Where did the week go?

I'm amazed to find that a week has passed since I last posted here. It has been an incredibly busy week at work. By a series of unfortunate coincidences, I've ended up in a 'Perfect Storm' of important deadlines, and as a result, I've barely had time to draw breath. The next couple of weeks are going to be just as busy, but I'm determined to take a little break this weekend, or I'm not going to get through it.

As a result of all the stuff I had on, I missed seeing Obama's Inauguration. I haven't even watched the speech on YouTube yet, so I'm hoping to catch up with that this weekend. All of the coverage flowed around me: I saw people 'LiveTwittering' it out of the corner of my eye, caught sight of headlines on other people's newspapers and overheard people talking about it.

The day after the Inauguration, I heard two women discussing Barack Obama while reading their copies of Metro on the train: "He speaks clearly and simply. He makes so much sense." Her friend agreed with a tone of wonder. Even without all the other expectations of his Presidency, just having a President who can string a sentence together (though perhaps not an Oath!) makes it seem like a whole new world.

Lakota Nation

I meant to blog about this long before Christmas, but didn't get around to it: a group of Lakota declared that they were unilaterally withdrawing from all treaties with the US, so that they are no longer citizens of the United States. The group explain their reasons for doing so on their site, and certainly it seems that they have every justification for doing so. The Federal government never properly honoured the the treaties, and for the past 150 years or so, the Lakota people (and other First Nation people) have been gradually impoverished, marginalised and denied access to parts of their land. I'm no lawyer, but there also seem to be legal provisions for such an action within US and UN law.

The original declaration implied that there was widespread support within the Lakota Nation. They posed the intriguing notion that an area within five States of the US (North and South Dakota, Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska) would become an independent nation within a state, with powers to issue passports, their own currency and raise (or not raise) their own taxes. It also implied that anyone living within the five states (Lakota or not) would be welcome to join their new nation.

The practical issues are formidable. How will this new independent nation generate power and income, organise its currency and trade with the rest of the US, or police its borders, particularly since it is currently so impoverished? However, another issue has surfaced since December of last year: it is unclear how much support the proposal has. A breakaway group calling itself 'Lakota Oyate' has emerged, and claims to "represent the people's voice in reclaiming freedom". Elsewhere on the web, allegations have been made that the Republic of Lakotah, lead by Russell Means (Oyate Wacinyapin), does not have widespread support, and has not consulted Lakota Elders or Tribal Presidents. In a response to an email from a Lakota man from Rosebud Reservation, Russell argues that Tribal Presidents are part of the US Federal system:

We did not ask the permission of the US authorities disguised as tribal leaders. They like the existing system. They are in power, and they get to keep that power by begging to Washington for crumbs for our people.

Perhaps there's some truth in that, but it seems to me that the movement will not be successful unless it has widespread local support and legitimacy.

It's an interesting situation, and I certainly wish the Lakota well in their struggle to take back control of their own lives from the Federal Government, which seems completely indifferent to them. The thing which shocked me most was reading the statistics about the level of poverty on Lakota reservations. Male Lakota life expectancy is reportedly only 44 years, which would be dreadful for a developing country, but is unbelievable for a community within one of the most prosperous countries in the world. I'm not surprised that some Lakota feel that they couldn't do a worse job of looking after their own people than the US Government.

Reliability

I've been thinking about how people make decisions about their daily journey options lately. My commute by bicycle is about 7 miles each way, and at a very gentle, non-sweat-inducing pace takes about 50 minutes, door to door. The corresponding journey by foot and then train takes about 25-30 minutes door to door -- on a good day. And that's the problem; the train system is so unreliable that on about 4 of 10 journeys each week, you can expect the trip to take up to 50 minutes. That's still a shorter total journey time over a week, but the problem is that you can't plan properly if you go on the train. If you have to be somewhere at a certain time, you really have to aim to get the train before the one that would get you to your destination on time. Because on a non-significant number of occasions, your train will be late and so will you. That means that you end up losing about 50 minutes each way anyway, because of allowing extra time.

The cycle journey make take longer, but (barring rare punctures or mechanical failures) I know how long it will take to within a couple of minutes, and I know that if I leave on time, I'll arrive on time. This was brought home to me on Wednesday, when I had to get the train in after a couple of days of cycling. The train was (of course) delayed, and I stood fuming on the platform, worrying about being late for a meeting and wishing that I could be pottering steadily along on my bike. None of this will be news to those of you who suffer the slings and arrows of our outrageous public transport system.

There was, however, a gorgeous sunrise, so I could at least amuse myself by taking some photos while I was waiting.

Human nature

Against my better judgement -- because I was pretty sure that it would end with me yelling at the TV in frustration -- I watched one of the Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days documentaries, which involved an atheist woman (Brenda) staying for 30 days with a devoutly Christian couple (Michael and Tracy). Actually, it was pretty interesting for the most part. The Christian couple were intelligent and reasonably open-minded (though Michael made some rather shockingly intolerant comments when discussing the "In God We Trust" phrase on dollar notes), so there was less overt conflict than you might have expected. But one particular comment made my jaw drop to the floor. When Brenda's husband and children came to visit her, Tracy commented -- with palpable shock and surprise -- that Brenda seemed to really love her children and be a good mother.

What did she expect? Did she think that atheists neglect and beat their children and feed them crack? Did she think that without a belief in God, people must be immoral? Other conversations with people in Michael and Tracy's church revealed that this was quite a common belief. I find that frightening and sad. Frightening for obvious reasons, but sad because it implies that people like Michael and Tracy are infantilized. It seems that they believe they need a higher power (or his representatives in the form of the clergy) to tell them how to behave properly, and that if they did not have this, they might behave badly.

It seems to be another instance of a religion treating its followers as children -- something I've talked about before. It's just not true, in my opinion. I'm pretty sure that humans, on average¹, naturally behave in a moral way and always have done, irrespective of any religious or secular laws. There's a lot of experimental evidence to suggest that we naturally behave fairly towards other individuals, empathise with the plight of other humans (and even other species), and basic biology would suggest that it is in our own interest to treat our children well. Of course, there are wars (regrettably there seems to be a big difference in the way that humans treat other known individuals and anonymous, distant groups), but it's not as if religious moral strictures have a great record of preventing armed conflict.

I'll leave the last word to Sadie (age 2), who has a excellent counter-argument to a heckling little boy, who accuses her of being "a baby". You tell 'em, Sadie. And a peaceful and harmonious Christmas to everyone.

¹ Of course, there will always be a minority of humans (both atheist and religious), who behave badly. ↑

Page 1 of 1 pages