Conference #1

Thankfully yesterday - after three/four days writing - I finally finished a first draft of my Formal Theory research essay 'What sort of Rationality property should Collective Decision Procedures possess?' (of which this is an excerpt) Still some work to do finishing footnotes, and editing out just over 2,500 words(!), but essentially I argue:

"When we remember that decision-making rules are not given but rules we adopt, it seems more natural to consider not the rationality of the rules per se (the meaning of which is, in any case, deeply unclear), but what rules it would be rational for us to adopt. In some circumstances, it might be rational to employ simple majority rule, in others the Borda count, and in others something like lottery voting. It is this rationality that, I have argued, we should be concerned with. Thus what matters is whether a given procedure suits the purposes we currently want, when we are choosing procedures. To postulate some further restriction, such as ‘collective rationality’, is unnecessary, because where we do require a rule that will obey axioms such as consistency, transitivity and completeness, then it will not be rational for us to choose a rule that doesn’t respect them. I’ve argued, however, that if we see the collective decision-making as merely deciding what to do on this occasion, we should be less worried by these issues. Thus, to impose such restrictions on our procedures a priori is unhelpful – perhaps even itself irrational – if they are not properties we, as rule-choosing individuals, require on this occasion. We should be open to the rationality of adopting lottery voting, and not blinded to such alternatives by the assumption collective decision-rules should behave like rational individuals."

That's not what I'm concerned about now though. I'm just glad I've got it done, because today is the first day of the CSSJ/CPI conference on the Conceptual History of Social Justice. (I'm sure at some point it was about 'Origins' - still, the notion of social justice was comparatively late; it clearly isn't what Plato's talking about in the Republic for example...)

I'm only going out of general interest. It's not really my area, so I don't think I'll find anything right up my street, but I might learn something new and/or interesting, even at a quite basic level.

And, on a vaguely related note, Chris Brooke has a series of interesting questions about 'the Enlightenment' - another topic I know little about, but perhaps because of its fragmentary and ambiguous nature.

The Secret to Happiness

Scott Adams (here) considers what he calls the 'happiness conservation theory', viz.:

"everyone is born with a set amount of happiness. The only thing that is variable is how that happiness is allocated over your life... According to my theory, the best predictor of a long and happy adult life is a miserable childhood."

He invites people to comment, rating their childhood and adulthood happiness out of ten, seeking to back up the theory. I can't give my life a happiness rating out of ten, so I'm not even going to try.

There does seem to be some support for the theory, but I think it's deceptive. It might be nice if we all had some equal 'happiness quota', and we could be sure good and bad would even out over a life like some kind of cosmic karma. Unfortunately, I think a low/high or high/low pattern may be better explained by adaptive preferences.

Those who have good childhoods get their hopes up, only to often fail to meet their expectations in adulthood. Those with bad childhoods learn not to expect much from life, so reach higher subjective levels of contentment far more easily as they get older.

It's ironic that I think the best way to be happy (at least for any given amount of external stuff) is to set your standards low - learn to be Stoical and happy with what you've got - and yet the best way to do well, measured by objective, external standards (winning competitions, promotions, resources) is to set one's standards high - that is, set ambitious targets, and perhaps to some extent create self-fulfilling prophecies.

I wonder which does best overall?

Low aspirations - low achievement, but more content at lower levels.
High targets - achieve more, but dissatisfied with it.

How do we make ourselves happy? Well, if I knew that, I'd be laughing... Although in my experience, loud music and your football team doing well always help!

Rudeness

I just took a quick survey on attitudes to rudeness - what was perceived as such, how much it bothers you, etc. The final question was something along the lines of 'what do you think is the rudest thing you can do?'

I don't know if you can view the results without having logged in/done the survey, but while most were the usual (swearing, farting, lack of please/thank-yous) I found some of them so amusing I had to share:

take the mick out of me and my family because we are from London and moved to Nottigham.

shit in someones mouth, i've got a video on my phone where some chinese girls doi it, i can't watch it, its really horrible

trip you up, then tread on you, then spit on you, then be rude about your mother whilst driving the wrong way down a one-way street whilst simultaneously emailing and speaking on their mobile phones.

Having a bad attitude when you are paying their wages: if you don't like your job get another one, but why should I have to look at your big fat whingey face when I'm parting with my hard earned cash. Civility costs nothing.

men - walking around without shirts on. women - swearing

Taking a mobile phone call whilst in the middle of an appraisl meeting!

This has infinite possibilities but somneone dropping their trousers in a bar once put me off him & the bar pretty much forever.

piss on you whilst sleeping

Asking leading questions in opinion polls such as "Typing e-mails while talking to a friend on the phone, unconcerned that your friend hears the distracting taps of your keyboard" in order to get a specific answer.

Ask me to stop using my mobile phone, while I am eating with my mouth open, in a restaurant. Stop being so nosey.

answer the phone during an intimate moment

Invigilation and Blackwells

Been up to various little things today, so this is going to be a long, rambling and egocentric post. If you don’t like it, don’t read!

I went into town for the first time in a week or so. I was quite surprised by the number of people in college. Had a quick word with Nick, Ed and Emily in the GCR at lunch time, though I couldn’t stop long.

The reason I was in was to attend a training session for people to invigilate undergraduate exams. That was supposed to be 2-4, but turned out to be something of a joke. It was about 15 minutes going through OHP slides, and another 15 of questions, and that was all!

The questions threw up some important issues actually, like that we had to wear sub-fusc too. But then, it’s up to us to enforce the dress code. The lady told us about people they’d had last year who would dye their hair a different colour each day, or girls who wore hipster jeans with bare midriffs (technically still sub-fusc imho), or people who wore white trainers or girls with no black stocking (technically not sub-fusc, even if they’re in trousers I think) We even went into socks – I distinctly remember being mildly distracted in one exam by the fact someone next to me had blue socks, which caught the corner of my eye every time they crossed their legs.

Since that was over so quick, I went and explored Blackwells – think I must have been in there about 2 hours. Partly because I bumped into Faik and Jussi (from Reading), neither of whom I’d seen in at least a couple of weeks.

The other matter was I wanted some books – which typically involved me visiting the politics, philosophy, law and economics sections of the Norrington room. Despite all that, it turned out I missed the one book they did have in stock, because it was under ‘general law’ not ‘jurisprudence’ (though having found this, I quickly found the book, despite also being filed under B not D)

I ended up placing orders for Arrow, Buchanan and Tullock, Elster, and Goodwin. I’ve read Arrow cover to cover already anyway, but it’s a classic that will be useful to refer to. (Since I’ve just written an essay on collective rationality, I’m quite familiar with the passage on p.120 quoted in three of the other books/articles I’m using, but I really need to look up IIA again…) The others I’ve glanced at, but really should have read properly by now.

The purchase took so long because not only did I have to order the books, but I wanted to use a college prize – which involves taking in a letter, swapping it for vouchers, and then buying the books. And asking them to get the books franked with the college crest too (optional, but nice)

It turned out most of the staff weren’t really sure of the procedure. I spoke to at least four in the course of all this (even having to go up to customer services on the second floor, only to be sent back to the basement). The young guy from the philosophy section really didn’t know what to do – but excusably so – and was particularly helpful (running off to ask a supervisor three times). In the end the order was handled by a very beautiful girl at the main Norrington room desk, which made it all worthwhile. I’ve noticed her before. I bet they get more customers with her serving… ;)

I think I got a bit swindled on the reward card, because she took the £5 straight off my current purchase, and thereby cost me a another stamp on my silver card (which I think I should’ve got anyway), but since it’s all college money I’m not too bothered.

The only problem is, despite the satisfactory feeling I’ve spent a lot of money in a book shop, I’ve neither spent the money (well, I spent £30 with £60 to come) nor got the books yet…

Football, Procedures and Transitivity

After much thinking about social choice theory, such as Arrow, I've come to the conclusion that a lot of it is actually talking at cross purposes to my thesis. Arrow wants a Social Welfare Function (decision-making procedure) to produce some sort of social preference ordering. This goal seems wrong-headed to me. I think it is a mistake to understand a decision-making procedure as either determining, or attempting to directly report, what is better.

Let me compare another case, where we may be mistaken about what our procedure is doing – a sports contest. MacKay considers scoring a polyathlon contest as an attempt to resolve who is the best all-round athlete[1]. In other words, he takes it for granted that there is an objective truth (it is a fact that one competitor is the best), and the procedure is what Rawls would call an ‘imperfect’ one (like a jury trial)[2], that aims to best uncover that truth.

This may be true of athletic contests. We imagine that the athletes are striving for perfection, and we want the winner of the contest to be the best athlete. It is not, however, true of all sports. In an ‘entertainment’ sport, like football for instance, it does not seem we always want the best team to win. Maybe we may say ‘let the best team win’, but all we mean is the best team on the day – i.e. the one that plays best should win, rather than the results being decided by chance or a referee’s decision. We don’t, however, mean the team that is in fact the best should win all their matches. The thrill – particularly in a Cup competition – comes from upsets, times when a Premiership ‘giant’ loses to a lower division opponent. We don’t lament the fact that the best team lost, we celebrate the ‘David and Goliath’ achievement.

Of course, who wins a given game of football is influenced by who is the better team. Quite obviously, the better team is more likely to win. However, in a one-off match, the better team doesn’t always win, and that’s part of the excitement. If we wanted to establish which of two teams was better, a more accurate (more perfect) way would be for the two of them to play a series of games, and then compare total wins or aggregate scores. We don’t do this, as we’re not directly concerned with which of any two teams is better. All a particular match determines is the winner.

Of course, this isn’t quite so true of the league table. We generally want and expect the league table to reflect the objective quality of the teams – that is, for better teams to finish above worse ones, and for the best team to win. This usually happens, because various chance events (freak results, refereeing decisions, injuries, suspensions, etc) average out over the season. Having every team play every other twice, and then adding up points for each win and draw seems a reasonably accurate way of resolving who is the best team. Thus, looking at the Premiership table, it suggests Chelsea are the best team, which is probably what we’d expect from looking at them on paper. The fact that Middlesbrough beat Chelsea 3-0 (11th February 2006) doesn’t disturb this judgement. It doesn’t mean that Middlesbrough are a better team than Chelsea, it simply means that on that day a weaker team beat a stronger one. Nor, therefore, should we be bothered by the fact that Aston Villa had just previously beaten Middlesbrough 4-0 (4th February 2006) and had themselves drawn with Chelsea 1-1 (1st February 2006). If we were taking each result as demonstrating ‘betterness’ then we would seemingly have an intransitivity: Aston Villa > Middlesbrough, Middlesbrough > Chelsea, and yet Aston Villa = Chelsea. As I have suggested, however, this is by no means the case. The simple fact that Middlesbrough beat Chelsea does not mean they are the better team – and the resultant intransitivity should be a reductio ad absurdem of that understanding of the results.

Who wins a given football match is not like either a jury trial or tossing a coin. It is not like tossing a coin, because the odds aren’t equal. We know, going into the matches against both Middlesbrough and Aston Villa, that Chelsea were probably favourites. The fact Chelsea didn’t win either of these matches doesn’t tell against that, and I’m sure they’d still be favourites in the next meeting with either club. A coin-toss gives each side an equal chance, whereas a football match favours the better side. But it doesn’t follow that the football match is like the jury trial either.

In the jury trial, there is an independently right answer, the aim of the trial is to establish this, and we assume the trial is more likely to than not – that is, that it is more likely to find the right answer than tossing a coin (‘heads you’re guilty’). We want the jury trial to produce the right answer[3], and we would take necessary steps to improve its epistemic quality, e.g. giving the jury access to expert testimonies. If the trial produces an objectively wrong outcome – condemning an innocent – we regard it as an injustice. This isn’t analogous to the worse team winning a football match – as I said, we often celebrate this. It’s because the aim of the football match isn’t – at least simply – to establish the best team, but also to entertain, and unexpected upsets are exciting. We don’t think the procedure is faulty because it has produce the ‘wrong’ answer – indeed, we don’t even think of it as a wrong answer, because we aren’t asking the ‘who’s better?’ question.

It may seem we’ve been taken a long way from collective decision-making, but we haven’t. Football matches are, I think, relevantly like coin-tossing in that what they resolve (who wins) isn’t the same as a betterness ordering. Hence, I have argued, we shouldn’t be concerned by an intransitivity in results, such as that reported earlier. Now, I want to suggest we should think of decision-procedure outcomes in a similar way. That x beats y in a vote doesn’t mean x is better, merely that x is chosen.

[1] MacKay (1980) Arrow’s Theorem: The Paradox of Social Choice. A Case Study in the Philosophy of Economics pp.21-4.
[2] Rawls (1999 [1971]) A Theory of Justice. Revised Edition. pp.74-5.
[3] Actually, while this is true, the example is complicated slightly by the fact we’d rather let a guilty person go free than condemn an innocent. Hence ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ clauses, and the consequent use of super-majorities. I leave aside these difficulties.

Liverpool 3-1 Everton

Well, Merseyside derbies are better known for flaring tempers than football, but I think today’s referee was particularly keen to become the centre of attention. For the first fifteen minutes, the radio commentators were on about nothing but how Everton’s players were fouling ours all over the pitch, with only a single yellow card produced – and then a kick of the ball and possibly mistimed tackle and Gerrard’s off!

The commentators at the time reckon the second was a dive not even worthy of a free kick, but even if it was a foul I don’t think it was a good move to be sending someone off so soon, and for just two offences. I was amazed some of the Everton players – Stubbs, Weir or Kilbane – didn’t see a second yellow, certainly in the first half, but the referee was terribly inconsistent. The eight bookings the blues did receive may reflect their ‘physical’ (read dirty) game, but the truth is the ref just wasn’t really in control.

Anyway, leaving that aside, the Liverpool players did well today. I was surprised to see Garcia in particular start, and no place for Hamann in the squad. I also thought Warnock and Fowler might start for some more scouse grit, but it wasn’t to be.

Sissoko’s return has been so important for us, as he gives so much energy in midfield, and doesn’t allow opponents time on the ball. With Gerrard off, he became a really important player in the centre, while Alonso stood up to run the show. The three of them together really complement each other, but Alonso tends to have his best games without Gerrard – their styles don’t really go together – so it was no coincidence he became central today.

Phil Neville – being an ex-Manc, playing for Everton and brother of the widely detested Gary – isn’t a popular figure round Anfield, but his own goal brightened my day. Slack defending allowed Garcia to stun Everton, doubling our lead despite their extra man, and from then on I was hoping we could shut up shop. Despite numerical advantage, I didn’t really think Everton could score three against us.

When Cahill pulled one back, I did start to get nervous, but thankfully it wasn’t too long before van der Meyde levelled the match in a numerical sense – ten against ten – by leading with his arm on Alonso. Maybe it was a harsh red, but I was surprised we hadn’t already seen someone from Everton go, so I think it was only harsh on him as an individual, not them as a team.

Kewell wrapped up the points, for a thoroughly satisfactory team performance – and Stevie even got a rest (missing West Brom next week too). It was hardly a beautiful game, but in derbies it’s the score that matters.

Bell X1

I went to see Bell X1 tonight (review). It's the second time I've seen them, having previously seen them just over two years ago supporting Aqualung (see here and here) with Rob.

I haven't got their new album yet, so didn't know quite a lot of songs, but did appreciate those from Music In Mouth - an album I hadn't listened to in a while prior to this week, but which is actually pretty good. I have to say though that they're probably not as good a live band as they are on record. Not that I didn't enjoy seeing them, but it was more down to them having quite a few good songs rather than a fine stage show. Frontman Paul Noonan in particular looked pretty awkward onstage all night, almost like Mr Bean fronting a rock band.

The other things of note were the strangeness of going to a gig outside of term time. I'd expected that to lead to a young crowd - in fact, it was probably more older people, though with youngsters there as well, and fewer 18-22s than usual.

Also they were taking signatures for an Oxfam petition on controlling arms. It made a change to hear the singer plug an Oxfam stall rather than the band's own merchandise, but what is it with these socially-conscious Irish rock stars - who does he think he is, Bono?

The unusual thing about the campaign is that they were trying to get people to draw themselves, as part of some 'face up to it' challenge. When I looked a bit dubious about being asked to share my artistic talents (or lack thereof) rather than just my name, I was told they could take a photo instead, which they did.

I don't know how much good it will do, but while I declined to join support band The Upper Room's mailing list (despite their cunning ploy of having two attractive young girls asking for signatures) I'm always willing to support a cause at gigs - and I'm already on the Love Music Hate Racism mailing list after a Miss Black America/Kinesis gig.

FA Cup Semi Final Draw

Well, the semi-final draw was going to go one of two ways: either Chelsea and Liverpool would be kept apart until a likely final, or they’d be drawn together now. And, of course, it was the latter.

Obviously I was hoping to avoid Chelsea until the final – and ideally that someone else would knock them out for us – but you can’t expect many favours in this game. We’ve already beaten Man Utd, and now it looks like – if we’re to claim a domestic trophy this season – we’ll have to beat Chelsea too. That was always likely, even if it was saved for the final (though at least then there’d be the consolation of runners up medals).

I think a lot of neutrals will probably be reasonably pleased to have avoided a Chelsea vs Liverpool final, but I don’t think that’s wise. It’s true, some of the games between the two have been the rather boring 0-0 sort where each side cancels each other out (as in the two CL matches this season), but there have been some more entertaining matches – e.g. last season’s League Cup final went to extra time and produced five goals.

I think the shape of the match will depend largely on the circumstances. In our Champions League encounters, Liverpool have generally only needed to shut up shop to get the better of Chelsea – so who can blame us for doing so? In a final, there’s obviously far more incentive for each side to go for it to win. Another Chelsea vs Liverpool final could’ve been a cracking match, whereas a semi-final is likely to be cagey, with neither team wanting to fall now.

As it is, whoever wins this will be an overwhelming favourite. Of course, I wouldn’t take victory for granted – Charlton have beaten us this season, while Boro have done Chelsea – but for a while it’s been clear who the two ‘heavyweights’ left in the draw are. That’s another reason I think Chelsea vs Liverpool would’ve made a better final – the alternative is it could be as out-sided as Man Utd’s 4-0 thrashing of Wigan in the League Cup final – wouldn’t we rather it had been Arsenal in Wigan’s place? Sure Man Utd vs Arsenal matches aren’t always the most exciting, but at least you know you get two good teams with intense rivalry.

Still, while I was disappointed with the draw, we do actually have a better record against Chelsea in semi-finals (beating them in last year’s CL semi) than finals (losing last year’s Carling Cup). If there’s to be any domestic silverware – or at least another trip to Cardiff – we need to carry that on.

Birmingham 0-7 Liverpool (FA Cup)

Well, needless to say, I'm in seventh heaven tonight...

I can't remember the last time we went into a Cup game - particularly against Premiership opposition - with such an overwhelming expectation on us to win. It was almost as if the case, even before the match, was a case of by how many, not whether we'd win. Since such talk can breed arrogance and complacency, I wasn't particularly encouraged.

Thankfully my fears were assuaged by the 4th minute, when Liverpool went 2-0 up due to a lack of marking on Hyypia then Crouch. Given that Birmingham have scored two wins and two draws against us in League meetings since Rafa took over (and were the only Premiership team we hadn't beaten under him), I was still somewhat apprehensive. We conceded own goals in both our previous matches this season too, so I was worried we'd slip up and let them back in the game - as we almost did at Newcastle. Thankfully Birmingham didn't put up much fight, and it was soon obvious the match was only going one way.

The big news with team selection was the welcome return of Momo Sissoko, after his horrific eye injury. Apparently he started with Edgar Davids-style protective goggles, but took them off because he couldn't see. I was frankly amazed. Surely he'd tried them before the match? And what's more, I was quite worried risking him playing without such protection.

The other interesting question was about whether we'd use the same wingback formation as against Newcastle (variously a 5-4-1, 3-4-3 and 3-2-2-2-1). I think that may well have been the plan, with Traore replacing Agger as the third centre half, and Riise and Finnan coming in as wingbacks. As it happened, Traore didn't last too long and had to be replaced by Kewell after twenty minutes, reverting to 4-4-2. The sight of Harry arriving must have cheered a Birmingham team already 2-0 down.

Anyway, back to the action, it seemed Liverpool took their foot off the gas a little, but Crouch was able to score another before half time to pretty much settle the match. But then, remember last time a team were 3-0 up at half time in a certain cup final last May...?

Realistically, Birmingham never looked much like repeating those heroics of Istanbul. The commentators pointed out both teams would probably have been quite happy to settle for the result at half-time and not resume play. As it was, they had to of course, and Liverpool went on to score four more through Morientes, Riise, a Tebily o.g. and Cisse.

I think 7-0 is the biggest win I've ever seen (well, heard tonight) - apparently it's Birmingham's heaviest ever FA Cup defeat and our biggest ever away win in the competition. It's a shame this match - unlike the previous three - wasn't on the BBC, but at least I was able to see all the goals on the news.

That's now 15 goals if you include the o.g., and all our strikers have scored in their last two notable appearances (if you include Robbie's effort for the reserves last night, and not his one minute cameo at Newcastle). I read somewhere, before Fulham, that Liverpool were about 20 goals short of a target (last season's tally?) that Benitez had said wasn't good enough. Looks like we've gone a long way to rectifying that... It's funny how goals, like buses, can just start coming once they start.

Too bad it's the Merseyside derby this weekend, where form is a notoriously bad indicator; but if we carry on like this for the rest of the season then we should put in a strong finish.

p.s. A particularly bumpable post on 606 from a Man Ure (or Celtic?) fan before the game saying 'if u don't beat brum by at least 6 goals then u r sh1t'. Of course, the fact we did beat them by 7 doesn't logically, given what s/he said, prove we aren't shit; but it's fun when numpties embarrass themselves a bit.

And another one, predicting 7-0 before the game (as highlighted here). Given s/he predicts Reina to score the fourth, I'm not sure how serious it was - but scarily quite accurate!

And yet another, this time a Brum fan saying if you beat us please make it a thrashing (to buck their ideas up I guess)

p.p.s. I'll be cheering Newcastle tomorrow.

PPU

Just a quick observation: I find it quite funny that the homepage of the Public Policy Unit still lists the following item of news:

A new book, The Citizen’s Stake: Exploring the Future of Universal Asset Policies (Bristol, Policy Press, 2006), co-edited by Stuart White (Jesus College) has recently been published. It has been widely circulated among journalists and policy-makers in the UK and reviews will be shortly forthcoming. Further reviews and dissemination will follow in the USA and China. A high-profile launch conference, organised by ippr and sponsored by Children’s Mutual, is planned for February. Speakers are to be confirmed.

I was looking forward to that, but don't know quite what's going on now. Have to say it's not exactly atypical of our department as far as organisation (and keeping people informed) goes. How they're supposed to advise on public policy I don't know...

EoTd Pics

Finally some pics from last week's dinner. Thanks to the people that took them (these are off our GCR website).

The hall (from about where I was sitting on high table)

Waltzing (me and Gemma on the right)


Chris, Georgie, me and Claire in Baby Love.

Newcastle 1-3 Liverpool

Rafa sprung one of his biggest team selection surprises of the season today. My first reaction was wingbacks, but after someone on the 606 messageboards suggested Kromkamp Carra Hyypia Agger – Gerrard Hamann Warnock – Cisse Crouch Kewell I thought it could well be a 4-4-2 with any of Cisse, Gerrard or Kewell at RM, or even Warnock at LB, Carra at RB and Kromkamp RM. Anyway, although the radio commentators thought the latter was what we were doing at first, it turned out we were indeed playing 3-4-3 with wingbacks – not for the first time.

It seemed the system suited the team well. I’ve long thought Finnan and Riise (who can both play midfield) would suit such a system, and here without either of them Warnock and Kromkamp both had fair claims to be man of the match.

Surprisingly given that he managed a rare goal against Fulham, Morientes was left out altogether. This gave Cisse another chance, even if it was on the right side, which made sense given Newcastle’s defence tend to look particularly suspect against pace.

The game went pretty much to plan. Our wingbacks were able to get up well and put in plenty of crosses (making Morientes’ absence all the more surprising), and it took Crouch just ten minutes to open the scoring. By the time he and Cisse combined to set up Gerrard for the second, we looked to be cruising.

Ameobi pulled one back just before half time, to keep the match exciting, but it was over not long into the second half. Boumsong completely missed the ball, then blatantly hauled Crouch down as he ran into the box. It was a red card and penalty, and despite my jitters Cisse struck the ball well – even if he did then pick up a silly booking for his celebration. Incidentally, this means all our strikers have now scored on their last start…

Things got a little ugly for a while after the penalty, but from there on in it was largely a matter of seeing out the remaining time, with the result pretty much settled. Rafa was even able to pull off Crouch and Gerrard to save them for Tuesday’s match against Birmingham.

The result was Cisse did get a chance to play upfront, but didn’t exactly do himself any favours – his poor touch, lack of awareness and selfishness combined to ruin several chances, most notably when he should’ve passed to Kewell. I think the radio commentators were a bit harsh though, suggesting he’d been given exactly the chance he wanted. For a start, he doesn’t strike me as the kind to lead the line alone – I’m sure he’d probably rather have been upfront, off Crouch – and his pace is suited to a different kind of service than Crouch/Morientes’ aerial ability. Still, let’s just say he didn’t do himself any favours, and I’d expect Morientes or Fowler to partner Crouch on Tuesday.

Cisse aside though, it was a good performance from pretty much everyone, giving us a good, comfortable away win. The eight goals in two games look a lot more respectable.

And Chelsea lost to Fulham…

p.s. Glenn Roeder is funny:

"What you won't get me to do is criticise Jean-Alain Boumsong publicly... I will sit down with Boumsong and go through the goals and share my view of where he could have done better" (here)

"I can't speak for Michael [Owen], but I don't see any reason why he would not want to stay next year and be part of the Newcastle team that gets into the Champions League" (here)

End of Term dinner (HT 06)

Last night was our traditional End of Term dinner. It’s usually Friday of 9th week (i.e. tonight) but this year we couldn’t have the hall on St Patrick’s night – even though that’s what we did last year.

Nick truly surpassed himself with a Venetian masked ball theme. I was surprised how many people had really gone for very fancy, impressive masks (embarrassing those few of us like me who hadn’t bothered). The food included some truly unusual choices, such as ciabatta and salad too start, though I wasn’t particularly impressed with the main course – essentially a spaghetti in sauce type combination, that was a nightmare to not get down one’s shirt, and nothing special without the king prawns (plus some of us veggies had to wait a good while to get a non-prawn version – despite the fact all they really had to do was take the prawns off the top!)

Afterwards, the tables were cleared and the long-awaited waltzing took place. Perhaps the actual quality of dancing could’ve been higher, but I think we all had fun. Despite being stood up by Leigh (my partner from the first lesson) I danced with at least Becca, Sarah (our instructor), Nataliya, Emily and Gemma, with varying degrees of success.

The hall was often rather congested, so it had something of a ‘dodgems’ character to it, but the secret – I think – was to just keep going. No one was really watching too carefully, and as long as you have the pose right no one will be able to tell from the photos… Speaking of which I’ll post/link to some when they’re on the GCR website (afraid I don’t have my own digital camera)

The party in the hall had to stop around midnight, but we moved on to Baby Love. It was £5 to get in, apparently because they had a big name drum n bass DJ (Storm). DnB isn’t really my thing at all – so it was very much a continuation of the tragic dancing theme, to the point where some random girl pulled me aside and tried to show me how to dance to DnB (it’s all about pushing apparently. Must work for some, as I later saw her get chucked out after trying to share a toilet cubicle with a guy…)

After that, those of us with a bit of stamina – and no need to be up the next morning – ended up back in the bunker where Claire and Emily had proven what a great pair of soc secs they’d make by stashing some wine, juice and crisps. I finally left around 4am (by far the last of the Barts people to leave).

And the good news is though I lost half a cufflink last night, I found it today in the bike shed.

Liverpool 5-1 Fulham

Despite all the talk surrounding the lack of goals from Liverpool’s forwards – none of whom had scored in the league in 2006 until tonight – the number of chances we’d been creating in recent matches always suggested a good thumping could be on the cards for someone as soon as we got a bit of luck and the goals did start going in.

I sure wasn’t expecting it to happen against Fulham. With Tony Warner being a former Liverpool reserves goalkeeper, it had all the hallmarks of the classic fairytale – Reds reject comes back to Anfield and puts in inspired performance to frustrate us. It wasn’t to be, however. Fulham’s woeful away record saw them concede three against Everton recently, and tonight it was five.

Indeed, it could’ve been more – Garcia had one ruled out for offside after just two minutes. At the time, that looked another indication it might not be our night, but then Fowler – who’s already had three ruled out himself since returning – struck the opener. When he first broke into our team, he scored five himself in a match against Fulham. Tonight it was to be his only one, but it was enough to start us on route to scoring five collectively (which I’d far prefer), and to bring his personal Reds tally level with Dalglish.

The good news was that the goals got spread around. Even Morientes – though he wasted a couple of chances – got his name on the scoresheet, as did late substitutes Crouch and Warnock – while Cisse had a hand in setting up two of them, even if he was the only striker not to score.

The relation between (not) scoring and confidence has been emphasised lately, so hopefully this good result will give all our strikers a bit more belief, and lift a bit of weight off their shoulders. With luck, more goals will follow.

DPhil Supervision

Today I went to a seminar run by the Learning Institute (formerly IAUL) in Oxford with the intention of finding out more about DPhil (PhD) supervision in the Social Sciences. Since comments on student-supervisor relationships are naturally rather personal, everything said by individual participants was ‘off the record’, but I’m sure I can give some general thoughts on the day.

It was interesting to note that when supervisors thought back to their own experiences of being doctoral students, they reported much the same good and bad points as current students – freedom to direct research, but a total reliance on the supervisor, worries about guidance and so on.

Indeed, it was good just to be reassured that everyone experiences many of these problems, the second year ‘plateau’ (loss of motivation when the thesis becomes a slog) and so on. I was the only student from Politics unfortunately (and probably not a very representative one, at that), but others shared some similar experiences – or, if not, at least other problems.

On the other hand, it was also interesting to see things from the supervisor’s perspective. We discussed a number of case studies, all written from such a viewpoint – concerning awkward, argumentative students, or ones who didn’t seem to be making sufficient progress with a final draft (for example).

What we generally found was that the supervisor only has one side of the story. Why isn’t the hypothetical Paul submitting more final drafts, for example? Is it because he hasn’t written them? He’s too busy teaching? Or on the other hand is he still in touch with his old supervisor? He’s not planning on finishing this year, but using a JRF to do so?

I suppose what was really underscored was the importance of communication. Both students and supervisors have a responsibility to make sure they don’t go AWOL and lose communication. Sometimes work may progress smoothly without the constant threat of supervision, and deadlines for submitting chapters/drafts, but I think it’s good practice to at least keep others informed as to how the project is progressing. I’m lucky that I get a chance to see my supervisor most weeks in term – so we can always exchange a brief word if necessary, or are at least reminded of each other’s existence – which is better than ‘falling off the radar’, which then makes re-establishing contact difficult.

Another key feature of communication is that it allows one (or rather, both of you) to clearly set the parameters of your relationship. It seems people differ on exactly how they approach things – e.g. whether the relationship is ‘strictly professional’ or somewhat personal. As Nigel cleverly put it, it must therefore be an ‘iterative and interactive’ relationship, what the student and supervisor and their dynamics make it.

It was interesting to note, in the results of our admittedly small survey that while students and supervisors agreed in some areas of expectations (e.g. that the supervisor shouldn’t be actually writing the thesis – or so heavily involved s/he might as well be, presumably), they disagreed markedly in others (e.g. supervisors seemed to expect absolutely no responsibility for the final presentation, whereas students seemed to feel supervisors should at least be offering pointers on written style/presentation).

Comments on supervision experiences welcome…

Arsenal 2-1 Liverpool

Liverpool’s form on the road has improved this season, but the capital is still not a good place to go it seems… though Luis Garcia did score our first London goal of the season.

In fairness, Arsenal probably had the balance of play, and certainly created far more chances. Maybe if we’d have drawn it would indeed have been a case of ‘nicking’ a point. On the other hand, one could argue that having ridden the storm and then come back to score an equaliser, maybe there’s a sense in which we deserved a point.

Certainly having pulled ourselves back into the game – Garcia proving why he’s always a threat, and notching another headed goal – we could have gone on to get a draw – and who knows, maybe undeservedly snatch a win.

Unfortunately Alonso’s dismissal soon after the goal proved to curtail our revival. There was no way he deserved a second yellow, for basically falling over near the ball. The referee obviously didn’t see the incident, and thought Alonso had made a clumsy sliding challenge…

Admittedly, the talking point will be Gerrard’s terrible back pass – straight through to Henry, just like Euro 2004 – mistakes happen to the best of us, but his desire to waste a bit of time was (I think) a direct consequence of us just being reduced to ten men. What’s even worse, of course, is we’ll now lose Alonso to suspension as well (which we can't appeal)... I have to say, I thought some people were getting a little carried away raving over Sissoko, whose distribution and tackling were often ‘raw’, but we’ve missed his energy in midfield.

Still, defeat to Arsenal is no big shame – and provided we can re-capture a bit of form we still have a healthy lead over them in the table. I’d certainly have settled for this back in August.

Spring

Is it just me, or is it finally feeling like spring? Admittedly, it’s neither as warm nor as sunny as it has been on some previous days, but for the first time in quite a while I quite enjoyed going outside today. There’s a freshness to the air, that feels like the end of winter is finally in sight.

I don’t know if this was what inspired my bout of ‘spring cleaning’. Maybe it’s simply that I now have some more time to do all the bits around the house I’d been meaning to, since term ended. It reminds me of what my old undergrad flatmate told his parents – ‘we clean the flat every vacation, whether it needs it or not’!

Anyway, not only did I do my laundry, but I put the vacuum cleaner round the flat and gave the kitchen surfaces and oven a good going over. One thing I always like about doing laundry is it makes my room feel cleaner and more spacious, as while all my clothes are out the away it’s the only time I don’t have piles/bags of them over the floor!

Anyway, roll on spring and then summer. I think our present flat will be quite nice in the summer…

Friday of 8th

The end of term (tomorrow officially) doesn’t mean so much to me any more. You notice lots of parents in cars turning up to assist undergrads moving out of college. For me, of course, it’s simply the chance to start some real work…

The two boys I’m teaching, Sam and Jonathan, had been asking if we could go to the pub for our tutorial in 8th week. I’d resisted, but I said I’d go with them after the tute. Perhaps it was a mistake, as I was only expecting to stay for one if I bought the first round – but we ended up staying for three. Damn my inability to resist anyone saying ‘my round’…

Thankfully I hadn’t signed up for Formal Hall (which used to be the traditional way to celebrate any Friday night, particularly the end of term) so dinner was a chance to sober up and chill out a bit.

The evening was our second (and, unfortunately, final) dance lesson. More practice is needed, but I think I’ve improved a bit – so hopefully I won’t embarrass myself on the night. Still need a ‘date’ of course, but Becca said she’d dance with me, since Travis will be away.

I rounded off the night by going to Nick and Rosemary’s anniversary party. Not many from Jesus made it, but I was glad I did to see Nick’s surprise proposal. Congratulations and best wishes to both of you.

Bacon

My flatmate Pavel is a strange chap sometimes. He largely lives on a diet of beans, toast, egg and chicken. I just found out tonight he'd branched out into some smoked bacon - except apparently he just sat down and began eating this out the pack (like one might for ham).

Glyn told him he really couldn't/shouldn't eat it raw, so he microwaved a slice (for 33 seconds), but said it didn't taste as nice. Being vegetarian, I'm not an expert on meat preparation, but this still sounded strange to me (as well as Glyn).

We had a look at the packet. 'Ensure product is thoroughly cooked before serving. Not suitable for microwave cooking'.

I'm glad that, compared to Pavel at least, I'm vaguely capable of cooking...

UPDATE: I'd forgotten how much I hate the smell of bacon (especially frying) - I'd personally rather he went back to raw meat!

Liverpool 0-2 Benfica

So the European defence comes to an end... I did think a few people seemed rather over-confident that we'd pull off another great escape, but the sad fact is Benfica were a relatively easy draw (which we merited by topping our group, of course) and should've been there for the taking.

The sad fact is we were again let down by finishing, but in fairness we hit the woodwork twice and Robbie had a third 'goal' ruled out since his return! Surely if he keeps putting the ball in the net, one will eventually count...

There's not a lot more to say really. Having lost 3-0 aggregate over towl egs I can hardly complain. I know we're well capable of beating Benfica, but the fact is we didn't - and once we had to come back from another down, it was all over.

Good luck to Arsenal flying the British flag.

UPDATE: It's interesting that the BBC reports Rafa blames defenders, while also refering to a Guardian report saying he blames our strikers.

Ethical Investment

Tonight Peter Mirfield (Jesus College Estates Bursar) agreed to talk to a group of junior members about college finances. The general aim was to find out how ethically college money was managed, but we learned a great deal more about the general financial management of college affairs - for example, the most of the college's endowment is in property, that they made a small loss last year, and that Mirfield estimates the central college site to be worth £40m, bordering as it does the main shopping street (Cornmarket) in Oxford.

As for what our money's in, he couldn't be too open, but mostly it seems general tracker funds (e.g. FTSE 100), which presumably need not be wholly ethical companies. He did, however, raise questions as to what counts as ethical. Obviously not arms trade, but what about tobacco or alcohol? (We probably couldn't condemn the latter in clear conscience)

Unfortunately prospects for radical change are probably rather limited. He made clear that Jesus' money isn't ours (i.e. the present generation's) to do with as we like; rather, it's held in trust for future generations. We owe them a duty to manage the money well for the future of the college. This in itself is a moral obligation, which of course raises the possibility of moral conflict - e.g. if we could best fulfil our fiduciary duty to the future by making profits from current immoral firms.

Still, Danny (who organised the meeting) said he'd seen reports claiming that ethical investments do no worse financially, and Mirfield suggested the Governing Body would be open to student concerns - including also a previous JCR motion from 2001 - even if they wouldn't necessarily guide policy.

Chelsea

Well, 2-1 down after the home leg, Chelsea were always second favourites to come through against Barca, and so it proved tonight.

I thought the Chelsea line up was a bit surprising. I'd have expected them to play 4-1-4-1 with Makalele behind four attacking midfielders; but it seems they went for 4-2-3-1 with Lampard playing a holding midfield role. Almost needless to say, he was totally anonymous, and this to me just shows up how one-dimensional he is. In Lampard's favoured position (attacking midfield) there may indeed be little to choose between him and Gerrard, but you won't catch Frank playing right wing or even full-back - both positions Stevie has filled well for Liverpool.

Generally, I have to say for two such good teams, it was a poor match, with a lot of silly fouls and broken play. Ronaldinho's backheels and trickery provided a few moments of excitement, but otherwise there was little to catch the eye.

Barca had the edge in what was a fairly even match, but for all their forward play seemed a bit shy of actually shooting. Chelsea, however, offered very little attacking threat - especially when they threw on Huth as a target man in desperation. The injury-time penalty, resulting in an undeserved draw, was doubly harsh on Barca since not only did the tackle appear fair but John Terry was offside anyway.

Still, even the 1-1 draw wasn't enough for Chelsea. Needless to say, Mourinho hardly accepted defeat graciously, still going on about losing a man in the first match - but that's what happens if you commit a red card offence. I think Chelsea were lucky Messi only lasted 30 minutes tonight, or he could have tormented them further...

Self-Reference

This is the first sentence of my post. This one is supposed to intrigue the reader. This one isn't really necessary and serves no purpose. This is the one where I say I hate writing like this. This sentence exists only to pad out the body of my post. A self-referential story, along similar lines, can be found here. This sentence tells you it was apparently written by David Moser. This sentence doesn't tell you anything. This sentence is the ninth of my post. This sentence wonders if these self-referntial signposts are what I need more of in my thesis. This sentence is an attempt to get back on topic, which only just succeeds. This sentence thanks David Chalmers' philosophical jokes page for the link. This sentence is the last of my post.

Varsity

I went to see the Varsity (Oxford vs Cambridge) Women's Rugby match this afternoon, to support Clea (from college) and Zahler (from my department).

To be honest, much of the standard wasn't too high. Long kicks downfield proved quite effective, because they were generally mis-fielded by the other team, thus allowing possession to advance a great deal.

The Oxford dark blues played well though, the numbers 7 and 10 probably most impressive - but Clea did make a couple of good runs.

Five first half tries without reply led to a 30-0 halftime lead (sadly only one had been converted - the efforts were particularly poor, and not helped by us often scoring so far to the right). To their credit, the tabs fought back and narrowly won the second half, to finish 35-7 down.

Despite the quality of rugby on offer, and my limited understanding of the game, I had a good time. There was plenty of atmosphere, and a vocal if not very large crowd.

It's a shame but 'Oxford' is not a chant that rolls off the tongue quite like 'Jesus'. Still, there was some good natured bantering between the two sets of supporters ("you're not singing any more", "I'd rather be a leper than a Tab", and a rendition of 'Final Countdown') that all added to the occasion.

Pavel

Pavel certainly enjoyed himself last night. How he managed to get home - zig-zgging his bike across the road, with no lights and wearing a sombrero - I have no idea. He even had to ring the bell when he got home, because somehow he'd bent his key (and I had to go and retrieve it from the lock outside, where he'd left it)

It was around 11:30 and he was so drunk he was barely able to stand and kept shouting at us. He stopped only briefly to get some more beer, tell us how nice it was to be with all the girls, and shout at some other people, before going out again.

Thankfully he was back fairly soon, so we nudged him to bed with a glass of water. He didn't emerge properly until almost 2pm today! Here are some of the less incriminating photos we salvaged from his camera:

There was quite a lot of that blue body paint on him. The two 'smurf' girls are our other flatmate's history students!

Liverpool 0-0 Charlton

Another frustrating day in front of goal for Liverpool. As at the Valley, we were dominant, but failed to score. This was partly down to the heroics of Myhre, but fingers have to be pointed at some wasteful finishing - even if Cisse and Kewell in particular did force some good saves.

I really wish we'd had Garcia on the bench. Having not been informed who was there on the radio, I spent much of the match hoping he'd come on, in fact. Sure he can be wasteful of possession - something he was particularly guilty of against Benfica - but he has a real eye for dangerous positions and snatching goals - as he demonstrated with a late winner versus Arsenal. Somehow, Morientes just doesn't seem much of an attacking threat when he comes on.

Too bad that for the second time since his return Fowler was denied a winning goal by a linesman's flag. Hopefully his first real goal will come soon.

Blades

Congratulations to my flatmate Pavel: part of the Jesus men's second eight. They just won blades, by bumping for the fourth successive day in this week's Torpids.



He's the one bottom left as we look at it.

GCR Election

I'm happy to report that I was elected GCR Secretary - and indeed everyone else was also elected to the committee, with votes for RON pretty rare.

I celebrated by spending an evening in the bar with most of the rest of the committee-to-be, and more playing table football - though sadly no better than yesterday. James and I fought a massive battle against Claire and Emily, in which the scores we 4-6, 5-5, 6-4 and then 5-5 in the first 'decider' (though sadly we lost the second).

I look forward to working with Claire (President), Clea (VP), Nicoletta (Treasurer), Emily (Soc Sec), Lucie (Welfare) and Ed (Computing) next year. I'm sure it will be fun and rewarding.

England

I missed the friendly with Uruguay due to being in the pub (playing table football). While it's disappointing England couldn't roll their opposition over, it's heartening from a Liverpool point of view - Crouch scoring his first international goal, and Carragher demonstrating why he has to be in the squad, filling in for an hour at left back (even if that versatility may, ironically, count against him partnering Terry as first choice centre half)

I'm confused by the BBC's comment that "It was a win that told us things we already knew - most specifically that England's real World Cup ambitions rest on Wayne Rooney avoiding injury between now and June."

Even their own report suggests Rooney was over-shadowed by Joe Cole. When Shrek went off, we were 1-0 down - only for Crouch to score an equaliser, as well as setting up a great chance for Cole. Hardly makes us look like a one man team, even without Michael Owen...

Weather

After lunch, I was reading in the lounge, so I could bask in the rare winter sun - which through our south-facing, floor-to-ceiling window was quite nice. Within the last half hour or so we've gone from clear and sunny to a mini 'blizzard': the snow's been falling pretty heavily (the actual snow itself looks quite light, but there's a lot of it) and the field outside is already totally white. I hope it clears before I have to go out later.

The Jesus Men's First VIII were supposed to row at 4pm in Torpids. I don't know what became of the race - maybe it would've been cancelled. Thankfully my flatmate Pavel went at 2pm, and secured a technical bump when the crew ahead hit the bank.

St David's Day (dinner and hustings)

St David's Day is actually tomorrow, but because it's also Ash Wednesday the college's evensong and dinner was actually tonight. As usual, it was a particularly impressive formal hall - with four courses, and the choir singing grace in Welsh - to celebrate the occasion.

There were plenty of graduates there, as we'd booked our last GCR meeting of term to coincide with the event. Sadly I got there a bit late, having been to see Ronald Dworkin in the Law Faculty, so wasn't able to sit with many other people - it was just me and my guest Veronika, but a pleasant enough evening in her company (and relative privacy) It meant we didn't get any wine to accompany the meal, but that was just as well.

After the meal, our meeting consisted only of new committee hustings - I'm standing (unopposed) for secretary - and the out-going committee giving end of year speeches. Sara's Lord of the Rings-style one and Nick's Marlon Brando impression ("a lot of us have come to see the GCR as a family") were the best.

Maths Test

You Passed 8th Grade Math

Congratulations, you got 10/10 correct!

Could You Pass 8th Grade Math?

From Crooked Timber.

Liverpool 1-0 Man City

It’s now five successive matches that have finished 1-0 (Wigan, Arsenal, Man Utd, Benfica and Man City). I’d like more goals, but at least Liverpool have been on the winning side of four of those. For now, it’s enough to ‘win ugly’ – with the hope that we will do better next season (with a new winger or two and striker).

The biggest worry from the match was the head injury to Alonso – the second successive game we’ve lost a midfielder to a first-half head injury, of course – and the knock Gerrard took later on from Dunne. I’m surprised we didn’t substitute the latter in favour of Cisse.

Rafa has recently criticised the Frenchman, understandably given his performances, but his pace seemed ideal to exploit the gaps left once City were down to ten men and chasing the game. He’d certainly have been more of a threat than Morientes – whose build-up play is acceptable, but who just doesn’t seem to have any goal threat any more. He even left a free kick rolled into his path this afternoon – and was about to walk off the field when Crouch was substituted.

For now, not a great display, but we were good value for our win, so I’ll settle for that. Hopefully Gerrard and Alonso will be fit for next week’s match against Charlton, or we’ll need to seriously re-organise a midfield already missing Sissoko and Zenden.

Pogge

I saw Thomas Pogge give a talk on testing medical drugs on the global poor on Thursday (in the Politics Department), and give an Amnesty Lecture on Friday on the ‘War on Terror’. Last night I went to see him for the third time in three days, addressing the Balliol undergraduate PPE Society on Rawls’ two (domestic and international) theories of justice.

I had planned to go to the ‘Bollywood’ themed party in the GCR afterwards, but after talking 8-10 Pogge came back to Holywell Manor MCR with a bunch of us and we sat discussing global justice and charity until about half midnight.

The main topics were:
1) Toby’s proposal to give all his income over £8,000 (net, inflation adjusted) to charity.
2) The fact that Bill Gates – though he does a lot of good, in virtue of his large absolute contribution – isn’t particularly praiseworthy for denoting all over $2 billion to charity. (Note it’s a separate question whether he should in fact be praised – answer probably yes)
3) The suggestion that if we had a culture of announcing charitable contributions publicly (rather than keeping them private), while it might mean some giving was less virtuous, it would probably be better in terms of how much was given.
4) Pogge’s tax avoidance plan – which basically involved buying risky shares, and giving those that rise sharply to Oxfam (legally avoiding capital gains tax)

By the time I got back to college (12:45am) I was just able to see the last people leaving the party. Perhaps I didn’t miss much! Sitting around in an MCR discussing weighty moral/political matters with a leading professor is surely something that should be part of the Oxford graduate experience.

Dancing

Tonight was the first of two GCR waltzing lessons, in preparation for the End of Term dinner (16th March). I had a few similar classes in Sixth Form actually, but tonight only confirmed that – like anyone else who can’t dance – I should’ve become a DJ!

Actually, the general level of co-ordination amongst our GCR doesn’t seem that high, so about eight couples trying to waltz in the confines of our bunker was bound to lead to a fair few collisions (and me ending up on a chair once or twice…)

There’s only one more lesson – Hopefully that’ll produce some kind of improvement… Mind you, I’ll blame it on having a partner a foot shorter than me. It makes it a lot harder to step around each other when your steps are so different!

GCR Elections

Tonight a new GCR President was elected, 19-12 (running against an option to Re-Open Nominations). In hindsight, maybe it would've been better if RON won.

I'm planning on standing for a committe post, to be elected next week.

Word Cloud

I guess this sums up my content:


From SnapShirts via Antonia.

Blogger Meet (after the event)

Unfortunately I just missed Milan. I'll have to introduce myself to the person I think might be Milan next time I see him in the department I guess... I did get to meet Andy, Seth and Mike* though (as well as Rob, who of course I already knew). All seemed nice people, perhaps I'll end up getting more ensnared in this Oxford blogging community... (Though unfortunately I'll probably miss the up-coming exchange dinner with Trinity College due to both legs being on a Thursday)

*I'm assuming I got the blogs right, after consultation here.

Benfica 1-0 Liverpool

I missed most of this match, between our GCR’s presidential hustings (update: for result of the election, see here) and the blogger meet. As it is, I can’t offer too much commentary on how we played, but I am disappointed by the result. From what I hear, we deserved at least a draw (probably only a draw, but not defeat). In Europe, 0-0 away from home is a poor result – to lose even worse.

Mind you, my biggest concern is for Sissoko. Granted I’ve been critical at times of his distribution and timing of tackles, but he game to us young and raw and looks full of potential. He put in awesome performances against Arsenal and Man Utd, that really could see him live up to the ‘new Vieira’ tag. Hopefully reports that his career could be over – after a kick in the eye from Beto – will prove unfounded. Nonetheless it looks pretty certain he’s out for the rest of the season, and his vision will be somewhat compromised permanently from what I understand. (see here, here and here).

Blogger Meet (Final Reminder)

Tomorrow in the Turf. See here.

I won't be able to make it until 9:30-10 because of our GCR president hustings/meeting. I hope people will be easy to recognise. I don't want to go wondering around the Turf asking every table if they're a group of bloggers...

Good Effort

Well done to Colchester, for a valiant effort against Chelsea - though they lost 3-1, they lead for a while (9 minutes) and Chelsea were forced to bring on Lampard, Cole and Crespo.

In fairness to Colchester, I guess they're not used to playing on such an awful pitch!

Liverpool 1-0 Man Utd (FA Cup)

Revenge (for this) is sweet.

It was nice that Liverpool’s third consecutive FA Cup game was on the BBC. Anyone would think half their pundits were ex-Reds or something…

While not as one-sided as the Arsenal match, Liverpool were pretty dominant, and even if they didn’t carve out many clear chances – due no doubt to the presence of Sissoko and Hamann in midfield for the injured Alonso – they bossed the midfield. It’s safe to say that Liverpool with Man Utd’s strike force or Man Utd with Liverpool’s midfield would be an awesome prospect. As it is, the Manc midfield is a shambles without Keane or Scholes.

It was particularly sweet that Crouch scored the winner, both because he needed the goal, and because of all the constant jibes. If it wasn’t for Van der Sar we might have had one or two more too, and Giggs’ lunge on Kewell probably should’ve been a penalty as well – not that I’ve had much faith in us converting them lately.

The real talking point was, of course, a horrific ankle/leg break suffered by Alan Smith as he charged down Riise’s shot in the dying minutes. It was one of those where his leg just snapped without any contact from anyone else – not unlike Cisse last year – and from the sound of it he’s out at least a year, compounding Utd’s midfield problems. I wouldn’t wish an injury like that on anyone (even Neville), and I hope he makes a complete recovery.

Akrasia and Pubs

Yesterday wasn't a good day. The death of my mobile phone (/alarm clock) led to me over-sleeping - or rather, waking ridiculously early as normal but not thinking of actually getting up due to lack of alarm - and missing a 9am lecture. Plus only 2 weeks after last having it mended, my bike got another puncture, which didn't help...

It was good news for my friend Nick, however, who was confirmed twice - in the sense of confirming his status as DPhil candidate in history and accepting the offer of a law conversion and job. Congratulations again (soon to be) Dr Nick!

I was planning to meet him down Cowley to celebrate with some other friends, but got detained somewhat in the Kings Arms after our Student Research Workshop - with the usual suspects plus Chris Brooke. Knowing I had to walk home, I intended to leave around 8:30. Note 'intended'...

Thankfully I didn't end up staying until midnight, as in 1st week. Unfortunately an inability to tear myself away from one pub (even to ultimately end up in another) seems to be a problem. I did pass up drinks, insisting I was moving on, but it was empty.

Me: I need to go soon.
Sarah: You always say that.
Me: Well, I will go soon...

It's like Aristotle's description of the akratic (weak-willed) man as someone who "has it [knowledge of what he should do] in such a way that having it is not knowing it, but only saying it in the way someone who is drunk recites verses of Empedocles" (NE Book 7)

Still, I did eventually get back to meet Nick and James in The Marsh Harrier, for a pint and packet of crisps dinner. Hopefully my bike will still be on Cowley Road when I return to take it to Beeline later today...

Rights to Treatment

I haven't really followed the case of Ms Rogers in enough detail, but it seems a recent ruling has denied her the right to an expensive drug treatment for breast cancer on the NHS. (See here).

As I understand it, she claimed her 'right to life' was being violated. I'm somewhat sceptical of human rights, and the over inflation of any rights beyond fairly minimal levels. Nonetheless, I'll put this aside as best as I can. However, it seems to me either:

1) We all have rights to extensive medical treatment. In this case Ms Rogers does indeed have the right to the drug BUT it clashes with the rights of many other people who could be treated with the money. Therefore she has a right, but it's insufficient to determine that she should actually get the drug.

OR

2) A right is something stronger, so a right to X entails that one should be provided with X. But in this case the task for Ms Rogers is to demonstrate she does indeed have a right to this drug - and I don't find it particularly convincing to suppose she has a right to such expensive treatment at loss to many others.

Anyway, the judge declared it was not his position to say whether it would be better or not to provide the treatment - his role is simply to observe that the law is not arbitrary or irrational, and therefore does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights.

In passing, he likened regional autonomy to a 'postcode lottery'. Such criticisms are often made, and I think I'll have to address them at another point, since they give lotteries a bad name. The 'postcode lottery' isn't a lottery (unless postcodes were to be re-assigned to everyone randomly) - it doesn't give people equal chances, it merely discriminates on the basis of an arbitrary feature. One could therefore liken the 'postcode lottery' not to a fair lottery (e.g. the military draft), but rather to racism...

Brit Awards

I was seriously distressed to find James Blunt is now considered 'best British male solo artist' and Kaiser Chiefs are our best rock act (ok, they have some catchy singles, but they're hardly that rock) News here.

If I could be bothered, I'd write my own list, but that would require some thought. More thought than the actual judges put in anyway. All the winners were obvious choices, and might as well have been based on commercial sales.

Free Speech and Bigotry

I am largely in sympathy with Ronald Dworkin’s views on free speech, bigotry and democracy (Guardian 14/02/06, p.32). The headline summary seems misleading though – free speech does have limits, e.g. libel or not shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre being prominent examples, but Dworkin’s point was that accommodation of different cultures is not one of them.

In a society where people wish to be free to express their own opinions, they must tolerate a like liberty for others. A diversity of viewpoints almost necessitates that some people will be offended by the alleged truths and values others express, but this is a result of ineliminable cultural pluralism.

Dworkin is right, there is no ‘right not to be insulted or offended’, for people can seemingly be offended by anything. Indeed, in the present society Muslims are likely to be offended by anyone who suggests the Koran is not the word of the one true god, while followers of other religions are equally as likely to be offended by the suggestion that it is. If we were never to risk offending anyone, then we wouldn’t be able to say anything.

A tolerant society must accept expression of opinions it finds offensive – even for example racist ones. Once it does so, they can be exposed and defeated in reasonable public discourse. If those holding such views do not feel that their opinions have been heard, then they are all the more likely to resort to extremism and violence.

Smoking Ban

We may have to wait over a year, but it looks like we'll finally be able to visit pubs without our clothes stinking of smoke - not to mention risk of lung cancer - thanks to a vote for a total ban. See BBC news.

Read my views on smoking in pubs here.

Liverpool 1-0 Arsenal

The advantage of being single is being able to watch football in the pub on Valentines. We got great seats, and it was a great game – well, maybe only a good one for the neutral, but Liverpool were totally dominant.

Unfortunately wayward finishing from Morientes, combined with Lehmann’s good saves from Kewell, Fowler and Senderos(!), kept the score down. Indeed, when Gerrard’s penalty was saved, I thought it might not be our night. Gerrard and Cisse seem to trade penalty duties, with both having missed quite a few. I really thought it might’ve been a good chance for Robbie, even though he hasn’t scored for us yet. I’d like to see him taking the next one.

Anyway, Arsenal were anonymous. Veit asked where Pires was – I said ‘I think he’s on the bench’ while Tom thought he was injured. It says a lot that he was only shortly after subbed off. We hadn’t seen him influence the game at all!

The same couldn’t be said, however, for Garcia – who I’ve often thought of as our answer to Pires. Only on the pitch for a few minutes, he latched on as Lehmann was only able to parry Hamann’s shot, and put the ball in the net for a deserved late winner. While his inconsistency may be frustrating, he certainly knows where the goal is – he has a knack both of running into dangerous positions and scoring important goals. It’s good to have him back from injury, with our strikers generally mis-firing.

It’s a shame we weren’t able to produce a more convincing scoreline. On shots, we must’ve won about 20-2, even if many of ours were admittedly off-target. Arsenal, conversely, offered so little in attack that The Times even mis-identified our goalie as Carson rather than Dudek (penultimate paragraph).

Games are coming thick and fast now, but let’s hope we can take this form and some better finishing into the Man Utd and Benfica matches.

If Music be the Food of Love...

I read the other day something about how music can trigger the same reactions in your brain as love. Probably much like how chocolate makes you feel good I guess. Maybe it explains why I don’t have a girlfriend and I listen to a lot of music…

Anyway, having been bored to tears by adverts for ‘Greatest Lovesongs Ever’ and so forth on TV lately (one including Take That’s ‘Back For Good’ – surely a song for an ex rather than current beau?) I thought I’d compile my own list:

‘Nice’ love songs
Apoptygma Berzerk – Love Never Dies (part 1)
Fleetwood Mac – You Make Loving Fun
Foo Fighters – Everlong
Nirvana – About A Girl
The Cure – Friday I’m In Love
Metallica – Nothing Else Matters
Led Zeppelin – Whole Lotta Love

Not so nice (e.g. unrequited) ones
Nine Inch Nails – Perfect Drug (and so many others…)
Sunlounger – Dirty Hands, Dirty Face
Weezer – Pink Triangle
The Cure – Love Song
Bauhaus – The Passion Of Lovers
Head Automatica - Please Please Please

Some of those may be open to interpretation, but, well ‘meh’ to anyone who disagrees.

I’ll be taking advantage of my single status to watch Liverpool vs Arsenal in the pub tonight, but if I weren’t no doubt I’d be playing some of these.

How to Disagree

Thanks to Jerry Cohen for this.

Imagine a range of positions on some single dimension (e.g. left-right) issue, which we can number from 1 to 20. This is the usual pattern of disagreements:

X says: 13 is/represents the truth.
Y says: 15? You’re crazy. More like 7.
X says: You’ve mischaracterised my view as 17. It’s really 12. As for your view the truth is 5, that’s ridiculous…

Try it in long-running journal debates, e.g. the one between Jerry and Ronald Dworkin on expensive tastes. I think it’s amazingly accurate.

RIP Peter Strawson

Peter Strawson died today. Obituaries in the usual major papers...

I don't think I've ever seen him, or know much of his work; but his son Galen interviewed me for admission to Jesus.

Wigan 0-1 Liverpool

I didn't see this game, since I was away in Warwick, and couldn't be bothered to stay up until the end of Match of the Day for a 1-0 win over Wigan, but it's good to see us pull out three points again after a troublesome one point from four games. Maybe it helped that Wigan didn't have any strikers, but we've had our problems there too - Pongolle remains our only striker to have scored this year.

Hopefully Gerrard (who played) and Crouch (who didn't) will be fit for Arsenal on Tuesday. That tie, followed by Man Utd in the FA Cup and Benfica in the CL, will go a long way to shaping the success of our season.

Some other results of note were Middlesbrough's shock 3-0 win over Chelsea (whose next game is vs Colchester United...), and Arsenal's late draw with Bolton - in which I saw Lehmann push a Bolton player over but not (like Reina) get punished at all...

Warwick

Today I'm attending the Eighth Annual Graduate Conference in Political Theory at the University of Warwick (which is, confusingly, in Coventry). Looks a pretty good programme, with plenty of Oxford people - including me giving my first paper outside Oxford.

You Spin Me Round

I went to see Alaistair Campbell give a talk tonight. Sadly, Chatham House rules apply, so I can't go into details - though actually apparently all that's prohibited is me attributing anything to him by name - so if someone in Oxford recently heard anything from a 'source close to government' here's a clue...

Happy Birthday Julia

Happy birthday Julia, the scary mid-20s...

Going to the Gardener's Arms later to celebrate with people from the department, Nuffield and other random places to celebrate (but will be suitable restrained since I'm teaching tomorrow)

Charlton 2-0 Liverpool

Another disappointing defeat, and worryingly Liverpool have only taken one point from their last four games. Defeats to Man Utd and Chelsea hurt, but are understandable, to Charlton is more painful... Unfortunately we've lost form at the worst time. Even when we were drawing games at the start of the season, and about 12th in the table, I was feeling more optimistic than now.

Even neutral reports suggest the game turned on the controversial penalty decision that gave Charlton the lead against the run of play. I think this is one of our problems. Our strikers simply aren't putting away goals. Consequently as long as we don't concede, we capable of standing firm for at least a draw, and often nicking a win. If we go behind, however, we struggle. We don't have enough firepower to get back into the match, and if forced to chase it, tend to expose ourselves at the back, thus conceding more.

I can only hope Robbie's soon back to fitness and goal-scoring form.

Reading Group (HT 06 wk4)

For this week's reading group we decided to meet at the Angel & Greyhound (on St Clements, close to Magdalen roundabout) at the usual time of 8:30 Wednesday.

The chosen reading was Barbara Fried's 'Left Libertarianism: A Review Essay' Philosophy & Public Affairs 32:1 (2004) pp.66-91, the reply in P&PA 33:2 (2005) pp.201-15 and her rejoinder to that pp.216-22 of the same volume.

Memorable quotes:

OK: We're getting into utilitarianism for lions.

KO: Stop throwing long words at me.
SW: I'm just making up words now.

KW: It's not to do with Nozick, it's about a hypothetical.

SW: I treat my [one year old] daughter as an object.

KW: Not everything that doesn't exist is weird.

KW: Death is bad, it just isn't painful.

OK: I think it's worth... Well, not worth, but interesting to distinguish...

KO: I think there's been a massive increase in pedantic comments.
Me: We're philosophers!

OK/KW/KO: Every week we end up discussing pro tanto reasons.

KO: I didn't mean to get into paedophilia.

Women's Ambition

I'm wary of stepping too far into feminist territory here, especially after last week's post, but here's something that perhaps goes some way to vindicating what I claimed there: that women would be better served by society valuing 'women's [i.e. domestic] work' rather than by giving them equal opportunity to compete for traditionally male jobs.

Anyway, what first caught my attention was seeing this book: It Takes a Candidate : Why Women Don't Run for Office. I haven't read it, so I don't yet know the answer. I'd predict a mixture of reasons, from family responsibility and socialisation to a distaste for the world of politics and all the butt-kissing it seems to take to get ahead in any career (academia included).

Now, I suppose the question is whether women's choices should be respected, or whether this is a 'contented slave' kind of case - one in which through adaptive preferences they're happy with what they've got, even though they shouldn't be, and where Rousseau's paradoxical comment 'forced to be free' makes some sense (though perhaps it'd still be better expressed 'forced to do something more worthwhile', without misdescribing perfectionism as freedom, but let's not get into that now...)

The other thing I saw, just now in fact, actually comes from the press release to Pink's new single 'Stupid Girls', and it's quite worrying:

In a recent survey published by The Sunday Times, girls aged between 15 and 19 were asked which careers they wished to pursue. 63% said glamour modelling and
25% lap dancing in comparison to 4% saying lawyer and 3% doctor – a shocking upshot of the superficial cult status of today’s airhead celebrity.

I haven't seen this survey, perhaps I should look it up, but it suggests one big reason why women are still under-represented it top professions - and also explains the glut of useless celebrity/'reality' crap on our TVs.

Admittedly, I'd be surprised if a lot of boys didn't want to be footballers or rock stars or something, but at least they do something with their lives. I assume a lot of girls would rather just be rich and idle, like Paris Hilton or Tara Palmer-Tomkinson. The traditional expectation to be the breadwinner generally forces boys to give up unrealistic pipedreams and either get a decent education or start a career early (or perhaps turn to crime, etc). I'm going to be controversial here, but perhaps too many girls are still in a 19th century mindset in which they simply concentrate on some form of self-improvement (e.g. education) and other passtimes, while waiting for a man who can keep them in a life of luxury they've somehow come to expect from too much escapist TV...

Obviously that's a simple stereotype, but the original point is maybe the reason there aren't many women in so called 'top' positions in society is that they don't want to be there. The question we should be asking is whether that's a problem or not.

Philosopher's Humour (HT06 pt 1)

Time for an over-due return of those little snippets that make seminars worthwhile. Here’s today’s (as ever, just the gists).

Ethics 06/02/06

GAC: No I’m talking about real dogs. A real dog wouldn’t say its meal is tasty, because real dogs can’t say anything.

Presenter: Another Dr Cohen...
GAC: I'm not actually a doctor
Presenter: Well, you're obviously very distinguished nonetheless, so we won't hold that against you.

Nuffield Political Theory Seminar 06/02/06

[Discussing whether having a right you can’t exercise can make you better off]
DM: I hereby grant you the right to float in the air unsupported
AW: Were you denying me the right before?

[On proposals concerning legitimate group ownership of land]
AP: That’s wouldn’t work for Jerusalem
RS: Nothing would work for Jerusalem

Moral Philosophy Seminar 06/02/06

[Introducing his paper on Bernard Williams]
JS: Although I will disagree with most of what he [Williams] says I’m sure I’m probably wrong…

SuperBowl XL

That doesn’t mean eXtra Large, but 40. I’m not exactly an American football fan. I watched about half the Superbowl two years ago in college, and this time again a big bunch of us decided to pile round a friend’s for beer, Doritos, pretzels and watching big American guys beat the crap out of each other.

The atmosphere was greatly improved by some inspired music thanks to Nick's i-Pod, including Led Zep's 'Immigrant Song' and Chumbawumba's 'Tubthumping'. Extra comedy value for playing the wrong AC/DC song too... On which, Ed's comment "Not having cheerleaders is sexist. What are the women supposed to do?" is also worthy of mention. (We had our own Pittsburgh cheerleaders in Lisa and Sanne, however)

Most of us only declared allegiances a day or two before the match, so weren’t too bothered. I was for the Seattle Seahawks, who lost. Unfortunately pretty much all the dodgy refereeing decisions went against them – as revealed here. I can’t be bothered to go through them all, but Seattle had a touchdown denied, and Pittsburgh were then given a debateable one – so what could’ve been 10-0 was actually 3-7.

I have to say, I seemed to have a pretty good grasp of what was going on by the end of the game. I was even able to have a conversation about it later with an American. Wish I hadn’t stayed up until 3am for the result though…

Chelsea 2-0 Liverpool

Well, another big Liverpool vs Chelsea game and another defeat. In fact, it seems we lose all the domestic matches, even if we can hold them in European competition – don’t know why that is.

What was most annoying was the general manner of defeat. We seem to have run out of steam a bit, and it’s not surprising how tired many players look given the long season we’ve already had (with pre-season CL qualifiers and a trip to Japan) – unfortunately it’s come at the crunch time of the season, with important matches against our main league rivals, Man Utd in the FA Cup and Benfica in the CL all coming up.

In fact, their opening goal came against the run of play. Unfortunately once we were behind, our heads went down. Maybe it’s the tiredness, but we gave up too early, rather than continuing to the 92nd minute… After that, neither our defence nor attack looked good.

The main talking point is probably Reina’s red card, for a moment of madness towards the end, which certainly didn’t help our cause. Haven’t seen the incident, so I can’t really comment in detail – Reina shouldn’t have been raising his hand, but by all accounts Robben went down like a sack of bricks.

UPDATE: I suspect whoever wrote this on the Liverpool website:

Former Liverpool captain Jamie Redknapp has condoned the 'play-acting' actions of Arjen Robben and sympathised with Pepe Reina over his controversial sending off at Stamford Bridge on Sunday.

Doesn't know their 'condoned' from their 'condemned'.

Cartoons

It seems everyone wants to add their two pence worth to the furore over these offensive cartoons (for example, here and here). I haven't got much to add to these eminently sensible comments.

Free speech means the newspapers can say what they like. It may be wrong to say something offensive, but it's still your right. Some people I saw interviewed on the news suggested free speech must always be within seemingly quite narrow limits of not offending people. Since some people will be offended by almost anything - and you can't please all the people all the time (to adapt a phrase) - this seems to me like saying 'you have complete freedom of movement, provided you don't leave your house'. The importance of free speech means we must be free to offend people who don't share our views (although appealing to something like the doctrine of double effect, I'd say offence should be a tolerable side-effect but not the intention).

Of course, anyone offended has the right to express this - that's their freedom of speech - and they can condemn or even boycott the newspapers in question (as many Liverpool fans still boycott The Sun, for example). Needless to say, burning embassies does not fall within the scope of reasonable protest.

(For an example of relatively benign - if in my opinion slightly prudish - newspaper cartoon editing/censorship, see here)

UPDATE: Further thoughts from Index on Censorship, here and here.

Blogger Meet Update

February 21st (Tuesday of 6th week). 8pm. Turf. (See here)

Women Have It All

After spending most of tonight glued to Channel 4 - largely from inertia, though new comedy The IT Crowd was a big improvement on Celebrity Big Brother (which I refused to watch) - I felt moved to comment on Amanda Platell's slot on female emancipation:

30 Minutes Political commentator Amanda Platell suggests feminism has offered today's women an unrealistic dream of independence and career success, threatening their chance for real happiness with a husband and children. She considers the impact second-wave feminists had on society in the 1960s and 1970s, and reflects on the personal choices she herself made.

(From Guardian TV guide)

The general line was that feminists have shot themselves in the foot, by demanding the right to work modern women now have to combine this with raising families, and get the bad of both worlds - and that, in effect, may would've been happier in a simpler age as home-makers.

In fact, I'm sympathetic to such general arguments, believing that women would've done better to promote the valuation of the domestic sphere, rather than abandoning it for a right to work. After all, what's so great about being a wage slave? Different but equal - with rights for either sex to take on the non-traditional opposite gender role - is, I think, probably the way to go here.

The programme, however, was full of far too much over-simplification and proceeded to state a succession of banal truths in a one-sided fashion. For example 'women now want families and work, but feel they can't have it all'. True, but men can't have it all either. Sure a stay at home wife allows you to combine a career with having children, but not spending quality time with them. Similarly, the observation that women - caught by this schizophrenia - no longer know what will make them happy. But do we know what makes anyone happy? No. The problems raised - superficially - in the programme aren't those of women, they're problems of everyone (men and women) in modern society.

Liverpool 1-1 Birmingham

I was rather disappointed to get home and find this result. I'd been in the pub - where the Arsenal match was being shown - but after seeing Alonso's name flash up late on, I hoped he'd put the game safe. As it happened, when I got home I discovered he'd conceded a late own goal. Particularly frustrating to draw at home to a team like Birmingham, especially after they played an hour with ten men... On the positive side, Birmingham are a bit of a bogey team for us. Last season they beat us twice, this season two draws marks a significant improvement - and with Man Utd, Arsenal and Spurs all losing (and Chelsea also only drawing) it's a point gained on our main rivals, even if three would've been better. Too bad Robbie's overhead kick was ruled off-side, as it would have been a great comeback goal.