2011 ends on a high note, and a lot of this has to do with work. A year ago, I was unemployed and frustrated. But after many months of waiting, I finally came through in June and landed a job with one the most attractive employers in the country. Not only that, I have come to know many wonderful colleagues, and it seems like my work has created good results and made lasting impressions.

To me, this outshines the period spent without a job, and most of the bad experiences of the year (though not all). Travelwise, 2011 has been very lean compared to the previous decade. Also, church-related activities have unfortunately declined in importance, quality, and frequency. Thus, there is always room for improvement, but as we turn the page tonight, we are looking at yet another clean slate – full of opportunities.

My highlights of the past year:

• Blue sapphire wedding celebration (krondiamantbryllup) of Katrine’s grandparents (June)
• Carlie and Devon visiting Denmark (April)
• Choir experiences with Camerata: Vivaldi’s Gloria; the Messiah; Norwegian choir visiting; and much more
• Dining out in many new places
• Graduation party for Kamilla and Richard, Møn (August)
• Guest lecturing at Andrews University on the story of Aarhus Café Church (January)
• Helle and Erik’s wedding (April)
• ”ID Light” – study group at regen church (spring)
• Long weekend away in the holiday house (October)
• Mum and Dad in Denmark for the summer (July)
• Mum’s 60th birthday (January)
• Niels Lan Doky concert, Tivoli (July)
• Preaching/presenting for theme day on church and internet, Aalborg (October)
• Running – stats: total 898.5 km; 82h 50m 26s; avg. speed of 10.8 km/h
• Running the Eremitage Race for the first time (November)
• Small group
• Three days in New York City (January)
• Visiting the port terminal and the world’s largest containership, Aarhus (November)
• Working at Maersk Line (since June)

Happy New Year!

It began with a message which was clearly not intended for me. Somehow, an email regarding a servicedesk issue was being sent out to a distribution list (in BCC) with a large number of people, including myself and everyone else around me. Oh well, you just delete the message and move on, right? No, clearly not.

Five minutes later, the first reply ticked in: “Please everybody make sure I will be removed from the distribution list from now on,” with everyone in copy. Three more simply joined the crowd, with “Me too” replies, still everyone in copy. After that, the first sensible message was sent: “Please do not use reply all,” to everybody. All in vain, unfortunately. Within 40 minutes of the initial email, the staggering number of 40 people replied with a request to be removed. An additional 15 people repeated the message of not hitting Reply All. And one person took the very forthcoming action of hitting Reply All, but adding no comments of his own. Eventually the distribution list was shut down, or so we presume. Additionally, I was told that for each email that was sent, a new ticket was raised with servicedesk. Someone should be embarrassed for sure.

So are my colleagues more stupid than other people? Sadly, in this case, probably not. But they fell victim to an unfortunate combination of striving for efficiency and underestimating the power of modern communication tools.

Email is an individual mass communication channel which allows you to target an immense amount of recipients easily, instantly, and cost-free. This has great value, of course, and for a global business it’s hard to imagine living without it. But these traits also carry the potential pitfall of embarrassing yourself in front of that same number of people, wasting their time, and ultimately costing the business a lot of money in lost efficiency.

Control mechanisms can be conceived of, such as hiding Send buttons, installing verification measures when sending to a large number of recipients, or removing the Reply All button altogether. However, the best measure of all would be one that requires enhanced functionality not in the system, but on the side of the user: sheer common sense.

So sitting on the train, watching my umbrella dry, my mind wandered south. To another world, another hemisphere where summer should now be approaching. A world in which rainy days are an exception, where the wind doesn’t threaten to blow you over, where people smile and welcome you, where everything is beautiful year round, where you don’t exclaim “Oh, the sun!” as if it’s a rare visitor. A world of beaches, surfers, barbecues, friendly people, world-class business and dining, kangaroos and koalas, possums and kookaburras. A world down under, but in most ways coming out on top.

Walking in the dreary Danish autumn twilight, I can smile and think of that other world. I can relish the hope that lives on in a dream which will never die.

But Australia is not just a dream world. It is for real, and even after many visits and the extended stay of a year the passion never waned. Does that mean the place is perfect? No, of course certain downsides could be mentioned (long travel times to the rest of the world, poor traffic planning, minor xenophobic sentiments), but only the first one is a real discouragement. Too good to be true? I have still not come to that conclusion.

So often, and in so many ways, I still call Australia home. It has been two and a half years since we left, and we are still in the process of settling in as Copenhageners. I wonder if I will ever settle in, or settle down. Is it just wanderlust? Or is it the frustration of having to choose between two countries with no obvious compromise available?

Of course, doing a road race in the middle of a big city is impossible without a certain hassle for its inhabitants. Major road closures changed the daily commute for the many people that usually rely on their car to take them into the city. But this is not what my title refers to. I ride the train everyday, and although last week saw an increase in the number of passengers, I was able to do pretty much the same as usual. And an event like this is great for the country in terms of tourist income and brand value.

No, what I’m talking about is how you cannot go anywhere in Copenhagen (or its suburbs, for that matter) without being overwhelmed by people on bicycles. It’s easy, healthy, free, good for the environment, and what have you. For many Copenhageners and outsiders alike, that’s what they love about this city. Not me, though.

I don’t mind being able to get to the station quickly and inexpensively, especially when the weather is nice. But I do not subscribe to the prevailing sentiment that bicycles are oh, so good for a city.

Too many cyclists believe they own the place. They are a danger to themselves and others, not adhering to traffic rules, taking up space on trains, and terrorising innocent pedestrians and others who want a clean and safe city.

What if the police started actively enforcing traffic rules for bicycles? Not just running red lights (jayriding?), but also especially riding on sidewalks, pedestrian streets, and train platforms, parking in no-parking zones (towing should happen much more frequently), riding against traffic, and speeding (how about speed-cameras for bikes?). Most of this is illegal already, but seldom enforced.

I know cars take up a lot of space, but there are simply too many bicycles in Copenhagen. My solution? More public transit (trains, metro, trams/light rail, buses), pedestrian streets (free of bicycles, that is), and a limited number of cars where unavoidable (taxing visiting drivers in some form is fine by me).

Am I just becoming a grumpy old man? Possibly – I think many bloggers are. While we’re at it, we should prohibit dogs as well.

Our new government is quietly listening. The socialists have promised higher taxes on other unhealthy products, and coalition partner Radikale have higher alcohol taxes as part of their political program. It will be interesting to see if they come through and actually succeed in changing behaviour.

I am not a teetotaller.

While red wine may have some health benefits, alcohol in general is definitely not good for you. Neither is pastry. My relationship to cake, chocolate, candy, etc. is probably worse than my relationship to alcohol.

Where alcohol differs from these is in its societal impact. Yes, having a few drinks can lighten up a party, but there is also the risk of driving people into addiction, violence, and more. This is not always the case, of course, and it is not a good reason for banning alcohol completely, but it does call for advocating a certain measure of moderation.

Basically, drink responsibly. And promote a culture where having a drink is fine, but not necessarily an integral part of every social occasion. People can have plenty of fun and still be able to drive home. A glass of wine is great, but not something you need every day – just like dessert. Getting moderately drunk once in a while can be a way of letting go of yourself, but if it happens every week you may want to reconsider your priorities.

As such, I am all for restricting access to alcohol for minors, and I believe higher taxes to curb destructive behaviour is in order. Especially since our society applies the same logic to other unhealthy consumer items, such as tobacco and sweets. But rules and regulations can only be one pillar in driving a change; the other is impacting public opinion and popular culture in a more responsible direction.

Financially, I was born a decade too late. I was too young to have an IT job before the dot-com bubble. I was too poor to buy property in the late 90′s and reap the rewards of the housing bubble. I am too old to have had endless government study grants (although the 6 years did prove sufficient).

Ten years ago, I celebrated the ascent to power of the Fogh Rasmussen government. Had I voted purely out of self-interest, though, a left-leaning government probably would have served me better over the short term. I might have received larger handouts during my bouts of unemployment, and public transport would have been cheaper, a clear-felt advantage when you don’t own a car.

If I only cared about my own private financial affairs, I ought to have wished for a leftist government whilst poor, a student, and/or unemployed – and a rightist government now that I am moving upward into the middle class. Apparently, I missed the boat.

But to me, the choice is not about self-interest. My choice is about what I believe is best for the country and its citizens, not just what is best for me.

Some would say that politics is all about (re)distribution. While it is prudent and necessary to sustain a certain level of equality, building the underlying foundation is even more important.

If you want to raise the standard of living, you don’t do it by stealing from some people and giving to others (i.e., Robin Hood). Then you’re still eating from the same pie. What we need is a bigger pie – and the way of achieving that is a strong business sector of private companies generating wealth for all layers of society. By raising the bar overall, everyone will benefit. And we will still have pie left 20 years from now.

Tomorrow I will once again vote for the Conservative party. Not because they will give me more money in my pockets right now, for they won’t. But because I have faith that their course for this country has a better chance of securing a good future for myself and everybody else – not only in the coming months, but in the years, decades, and generations to come.

I was six years old, had never before set foot in an airplane, and it was my first time moving anywhere in my conscious life. I remember being somewhat scared – not of flying, but of the big unknown, of leaving behind everything I knew, of having to learn a new language.

Most of my fears were put to shame, though. Being a child, learning English was easy for me (assisted by game shows and cartoons on TV, plus a bit of school). The four years spent in Michigan were happy years, filled with quality family time, great travel experiences, and a broader perspective on the world.

This was the eighties. And a lot has changed since then. It was Pizza Hut and Dairy Queen, K-Mart and Sears, curly-haired women and mustached men, roller-skates and Dirty Dancing, arcade games (Ms. Pac-Man) and 80×86 computers, Superman and King Kong, the Smurfs and Teddy Ruxpin, Oliver North and Michael Dukakis, fuel-gulping American cars and state park camping, tobogganing in winter and catching tadpoles in summer. It was wonderful.

In 1990 we moved back to Denmark, and slowly the memories began to fade. But my world was still bigger than those of many national counterparts. Eventually it would grow bigger still, with especially Australia entering its sphere of influence. And presently, with my parents back in the place of my childhood (Southwest Michigan), the journey has come full circle, although I remain in Denmark.

I don’t know if I will ever go back to live in the U.S. as an adult. The American dream may have faded somewhat, and the nation’s economy is in as poor a shape as ever. But to me, America still exemplifies a wider world of vast opportunities, and the hope that you can go anywhere you want in life. Perhaps the American dream is best played out in other places of the world these days, but that says more about the current state of affairs than about the quality of that dream.

25 years later, I have no concrete plans of leaving Denmark. But if it does come to that, I know that it will not be in fear, but in positive anticipation of all that the world has to offer.

I am now 8 weeks into a real job within the A.P. Moller – Maersk group, a big global conglomerate and probably the largest private company in Denmark. I love my job, and while this is only a temporary position, I have reason to hope that my restless and uncertain days at home are over for now.

Much can be said about public welfare and the demands that the Danish system puts on people in order to give them their benefits. But the short version is that I have been able to make ends meet with the support that I received, and “the system” has treated me much nicer than feared, and than one might deduct from the media.

What I will mention is a few statistics from my job hunting period.

In 10 months of unemployment, I was considered for 183 positions; 18.3 per month or 4.2 per week.

For 50 of these positions, I was notified of the number of applicants; the average was 188 persons.

I attended 6 interviews; or one every 7 weeks, on average.

The average response time was 22 days. Worst of these were Lionbridge (92) and the Nordic Ministers’ Council (82).

That is, for those who actually bothered to reply. 17 never responded at all. 3 of these were unknown employers, the rest were: 3 mobil, 3XN, Amnesty International, Beredskabsstyrelsen, Bispebjerg Hospital, Bolius, DanaWeb, Europæiske, Frederiksberg Kommune, FødevareErhverv, Google, Hempel, Kilroy Travels, Privatbo, Ticket.dk, and Tranberg Marketing. For all their good reasons, I may think twice about applying at any of these again.

Furthermore, it is ironic that I never even applied for the position that I actually got. The recruitment agency contacted me because my resume was in their database from a previous application, and only 11 days after the first contact I had my first day in the new job.

Looking back now, I could probably have done much worse, given the current economic state of affairs.

Nobody cares. Except that as Seventh-day Adventists we’ve grown up with a message that the world will actually come to an end one day. Back in the 1800′s when people believed all sorts of things, a small group of Christians believed that Jesus would come back to Earth on a particular date. He didn’t. They were wrong. And from the ashes of that movement, Adventism emerged. The ridicule abated (somewhat), they dealt (somewhat) with the issue of 1844, and they laid a foundation (somewhat) within classic Christianity.

Despite clear Biblical counsel to the contrary (“For ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh,” Matthew 25:13), the obsession with dates and numbers didn’t quite end there. So when the movement known as Jehovah’s Witnesses came around some 30 years later, it was partly an Adventist minister (Jonas Wendell) who spurred them into setting dates and interpreting numbers and years. I know of individual members of my church who have tried to calculate dates for the Lord’s coming, and although mainline SDA theologians would never do that, there’s still a widespread passion for timelines and figures.

The problem is, that to the general public all these ideas are ridiculed equally. Some churches that I know of use Harold Camping as a marketing gimmick to get people to church and tell them  the “real” version of final-day events: Come to our church and hear why Camping was wrong, and why we’re right. I think this is doing the church a disservice. In trying to distance themselves from his interpretation, in the public eye they’re actually joining his boat of crazy, end-of-the-world lunatics.

Camping’s own interpretation, post-May 21, is that Christ’s judgment did actually begin on that date, we just didn’t see it. As the independent Adventist magazine Spectrum points out, this is scarily reminiscent of what Adventists did, post-1844.

For good and bad, the apocalypse is an integral part of Adventist identity, as also Lars has recently reflected upon. I’m not suggesting we eradicate this completely, even if that were possible. But in the wake of Harold Camping and his obvious failure, I would suggest that a proper course of action would be… nothing. We shouldn’t put ourselves in the line of fire attacking him. And if we must talk about the Second Coming, I would suggest forgetting the when (because we don’t know the date), and forgetting the how (because Revelation is much too deep a book to be reduced into a cartoon depicting factual events). In stead, we should focus on the why: if/when the Second Coming occurs, it will be because God loves the world and wants to recreate (not destroy) it for the good of all mankind. That’s why Jesus came to Earth the first time. Let’s talk more about him, and less about the calendar.

You were number one on the CIA’s most-wanted list even before 9/11, after which, of course you became a household name. The Afghan people suffered from your support for the Taliban regime, but the hunt was prolonged, and even as you managed to stay alive, the Al-Qaeda network was severed, and your influence waned. In the end, it had to come to this, and while the war on terror is not finished, your death is a fatal blow to the survival of your ideas.

As rejoicing broke out in Washington and New York last night, some people questioned: should we be rejoicing the death of a man? While a solemn respect for the dignity of human life – even that of bin Laden – is in order, my answer is yes. We should be rejoicing the end of a regime of terror, just as there was rejoicing at the end of WWII, or when the Berlin Wall came down. Barack Obama said in his address that Osama’s “demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity,” and I agree. In the long run, the world will be a better place for his death.

Thus Obama sums it up: “For over two decades, bin Laden has been Al Qaeda’s leader and symbol, and has continued to plot attacks against our country and our friends and allies. The death of bin Laden marks the most significant achievement to date in our nation’s effort to defeat Al Qaeda.”

Politically, this is great news for Obama. He managed to pull off what George W never achieved, and his credentials as a warrior are thoroughly strengthened. Finally, the U.S. has good news to talk about. While much can happen in a year and a half, this will be remembered on Election Day in 2012.

On the other hand, history has moved on. Killing bin Laden was important, but it was the war of the last decade. The end of Al-Qaeda (if that be the result) also marks the end of terrorism as means for change in the Middle East. The uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, etc., are the new way. Finally, the man on the street is having his say. As Fareed Zakaria points out, America now needs to move from supporting dictatorships to democratic forces in the Middle East, as they have done previously in Asia and Latin America.

Obama also pointed out that “Bin Laden was not a Muslim leader; he was a mass murderer of Muslims.” People everywhere acknowledge that, and they are choosing another way. The death of Bin Laden may not bring peace right away (he still has some supporters left), but is an important milestone, marking a new way forward.