".
The better strategy, however, would be to implement a policy suggested by Steven Pinker (whose book I'm currently reading). Pinker is saying that the way we teach our children should be overhauled; children should learn decision making, evolution and psychology as of a young age, and only then should they start being stuffed with the nonsense schools all over the world excel in stuffing their kids with. While I know there's no way we would be able to send Dylan to such a school, I hope my presence would be enough to teach him how to think for himself.
Monday, 17 December 2007
Personally, I have decided that being passive about will not take me anywhere. I therefore concluded to write a letter expressing my opinion on the matter of internet access at work, but due to a collection of reasons I deemed an anonymous letter to be the better option. Since, however, I am generally of the full frontal confrontation view, I have decided to post a lightly censored version (devoid of any identifying info) on my blog. After all, with blogs being blocked, it's not like anyone at the office would be able to trace it:
I am an employee writing to you anonymously in order to complain about the recently introduced limitations to internet access at the office.
On 5/12/07 we have all received a rather laconic email from the Helpdesk telling us that as of 6/12/07, “we will be making a couple of changes to Internet access”. What has followed since seems to be more like a massacre than a couple of changes, with a large number of websites becoming inaccessible for often vague reasons. While most of the websites that have been blocked have nothing to do with work, some actually do.
Currently, websites that have been blocked display a message saying “Your access to the site has been blocked according to internal policy”. However, I had a look at the policy document linked to the message, and that policy says nothing about employees not accessing “personal pages” (the error message received when trying to access a work related website), nor does it say anything about any other type of websites other than those containing sexual content. If anything, what the policy does say is that employees are allowed to reasonably use the internet for private purposes.
And that is exactly what I am complaining about. I see nothing wrong with me or any of my colleagues accessing the internet for private usage, the way I see nothing wrong with me or my colleagues using the phone from time to time to make a private phone call or even occasionally stepping out of the office on a private errand. We have also been known to have coffee breaks and smoke breaks (for the record, I don’t smoke), and so far our self proclaimed “employer of choice” have been fine with that. Further, I maintain that having such privileges actually improves the quality of our work by helping us relax after a tight meeting and by creating a positive working atmosphere. Why is it, then, that we have suddenly been placed under Orwellian scrutiny when it comes to internet access?
Now, I do suspect there are some good reasons for blocking internet access to employees: things like cost, security issues, and employee abuse. However, none of these reasons have been communicated to us, the employees; all we know is that one day we had acceptable internet access and the next day we have been robbed of something that by now everyone takes for granted and everyone is used to.
Besides, I suspect that all of the above mentioned arguments – cost, security and abuse – can be easily countered. I wouldn’t mind seeing the case for this recent internet blockage act, if it was actually prepared (I doubt it), because I strongly suspect its arguments would be quickly countered. It simply doesn’t make sense to take us back to medieval times! The internet, after all, is a tool we have been enabled with only because it is an incredibly effective working tool. Who is it, then, that has been suddenly bestowed with the insight and the wisdom required in order to decide what the best tools for me to perform my work with are? Why is it that the tools that were previously deemed as useful working tools have suddenly been taken away from us in a rather unprecedented act? And who was it that decided to rob me of the creativity that is often gained when new ideas come up through random web searches?
Let’s not beat around the bush and address the private usage of the internet, too: Who amongst us has the authority to become a de facto censor and decide which websites we are allowed to privately surf to during work time (like, say, the so far unblocked website of The Age) and which ones are forbidden (using excuses such as “personal”, “open image” or “games”)?
It is my impression that someone has suddenly been granted with way too much power at their hands and decided to show it off. Without much thought, without due process, and without proper communication.
In conclusion, I hope that the protest rising from the ranks together with the wisdom of our managers will prevail in order to set things back the way they used to be. I have addressed this email to you in the hope that you are the right channel for such issues; if that is not the case, I would appreciate it if you could forward it to the suitable authority. In the mean time, allow me to use the opportunity to wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year!
Saturday, 15 December 2007
Now I am not going to specify in here the ways in which I consider the two to be similar, because absolutely anything that I will write in this context will earn me eternal family damnation. For the sake of argument, let's just say that the similarities are outside the scope of this blog as I do not intend to impose on the privacy of others who do not seek public exposure.
Now I wouldn't be writing the above if there was no breakthrough to report, and this week there was. An interesting post in a blog discussing evolutionary psychology expanded on the implications of the order between kids, and the arguments there went a long way in explaining the nature of the above mentioned sister similarities.
You can have a look at a summary of the findings in here and here, but I'll spare you and give you the highlights. Essentially, the arguments show once again how similar the science of evolution is to the science of economics:
A first born receives the full attention of his/her parents due to the very simple fact they have nothing else to pay attention to (note the high level of generalization here, which is an ongoing theme; exceptions are very likely). When the second child comes around, parents' attention is divided between the two, so the second child never receives as much attention as the older one used to receive before the younger one came along. Not only that, the young one has to compete for resources (i.e., parental attention), but he/she is competing with a severe handicap: the older child has years of advantage on them. From here on you can see the type of effects that this "economical" struggle can have, mainly that the older child is used to being at the center of things while the second is pushed towards becoming a rebel. Interestingly enough, with as many good intentions as possible, I find it hard to imagine parents that could avoid these traps.
Personally, I think I was very lucky on this front: I was the youngest child of three, so I was spoiled the way the youngest child normally gets spoiled. However, I had two advantages: First, the gap between me and my sister was wide enough for me to enjoy some of the privileges of the firstborn in addition to my youngest son privileges. And second, I had an uncle who took me in as if a parent, thus bestowing on me much more attention than a "normal" child receives (and indeed, I attribute a lot of the good things about me to my uncle).
I guess the relevant points to take from this affair is for all of us to be aware of the minor accident that is the order of our births and not to get too carried away with their effects. By being aware of these issues one should be able to counter them. Most of all, one should be careful before using arguments such as "my parents were evil", as it is obvious that the parents cannot be blamed for having to share their attentions.
To me, at this point in time, the main lesson is to do with the way we will be bringing Dylan up: I hope we will manage to do a good job there, but parenting does seem like it's going to be one of the tougher challenges I am going to encounter during this incarnation.
Thursday, 13 December 2007
Not that I'll get one any time soon. All Australian stock has sold out minutes after they went on sale and the waiting lists are as long as a day at the office. And then there's the $500 price tag, which given our current financial situation means luxuries are things we pass away. And I won't even mention the fact that, to be honest, I don't really need one.
But still, there's nothing wrong with dreaming, and there's quite a lot to dream about here. Essentially, the Eee is a very small notebook (7" screen). At 1 kilo, this is a truly portable PC that you will carry with you without breaking your back!
It's running Linux, so there's no Microsoft contamination there, and its packed with open source applications and a wireless connection which make it the real thin client, the one to carry along when traveling or whenever you have a bag with you (which to me means most of the time). All the applications you need, be it Skype or Google Docs, as well as all the real storage space you require, are just an internet connection away. You can listen to music on it, type on it, process photos on it - it's the essential blogging machine.
It's got something to cover everything you need in a second PC that you can take with you, and it's even got a VGA output so that you can watch videos on your big TV!
Wednesday, 12 December 2007
Goes to show a thing or two about the value of blocking access to specific websites in a world where millions of new websites pop up every day.
By the way, that Kodak website is not bad at all. It offers mugs with photo prints and similar kitsch, which means that from now on it is going to be our bread and butter source for family oriented gifts. The aim is to have all family members own a collection of “Dylan through the years” mugs.
While having a walk to the post office during work time, I found myself at the entrance of Dylan's future childcare center. Holding lunch (shawarma) in one hand and the shopping (two cans of formula for Dylan) on the other, I decided a reconnaissance trip is not that bad an idea, so I went in.
One of the attendants was walking out as I stepped into the lobby, and as I’m used to by now she gave me that look Australians normally reserve to terrorism suspects. I told her that my wife had just booked our child there the other day and that I was in the neighborhood so I decided to pop up and have a look, and immediately the “where is my pepper spray when I need it” look changed to a wide smile and the mouth said “Oh! So you’re Daniel’s father!”
So in she took me to give me the grand tour while pointing me at all the things that Daniel admired when he was there the other day and while showing me the room Daniel will spend his time in and the kids Daniel is going to have for company.
It all looked pretty good, only that by now we know there’s more to a childcare place than its looks. The true test is how they cope with the babies during the day, especially during the ultra chaotic feed time. They do seem better suited to handle smaller babies: as of next year (i.e., in three weeks’ time), they are going to have separate rooms for babies under 1 and babies over 1. Daniel, it seems, and even Dylan for that matter, stand a good chance of not being trampled underfoot.
Talking about mistaken identities, I can’t help but wonder whenever I see one of the many Santa figures currently roaming all over the place. The first thing that comes to mind is actual worry about them coping with the searing hear in their suits, hats and false beards. The second, however, is a thought on how aware people are to the fact that the image of Santa we all have in our heads today is more to do with Coca Cola advertising than with any so called saint.
The thing that really troubles me the most is simply this: Why do people keep on with this foolish fable? What’s the point of maintaining this lie and feeding it to children? I can see that it’s an imaginative story, but what is wrong with the truth – what is wrong with telling kids that the gifts they’re getting come through their own parents’ hard work and through the love of their family and friends? If that is not a much better story then I don’t know what is, and with some creativity it can be easily painted in some imaginative colors just the same if not better. But still most people go on with the charade.
One interesting theory I read last Xmess was that the belief in Santa is important for kids because it’s their first step towards believing in god. The assumption is, therefore, that a small lie coupled with the bribe of gifts will open up a gap through which a much nastier and more implicative lie can slip through.
Call me naive, but I prefer water to Coke and the truth over the lie.
The latest news is that blogs have been blocked from internet access. Currently, you can still access the blogs themselves, but you cannot watch peoples' comments or add a comment of your own. Already this would make life at the office very miserable; just imagine how it would be like when, in a week's time, blogs are inaccessible altogether?
And again, I can't help but mention that stupidity reigns supreme here. After all, we are actually using blogs at work for work.
Monday, 10 December 2007
To make this a truly special day, Jo had joined me in the morning train ride with Dylan. Jo went to examine a childcare place in the city, and the bottom line of it is that she liked it and we now have provisions for two days per week there as of the new year. The childcare place is near my place of work, so we'll both take Dylan with us on the train and I will take him there in the morning and retrieve him in the evening. It works well for us because my working day is 7.5 hours while Jo's is 8, so if we want to ride the same trains without me working extra time (the horror!) then handling Dylan's childcare woes is one effective balancing techniques.
Obviously, things can't just be so nice and easy. I must have something to complain about or worry of in order for this bit of news to make it to my blog, so here we go.
This morning's morning ritual was sort of a dress rehearsal for the real thing. We got up at 6:00 with the aim of leaving at 7:00 to catch the train. I did my usual morning routine on auto pilot, Jo took care of Dylan with hardly any help from me, and we ended up missing our train by two minutes. So there we have lesson number 1: I need to get up even earlier if I am to help Jo and if we are to be ready on time.
The real issue here is Dylan's breakfast. With all his messing around, it takes him about half an hour to go through his bottle, and if we're taking him to the city we can't just wait till he gets to childcare and leave them to feed him; at least not yet (experienced parents are welcomed to say when we can expect Dylan to be able to wait an hour plus after waking up and until they he gets his breakfast; in general, Dylan stays awake for an hour and a half between each feed, which doesn't leave much room for delayed breakfasts even if his stomach could cope with the delay to begin with (and at the moment it won't)).
However, getting up even earlier in order to have enough time to give Dylan his breakfast doesn't solve our problems either, because we won't be waking Dylan up at 5:30 anyway. And we don't want to take later trains, because they become too crowded.
And there you have it in a nutshell: the woes of taking Dylan with us to work.
Obviously, woes don't end there. It's summer now and all is fine and dandy, but how will we cope when it's soaking wet and cold? That could supply us with a lifetime of memories. And needless to say, the Connex trains don't make life easy on us: just this morning we stood at the very end of the platform under the assumption that the last carriage would have disabled facilities that would fit our pram. It turned out not to be the case, and we found ourselves on a car where the pram hardly fit. Other carriages had disabled facilities, but in the brief few seconds the train stops at the station you can't afford to be too picky (definitely not with a pram in hand). Life must be really charming to the truly disabled!
Well, at least we won't be late picking Dylan up in the evenings because of Connex to find ourselves fined at a rate of $1 per minute.
Saturday, 8 December 2007
Dylan is visibly better now. He can't fully squeal yet, his voice still somewhat lost, but he's back to talking to himself. You can see it in the following video, although the funniest thing about the video is that after many minutes of giving us a very flowing speech Dylan goes quiet the moment he notices the camera. It wasn't a one off; hours later I tried the same thing again in the middle of a speech and he went quiet again.
Obviously, he doesn't want his words to be taken out of context.
Thursday, 6 December 2007
Learning this about Blaire has certainly tarnished the image I have had of him as an intelligent politician. I have to say I agree with his advisers. Yet, sadly, hiding his opinions does not mean he doesn't have an opinion, which - as we know - led the world to a grossly unsuccessful war in Iraq.
People often ask me why I am so adamantly anti religion and this story adds up to provide yet another example why. If Blaire managed to drag 60 million people with him to a stupid war based on his religious beliefs - as opposed to anything substantial - then this is some very good evidence to the corrupt power religion has. What is the difference between waging war on Iraq due to religious convictions and, say, the imperialist adventures the British have had all over the world just a century ago? Worse, what is the difference between Blaire's argument for the war and Bin Laden's? The only difference seems to be the particular religion each of them goes for, which is merely the result of where they happened to be born in.
Especially in this globalised era, the world cannot afford being led by arguments from religion or any other tradition for that matter.
On that note, I am happy to say that the recent elections have pushed Australia in the right direction. The new Rudd government, just sworn in, had most of its members swear the secular oath (sadly, Rudd himself is a major Christian, so his oath had the redundant god bit in). The previous government, on the other hand, had almost all of its 40 members doing the god version. Then again, that was the government that sent Aussie troops to Iraq.
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
And that factory was a very successful endeavor indeed. Within a few days not only Dylan was sick, but his mother got sick as well. And a couple of days later, his father, usually the least resilient of the two, got sick as well.
If this is a sign of things to come when Dylan starts going to childcare on a regular basis then I am so not looking forward to it.
Today we actually have ourselves a family outing to the doctor's place: all three in one go! It is funny, however, to see us all sick. Jo is probably the sickest amongst us at the moment, but in typical Jo fashion she soldiers on bravely. I'm probably the least sick, but all it takes is for me to have a bit of something and I become totally useless (some would argue that this statement applies to when I'm healthy, too). Usually, I handle sickness by sleeping it off; now, of course, my sleep is entirely up to the hands of one baby called Dylan.
It is funny to see how I lose functionality with time. When Dylan first got sick and we didn't sleep much, I lost my ability to concentrate on proper reading and instead started playing the Nintendo DS after months of neglect (the last time I played it was when Dylan was still at the hospital). This time I played Mario Kart and Zelda against online opponents and it's really great! Then when I became sick myself reading was out of the question altogether, the DS was out, watching TV was out, and messing on the computer was limited to "necessary evil" stuff. Blogging, it seems, doesn't require much brain capacity.
Anyway, I hate being sick. You have to hand it to them viruses, though: those small bits of DNA/RNA that have evolved to be able to replicate themselves are one mean effective thing.
Monday, 3 December 2007
But now the levee's gonna break.
It took place with the usual salami method.
First they banned web email sites, claiming that you can get emails with viruses there. A somewhat dubious explanation given that I'm pretty sure the anti-virus software Google and Microsoft and Yahoo have at their hands is somewhat superior to what my place of work can offer; and if the problem is receiving an email with a link that would lead you to a virus, then that can happen anytime anywhere.
Still, the salami looked intact.
Then they banned YouTube. I can actually understand that: Let's face it, you don't use YouTube for anything remotely close to work purposes; usually, YouTube serves to satisfy my football curiosities.
So my salami still seemed to be in one piece.
But then they blocked Flickr with the excuse of it being a "media storage". So what? What's so bad about media storages? And aren't all websites media storages to begin with?
Now, finally, my salami looked as if someone has cut a big chunk out of it. Flickr is not just your other website; Flickr is where I have all of my Dylan photos. Flickr is where I look to whenever I think of Dylan. Flickr is my answer whenever some wise ass comes over and asks how come I don't have any photos of Dylan on my desk (usually adding some cheap boast like "the way I do"): I select my Flickr photo page on my browser's favorites, and e voila! I don't have just one or two photos on my desk, I have hundreds of Dylan photos on my desk.
Or rather, I used to have hundreds of photos on my desk. Up until some smart guy decided to ban it.
It seems to me as if this is always the case at work. I first noticed it at the army: you never get some officer or boss to say "you know what, we don't need to be this tight; why won't we relax [something] and let people have an easier time". No, instead all you hear is how bad one thing or another is and how we should tighten security in the face of threats that don't really exist. From time to time you get something like the internet that reshuffles the cards and let's the good time roll, but then quickly enough the bosses get their way and the workers are re-enslaved.
That's Work Choices for you.
Sunday, 2 December 2007
Thursday night and Friday were the tricky parts. At first we were very close to taking Dylan to the hospital because he didn't drink enough, then Dylan was diagnosed with an airway problem which got us close to taking him to the hospital. Things started sorting themselves out after the doctor prescribed him with some steroids (not to be confused with the good old Asteroids on the Atari), and within 3 hours we had ourselves a rejuvenated baby. Score one for science.
As I already said, the process of having a sick baby has regressed us a few months back. After much more than a month of uninterrupted sleeps (albeit shorter ones than I would like to have), we found ourselves devastated by going back to the realm of the newly born baby and sleeping an interrupted four hours a night. The next night we had only one interruption and I still felt like I have been ironed at about lunch time. Sleep deprivation is not something one can get used to; not only that, it is pretty horrible to endure.
But by far the most interesting observation from looking after a sick baby for a few days is that never during this time did we say to ourselves "fuck this" and quit to take a break. The thought never crossed our minds; the only thought that did cross it, eventually, was the thought that questioned why.
After all, on the face of it, why should we be looking after this small bundle and sacrifice so much for it? Why shouldn't we be selfish instead? And why is it that under such circumstances the thought of being selfish comes highly unnaturally, only as the result of a pondering mind?
The answer is, of course, quite obvious. So obvious that I feel foolish to type it in, but I still will, because when you think about it it's quite amazing how well evolution has equipped us to take care of our descendants. Simply put, if we weren't so hard wired to find Dylan ever so cute and to care so much for him, Dylan would not be here; and if our ancestors happened to think this way, too, we would not have been here either. And there'll be no one to type this stupid post.
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Anyway, to document this momentous occasion, here's a video showing how the poor fellow is like. Do note that we're not evil; we are not holding him with our hands simply because we would make him too hot (it's been a warm summer so far, and the weather bureau is predicting a long warm summer). Anyway, have a look at Mr Miserable:
Wednesday, 28 November 2007
Thing is, I don't think so. Not that I think the childcare place was good, it's just that I think the reason for the problem goes much deeper than a particular childcare facility. The reason, I believe, is that the childcare places are not designed to cater for babies as young as Dylan; virtually all other babies in Australian childcare are much older than Dylan, experienced solid eaters.
And the reason why the childcare places are not designed to cater for younger babies is simple: The Australian woman is yet to be emancipated to the same level as her, say, European counterpart. The Australian woman is still expected to stay at home with the baby for much longer than her European relatives do.
Now it's not that I am saying all Australian women should go back to work half a second after their babies have been born. What I am saying, however, is that the Australian woman should be allowed to choose: maybe, for example, she really loves her baby, but maybe she also thinks that she would serve her baby better if she brings more money to the household?
The problem, at the moment, is that even when the two Australian women that actually want to go back to work "early" want to do so, the weight of expectations means that there is no support for them out there despite those expectations being based on old style patriarchal thinking that should have perished years ago. Interestingly enough, there is also opposite correlation between the support given to the Australia woman, when compared to the one given to the European woman, and the time in which they are expected to go back to work. How can a woman have free choice under such circumstances?
At the risk of sounding repetitive, maybe what this country needs is a woman in charge?
Tuesday, 27 November 2007
The lecture was interesting because it was provocative. Basically, the guy was telling us that he knows what causes cancer and he knows what it takes to prevent and cure cancer, and that it is common knowledge which we (the general public) are not aware of because the big pharmaceutical companies want to hide it from us so that they would be able to sell us their overpriced medicines. Obviously it didn't occur to him that if the answer to cancer was available these companies would make a fortune just the same.
The presentation's experience was actually a great social experience and I should really invest my time, if I have some, to write a proper post about it and express how annoyed I am with the lack of healthy skepticism in your average human being. However, one thing that did strike a chord with me, as it would with anyone, was the presenter saying that an important factor in health is happiness, and that in order to guarantee ourselves happiness we should be doing the stuff that we are passionate about. Poetic rubbish at work, the guy could pass for Paulo Coelho. I mean, here we have the ultimate answer not only to cancer but to happiness, too!
Still, there is obviously a grain of truth there. And personally, I think the formula does work, to one extent or another. I mean, I am not sure at all about my health, but I do know that I am happy doing the things I am passionate about.
And what are those things, I hear you ask? Well, there are several. But for the sake of this post I will refer you to this very blog, celebrating its second birthday today.
I will not add on that, but I will say this: I am very thankful to Jo for letting me get away with spending so much time on this blog. Rain or shine, Dylan or not, the blog was still there. It's my time that is wasted on it, sure, but it's Jo's as well; she's the one kept awake with the sound of my aggressive keyboard handling.
So now you know two things I am passionate about.
Monday, 26 November 2007
We are the parents of Dylan Hopkins, our four and a half month old baby, who has recently started attending your childcare facility. We were gravely disappointed with the quality of service and the lack of care on display, which is why we are writing this letter of complaint.
When we came to pick Dylan up from childcare today we noticed that the cover of the dummy we brought with him was broken, his socks were just lying around, and the caps of the two Avent formula bottles we brought with Dylan were missing despite their labelling.
The above issues are minor, although they do not add to our confidence in the care offered by your centre. Then, however, we discovered that Dylan has been fed with solids, despite his age and despite our instructions that Dylan is still on formula only (because of his premature birth we are actually required to see a paediatrician in two months in order to have Dylan’s readiness to solids assessed).
In contradiction to common advice on the introduction of solids, Dylan was actually fed with two different types of solids during the day: pumpkin and pureed apple. Given the attention food allergies receive, we regard this as a case where only luck has prevented Dylan from serious injury.
We have communicated our feelings over the phone to Georgie, one of your directors, and informed her that Dylan will no longer be attending the centre. However, given the severity of the problem, we would like to hear your opinion as we are considering taking the matter before the Department of Human Services.
In conclusion I would like to say that while I think the childcare place should lose its license over an incident like that (less than a year ago a baby died in Victoria under similar circumstances), the fact of the matter is that the childcare place wouldn't feel the difference. With all the parents queuing up for their services, Dylan would be quickly replaced by another baby.
Sunday, 25 November 2007
A few minutes later I had a bit of a chat with Dylan where we've discussed subtle nuances in advanced quantum mechanics. Again, the result is here for all to see; I'd advise you to listen carefully to what Dylan has to say:
Saturday, 24 November 2007
1. Assuming that Kyoto will quickly get signed, Australia will move on to unilaterally reduce its greenhouse emissions and invest a lot in sustainable energy while canceling subsidies to fossil fuel industries.
2. Australian forces will retreat out of Iraq within 3 months (I'll happily live with 6, too).
3. The Australian government will now be transparent and accountable.
I know I shouldn't start with this attitude; I should be celebrating John Howard's farewell. I should also be giving Rudd his 100 days for getting into the thick of things before I start accusing him. My point, however, is that now that the "good guys" are in charge, there's plenty of work to do.
I am quite excited!
Thursday, 22 November 2007
Three years ago you really pissed me off with the way you voted. I couldn't believe you chose three more years of that deceitful person, John Howard, with the empty promise of keeping interest rates low. How shallow a premises to get elected by, given that by international standards interest rates were high to begin with and given the government's lack of control over these rates, but most of all given that what you were to earn through supposedly low interest rates went immediately out the back door (with interest) to pay for, just to name a couple, higher education and health costs. Labor, the party that offered improved Medicare services that everyone can enjoy and improved public schooling, just to name a couple, got whitewashed.
For three more years we all suffered the consequences. Everyone with eyes up their head can see through the rot of the Liberal led coalition's government: The lack of accountability and the corruption demonstrated through the AWB scandal, the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers and of Australians some clerk who doesn't get enough sex at home decides are actually bloody foreigners, and the scandalous way in which the targetless war in Iraq is managed. I won't even mention the complacency on environmental issues, where the only progress is when the prospect of giving the party's friends some profits through nuclear reactors comes up.
But we can remedy the situation.
No, I don't think a Rudd government would solve all of our problems on this earth. As the Labor government of Victoria shows, Labor can be just as corrupt and just as incapable as the Liberals. But it would be a change and it would be a step in the right direction, especially if Labor is motivated enough to mend its ways through parties such as the Greens and the Democrats.
Personally, I would have really liked to see Natasha Stott Despoja as our next PM, aided by Dr Karl and Bob Brown. But I live in the real world, a world in which people are not elected because of the way they think and act but rather a world in which people are elected because of the way they are perceived, with most people falling for the grand mechanisms of the two big parties even if these parties never deliver.
Most of the people I know are actually going to vote Liberal. At the risk of offending them I will say this: I have a problem with people who vote Liberal. Now I know that there are tons of reasons for people to choose the party they vote for and the majority is not driven by ideals the way I do. But at its core, the Liberal movement stands for individualism and for rewarding individuals who succeed in their personal ventures. The basic assumption is that those that didn't make it didn't try hard enough. But is that the case? Are you always successful when you try, even if you try hard? Are you always in control over your circumstances? Do all people start from the same starting point or are some more privileged than others?
To put it another way, the Liberals stand for the gold old iron rule - "he who has the gold makes the rules". There is no better way to describe what John Howard has done with his regime, and I just can't believe that people who are basically good can join forces with such ideals.
But don't worry, Australia, because this Saturday you can change your way for a better, brighter future, in which we stand together rather than divided. A vote for a better way is not only something that should come from the heart, but there is hard science showing it should come from the head, too.
Wednesday, 21 November 2007
It's not like this didn't happen before. When we booked flights to Europe it came down and when we bought our car it came down, too. This time around the difference is that we're running the risk of it becoming a routine instead of a one off.
Sure, we have been spending money, perhaps recklessly. Not only on stuff for Dylan; we did buy new speakers and we didn't really stop ourselves spending money the way we used to, only that with Dylan around we don't have the time to spend as much as we did in the past.
Another reason to worry is that we have a lineup of major expenses ahead of us. We're talking small projects here:
First, we would like to block the light in Dylan's room. His room's main window is north facing (that's where the sun is in our hemisphere), so his room tends to be the hottest in the house and the light that creeps in prevents him from sleeping. Unlike Europe, where blinds are mostly placed outside of the window, in Australia the trend is place the blinds inside, which prevents the blind from totally sealing all light while making the blind into a heat absorbing device that warms the room up. We got some quotes to address that, and we're talking either putting external blinds ala Europe (the most effective solution), replacing our internal blinds with another type, and/or putting a cloth like hanging thing on the outside.
Second, we would like to get more out of our backyard. Currently, when it's hot, it's way too hot to sit there; we need shade. It looks like the best solution for shade, given the eccentric shape of our backyard, is to get sails. That, however, would cost us $3000; a lot of money, but by spending it we'll be providing Dylan with a nice playground.
Third, we are looking for colling solutions. We have the portable air-conditioner I brought with me from Israel and it works well, but it's too weak to make a true impression and it's definitely too noisy. Besides, I'm not a fan of air-conditioners: the transition between the non A/C world outside and the cooler world inside tends to make me sick, and besides - given their energy consumption they should be banned in the first place. So one solution is to go for evaporative cooling, but that's expensive for a thorough implementation and on those really hot days it wouldn't make much of a difference. Currently, we're thinking of going for a ceiling fan; given that our house is a well insulated double brick place, that could be enough to make the living room livable. And maybe we can even use it to mount energy saving lamps!
So there you have it: three summer projects to knock out our mortgage with. And lest we forget, we now have a $400 monthly childcare bill...
Selling stuff on eBay does ease the pain but hardly so; it seems as if Jo going back to work would be the only thing that can restore financial balance to our lives. Circumstances do make me wonder, though, what others with a lesser income than mine do to make ends meet.
Socialist brothers and sisters, let us unite (and hopefully, kick John Howard to his rightful place come the weekend's elections)!
Monday, 19 November 2007
We need to start by defining what death is, and for argument's sake I will say that death is the opposite of life. Great, only that now we need to define what life is, which is where the problems start. As usual, life and death are things we all have opinions on, but we never really question those opinions. Allow me to do so now.
Everybody knows that life doesn't start at birth. What everybody also knows but no one really bothers to think about is that life doesn't start at conception either. Think about it: the sperm and the egg that join hands at conception are both very much living beings in anyone's book long before they combine, therefore life doesn't start with their meeting. And thus when you try and trace life's origins you eventually go back four billion years; everything alive since then is connected in this eternal chain of ongoing life.
Looking at life this way, our definition of death as the opposite
of life is problematic. I will therefore suggest alternative definitions to the terms: What I would define as life is the consciousness that I feel in my head as a result of the chemical and electric reactions going on here, and what I would define as death is the continued loss of consciousness that takes place, well, when you die.
Sure, this definition is not practical for most purposes. When you kill a cow in order to have a steak you don't bother to check what happens in its brain. On the other hand, this definition works well for most of us: if, say, you were to suffer from severe Alzheimer to the point you're not you anymore, than most people would treat you as dead anyway and you would probably prefer to die; just check what takes place in old peoples' places. You wouldn't be the old you anymore, simply because the composition of your brain has changed way too much.
So now that we know what I consider death to be, what do I make of death? Well, I don't think of death itself as that big a deal. At this point I will refer you to Mark Twain in the above quote, said at a time in which people thought the universe was only millions of years old: "I was dead for millions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit". We were all very dead before we were conceived (by my definition we become alive after around six months in our mother's womb) and we were never bothered by it, so why should we be bothered by being dead after our life?
Well, there are plenty of good reasons to be bothered. However, these are mostly to do with not making the most of the life that we've had rather than what takes place after death; or the legacy we leave behind, especially when it comes to our families. Personally, given that I am happy with the way I lead my life, I feel fine about it all, even if I'm sure I will never find a truly proper time to expire in; alas, such is life, and I am happy to be here in the first place.
What does bother me about death is more to do with the how. I don't want to die suffering agonizing pain; I don't want to die stupidly, like in losing control over my car to find myself smashed on a post; and I don't want to die suffering from some some chronic disease like cancer, spending the last years of my life moving between radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Of course, there are plenty of other ways I don't particularly want to die in, but then again there are plenty of ways I don't want to live in: I wouldn't particularly want to survive a nuclear holocaust that takes civilization away and I wouldn't want to live through a disease that would take my life away ala Alzheimer.
But with all that being said, if I was to die the next second while being totally unaware of it... I wouldn't mind it in the least. Simply because there would be no way for me to mind it in the first place. On its own, death is just an inevitable part of life, and we'd all be able to enjoy life more if we didn't spend our life dreading our inevitable death. Statistically speaking, we're all so lucky to be alive we should savor what we can and avoid fruitlessly depressing ourselves with morbid thoughts.
Sunday, 18 November 2007
1. Baby Gallery: Generally, this is the cheapest baby shop we have stumbled upon, and they have a large inventory at hand. The bad thing about them is that their staff doesn't seem to familiar with what they're selling; while common with most baby shops, Baby Gallery seems to take top spot there. They don't have a website but they're located in 2167-2181 Princess Highway, Clayton.
2. Glenhuntly Baby Carriages: Generally good pricing and they will match everyone else's price, but as reported their sales people will happily lie to you in order to make you buy the more expensive stuff (even if it's not necessarily better, which is very often the case with baby shopping - expensive rarely means better).
3. Babyco: They're the place that exclusively sells our pram of choice, the Beema. However, other than the Beema their stock is relatively limited and overpriced.
4. Baby Bunting: The biggest baby shop around (even if their website sucks), they take advantage of being most famous to get away with inflated prices and indifferent service. We go there to check what the options are, although Baby Gallery is almost as big.
5. Big W: By far the cheapest place around, useful for accessories and all the clothes the baby will grow out of in two seconds. Their prams and the rest of the big stuff they have in stock are usually of the type you wouldn't want your child next to. Other than with formula and special sales, Big W is the cheapest place of them all.
6. Kmart: Similar to Big W but generally more expensive.
7. Target: More expensive than Big W, but often has 30% off everything on baby stuff which makes it very attractive. Unlike Big W, they do stock some good big stuff, so it's good to have a look from time to time: we got our baby gym and our port-a-cot there for stupid prices.