The long-running Fabre review (Whose Body Is It Anyway?) was finally submitted about a week and a half ago now. Nonetheless, two quick related points:
1) Milan seizes on an Economist report about organ sales.
2) The paper for Monday's Moral Philosophy Seminar describes the case of Zell Kravinsky (p.16), who donated his kidney to a complete stranger. More on this:
here (would he give away the other one? - with a suggestion he'd pay a third party to donate!)
here (CNN transcript: "I think in terms of maximum human utility, not in terms of my own life")
here (he specified the kidney had to go to a low income black. "I had to convince them why I was doing it: because it is logically and morally compelling to save someone's life if you can")
here (records initial opposition to any transplants, on the grounds they seemed to harm the healthy to save the sick. "Raised in a Jewish family committed to socialism and left wing politics [remind you of anyone?]... when he read an article in the Wall Street Journal explaining that a kidney donor had only a one-in-four-thousand chance of dying from giving up an organ, Kravinsky understood that this was like buying a U.S. government bond. The risk involved was almost zero. But unlike government bonds, the dividend or pay-out in this case was fabulous. Some lucky person would get a whole new life" - also talks about Peter Singer)
here (a general story, with annoying music)
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Take Care
After last week's mass student newspaper links, I thought I'd best get round to linking to another, kindly supplied by my friend Nick L, via this blog.
The story concerns the fact that abolishing traffic lights actually decreases road accidents because - although the road is inherently more dangerous - drivers now take better care. Here's the original story from The Telegraph on 4/11/06.
What I found particularly interesting, however, was their comment - published on the same day - under the head 'Labour will never treat us like adults'. Here they say "A deeper lesson is one that was obvious to everyone until the 20th century: that, given responsibility for their actions, people tend to make better decisions – on behalf of themselves and society."
This is something I'd like to build on, briefly, in my thesis. Some people worry that if we let a random voter decide social outcomes, they may be a crackpot. I think if voters knew there was a real chance that their vote might determine the outcome, they'd be more responsible in casting it. At present, they have little reason to consider it too carefully, since there's little chance of making a difference anyway.
Schumpeter also says something similar, about how our feelings of reality and responsibility are diminished in public affairs (Quinton, p.164).
This also connects to something I remember from a Political Sociology lecture, in which someone argued most of the French far right votes were actually anti-system protest votes rather than positive support for Le Pen and the right. But I'll have to look up who said this.
Going back to newspapers, unfortunately I only found the story a couple of days late and wasn't able to track down a hard copy of the Telegraph, despite looking through the old papers in the GCR and JCR. I've just found that one can order papers up to 9 months old from W H Smiths - though prices start from £4.99, which is a bit steep.
Anyone know if the Bod stocks recent papers? I think they do, but don't really know where...
The story concerns the fact that abolishing traffic lights actually decreases road accidents because - although the road is inherently more dangerous - drivers now take better care. Here's the original story from The Telegraph on 4/11/06.
What I found particularly interesting, however, was their comment - published on the same day - under the head 'Labour will never treat us like adults'. Here they say "A deeper lesson is one that was obvious to everyone until the 20th century: that, given responsibility for their actions, people tend to make better decisions – on behalf of themselves and society."
This is something I'd like to build on, briefly, in my thesis. Some people worry that if we let a random voter decide social outcomes, they may be a crackpot. I think if voters knew there was a real chance that their vote might determine the outcome, they'd be more responsible in casting it. At present, they have little reason to consider it too carefully, since there's little chance of making a difference anyway.
Schumpeter also says something similar, about how our feelings of reality and responsibility are diminished in public affairs (Quinton, p.164).
This also connects to something I remember from a Political Sociology lecture, in which someone argued most of the French far right votes were actually anti-system protest votes rather than positive support for Le Pen and the right. But I'll have to look up who said this.
Going back to newspapers, unfortunately I only found the story a couple of days late and wasn't able to track down a hard copy of the Telegraph, despite looking through the old papers in the GCR and JCR. I've just found that one can order papers up to 9 months old from W H Smiths - though prices start from £4.99, which is a bit steep.
Anyone know if the Bod stocks recent papers? I think they do, but don't really know where...
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Middlesbrough 0-0 Liverpool
Another frustrating away day, at least we doubled the number of points we've collected on the road this season - to two from seven games. It's frustrating, however, because - like last season - this was a game we really should have won, after battering Boro for most of 90 minutes without ever putting the ball in the net.
I don't know how far finishing was to blame - despite playing two wingers, I heard the crosses were woeful, often failing to beat the first man. Mind you, it must be said Schwarzer and Woodgate played well (I'd forgotten how good the latter could be, when not injured). Still, it was somewhat reassuring to see not just a clean sheet but us clearly set out to attack and dominating play away from home. If we keep creating chances, soon they will start going in - again, like last season.
I don't know how far finishing was to blame - despite playing two wingers, I heard the crosses were woeful, often failing to beat the first man. Mind you, it must be said Schwarzer and Woodgate played well (I'd forgotten how good the latter could be, when not injured). Still, it was somewhat reassuring to see not just a clean sheet but us clearly set out to attack and dominating play away from home. If we keep creating chances, soon they will start going in - again, like last season.
Friday, November 17, 2006
Simpsons, Again
Continuing the theme that The Simpsons is philosophical, or at least educational, tonight Channel 4 showed a rather interesting episode that told the stories of Odysseus, Joan of Arc and Hamlet.
Unfortunately, aside from obviously rather truncating events, they did get some key details wrong. We saw Homer - as Odysseus - leave Troy, but the only adventures we see on the way home are Circe and the Sirens - no Cyclops or Scylla.
What's more, they get some of these parts horrendously wrong - in the actual epic, Odysseus orders his men to plug their ears, while he is tied to the mast to listen to the Sirens' song (hence the title of Elster's book on bounded rationality). In this version, the crew row happily toward the rocks, only to be repelled by the Sirens' hideousness (they're Patty and Selma). And when Odysseus finally gets home, he simply skewers Penelope's suitors on a spear, rather than going through all the trouble of disguising himself and stringing a bow.
Unfortunately, aside from obviously rather truncating events, they did get some key details wrong. We saw Homer - as Odysseus - leave Troy, but the only adventures we see on the way home are Circe and the Sirens - no Cyclops or Scylla.
What's more, they get some of these parts horrendously wrong - in the actual epic, Odysseus orders his men to plug their ears, while he is tied to the mast to listen to the Sirens' song (hence the title of Elster's book on bounded rationality). In this version, the crew row happily toward the rocks, only to be repelled by the Sirens' hideousness (they're Patty and Selma). And when Odysseus finally gets home, he simply skewers Penelope's suitors on a spear, rather than going through all the trouble of disguising himself and stringing a bow.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Newspaper Links 4: Postgraduate Tutorials
Today being my teaching day - three tutorials - what really caught my eye was The Cherwell's article on postgraduate teaching (which, incidentally, quotes my friend Nick). Indeed, I was particular caught by their focus on students turning up only to find a note telling them the tutorial had been cancelled - I did that a couple of weeks ago, though not at 8:30 in the morning!
Tutorials are such a personal interaction between students and tutor that it's obvious some will be better than others, and indeed a tutor who's great for one student might be bad for another. There's no intrinsic reasons why a graduate student should be worse than an older professor. Of course, they may be very different - the professor probably has years of experience, but the grad student may have better knowledge of recent debates and have been through the reading and even exams and lectures recently him/her-self. Also the much more relaxed atmosphere you may get with a younger teacher may make the tutorial not only more pleasant but perhaps more relevant - like today, The Simpsons came up in my tute.
It's understandable that some students will want to be taught by leading figures in their fields, and they usually have the opportunity in lectures. Tutorial teaching, however, is very intensive. We'd be loath to lose it - see here, here and here - so we have to accept the reality: either it will be more graduates teaching or fewer tutorials.
Finally, they're quite right to point out grad students are often inexperienced teachers. I wish I'd been given more training - and I'm one of the lucky ones that has at least been through the system from the other side. But I simply don't see how having a DPhil - a research qualification - is supposed to instill teaching competence. If grad students weren't allowed to teach, we'd have a number of freshly-qualified doctors who'd be similarly inexperienced. At least while we're still pursuing the DPhil we have more time to devote to the teaching - indeed, it's often a welcome distraction from the dreaded thesis, rather than the burden it is for many fellows.
Tutorials are such a personal interaction between students and tutor that it's obvious some will be better than others, and indeed a tutor who's great for one student might be bad for another. There's no intrinsic reasons why a graduate student should be worse than an older professor. Of course, they may be very different - the professor probably has years of experience, but the grad student may have better knowledge of recent debates and have been through the reading and even exams and lectures recently him/her-self. Also the much more relaxed atmosphere you may get with a younger teacher may make the tutorial not only more pleasant but perhaps more relevant - like today, The Simpsons came up in my tute.
It's understandable that some students will want to be taught by leading figures in their fields, and they usually have the opportunity in lectures. Tutorial teaching, however, is very intensive. We'd be loath to lose it - see here, here and here - so we have to accept the reality: either it will be more graduates teaching or fewer tutorials.
Finally, they're quite right to point out grad students are often inexperienced teachers. I wish I'd been given more training - and I'm one of the lucky ones that has at least been through the system from the other side. But I simply don't see how having a DPhil - a research qualification - is supposed to instill teaching competence. If grad students weren't allowed to teach, we'd have a number of freshly-qualified doctors who'd be similarly inexperienced. At least while we're still pursuing the DPhil we have more time to devote to the teaching - indeed, it's often a welcome distraction from the dreaded thesis, rather than the burden it is for many fellows.
Newspaper Links 3: No Point Working
Apparently (some) university courses that involve more work - measured in (contact and independent study) hours - give fewer students (in % terms) 2.is or 1sts. The message is perhaps why do 38 hours a week in Oxford for a 2.i when you could do 25 hours elsewhere, and maybe even get a First?
I'm particularly interested - predictably - that some mainstream media have labelled these findings a 'lottery'. This allegation was actually made in last week's Cherwell and in The Telegraph.
I'm particularly interested - predictably - that some mainstream media have labelled these findings a 'lottery'. This allegation was actually made in last week's Cherwell and in The Telegraph.
Newspaper Links 2: Depression
I was shocked to read that as many as one in three Oxford students suffer depression - and that 36% of girls admit eating disorders. Mind you, aside from the issues addressed in this Cherwell article, the OxStu also highlights a number of contributory pressures - unfortunately not online - but basically the result of no longer being 'top of the class', having to work hard, the need to have it all and the swing between busy 8-week terms and quiet vacs.
Newspaper Links 1: FaceBook
On the day where two long-standing refuseniks (Nick W and Miriam) finally joined FaceBook - or, at least, came to my attention - The Cherwell reports how dangerous it can be. Mind you, the main danger is the possibility of hoax accounts - not unlike this one for Thomas Hobbes. With that in mind, it seems sensible to make sure you register now to prevent abuse. And you can spy on undergraduates...
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Sunday, November 12, 2006
High Table
It seems Milan has really been making the most of his High Table meals at Wadham. Up until tonight, I was viewing them as little more than free food and the chance to practice making small talk with academics.
I'd spoken to Gustaf Arrhenius several times while he's Senior Research Fellow in Jesus. I already knew him, via Krister, and I knew he was working on moral and political philosophy, and population policy in particular.
Tonight, however, I found that he also has interests in democracy. In fact, my friend Toby even gave him my contact details while he was in Sweden - and Gustaf had been meant to look me up but lost them. Thankfully, in this small world we live in, our paths crossed on High Table tonight.
Gustaf kindly asked to read my MPhil thesis, and has sent me one of his working papers (an updated version of this) - I think I got the better end of both deals! I hope we can have many more discussions in the remaining month that Gustaf is here, and hope it proves profitable collaboration.
I'd spoken to Gustaf Arrhenius several times while he's Senior Research Fellow in Jesus. I already knew him, via Krister, and I knew he was working on moral and political philosophy, and population policy in particular.
Tonight, however, I found that he also has interests in democracy. In fact, my friend Toby even gave him my contact details while he was in Sweden - and Gustaf had been meant to look me up but lost them. Thankfully, in this small world we live in, our paths crossed on High Table tonight.
Gustaf kindly asked to read my MPhil thesis, and has sent me one of his working papers (an updated version of this) - I think I got the better end of both deals! I hope we can have many more discussions in the remaining month that Gustaf is here, and hope it proves profitable collaboration.
Arsenal 3-0 Liverpool
Once again a game that could make or break Liverpool's season, and again we lose. The game doesn't seem as one-sided as the scoreline suggests - Wenger admitted we played well, and actually managed more shots and corners (allbeit fewer on target), as well as having two goals disallowed. It seems it just wasn't to be our day. Sissoko was a big loss, but we need to improve our away form if we're even to qualify for the CL this season. And the scary thing is we face Arsenal again in the Carling Cup...
Friday, November 10, 2006
Books and Journals
Crooked Timber has a recent post ranking Political Theory journals, with political scientists in mind. (This older one on where grad students might may also be worth reading)
Also, my old college tutor Stuart White has a new textbook on Equality. I get a mention in the acknowledgements, alongside the illustrious company of Karl Widerquist and Steve Winter. (I'm not sure it's really deserved - though I did ask if I could see drafts during my MPhil)
While on books, I picked up a hardback copy of Deliberation Day in Blackwells this morning, reduced from £20 to £1.50!
Also, my old college tutor Stuart White has a new textbook on Equality. I get a mention in the acknowledgements, alongside the illustrious company of Karl Widerquist and Steve Winter. (I'm not sure it's really deserved - though I did ask if I could see drafts during my MPhil)
While on books, I picked up a hardback copy of Deliberation Day in Blackwells this morning, reduced from £20 to £1.50!
Thursday, November 09, 2006
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Birmingham 0-1 Liverpool (Carling Cup)
It was never going to be a repeat of last season's 7-0 demolition job, but a professional performance by a mostly reserve side was enough to reach the quarter finals. The injury to Sissoko, however, could be massively detrimental to our season. His injury last year corresponded with a massive slump in form, including our CL exit against Benfica.
Monday, November 06, 2006
Phil Grad Conf
Next weekend is the 10th annual Philosophy Graduate Conference. The provisional schedule is already online, and you can register now.
Sadly none of the papers I refereed made it, but several of those that are there look interesting. (I'd have liked to have refereed this one too).
Sadly none of the papers I refereed made it, but several of those that are there look interesting. (I'd have liked to have refereed this one too).
Saturday, November 04, 2006
Bleg
Watching The Simpsons Friday night (I said it could be educational), Bart thrust his book of short stories into the dog's mouth. The camera closed in on what was left of a page reading "All in all, it had been a very strange lottery. The End" I was wondering if anyone could tell me where this came from?
Googling has so far proved ineffective. All I've found is it was used in a signature by someone posting on deviantART. The only other lead I got was to Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, but that's not the last line of her story.
Googling has so far proved ineffective. All I've found is it was used in a signature by someone posting on deviantART. The only other lead I got was to Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, but that's not the last line of her story.
Liverpool 2-0 Reading
Some had been suggesting Kuyt was very much like Crouch - a good all round player who works hard for the team, but not an out and out goal-scorer. They may well be right - he certainly missed a couple of good chances - but two more goals today go some way to suggesting he can still chip in where needed. The continuing blossoming of the partnership with Crouch (who got both assists) is also welcome.
Overall, Liverpool were quite dominant, and could easily have won by more than two goals - although for a long time we failed to put the game safe, and I was worried we might concede an equaliser (which we almost did, a Reading goal being disallowed jsut before our second). With some other results going our way, we're now only 3 points from Bolton in 3rd.
Overall, Liverpool were quite dominant, and could easily have won by more than two goals - although for a long time we failed to put the game safe, and I was worried we might concede an equaliser (which we almost did, a Reading goal being disallowed jsut before our second). With some other results going our way, we're now only 3 points from Bolton in 3rd.
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Saving the Greater Number
Here's my reading list with links (
J. Taurek (1977) ‘Should the Numbers Count?’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 6:4 293-316
Supplementary:
D. Parfit (1978) ‘Innumerate Ethics’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 7:4 285-301
G. Kavka (1979) ‘The Numbers Should Count’ Philosophical Studies 36
J. Broome (1984) ‘Selecting People Randomly’ Ethics 95:1 38-55
J. Sanders (1988) ‘Why the Numbers Should Sometimes Count’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 17:1 3-14
I. Hirose (2004) ‘Aggregation and Numbers’ Utilitas 16:1 62-79
M. Otsuka (2000) ‘Scanlon and the claims of the many versus the one’ Analysis 60:3 288-293
D. Wasserman and A. Strudler (2003) ‘Can a Nonconsequentialist Count Lives?’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 31:1 71-94
F. M. Kamm (2005) ‘Aggregation and Two Moral Methods’ Utilitas 17:1 1-23
R. Kumar (2001) ‘Contractualism on Saving the Many’ Analysis 61:2 165-170
F. M. Kamm (2002) ‘Owing, Justifying and Rejecting’ Mind 111
D. Parfit (2003) ‘Justifiability to each person’ Ratio 16
J. Raz (2003) ‘Numbers, with and without Contractualism’ Ratio 16:4 346-367
J. Timmermann (2004) ‘The Individualist Lottery: How People Count, but not their Numbers’ Analysis 64:2 106-112
G. Lang (2005) ‘Fairness in Life and Death Cases’ Erkenntis 62 321-51
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Blogger Meet
Just passing on the reminder that OxBloggers are meeting in Far From the Madding Crowd tomorrow night. (The invite is also on FaceBook)
I'm afraid I'm unlikely to show, as it clashes with our Political Theory Reading Group - we're meeting in the Old School on Gloucester Green to discuss Rawls on Civil Disobedience. Sadly, I can't find my notes on such, though I know I read it last term...
I'm afraid I'm unlikely to show, as it clashes with our Political Theory Reading Group - we're meeting in the Old School on Gloucester Green to discuss Rawls on Civil Disobedience. Sadly, I can't find my notes on such, though I know I read it last term...
Liverpool 3-0 Bordeaux
Shockingly, Benitez named an unchanged side for the first time in 100 games and as against Villa they did the job. Maybe this is our strongest line up?!
It was particularly pleasing to see Gerrard finally score his first of the season, soon after skying another chance. Apparently this puts him just one behind Rush's European Cup record of 14 for the reds, though Garcia's two goals tonight take him to three this season. He got at least 5 in 2004-5 so he must be quite high up there...
The game wasn't all so easy. There were some nervy moments at the start of the second half, but Reina and Finnan made good saves/blocks. When Bordeaux got reduced to ten, the match was pretty much over - though it was pleasing that we created many more chances against the ten, and could have had two or three more in the final ten minutes. Sissoko hit a decent shot from a clever Kuyt pass, Fowler had a few half-chances and the commentator mistook Hyypia for Kuyt as he put a header over the bar.
Qualification done; I know there's still top of the group to play for, but I'd rather we followed Man Utd's example and blooded some younger players at this level of competition. Maybe give these players a rest now...
It was particularly pleasing to see Gerrard finally score his first of the season, soon after skying another chance. Apparently this puts him just one behind Rush's European Cup record of 14 for the reds, though Garcia's two goals tonight take him to three this season. He got at least 5 in 2004-5 so he must be quite high up there...
The game wasn't all so easy. There were some nervy moments at the start of the second half, but Reina and Finnan made good saves/blocks. When Bordeaux got reduced to ten, the match was pretty much over - though it was pleasing that we created many more chances against the ten, and could have had two or three more in the final ten minutes. Sissoko hit a decent shot from a clever Kuyt pass, Fowler had a few half-chances and the commentator mistook Hyypia for Kuyt as he put a header over the bar.
Qualification done; I know there's still top of the group to play for, but I'd rather we followed Man Utd's example and blooded some younger players at this level of competition. Maybe give these players a rest now...
Coin Tossing
I know this has happened in Liverpool's history (1965 vs Cologne - the win set Liverpool up for a semi-final against Inter Milan), but the BBC currently has an article about when Celtic beat Benfica in the 1969 CL quarter final by tossing a coin.
The sides could not be separated after extra-time and the dreaded toss of a coin was used to determine who would progress to the semi-finals of the European Cup.
Lisbon Lion Billy McNeill said it was a terrible way to decide the game, but he felt Celtic deserved to progress at the expense of their Portuguese opponents.
...
The Celtic captain said none of the players involved that night wanted the game to be decided in such a manner.
"The toss of a coin was a farcical way of deciding a quarter final - irrespective of who won," said McNeill, who was part of Celtic's delegation.
...
"I'll be hoping Celtic produce a better performance against Benfica in Lisbon than we did."
Whatever happens in Lisbon, the only certainty is that heads or tails will not decide Celtic's fate.
Let those who disapprove of penalties consider a real lottery...
The sides could not be separated after extra-time and the dreaded toss of a coin was used to determine who would progress to the semi-finals of the European Cup.
Lisbon Lion Billy McNeill said it was a terrible way to decide the game, but he felt Celtic deserved to progress at the expense of their Portuguese opponents.
...
The Celtic captain said none of the players involved that night wanted the game to be decided in such a manner.
"The toss of a coin was a farcical way of deciding a quarter final - irrespective of who won," said McNeill, who was part of Celtic's delegation.
...
"I'll be hoping Celtic produce a better performance against Benfica in Lisbon than we did."
Whatever happens in Lisbon, the only certainty is that heads or tails will not decide Celtic's fate.
Let those who disapprove of penalties consider a real lottery...
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Liverpool 3-1 Aston Villa
I wasn't particularly optimistic about the arrival of the unbeaten Villa, but in the first half Liverpool made it look easy. I said before I'd like to see Kuyt and Crouch paired, and here they each produced a goal. It does seem to lack the variety Bellamy's pace provides, but then that never stopped Benitez pairing Mori and Crouch rather than Cisse.
We know nothing's ever settled at half-time - even with a 3-0 lead - but it was predictable that we'd take our foot off the gas a bit and Villa would mount something of a fightback. We conceded one, and it could have been two, but the damage - and the job - was done. I wouldn't say we played our best football, but certainly a step above most of this season's performances. More of the same and our season can really kick into gear.
We know nothing's ever settled at half-time - even with a 3-0 lead - but it was predictable that we'd take our foot off the gas a bit and Villa would mount something of a fightback. We conceded one, and it could have been two, but the damage - and the job - was done. I wouldn't say we played our best football, but certainly a step above most of this season's performances. More of the same and our season can really kick into gear.
Jobs
It seems there's another moral/political philosophy vacancy, this time in my 'home university', of Essex (though they do like continental stuff).
Closer to home, defined as Oxford, Keble are advertising a stipendiary lectureship in philosophy for next term. Strangely, given it's only eight hours a week, they seem to expect an awful lot to be covered ("The Lecturer will be required to teach the General Philosophy, Mill and (preferably) Logic components of the Prelims paper, and the Ethics and History of Philosophy papers for Schools.") It looks like another one that would go to someone more senior than me, and I suspect that if they were willing to narrow that range of papers they'd prefer someone to teach the non-ethics parts, since their current tutor Ed Harcourt specialises in those areas.
It's also time to consider JRFs - such as in Oxford or Cambridge - but that's something else I won't consider until next year.
Closer to home, defined as Oxford, Keble are advertising a stipendiary lectureship in philosophy for next term. Strangely, given it's only eight hours a week, they seem to expect an awful lot to be covered ("The Lecturer will be required to teach the General Philosophy, Mill and (preferably) Logic components of the Prelims paper, and the Ethics and History of Philosophy papers for Schools.") It looks like another one that would go to someone more senior than me, and I suspect that if they were willing to narrow that range of papers they'd prefer someone to teach the non-ethics parts, since their current tutor Ed Harcourt specialises in those areas.
It's also time to consider JRFs - such as in Oxford or Cambridge - but that's something else I won't consider until next year.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Law and the State
John Gardner's BCL seminar on Law and the State Friday evenings is usually very good. I haven't been yet this year, as the first two sessions always cover Rawls and Hayek and are much the same each time. Having sat through a rather boring seminar this afternoon, however, I'm disappointed I didn't know that the schedule was to cover Mill on justice - if so, I'd definitely have gone. As it is, I plan to attend most of the rest, even though I've been to seminars on Wolff and Nozick in previous years.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Liverpool 4-3 Reading (Carling Cup)
Finally the goals are going in. Nice to see Fowler back, for the first time since Everton, and it was a great finish for his goal.
Slightly worrying might be the way we almost threw away the lead, but with a very inexperienced back four of Peltier, Paletta, Agger and Warnock being denied the midfield protection of Sissoko at the end it was hardly surprising. The kids need to learn to keep their concentration until the end, and maybe this experience will help their development.
Slightly worrying might be the way we almost threw away the lead, but with a very inexperienced back four of Peltier, Paletta, Agger and Warnock being denied the midfield protection of Sissoko at the end it was hardly surprising. The kids need to learn to keep their concentration until the end, and maybe this experience will help their development.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Human 2.0
I just watched a pretty interesting episode of Horizon, on the future of humanity and technology. It seems you can currently watch the whole programme here (until 31st Oct).
There was some very interesting stuff about possibilities of what we may be able to do in the future. Back in the 1960s they'd been able to stop a charging bull with a device connected to its brain, and now they have remote control rats - apparently they can turn the rat by stimulating its whiskers and, while it still has a choice, they reward it following their suggestions by hitting the pleasure button.
Animals aside, it's predicted that we'll understand the human brain, and produce as powerful computers, around the year 2029, which creates the possibility of 'uploads', although they didn't go into this so much. They did describe how a computer had been able to read a monkey's brainwaves, and move a robotic arm exactly as the monkey moved its own arm while playing a computer game. Even more amazingly, the monkey realised what was going on and stopped moving its own arm - realising it could play the game just by thinking! Such technology is already being tested on humans, because they had an example of a paralysed boy who by thinking sounds could speak via computer reading his brain.
It's all very exciting - and potentially scary - stuff. That was the one area I felt was a bit of a let down. They had people both for and against these advances, but didn't really present any ethical arguments - it just seemed like irrational optimists versus irrational pessimists. That's the kind of stuff for the likes of Nick Bostrum and the Future of Humanities Institute.
There was some very interesting stuff about possibilities of what we may be able to do in the future. Back in the 1960s they'd been able to stop a charging bull with a device connected to its brain, and now they have remote control rats - apparently they can turn the rat by stimulating its whiskers and, while it still has a choice, they reward it following their suggestions by hitting the pleasure button.
Animals aside, it's predicted that we'll understand the human brain, and produce as powerful computers, around the year 2029, which creates the possibility of 'uploads', although they didn't go into this so much. They did describe how a computer had been able to read a monkey's brainwaves, and move a robotic arm exactly as the monkey moved its own arm while playing a computer game. Even more amazingly, the monkey realised what was going on and stopped moving its own arm - realising it could play the game just by thinking! Such technology is already being tested on humans, because they had an example of a paralysed boy who by thinking sounds could speak via computer reading his brain.
It's all very exciting - and potentially scary - stuff. That was the one area I felt was a bit of a let down. They had people both for and against these advances, but didn't really present any ethical arguments - it just seemed like irrational optimists versus irrational pessimists. That's the kind of stuff for the likes of Nick Bostrum and the Future of Humanities Institute.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Man Utd 2-0 Liverpool
Thankfully I missed this match due to my flatmate Ed having a birthday lunch, but that hurt - not as bad as Everton, but still bad.
The Everton match was I thought fairly even, at least given the flattering 3-0 scoreline. By all accounts, we deserved to lose today however, with everyone pretty poor - especially Garcia and Pennant. Of those with some (relative) credit to their names, apparently Gonzalez showed a bit more promise and Reina wasn't at fault - which is welcome after some dodgy displays in the season (particularly since we're soon to be without Dudek and third choice youngster Martin is injured)
I was never too confident as soon as I saw the line up. I thought we needed to attack more, preferably with Kuyt and Crouch. At least our next match is a home cup tie to Reading - I can only hope they focus on Premiership survival and bring a weakened team. Mind you, I wouldn't be particularly upset if we gave some reserve players (Paletta, Anderson, Lindfield, Hammill) chances - they could hardly do worse!
The Everton match was I thought fairly even, at least given the flattering 3-0 scoreline. By all accounts, we deserved to lose today however, with everyone pretty poor - especially Garcia and Pennant. Of those with some (relative) credit to their names, apparently Gonzalez showed a bit more promise and Reina wasn't at fault - which is welcome after some dodgy displays in the season (particularly since we're soon to be without Dudek and third choice youngster Martin is injured)
I was never too confident as soon as I saw the line up. I thought we needed to attack more, preferably with Kuyt and Crouch. At least our next match is a home cup tie to Reading - I can only hope they focus on Premiership survival and bring a weakened team. Mind you, I wouldn't be particularly upset if we gave some reserve players (Paletta, Anderson, Lindfield, Hammill) chances - they could hardly do worse!
Saturday, October 21, 2006
How America Could Rule the World
Scott Adams should go into politics. But what I really want to know is, is it true about American girls and British accents?
Friday, October 20, 2006
Clarendon Law Lecture
I wanted to attend the history of political thought seminar yesterday, but was sadly unable due to illness - consequently I had to cancel the afternoon's tutorials and spend the time in bed. Even if I had been well, I would therefore (with regret) have missed the chance to hear Justice Breyer talk about the US's democratic constitution. Thankfully, Colin Farrelly summarises the first lecture here.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Bordeaux 0-1 Liverpool
By all accounts, this was hardly a vintage display - which at least allowed for plenty of such puns. Nonetheless, at this stage it's results that count, and an away win in Europe is always welcome - particularly with it being our first away win of the season, no one playing that well, and the likes of Gerrard, Agger and Fowler ruled out by injury. Hopefully they'll be back alongside Sissoko and Kuyt for the big Man Utd match Sunday.
Presentation
I gave my presentation in Jerry Cohen's graduate research workshop this afternoon. It was the first one of term, and drew a packed crowd - about 25-30 I estimate - probably due to all the new people turning up to see him rather than me, but never mind.
A lot of questions went over fairly familiar problems - that I've either thought of myself or been asked before - so I had fairly standard answers, though I don't know if they were convincing. I did get plenty of discussion though - I took almost two sides of notes just on questions and comments (though sadly didn't attribute all).
There were also some questions that gave me real new food for thought, and which are therefore particularly welcome (even if in some ways slightly annoying).
Sadly, I was persuaded to join people in the KA afterwards (a common problem it seems: here, here, here). The result was I missed dinner, the football (I don't know anyone showing Liverpool with Chelsea vs Barcelona on anyway - a sad lack of proportionality) and ended up with late night essay-marking to do...
A lot of questions went over fairly familiar problems - that I've either thought of myself or been asked before - so I had fairly standard answers, though I don't know if they were convincing. I did get plenty of discussion though - I took almost two sides of notes just on questions and comments (though sadly didn't attribute all).
There were also some questions that gave me real new food for thought, and which are therefore particularly welcome (even if in some ways slightly annoying).
Sadly, I was persuaded to join people in the KA afterwards (a common problem it seems: here, here, here). The result was I missed dinner, the football (I don't know anyone showing Liverpool with Chelsea vs Barcelona on anyway - a sad lack of proportionality) and ended up with late night essay-marking to do...
Monday, October 16, 2006
Workshop Abstract
This Wednesday, I'll be presenting a plan of chapter 6 of my thesis - the one I intended to write over the summer - in Jerry Cohen's graduate workshop in All Souls. Here's the abstract:
The Rationality of Random Decision-Making
My thesis argues for a partly random decision mechanism called lottery-voting, in which elections are determined by a randomly-selected vote. The present chapter examines the rationality of this procedure, focusing on maximising and consistency as desiderata of rationality. I argue we do not need to maximise anything, so long as we do not select clearly worse (i.e. dominated) alternatives. I also argue the need for consistency has been exaggerated by those who claim we need a complete, transitive ordering of options. Instead, I argue we simply need some fair way of resolving disagreement, like tossing a coin. While no decision procedure is inherently rational or irrational, what it is rational to adopt in a given circumstance depends on what we want from the procedure. I argue (in conjunction with previous chapters of my thesis)that it may be rational to adopt lottery-voting to make collective decisions.
The Rationality of Random Decision-Making
My thesis argues for a partly random decision mechanism called lottery-voting, in which elections are determined by a randomly-selected vote. The present chapter examines the rationality of this procedure, focusing on maximising and consistency as desiderata of rationality. I argue we do not need to maximise anything, so long as we do not select clearly worse (i.e. dominated) alternatives. I also argue the need for consistency has been exaggerated by those who claim we need a complete, transitive ordering of options. Instead, I argue we simply need some fair way of resolving disagreement, like tossing a coin. While no decision procedure is inherently rational or irrational, what it is rational to adopt in a given circumstance depends on what we want from the procedure. I argue (in conjunction with previous chapters of my thesis)that it may be rational to adopt lottery-voting to make collective decisions.
Reading Group: Thursday
The first meeting of Michaelmas will be on **Thursday of 2nd week**. (I anticipate Wednesday being a better night for much of term - since the graduate workshop is 4-6 we can get dinner and reconvene c.8:30. This avoids clashes with the Jurisprudence Discussion Group and Ockham Society)
We'll be at **The Angel & Greyhound** [On St Clements, on your left as youcome from town and just before Subway] from 8:30 and discussing **Devlin's The Enforcement of Morals chapter 6 (on Mill)** [Can be found SSL K487.DEV or Merton Street L.b.10 - and college libraries].
Those of us that aren't new please try to be there in good time, to make it easier for those of you that are to find us. If anyone wants to RSVP we can make arrangements to meet up. If anyone finds this here, and wants to join the email list, let me know.
We'll be at **The Angel & Greyhound** [On St Clements, on your left as youcome from town and just before Subway] from 8:30 and discussing **Devlin's The Enforcement of Morals chapter 6 (on Mill)** [Can be found SSL K487.DEV or Merton Street L.b.10 - and college libraries].
Those of us that aren't new please try to be there in good time, to make it easier for those of you that are to find us. If anyone wants to RSVP we can make arrangements to meet up. If anyone finds this here, and wants to join the email list, let me know.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Species Survival
I was send this question my a friend studying Social Policy, who in turn had been asked it by someone at LSE.
I'm trying out an idea, and I wondered if you could possibly answer the following hypothetical question for me.
Imagine that you are a policy maker in charge of environmental protection. You are considering two policies, policy A and policy B, that can be summarised as follows:
Policy A has a 84% chance of saving 1 species of animals and a 16% chance of saving 40 species of animals.
Policy B has a 55% chance of saving 5 species of animals and a 45% chance of saving 10 species of animals.
You are not sure which species policies A and B will save - therefore you can assume that you would value all species that can be saved equally. Policies A and B are assumed to have no negative 'side effects' (i.e. the policies can only 'do good').
You have a budget of $1million to promote these policies to your legislature. Policies have a better chance of being enacted if their 'promotion' budget is large. How much of the $1 million would you allocate towards promoting policy A, and how much would you allocate towards promoting policy B, and why?
There's plenty more I could say - an awful lot of it quibbling with things under-defined by the question (when it says policies have a better chance of being enacted with more money, does that mean allocating $250,000 might in fact go to a policy that isn't even enacted and achieve nothing? What are these chances? Are the probabilities we're given the chances of success given enactment?)
My response was as follows:
As an actuarial matter, there's hardly any difference. The expected outcomesare 7.24 and 7.25 respectively. Not that numbers mean much.
I don't think you can make an informed choice from such abstract data. Much would depend on which species were involved - what the knock on effects would be for others in the ecosystem and such.
It's also possible framing effects may be involved. People respond differently to losses rather than benefits, tending to favour risks (which I presume meanspolicy A)
I'm not sure what the background assumption is. Since policy A can save up to 40 species, presumably at least that many are endangered. Let's say in fact 50 species are going to die out if we do nothing. Now we can rephrase these policies as:
A - 84% chance 49 species extinct, 16% chance only 10 extinct
B - 55% chance 45 species extinct, 45% chance only 40 extinct
I wonder how many people's intuitions would change put that way.
Personally, in light of the actuarial similarity and lack of any other relevant information I'd be pretty indifferent. On a policy level, I'd be happy to adopt whichever was democratically favoured. (I think it's fruitless to search for 'best policies' - better establish a list of acceptable options, and then leave matters to public deliberation/vote)
I'm interested to know what others think - both answers to the question and what it's actually getting at.
I'm trying out an idea, and I wondered if you could possibly answer the following hypothetical question for me.
Imagine that you are a policy maker in charge of environmental protection. You are considering two policies, policy A and policy B, that can be summarised as follows:
Policy A has a 84% chance of saving 1 species of animals and a 16% chance of saving 40 species of animals.
Policy B has a 55% chance of saving 5 species of animals and a 45% chance of saving 10 species of animals.
You are not sure which species policies A and B will save - therefore you can assume that you would value all species that can be saved equally. Policies A and B are assumed to have no negative 'side effects' (i.e. the policies can only 'do good').
You have a budget of $1million to promote these policies to your legislature. Policies have a better chance of being enacted if their 'promotion' budget is large. How much of the $1 million would you allocate towards promoting policy A, and how much would you allocate towards promoting policy B, and why?
There's plenty more I could say - an awful lot of it quibbling with things under-defined by the question (when it says policies have a better chance of being enacted with more money, does that mean allocating $250,000 might in fact go to a policy that isn't even enacted and achieve nothing? What are these chances? Are the probabilities we're given the chances of success given enactment?)
My response was as follows:
As an actuarial matter, there's hardly any difference. The expected outcomesare 7.24 and 7.25 respectively. Not that numbers mean much.
I don't think you can make an informed choice from such abstract data. Much would depend on which species were involved - what the knock on effects would be for others in the ecosystem and such.
It's also possible framing effects may be involved. People respond differently to losses rather than benefits, tending to favour risks (which I presume meanspolicy A)
I'm not sure what the background assumption is. Since policy A can save up to 40 species, presumably at least that many are endangered. Let's say in fact 50 species are going to die out if we do nothing. Now we can rephrase these policies as:
A - 84% chance 49 species extinct, 16% chance only 10 extinct
B - 55% chance 45 species extinct, 45% chance only 40 extinct
I wonder how many people's intuitions would change put that way.
Personally, in light of the actuarial similarity and lack of any other relevant information I'd be pretty indifferent. On a policy level, I'd be happy to adopt whichever was democratically favoured. (I think it's fruitless to search for 'best policies' - better establish a list of acceptable options, and then leave matters to public deliberation/vote)
I'm interested to know what others think - both answers to the question and what it's actually getting at.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Liverpool 1-1 Blackburn
And now our 100% home record has gone too... It wasn't a good international break with, aside from the fact players were away and preparation disrupted, Kuyt returned home with an ankle injury and Agger with a broken hand.
Again, we didn't look wholly convincing at the back, but it was up front where we had one of those frustrating days which - despite spending £17m on new strikers over the summer, not to mention adding Fowler on a free last January - seem to be too frequent. We had nine shots on target (and nine more off) but couldn't put the ball in the net.
Crouch had one cleared off the line, but I wouldn't blame him for beign a bit rusty - after being left on the bench several games, and then played when hardly fit off the back of two internationals. At least Bellamy got his first league goal for us. Unfortunately the only likely goal-threat off the bench was Garcia - though I'd have liked to have seen Gonzalez given ten minutes to run at tiring defenders...
Again, we didn't look wholly convincing at the back, but it was up front where we had one of those frustrating days which - despite spending £17m on new strikers over the summer, not to mention adding Fowler on a free last January - seem to be too frequent. We had nine shots on target (and nine more off) but couldn't put the ball in the net.
Crouch had one cleared off the line, but I wouldn't blame him for beign a bit rusty - after being left on the bench several games, and then played when hardly fit off the back of two internationals. At least Bellamy got his first league goal for us. Unfortunately the only likely goal-threat off the bench was Garcia - though I'd have liked to have seen Gonzalez given ten minutes to run at tiring defenders...
Injuries
On a day where Liverpool just couldn't convert chances into goals having two strikers (Kuyt and Fowler - three if you add Cisse's broken leg from a World Cup warm-up match) out injured is frustrating. But it's always easy to bemoan your own bad luck, and assume the grass is greener elsewhere. I can't help but think that - after having not one but two goalkeepers stretchered off today, just before facing Barcelona - Chelsea are f***ed.
Obviously I wish the players concerned a full recovery. I'm somewhat less bothered about their club...
Obviously I wish the players concerned a full recovery. I'm somewhat less bothered about their club...
UCL Job
Given that it requires MA supervision/examining, this job is a couple of years too early for me, but at least it's good to see more cross-posted jobs in moral philosophy/political theory.
This follows the similar one year post I applied for at Lincoln college this summer. Incidentally, I met the guy who got the job at Monday's moral philosophy seminar.
This follows the similar one year post I applied for at Lincoln college this summer. Incidentally, I met the guy who got the job at Monday's moral philosophy seminar.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Blair Left, Cameron Right
Do you know your left from your right any more?
To the strain of 'Won't Get Fooled Again':
There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right...
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution...
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Watch this.
To the strain of 'Won't Get Fooled Again':
There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now the parting on the right...
I'll tip my hat to the new constitution...
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
Watch this.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Political Theory
Colin Farrelly has an interesting post on what political theory is and, more importantly, what makes for good political theory. (Incidentally, I haven't yet read his paper, but hope to see him in action here tomorrow)
Since I was rudely awakened by a fire drill about an hour ago, I still think it's a bit too early in the morning to formulate my own thoughts, but what he says seems to make much sense. Now I just need to adapt it to questions of moral theory - including the one Rob asks.
Since I was rudely awakened by a fire drill about an hour ago, I still think it's a bit too early in the morning to formulate my own thoughts, but what he says seems to make much sense. Now I just need to adapt it to questions of moral theory - including the one Rob asks.
Friday, October 06, 2006
Freshers' Week
Ok, it's been a hectic week, but in summary:
Friday -1st:
Aside from spending all day in a conference on welfare rights, the evening was our bunker party - with a theme that changed from school uniform to charity shop too late for me to do anything else. It was a good night, even if the ride home at 3:30am was dodgy.
Saturday -1st:
My mum came to visit. We didn't really do too much, except have lunch and go to big Tesco.
Sunday 0th:
Officially 'freshers week'. Went to brunch in college, met most of the kids I'm 'parenting' (though I'd already spoken to a few on facebook)
Monday 0th:
Pub crawl - Royal Oak, Eagle & Child, Kings Arms. Sadly got separated from people on the way home, but then bumped into my friend Rob before being caught by other Jesus people - so all worked out well.
Tuesday 0th:
Went to watch greyhound racing down Blackbird Leys. Only placed one bet, but won £3 (on £2 stake) which covered my entrance fee...
Wednesday 0th:
Met two students I think I'm teaching this term - though things at Trinity seem rather uncertain. Dinner followed by wine and cheese in GCR. Then college bar, and I made a brief foray into the Purple Turtle, but came home pretty early.
Thursday 0th:
Had to be in college by 10am for part of a BBC feature on Jesus college. We'd been told this would probably be shown on Friday - it wasn't, but I have no idea if it is to be another time, or not at all.
Supposed to be a joint JCR-GCR pub crawl in the evening. Only five grads turned up, and the groups got rather split up. We ended up in The Bear, then Crown (via Turf, though we didn't drink there) and finally playing table football in the college bar.
Friday 0th:
Invigilated an exam in the morning, then met two more students - that's a personal best-equalling four I'm teaching this term - then came home and did shopping for tomorrow's parenting dinner.
Friday -1st:
Aside from spending all day in a conference on welfare rights, the evening was our bunker party - with a theme that changed from school uniform to charity shop too late for me to do anything else. It was a good night, even if the ride home at 3:30am was dodgy.
Saturday -1st:
My mum came to visit. We didn't really do too much, except have lunch and go to big Tesco.
Sunday 0th:
Officially 'freshers week'. Went to brunch in college, met most of the kids I'm 'parenting' (though I'd already spoken to a few on facebook)
Monday 0th:
Pub crawl - Royal Oak, Eagle & Child, Kings Arms. Sadly got separated from people on the way home, but then bumped into my friend Rob before being caught by other Jesus people - so all worked out well.
Tuesday 0th:
Went to watch greyhound racing down Blackbird Leys. Only placed one bet, but won £3 (on £2 stake) which covered my entrance fee...
Wednesday 0th:
Met two students I think I'm teaching this term - though things at Trinity seem rather uncertain. Dinner followed by wine and cheese in GCR. Then college bar, and I made a brief foray into the Purple Turtle, but came home pretty early.
Thursday 0th:
Had to be in college by 10am for part of a BBC feature on Jesus college. We'd been told this would probably be shown on Friday - it wasn't, but I have no idea if it is to be another time, or not at all.
Supposed to be a joint JCR-GCR pub crawl in the evening. Only five grads turned up, and the groups got rather split up. We ended up in The Bear, then Crown (via Turf, though we didn't drink there) and finally playing table football in the college bar.
Friday 0th:
Invigilated an exam in the morning, then met two more students - that's a personal best-equalling four I'm teaching this term - then came home and did shopping for tomorrow's parenting dinner.
South Today
Anyone in the Oxford area, watch South Today (local news) BBC 1 6:30. There's a chance I might be in a feature about Jesus College.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Random Links
Too busy with freshers' week to write anything involved, so here's some quick and lazy linking:
New Oxford blog from Jesus grad fresher Oscar. (More from Milan here). Don't forget the blogger meet.
National novel writing month here. Not that I intend to participate, but if only knocking off 50,000 thesis words was as easy... Maybe the same 'just write' approach should be applied!
An amusing deconstruction of a piece from the Daily Telegraph about women and nature.
New Oxford blog from Jesus grad fresher Oscar. (More from Milan here). Don't forget the blogger meet.
National novel writing month here. Not that I intend to participate, but if only knocking off 50,000 thesis words was as easy... Maybe the same 'just write' approach should be applied!
An amusing deconstruction of a piece from the Daily Telegraph about women and nature.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Blogger Meet
It had occurred to me that we are overdue another blogger meet. Indeed, it was due in August!
I assumed nothing would happen until after the start of the new year and integration of freshers was complete. Now indeed, it has been proposed (via Milan) that we meet Wednesday of 4th week (1st Nov). 8pm at Far From the Madding Crowd.
This may also be an opportune time to mention a blog started by my friend Steve from college . He's a pretty interesting and opinionated person in conversation, so hopefully his blog will be likewise. At the moment, I think he's a bit distracted with job applications, so there's some risk it might die an early death - but it seems he's an old hand at a collaborative blog. See his notice here.
So, let word be spread about the meeting - particularly to any freshers.
I assumed nothing would happen until after the start of the new year and integration of freshers was complete. Now indeed, it has been proposed (via Milan) that we meet Wednesday of 4th week (1st Nov). 8pm at Far From the Madding Crowd.
This may also be an opportune time to mention a blog started by my friend Steve from college . He's a pretty interesting and opinionated person in conversation, so hopefully his blog will be likewise. At the moment, I think he's a bit distracted with job applications, so there's some risk it might die an early death - but it seems he's an old hand at a collaborative blog. See his notice here.
So, let word be spread about the meeting - particularly to any freshers.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Webcameron
See this.
I'll give my thoughts when I've seen more it myself. For now, I don't want to prejudice your opinions.
I'll give my thoughts when I've seen more it myself. For now, I don't want to prejudice your opinions.
Bolton 2-0 Liverpool
Another early away game, another defeat.
I only listened to the first half, as my mum came to visit. It sounded like we dominated - without being too threatening admittedly - only to go behind to a controversial free kick. It wasn't just the Liverpool website that said it was wrong, the BBC concurred:
Sam Allardyce's team went ahead with a disputed goal after Jose Reina was wrongfully penalised for handball... Reina was penalised for handling outside of his area, though television replays showed the Spaniard released the ball when he was clearly inside in his box. Reina was made to pay for linesman Andy Halliday's mistake as Speed's low left-footed shot flew into the corner of the net... Speed's strike was Bolton's only direct shot at goal in the first half.
(emphasis added)
At the end of the day though, that's little consolation. I usually take the view these things cancel out over the season, and at the end of the day Bolton took the chance gifted to them while we couldn't take ours.
On paper, the team has been much strengthened this year, but there's something clearly wrong with the away results. Maybe the team still need time to gel, but I thought Crouch should have played with Kuyt against Bolton's notoriously physical approach. Admittedly, Bellamy seemed to cause real problems, but Crouch got a lot of credit for our improved away form last season, so I think he should be brought back in an attempt to recreate such form this year.
I only listened to the first half, as my mum came to visit. It sounded like we dominated - without being too threatening admittedly - only to go behind to a controversial free kick. It wasn't just the Liverpool website that said it was wrong, the BBC concurred:
Sam Allardyce's team went ahead with a disputed goal after Jose Reina was wrongfully penalised for handball... Reina was penalised for handling outside of his area, though television replays showed the Spaniard released the ball when he was clearly inside in his box. Reina was made to pay for linesman Andy Halliday's mistake as Speed's low left-footed shot flew into the corner of the net... Speed's strike was Bolton's only direct shot at goal in the first half.
(emphasis added)
At the end of the day though, that's little consolation. I usually take the view these things cancel out over the season, and at the end of the day Bolton took the chance gifted to them while we couldn't take ours.
On paper, the team has been much strengthened this year, but there's something clearly wrong with the away results. Maybe the team still need time to gel, but I thought Crouch should have played with Kuyt against Bolton's notoriously physical approach. Admittedly, Bellamy seemed to cause real problems, but Crouch got a lot of credit for our improved away form last season, so I think he should be brought back in an attempt to recreate such form this year.
Friday (Conference + Party)
I'm glad I got to the conference early enough, before the downpour. It was certainly an interesting event, bringing together political theorists, lawyers, philosophers and the odd social policy person (not that Fran's that odd). Sadly it's an inevitable risk that some papers, no doubt very interesting to some, weren't to me.
Plus sides were that I did get to put Cecile Fabre's ideas to David Miller, since he'd said something about how people can't have rights to kidneys as it would violate the rights of others to bodily integrity. I did meet Colin Farrelly, who seems a nice guy. I also met one new student at the department (Hugh) and caught up with several old friends. I also ate pretty much all I needed free...
It was just as well, as freshers' week kicked off with the traditional bunker party. The theme had (perhaps inadvisedly) changed from back to school to 'charity shop dash' at the last minute, but since I'd been at the conference I hadn't had chance to get anything other than my blazer - which proved a bit of a talking point. (Anyone would think people had never seen a purple one before)
Again, I got to catch up with several old friends - in particular, I'm glad to learn Gemma has got funding and is staying - and meet several new people, whose names I've probably forgotten. My 'son' Sam seems a fairly cool guy - at least, he admits maths is boring and he likes the Killers. I also met a Dutch girl Ketja who's doing the MJur but has a background in philosophy and is looking forward to jurisprudence.
There were plenty of others I met, albeit fairly briefly, including some interlopers from Linacre. The freshers almost all seemed to disappear pretty early though, so by 2am it was mostly us old cool people... And after that it was a decidedly dodgy cycle ride home; but me bringing up the rear with constant shouts of 'keep left Clea' we made it!
Plus sides were that I did get to put Cecile Fabre's ideas to David Miller, since he'd said something about how people can't have rights to kidneys as it would violate the rights of others to bodily integrity. I did meet Colin Farrelly, who seems a nice guy. I also met one new student at the department (Hugh) and caught up with several old friends. I also ate pretty much all I needed free...
It was just as well, as freshers' week kicked off with the traditional bunker party. The theme had (perhaps inadvisedly) changed from back to school to 'charity shop dash' at the last minute, but since I'd been at the conference I hadn't had chance to get anything other than my blazer - which proved a bit of a talking point. (Anyone would think people had never seen a purple one before)
Again, I got to catch up with several old friends - in particular, I'm glad to learn Gemma has got funding and is staying - and meet several new people, whose names I've probably forgotten. My 'son' Sam seems a fairly cool guy - at least, he admits maths is boring and he likes the Killers. I also met a Dutch girl Ketja who's doing the MJur but has a background in philosophy and is looking forward to jurisprudence.
There were plenty of others I met, albeit fairly briefly, including some interlopers from Linacre. The freshers almost all seemed to disappear pretty early though, so by 2am it was mostly us old cool people... And after that it was a decidedly dodgy cycle ride home; but me bringing up the rear with constant shouts of 'keep left Clea' we made it!
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Risk
Colin Farrelly has an interesting post on what we should do about risk management. (Incidentally, I still hope to meet him, and maybe tomorrow's CSSJ rights conference will be my chance)
I bring it up, because it reminded me of something said by Cecile Fabre. The very last line of the final chapter to her latest book (which was recently plugged over at CT, and which I'm reviewing) says:
Farrelly's post nicely bring out the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemma of a government simultaneously charged with running an overbearing nanny state (where flower baskets are reputedly banned because of risk of injury) and with not doing enough to protect their citizens from risks (particularly terrorism and the latest SARS/bird flu/MRSA/whatever epidemic)
He suggests four criteria that should govern responsible risk-management:
1. How probable is the risk of harm? The greater the probability of harm (all else being equal) the greater the case for intervention.
2. How severe and pervasive is the disadvantage in question? The greater the harm (all else being equal) the greater the case for intervention.
3. What is the likelihood that intervention will have the desirable effect (i.e. prevent or reduce the risk of harm)? The greater the likelihood that intervention will make a difference (all else being equal) the greater the case for intervention.
4. What is the cost of intervention? The cheaper the cost of intervention (all else being equal) the greater the case for intervention.
All seem sensible enough, and I wouldn't argue with any, but I would like to add one.
In so far as the focus is on government intervention to manage/reduce risks (and it isn't clear this is the exclusive focus of Farrelly's post), I think another important consideration is the control individuals have over their exposure to risk.
Risks of extreme sports, say, are ones that individuals need not expose themselves to. If they choose to, they bear the costs (a standard luck egalitarian claim - in deference to Anderson, it can be supplemented by a minimal safety net). Interference in one's self-regarding activity smacks of paternalism, which is why J. S. Mill thought no one should be forbidden from doing anything on the grounds it was harmful to them.
There are other risks that individuals can't do much about - including say the risk of nuclear reactor meltdowns or pollution more generally. Many of these risks are externalities or 'public bads'. Here it seems the government can play a co-ordinating role, ensuring we are not exposed to more risks than we would rationally want (though in a democracy this may be some 'average risk' - some may prefer more or less of course)
Then there are the more problematic middle cases - e.g. smoking. In so far as the main risk-bearer is the smoker, they choose whether or not to accept the risk. But what about those around them? Again, smokers impose health risks on others. Perhaps if we simply avoided smokers (as Milan suggests, didn't have sex with them), the problem would be mitigated. But, to what extent should we have to go to avoid these risks? Not entering pubs?
I think it's obvious that the extent to which individuals can, if they wish, freely avoid risks on their own (by taking adequate precautions) should have a significant bearing on government interference. It's a position that suggests danger signs may be more appropriate than fences. (Though I am, of course, talking about in a world of free and equal rational citizens; obviously with children and even animals to consider, there's a case for fences, even though the greater protection from danger means greater reduction in liberty)
Of course, part of my original point is that we can't avoid all risk. Even when the smoking ban comes in, I could get run over on my way to the pub (or, more likely, back from). But, on the other hand, sat at home I could be caught in a fire, a kitchen accident, etc, etc.
Back to Fabre - she makes the (quite obvious, I'd have thought) point that, in order to rescue someone in trouble, you can be required to risk a cost you are not required to pay. For example, I am not required to die to save a drowning swimmer, but I can be required to jump in and help them when there is a small chance I will be killed in the process. She suggests:
I bring it up, because it reminded me of something said by Cecile Fabre. The very last line of the final chapter to her latest book (which was recently plugged over at CT, and which I'm reviewing) says:
"[W]e cannot and will not ever be able to live in a risk-free society, particularly one free of the emotional risk of parenthood. Nor, in fact, should we aspire to do so"
Whose Body is it Anyway? p.218
Farrelly's post nicely bring out the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't dilemma of a government simultaneously charged with running an overbearing nanny state (where flower baskets are reputedly banned because of risk of injury) and with not doing enough to protect their citizens from risks (particularly terrorism and the latest SARS/bird flu/MRSA/whatever epidemic)
He suggests four criteria that should govern responsible risk-management:
1. How probable is the risk of harm? The greater the probability of harm (all else being equal) the greater the case for intervention.
2. How severe and pervasive is the disadvantage in question? The greater the harm (all else being equal) the greater the case for intervention.
3. What is the likelihood that intervention will have the desirable effect (i.e. prevent or reduce the risk of harm)? The greater the likelihood that intervention will make a difference (all else being equal) the greater the case for intervention.
4. What is the cost of intervention? The cheaper the cost of intervention (all else being equal) the greater the case for intervention.
All seem sensible enough, and I wouldn't argue with any, but I would like to add one.
In so far as the focus is on government intervention to manage/reduce risks (and it isn't clear this is the exclusive focus of Farrelly's post), I think another important consideration is the control individuals have over their exposure to risk.
Risks of extreme sports, say, are ones that individuals need not expose themselves to. If they choose to, they bear the costs (a standard luck egalitarian claim - in deference to Anderson, it can be supplemented by a minimal safety net). Interference in one's self-regarding activity smacks of paternalism, which is why J. S. Mill thought no one should be forbidden from doing anything on the grounds it was harmful to them.
There are other risks that individuals can't do much about - including say the risk of nuclear reactor meltdowns or pollution more generally. Many of these risks are externalities or 'public bads'. Here it seems the government can play a co-ordinating role, ensuring we are not exposed to more risks than we would rationally want (though in a democracy this may be some 'average risk' - some may prefer more or less of course)
Then there are the more problematic middle cases - e.g. smoking. In so far as the main risk-bearer is the smoker, they choose whether or not to accept the risk. But what about those around them? Again, smokers impose health risks on others. Perhaps if we simply avoided smokers (as Milan suggests, didn't have sex with them), the problem would be mitigated. But, to what extent should we have to go to avoid these risks? Not entering pubs?
I think it's obvious that the extent to which individuals can, if they wish, freely avoid risks on their own (by taking adequate precautions) should have a significant bearing on government interference. It's a position that suggests danger signs may be more appropriate than fences. (Though I am, of course, talking about in a world of free and equal rational citizens; obviously with children and even animals to consider, there's a case for fences, even though the greater protection from danger means greater reduction in liberty)
Of course, part of my original point is that we can't avoid all risk. Even when the smoking ban comes in, I could get run over on my way to the pub (or, more likely, back from). But, on the other hand, sat at home I could be caught in a fire, a kitchen accident, etc, etc.
Back to Fabre - she makes the (quite obvious, I'd have thought) point that, in order to rescue someone in trouble, you can be required to risk a cost you are not required to pay. For example, I am not required to die to save a drowning swimmer, but I can be required to jump in and help them when there is a small chance I will be killed in the process. She suggests:
"[A] reasonable risk, as incurred in the course of a rescue, is one no greater than the risks most individuals routinely incur, and impose on others, in their everyday life, when driving, cycling, and so on."
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Penalties
[This post represents quick thoughts - which I may or not get round to expanding later]
Sepp Blatter has suggested future World Cup finals shouldn't be decided by penalties. (Reaction here)
Personally, I think his alternative is ridiculous, and that penalties definitely are the best way to settle things.
One thing people who know me will probably know is that I hate penalties being referred to as 'a lottery'. Penalties depend on, if not skill, then at least nerve, at least as much as luck (which plays a role in all football)
If you wanted a real lottery, you could toss a coin. It's decided football matches before...
Sepp Blatter has suggested future World Cup finals shouldn't be decided by penalties. (Reaction here)
Personally, I think his alternative is ridiculous, and that penalties definitely are the best way to settle things.
One thing people who know me will probably know is that I hate penalties being referred to as 'a lottery'. Penalties depend on, if not skill, then at least nerve, at least as much as luck (which plays a role in all football)
If you wanted a real lottery, you could toss a coin. It's decided football matches before...
Liverpool 3-2 Galatasaray
Wow, what a start! I was glad to see Crouch given another start, and paired with Kuyt, and Garcia in the team as he's in great form. In fact, these were both things I pointed to in my last football post and it was the two of them (Crouch and Garcia) that put us two goals up inside 15 minutes.
While, obviously, I'd rather start like that than not scoring two goals, as a Liverpool fan I know not even a 3-0 half-time lead is safe. Naturally Galatasary came back into the game after the early shock - whether they were spurred on or we took our foot off the gas is hard to say.
In fact, it was just after half time that a great goal from Crouch looked to have put us back in charge and wrapped things up. It was then, however, that the commentator's curse struck, as mentions of 'it's all over now' and comparisons to our CL triumph in Istanbul inevitably came up - only for Galatasaray sub Umit Karan to score two quick goals around the hour.
I have to say, 3-0 had made the exciting end-to-end game seem rather more one-sided than it actually was. We'd had other good chances, including Kuyt hitting the post, that could really have settled things, but we'd also had moments of danger at the back, with Reina looking dodgy again, so one could hardly deny the Turks had deserved to pull a few back. It did make things awfully more nerve-wracking though...
(How typical that this great end-to-end, high-scoring match wasn't on TV, while the 0-0 bore draw a fortnight ago was)
Things could have been slightly more comfortable if the ref had sent off our former defender Song for elbowing Crouch in the face, or if he hadn't allowed a handball that thankfully only led to a Galatasaray corner. Perhaps it was Reina's form that contributed most to panicky moments, but then we can't under estimate the opposition - Galatasaray are a good team, who didn't deserve to lose 3-0. If you'd asked me before the game, I'd have certainly settled for 3-2 (or any win) - I just wish I'd been able to watch it!
While, obviously, I'd rather start like that than not scoring two goals, as a Liverpool fan I know not even a 3-0 half-time lead is safe. Naturally Galatasary came back into the game after the early shock - whether they were spurred on or we took our foot off the gas is hard to say.
In fact, it was just after half time that a great goal from Crouch looked to have put us back in charge and wrapped things up. It was then, however, that the commentator's curse struck, as mentions of 'it's all over now' and comparisons to our CL triumph in Istanbul inevitably came up - only for Galatasaray sub Umit Karan to score two quick goals around the hour.
I have to say, 3-0 had made the exciting end-to-end game seem rather more one-sided than it actually was. We'd had other good chances, including Kuyt hitting the post, that could really have settled things, but we'd also had moments of danger at the back, with Reina looking dodgy again, so one could hardly deny the Turks had deserved to pull a few back. It did make things awfully more nerve-wracking though...
(How typical that this great end-to-end, high-scoring match wasn't on TV, while the 0-0 bore draw a fortnight ago was)
Things could have been slightly more comfortable if the ref had sent off our former defender Song for elbowing Crouch in the face, or if he hadn't allowed a handball that thankfully only led to a Galatasaray corner. Perhaps it was Reina's form that contributed most to panicky moments, but then we can't under estimate the opposition - Galatasaray are a good team, who didn't deserve to lose 3-0. If you'd asked me before the game, I'd have certainly settled for 3-2 (or any win) - I just wish I'd been able to watch it!
Oak Trees, Dwarf Planets and such
I remember reading in English class - must have been GCSE I reckon - a short story called 'Winter Oak', by Yuri Nagibin, in which a class of school children are asked to give examples of nouns. The main character of the story volunteers the phrase 'winter oak' and is told this is wrong, because 'oak' is a noun and 'winter oak' is therefore just a kind of oak, as 'blue pen' is a kind of pen.
(Aside, but I don't recall anything being made of oak being just a kind of tree)
I don't really remember the story too exactly, and I couldn't find it online (though it must be a common English text, since there are plenty of sites offering essays tips, e.g. here and here) Anyway, the teacher escorted this pupil home through the woods, behald the beauty of a majestic oak tree in its winter majesty, and realised there seemed to be something profoundly different about the winter oak. The lesson our teacher drew was that a two word phrase could function as a noun.
Since then, I've been kind of interested in how a modifier can change the nature of what it modifies. I believe perhaps the best known example is W. D. Ross' 'prima facie duties', which he says aren't duties. I found it interesting to note, while browsing Wikipedia on the reclassification of Pluto, that a dwarf planet appears not to be a type of planet.
(Aside, but I don't recall anything being made of oak being just a kind of tree)
I don't really remember the story too exactly, and I couldn't find it online (though it must be a common English text, since there are plenty of sites offering essays tips, e.g. here and here) Anyway, the teacher escorted this pupil home through the woods, behald the beauty of a majestic oak tree in its winter majesty, and realised there seemed to be something profoundly different about the winter oak. The lesson our teacher drew was that a two word phrase could function as a noun.
Since then, I've been kind of interested in how a modifier can change the nature of what it modifies. I believe perhaps the best known example is W. D. Ross' 'prima facie duties', which he says aren't duties. I found it interesting to note, while browsing Wikipedia on the reclassification of Pluto, that a dwarf planet appears not to be a type of planet.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Sex Strike
Browsing through our copy of the Sunday Times, I came across this story - that the girlfriends of Columbian gang members have gone on a 'cross-legged strike' until gang violence ends. I was struck how this is exactly the premise of Aristophanes' Lysistrata (see my review here), in which the Greek women go on a similar sex strike to stop their husbands fighting. I wonder if that could have been based on a (partly) true story?
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Liverpool 3-0 Spurs
While we've only picked up one point from a possible nine on the road so far this season, our home form - three wins from three - is still impressive. Supposing we won all our home games, that would be 3 x 19 = 57 points over the season, which would be a healthy start with some more taken from away games (most of which will be easier than Chelsea and Everton).
I admit 3-0 flattered us a bit. There wasn't much in it for about an hour then, after Jenas' glaring miss, Bellamy hit the post when it seemed easier to score, but Gonzalez was able to finish the rebound from a ight angle (not too dissimilar to his first goal).
That seemed to open things up for us, and Kuyt when on to add a second before Riise scored one of his specials in the dying minutes. (Why are all his goals like that? And why do defenders still back off him?)
The match wasn't really as filled with controversial incidents as the Newcastle one, so there's not too much to say. Garcia - who came on as a sub - still looks in good form, so I hope he gets more games over the next few weeks. I also hope Crouch gets a few chances, but then Kuyt's playing well too. There are some matches (like Bolton) where I'd consider playing both of them - with Pennant and Gonzalez to supply width, crosses and speed.
I admit 3-0 flattered us a bit. There wasn't much in it for about an hour then, after Jenas' glaring miss, Bellamy hit the post when it seemed easier to score, but Gonzalez was able to finish the rebound from a ight angle (not too dissimilar to his first goal).
That seemed to open things up for us, and Kuyt when on to add a second before Riise scored one of his specials in the dying minutes. (Why are all his goals like that? And why do defenders still back off him?)
The match wasn't really as filled with controversial incidents as the Newcastle one, so there's not too much to say. Garcia - who came on as a sub - still looks in good form, so I hope he gets more games over the next few weeks. I also hope Crouch gets a few chances, but then Kuyt's playing well too. There are some matches (like Bolton) where I'd consider playing both of them - with Pennant and Gonzalez to supply width, crosses and speed.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Publishing
I said previously that I was looking forward to meeting Colin Farrelly, who's on a year's sabbatical in Oxford. It seems he's here now, and more interestingly (in the immediate short term at least), his latest post also has some reflections on the publishing pressures facing young/aspiring academics.
Personally, I think I'll be aiming to get out on the market just after the 2008 RAE. As such, it seems perhaps it isn't worth losing too many good ideas/articles before that date, but on the other hand the best way to show I have potential to get things published is to have done it.
Ho hum.
Personally, I think I'll be aiming to get out on the market just after the 2008 RAE. As such, it seems perhaps it isn't worth losing too many good ideas/articles before that date, but on the other hand the best way to show I have potential to get things published is to have done it.
Ho hum.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
Benefits of Blogging
Up until recently, I'd assumed blogging was little more than a way for me to rant my thoughts into cyber-space, and maybe post pieces of work with the chance of the odd comment offering feedback. That's not to say it's unrewarding, of course, I've always liked voicing my opinions, even if no one's listening, but in fact blogging has allowed me to meet - virtually or in real life (via blogger meets) - some interesting people.
Although a number of academics blog, and sometimes about academic matters, I never thought it would prove to help my career however. Yet, in response to a comment I left on an old post on CT, I was recently asked to write my first book review: on Cecile Fabre's Whose Body is it Anyway? for the Journal of Value Inquiry.
Obviously, I won't be able to post it here, but I'll let you know when it reaches print.
Although a number of academics blog, and sometimes about academic matters, I never thought it would prove to help my career however. Yet, in response to a comment I left on an old post on CT, I was recently asked to write my first book review: on Cecile Fabre's Whose Body is it Anyway? for the Journal of Value Inquiry.
Obviously, I won't be able to post it here, but I'll let you know when it reaches print.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Liverpool 2-0 Newcastle
After two straight defeats against arch-rivals, the League table is already looking pretty bad, but the one note of optimism is that both came away - Liverpool's form at Anfield is still very good. Nonetheless, I did have some worries about facing Newcastle while in a slump of form, and though initially hearted to hear Given was out I feared Harper might put in an inspired performance to show he deserved the place (I remember Macho having what must have been the two best games of his life against us for Sunderland).
Unfortunately, the game wasn't televised, but judging by the radio commentary it sounds like we had a lot of possession and a lot of chances. I'm glad Garcia got a look in again - he's an intelligent player we need for his goal-scoring touch. It sounds like there were some true flashes of genius from the little Spaniard, which including hitting the post and putting the ball in the net only to be booked for handball.
Of course, the Spaniard everyone will be talking about is Xabi Alonso. Some have been calling for him to be dropped after an indifferent start to the season (by his standards). Personally, I think the idea he needs a rest is ridiculous - he needs games to get his form back and, as they say, class is permanent. I haven't seen the goal yet - though presumably it will be either on the news or youtube soon - but apparently it was from about 70 yards (well in our half), and bettered the one versus Luton last year, because he had the 'keeper to beat (even if Harper did slip).
In fact, the Luton goal was, I believe, Alonso's last - he's not someone we expect to be a terrific goal-scorer, except in the sense of scorer-of-terrific-goals - so I'd rather just seem him regain his all round form and passing. I was pleased that Kuyt finally notched his first though, after my concerns at the weekend. Hopefully, as happened last year, once our strikers start scoring they won't stop... (And if they don't start soon, it really is about time Crouch got more of a chance)
Unfortunately, the game wasn't televised, but judging by the radio commentary it sounds like we had a lot of possession and a lot of chances. I'm glad Garcia got a look in again - he's an intelligent player we need for his goal-scoring touch. It sounds like there were some true flashes of genius from the little Spaniard, which including hitting the post and putting the ball in the net only to be booked for handball.
Of course, the Spaniard everyone will be talking about is Xabi Alonso. Some have been calling for him to be dropped after an indifferent start to the season (by his standards). Personally, I think the idea he needs a rest is ridiculous - he needs games to get his form back and, as they say, class is permanent. I haven't seen the goal yet - though presumably it will be either on the news or youtube soon - but apparently it was from about 70 yards (well in our half), and bettered the one versus Luton last year, because he had the 'keeper to beat (even if Harper did slip).
In fact, the Luton goal was, I believe, Alonso's last - he's not someone we expect to be a terrific goal-scorer, except in the sense of scorer-of-terrific-goals - so I'd rather just seem him regain his all round form and passing. I was pleased that Kuyt finally notched his first though, after my concerns at the weekend. Hopefully, as happened last year, once our strikers start scoring they won't stop... (And if they don't start soon, it really is about time Crouch got more of a chance)
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Honderich on Terrorism
Tipped off by Chris Bertram over on CT, I watched Ted Honderich's take on terrorism tonight on Channel 5. I haven't yet read Chris' after the broadcast piece, so this is very much my thoughts.
Basically, Honderich argued that the Jews had a right to the original borders of Israel (Zionism), but what he called neo-Zionism - trying ot take the remaining fifth of Palestine - is unjustified. Moreover, the Palestinians had a right to resist this occupation including, in a situation of asymmetric warfare, a right to terrorism. He went on to condemn Bush and Blair for fuelling terrorism, saying those who create its conditions hold a share of responsibility almost as great as the terrorists.
Sorry if that's a bit garbled, but so was the programme. I've often thought it's a shame that there aren't 'popular philosophy' programmes to rival, say, Schama's history or Winston's science programmes. I don't think Honderich did much to further the cause: There was no clear flow or line of argument, it largely consisted of interviews with a few peers and academics, documentary-style footage from Israel/Palestine and Honderich bland and repetitive 'I'm a philosophy' remarks.
The foundation for Honderich's judgements was what he called the 'principle of humanity' - though it wasn't Kantian, it seemed more like Finnis, in that it began by identifying six basic human goods (life, physical well-being, respect, community, etc) and argued that we had to take rational means to these. What this meant in practice was unclear, although he did condemn the 9/11 attacks as an irrational (by which he seemed to mean counter-productive) means to further a partly justified cause.
I was deeply dissatisfied by the lack of clear argument, but I did feel some of his conclusions were sound: if the Palestinians have some kind of right to their homeland, but have been deprived any means bar terrorism, it'd be almost hypocritical to censure them for using it - particularly when Bush and Blair have launched arguable illegal and immoral wars, killing far more civilians themselves.
Apparently there's a rival view being shown next week (7:15-8 Tuesday, on 5)
Basically, Honderich argued that the Jews had a right to the original borders of Israel (Zionism), but what he called neo-Zionism - trying ot take the remaining fifth of Palestine - is unjustified. Moreover, the Palestinians had a right to resist this occupation including, in a situation of asymmetric warfare, a right to terrorism. He went on to condemn Bush and Blair for fuelling terrorism, saying those who create its conditions hold a share of responsibility almost as great as the terrorists.
Sorry if that's a bit garbled, but so was the programme. I've often thought it's a shame that there aren't 'popular philosophy' programmes to rival, say, Schama's history or Winston's science programmes. I don't think Honderich did much to further the cause: There was no clear flow or line of argument, it largely consisted of interviews with a few peers and academics, documentary-style footage from Israel/Palestine and Honderich bland and repetitive 'I'm a philosophy' remarks.
The foundation for Honderich's judgements was what he called the 'principle of humanity' - though it wasn't Kantian, it seemed more like Finnis, in that it began by identifying six basic human goods (life, physical well-being, respect, community, etc) and argued that we had to take rational means to these. What this meant in practice was unclear, although he did condemn the 9/11 attacks as an irrational (by which he seemed to mean counter-productive) means to further a partly justified cause.
I was deeply dissatisfied by the lack of clear argument, but I did feel some of his conclusions were sound: if the Palestinians have some kind of right to their homeland, but have been deprived any means bar terrorism, it'd be almost hypocritical to censure them for using it - particularly when Bush and Blair have launched arguable illegal and immoral wars, killing far more civilians themselves.
Apparently there's a rival view being shown next week (7:15-8 Tuesday, on 5)
Monday, September 18, 2006
History of Political Thought Research Seminar
The full schedule for this term's seminar isn't on the lecture list, but I've just been emailed it:
5pm, Thursdays, Swire Seminar Room, University College
Convenors: Dr Ben Jackson and Dr Marc Stears
Week 1 12 Oct Dr Karma Nabulsi (Oxford)
Conspirators for Liberty: The Underground Struggle for Democracy in Nineteenth-Century Europe
Week 2 19 Oct Professor Robin Osborne (Cambridge)
Democracy and Religion in Classical Athens
Week 3 26 Oct Dr Annabel Brett (Cambridge)
Rights and Freedom of Movement in Sixteenth-Century Spain: The Debate Over Poor Law Reform
Week 4 2 Nov Dr James Thompson (Bristol)
Recasting Modern Liberty? Writing the History of British Liberalism After Mill
Week 5 9 Nov Dr Richard Whatmore (Sussex)
Republican Reform in the Late Eighteenth Century
Week 6 16 Nov Dr Duncan Kelly (Sheffield)
The Propriety of Liberty
Week 7 23 Nov Professor David Wootton (York)
Representation Before Democracy
Week 8 30 Nov Professor Jon Mee (Oxford)
The Trial of Thomas Paine 1792: 'Electrick Communication Everywhere'
I think I'm going to try to attend even weeks, plus week 7.
5pm, Thursdays, Swire Seminar Room, University College
Convenors: Dr Ben Jackson and Dr Marc Stears
Week 1 12 Oct Dr Karma Nabulsi (Oxford)
Conspirators for Liberty: The Underground Struggle for Democracy in Nineteenth-Century Europe
Week 2 19 Oct Professor Robin Osborne (Cambridge)
Democracy and Religion in Classical Athens
Week 3 26 Oct Dr Annabel Brett (Cambridge)
Rights and Freedom of Movement in Sixteenth-Century Spain: The Debate Over Poor Law Reform
Week 4 2 Nov Dr James Thompson (Bristol)
Recasting Modern Liberty? Writing the History of British Liberalism After Mill
Week 5 9 Nov Dr Richard Whatmore (Sussex)
Republican Reform in the Late Eighteenth Century
Week 6 16 Nov Dr Duncan Kelly (Sheffield)
The Propriety of Liberty
Week 7 23 Nov Professor David Wootton (York)
Representation Before Democracy
Week 8 30 Nov Professor Jon Mee (Oxford)
The Trial of Thomas Paine 1792: 'Electrick Communication Everywhere'
I think I'm going to try to attend even weeks, plus week 7.
Newspeak
One of the books I finally got round to reading over the summer was Orwell's 1984. With Newspeak in mind, here's a chilling example of political misdirection. (via CT)
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Sunday Night
Already not too happy from watching Chelsea's win, I was further disappointed to hear I hadn't been invited to interview for the St Peter's Lectureship. Given I had made the shortlist for two better posts (more hours, more money) I was a bit surprised - I'd have thought I'd be about as qualified as anyone they'd get for such a post. (Granted, less teaching experience than some, but they weren't likely to get people with PhDs and at least I know the Oxford system well).
I was in college to greet new freshers. Since some courses start well before freshers' week, our GCR pres decided it'd be a good idea if two committee members spent a couple of hours in the GCR on Sunday nights with an informal tea and biscuits drop-in meet thingy. For the third Sunday running, no one showed up*, so Steve, Vicki and I ate the biscuits... I think there are a few people around now, but I'm not sure these nights were well (at all?) advertised: Neil the porter said he'd have told new arrivals about it if he'd known.
*That's not quite true. One girl came in, but only to fetch something from the kitchen. She did introduce herself, but that was it.
I did get to see a couple of old people, and flick through the newspaper, but that was about it. Afterwards, however, I went to Alex C's birthday in Quod, where Rob and I spent a while trying to explain how Oxford's undergrad system works to Tiziana.
I was in college to greet new freshers. Since some courses start well before freshers' week, our GCR pres decided it'd be a good idea if two committee members spent a couple of hours in the GCR on Sunday nights with an informal tea and biscuits drop-in meet thingy. For the third Sunday running, no one showed up*, so Steve, Vicki and I ate the biscuits... I think there are a few people around now, but I'm not sure these nights were well (at all?) advertised: Neil the porter said he'd have told new arrivals about it if he'd known.
*That's not quite true. One girl came in, but only to fetch something from the kitchen. She did introduce herself, but that was it.
I did get to see a couple of old people, and flick through the newspaper, but that was about it. Afterwards, however, I went to Alex C's birthday in Quod, where Rob and I spent a while trying to explain how Oxford's undergrad system works to Tiziana.
Chelsea 1-0 Liverpool
Often, the neutral would say that games between Liverpool and Chelsea don't live up to the pre-match hype. Well, I'll grant that there are rarely many goals in it, but for a non-neutral they're always tense, close games. I'd only meant to listen on the radio this week, but after being directed to an internet link screening the match, I ended up watching it all...
Liverpool were undone by a great goal from Drogba. I remember how frightening he was playing for Marseille - he destroyed us in Europe - and this was a glimpse back to form. Normally for Chelsea he's just been a big, clumsy target man, who goes down remarkably easily - rather like a £24m Emily Heskey in fact. Today, however, his turn and volley goal was the difference between the two sides and, while we also saw his falling over, there were some other nice touches.
The sending off of Ballack gave Liverpool a chance to get back into the game, and though ten men are often able to shut up shop and protect a lead, it became a surprisingly open game. On the red card, I have to admit Ballack may have been unlucky. His foot certainly landed on Momo's leg while he was on the ground - thankfully no damage done - but it wasn't obviously a malicious stamp. Further, Momo may have been lucky to have still been on the pitch - Chelsea fans were calling for him to go after he rashly caught Lampard with a late tackle right after being booked. (In his defence, he didn't have too bad a day, and the booking was maybe harsh - it was simply foolhardy not to be more careful so soon after the yellow).
I'd have liked to have seen Garcia and/or Gonzalez involved but, for the most part, I think Rafa's tactics were good. While I heard wildly varying estimates of possession, I don't think either team really dominated the other. Nonetheless, we got plenty of joy out of Pennant on the right - who was clearly knackered by the end - and created more chances than we might have expected. The best two were Kuyt's shot that hit the bar, and Gerrard's straight at Cech. At the other end, it took a special shot to beat Liverpool's defence which, other than a goal-line clearance by Agger after the whistle had already gone, was rarely troubled.
Sadly, performances alone don't bring any points and, with Arsenal's win over Man Utd already putting them above us, it looks like we will face serious difficulty even getting into the top four unless we learn to (i) shut up shop at the back and (ii) put the ball in the net - something we spent £16m on new strikers to do this season. Kuyt's all-action performances have certainly made him a popular figure, but I was wondering when we signed him if the money might have been better spent on a proven English goal-scorer like Andy Johnson.
Liverpool were undone by a great goal from Drogba. I remember how frightening he was playing for Marseille - he destroyed us in Europe - and this was a glimpse back to form. Normally for Chelsea he's just been a big, clumsy target man, who goes down remarkably easily - rather like a £24m Emily Heskey in fact. Today, however, his turn and volley goal was the difference between the two sides and, while we also saw his falling over, there were some other nice touches.
The sending off of Ballack gave Liverpool a chance to get back into the game, and though ten men are often able to shut up shop and protect a lead, it became a surprisingly open game. On the red card, I have to admit Ballack may have been unlucky. His foot certainly landed on Momo's leg while he was on the ground - thankfully no damage done - but it wasn't obviously a malicious stamp. Further, Momo may have been lucky to have still been on the pitch - Chelsea fans were calling for him to go after he rashly caught Lampard with a late tackle right after being booked. (In his defence, he didn't have too bad a day, and the booking was maybe harsh - it was simply foolhardy not to be more careful so soon after the yellow).
I'd have liked to have seen Garcia and/or Gonzalez involved but, for the most part, I think Rafa's tactics were good. While I heard wildly varying estimates of possession, I don't think either team really dominated the other. Nonetheless, we got plenty of joy out of Pennant on the right - who was clearly knackered by the end - and created more chances than we might have expected. The best two were Kuyt's shot that hit the bar, and Gerrard's straight at Cech. At the other end, it took a special shot to beat Liverpool's defence which, other than a goal-line clearance by Agger after the whistle had already gone, was rarely troubled.
Sadly, performances alone don't bring any points and, with Arsenal's win over Man Utd already putting them above us, it looks like we will face serious difficulty even getting into the top four unless we learn to (i) shut up shop at the back and (ii) put the ball in the net - something we spent £16m on new strikers to do this season. Kuyt's all-action performances have certainly made him a popular figure, but I was wondering when we signed him if the money might have been better spent on a proven English goal-scorer like Andy Johnson.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Friday, September 15, 2006
Open Day
Running around college all day, giving the same repetitive talk to Sixth Former after Sixth Former (or parent) is pretty tiring. Still, it's something I find pretty rewarding, aside from the £25 and free lunch for the day. (Even if a 9am start made it one of what I'm sure won't be many days when I was first to leave the flat).
You forget just how much you didn't understand about Oxford 7 years ago too.
You forget just how much you didn't understand about Oxford 7 years ago too.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Votes and Gigs
Tonight was an example of what I love about Oxford.
First I went to the launch event for the second in the Hansard Society’s democracy series of pamphlets, in which Chris Ballinger challenges the IPPR’s recent recommendation of compulsory voting (see here). He argued that, while we want to raise turnout, this measure would only tackle the symptoms and not the root problems (lack of engagement in politics).
(UPDATE: See a summary of the IPPR report here)
A lot of his case, however, rested on the claim – made by someone from the IPPR – that it would be absurd to force people to vote if their votes didn’t matter. He therefore argued we needed electoral reform first, and compulsory voting should only be a last resort.
Personally, I’m not in favour of compulsory voting: I think it’s enough people have opportunities, I don’t think they should be forced to either turnout or vote, particularly when, as Chris pointed out, many votes in safe/non-marginal seats effectively don’t matter. However, I put it to him that one reason to favour compulsory voting might be that it could lend impetus to electoral reform. I bet if people had to vote, then many of them would want to make sure those votes counted for something…
After the talks, sandwiches were served and I was able to have a quick word with a Hansard Director Phil Parvin, who I knew as Clare Chambers’ partner, and a guy from the City Council, before leaving. (Noting, on my way out of Brasenose, the large lighting crane in Radcliffe Square – apparently filming Lewis).
As I was cycling home, I passed Rob on the High Street, and dismounted to walk with him up St Clements. I’d been planning on going to Port Mahon, to check out the Sunnyvale Noise Sub-Element gig, though I was unsure about going on my own. Anyway, Rob had to be off, but I did go in the pub, only to bump into the City Council worker – Jonathan – who was there because one of his friends was actually promoting the gig. Oxford is indeed a very small world.
The show itself was almost a testament to that: it brought together several local bands who’d recently been involved in remixing another local band, The Evenings, for a remix album out that night. Obviously, therefore, this was the incestuous hub of the local indie scene. There were probably no more than thirty people in the upstairs room at any point, and I’m sure most of them were band members, other halves, and various other not-having-to-pay types…
First up were Lind Optical, performing a two piece acoustic set because their drummer had injured himself. Maybe it was this forced change, but I was far from impressed. Lame jokes about goldfish in tanks were accompanied by equally uninspiring music, with even the rare event of a Daft Punk cover played on acoustic guitar failing to add excitement.
The second ‘band’, nervous_testpilot, turned out to be a Gabba DJ, in the vein of Nailbomb Cults (who I've previously seen a couple of times around Oxford), rather than a conventional act. Taking the piss out of his laptop set-up, he leaves a pre-recorded message to do the introduction, and then sits down to read a magazine. Though not used to inter-acting with crowds, who are normally too busy dancing, he comes across as a funny and charismatic guy, though the self-deprecating comments about his music were perhaps too frequent.
At first, the music is simply hardcore d&b/techno, lacking the obvious hooks of the aforementioned Nailbomb Cults, but if you listen closely samples such as Fatboy Slim and Snoop Dogg are there, albeit generally under the music rather than over it (if that makes sense). Plus the bangin’ dance tunes are mixed with some relatively gentler, Aphex Twin-style, numbers that he claims to have knocked up in minutes. Personally I find a lot of it (gabba/dance stuff generally) sounds much the same, and is probably more for dancing to than listening, but the Oxford scene seems healthy and certainly this was a good show, even if it didn’t persuade me to spend £5 on the EP.
Supposedly a special treat, another remixer Twizz Twangle - a veteran of the lcoal scene, though known for polarising opinion* - has been persuaded to perform an extra quick set before the headliners. This seems a popular occurrence, but I think there must be some joke I’m missing. One man with an acoustic guitar, whose first song features almost choirboy Christmas carol vocals (albeit slightly deeper), but who then switches to a playing some kind of Celtic folk-jig with a rustic farmers’ voice, only to stop when he forgets the words. The same problems mars an attempt at Abba’s ‘Dancing Queen’, before the set is brought to a swift close with a collaboration with the night’s announcer Lee, that ends in some kind of ad-lib. It’s the best performance, but that isn’t saying much in my opinion, even if I have missed some kind of joke. (Apparently, everyone should see Twizz Twangle once. Maybe I’ll try to avoid a second time then…)
*Disclaimer: There was certainly no unusual climbing/bouncing around tonight, nor trumpets. Maybe this was what was missing...
Headlining the rather small event were the Sunnyvale Noise Sub-Element, who I’ve now seen three times over the course of almost five years. Lately, it seems they’ve only been performing as a two-piece – I don’t know if this is a permanent personnel change, or merely a performance thing – but it doesn’t hold them back.
With a box of electronics providing various bleeps, noises and samples, the two guitarists thrash there way through half-a-dozen low-slung walls of noise, moments of atonality and post-rock , including ‘How Spiderman Was Tricked By His Wife’, ‘Techno Self-Harm’ and ‘Journalist vs Jay Kay’.
Though not all the bands were to my taste, I enjoyed another venture into Oxford’s local underground music scene, not to mention the sheer randomness of going straight from a lecture to such a gig, only to bump into someone else I’d just met. I decided to take a chance on buying the Evenings remix album too. Maybe I’ll let you know what I think.
(I don't seem to be able to add pictures at the moment, but ones of the gig can be seen here and here)
First I went to the launch event for the second in the Hansard Society’s democracy series of pamphlets, in which Chris Ballinger challenges the IPPR’s recent recommendation of compulsory voting (see here). He argued that, while we want to raise turnout, this measure would only tackle the symptoms and not the root problems (lack of engagement in politics).
(UPDATE: See a summary of the IPPR report here)
A lot of his case, however, rested on the claim – made by someone from the IPPR – that it would be absurd to force people to vote if their votes didn’t matter. He therefore argued we needed electoral reform first, and compulsory voting should only be a last resort.
Personally, I’m not in favour of compulsory voting: I think it’s enough people have opportunities, I don’t think they should be forced to either turnout or vote, particularly when, as Chris pointed out, many votes in safe/non-marginal seats effectively don’t matter. However, I put it to him that one reason to favour compulsory voting might be that it could lend impetus to electoral reform. I bet if people had to vote, then many of them would want to make sure those votes counted for something…
After the talks, sandwiches were served and I was able to have a quick word with a Hansard Director Phil Parvin, who I knew as Clare Chambers’ partner, and a guy from the City Council, before leaving. (Noting, on my way out of Brasenose, the large lighting crane in Radcliffe Square – apparently filming Lewis).
As I was cycling home, I passed Rob on the High Street, and dismounted to walk with him up St Clements. I’d been planning on going to Port Mahon, to check out the Sunnyvale Noise Sub-Element gig, though I was unsure about going on my own. Anyway, Rob had to be off, but I did go in the pub, only to bump into the City Council worker – Jonathan – who was there because one of his friends was actually promoting the gig. Oxford is indeed a very small world.
The show itself was almost a testament to that: it brought together several local bands who’d recently been involved in remixing another local band, The Evenings, for a remix album out that night. Obviously, therefore, this was the incestuous hub of the local indie scene. There were probably no more than thirty people in the upstairs room at any point, and I’m sure most of them were band members, other halves, and various other not-having-to-pay types…
First up were Lind Optical, performing a two piece acoustic set because their drummer had injured himself. Maybe it was this forced change, but I was far from impressed. Lame jokes about goldfish in tanks were accompanied by equally uninspiring music, with even the rare event of a Daft Punk cover played on acoustic guitar failing to add excitement.
The second ‘band’, nervous_testpilot, turned out to be a Gabba DJ, in the vein of Nailbomb Cults (who I've previously seen a couple of times around Oxford), rather than a conventional act. Taking the piss out of his laptop set-up, he leaves a pre-recorded message to do the introduction, and then sits down to read a magazine. Though not used to inter-acting with crowds, who are normally too busy dancing, he comes across as a funny and charismatic guy, though the self-deprecating comments about his music were perhaps too frequent.
At first, the music is simply hardcore d&b/techno, lacking the obvious hooks of the aforementioned Nailbomb Cults, but if you listen closely samples such as Fatboy Slim and Snoop Dogg are there, albeit generally under the music rather than over it (if that makes sense). Plus the bangin’ dance tunes are mixed with some relatively gentler, Aphex Twin-style, numbers that he claims to have knocked up in minutes. Personally I find a lot of it (gabba/dance stuff generally) sounds much the same, and is probably more for dancing to than listening, but the Oxford scene seems healthy and certainly this was a good show, even if it didn’t persuade me to spend £5 on the EP.
Supposedly a special treat, another remixer Twizz Twangle - a veteran of the lcoal scene, though known for polarising opinion* - has been persuaded to perform an extra quick set before the headliners. This seems a popular occurrence, but I think there must be some joke I’m missing. One man with an acoustic guitar, whose first song features almost choirboy Christmas carol vocals (albeit slightly deeper), but who then switches to a playing some kind of Celtic folk-jig with a rustic farmers’ voice, only to stop when he forgets the words. The same problems mars an attempt at Abba’s ‘Dancing Queen’, before the set is brought to a swift close with a collaboration with the night’s announcer Lee, that ends in some kind of ad-lib. It’s the best performance, but that isn’t saying much in my opinion, even if I have missed some kind of joke. (Apparently, everyone should see Twizz Twangle once. Maybe I’ll try to avoid a second time then…)
*Disclaimer: There was certainly no unusual climbing/bouncing around tonight, nor trumpets. Maybe this was what was missing...
Headlining the rather small event were the Sunnyvale Noise Sub-Element, who I’ve now seen three times over the course of almost five years. Lately, it seems they’ve only been performing as a two-piece – I don’t know if this is a permanent personnel change, or merely a performance thing – but it doesn’t hold them back.
With a box of electronics providing various bleeps, noises and samples, the two guitarists thrash there way through half-a-dozen low-slung walls of noise, moments of atonality and post-rock , including ‘How Spiderman Was Tricked By His Wife’, ‘Techno Self-Harm’ and ‘Journalist vs Jay Kay’.
Though not all the bands were to my taste, I enjoyed another venture into Oxford’s local underground music scene, not to mention the sheer randomness of going straight from a lecture to such a gig, only to bump into someone else I’d just met. I decided to take a chance on buying the Evenings remix album too. Maybe I’ll let you know what I think.
(I don't seem to be able to add pictures at the moment, but ones of the gig can be seen here and here)
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
PSV Eindhoven 0-0 Liverpool
It's hard to say whether a draw from this game is enough, but PSV are probably our toughest rivals in the group so for an away leg it's not too bad. Generally if you can win at home and draw away it's good enough.
I didn't actually watch the game because I was going out - and though I recorded it, on hearing it was a boring 0-0 draw decided I probably wouldn't watch it. While it was disappointing not to score, especially given that we twice more hit the post, it's reassuring that - despite further changes in the back four - we finally kept our first clean sheet of the season.
With Chelsea coming up at the weekend too, it's nice that we were able to rest some players, such as Gerrard, Alonso, Crouch and Hyypia. On the back of a heavy derby defeat, that has to go down as satisfactory.
I didn't actually watch the game because I was going out - and though I recorded it, on hearing it was a boring 0-0 draw decided I probably wouldn't watch it. While it was disappointing not to score, especially given that we twice more hit the post, it's reassuring that - despite further changes in the back four - we finally kept our first clean sheet of the season.
With Chelsea coming up at the weekend too, it's nice that we were able to rest some players, such as Gerrard, Alonso, Crouch and Hyypia. On the back of a heavy derby defeat, that has to go down as satisfactory.
Monday, September 11, 2006
Virtual Stoa
Sunday, September 10, 2006
One Year
Well, happy birthday Praesidium.
Yes, it's been a year since my first tentative post stepping cautiously into the world of blogging. In that year, I've amazingly written 300 posts (this being the 301st) - admittedly mostly covering football, political theory, music and my daily life.
I decided to mark this anniversary with a new word cloud:
Yes, it's been a year since my first tentative post stepping cautiously into the world of blogging. In that year, I've amazingly written 300 posts (this being the 301st) - admittedly mostly covering football, political theory, music and my daily life.
I decided to mark this anniversary with a new word cloud:
(See my previous one here)
I've also been playing with some other new features for the site: I just signed up to Google Analytics to keep track of visitors (yes, both of you!) and I'm now audio scrobbling via Last.fm, so you can now view what I've been listening to lately on the right-hand scrollbar.
Saturday, September 09, 2006
Everton 3-0 Liverpool
My favourite post in the build up to the derby:
The fact of the matter is this:-Everton fans are going to say they are going to win,us Liverpool supporters are going to say Liverpool are going to demolish them and the Neutrals (Most of em anyway) say that its going to be a tough game and will probably end in a hard fought draw. On a personal standpoint though I still think its going to be 4-1 to the Reds.
The thread contained a lot of argument about who from the Everton side would get into Liverpool's side. Many reds said no one, while the blues generally picked out Cahill, Arteta and Andy Johnson, plus sometimes Yobo and/or Lescott. For the record, I think such debates are complicated by the fact that Liverpool now have much more of a squad rather than a settled eleven. I'd certainly say any of those players could be in that squad - I'd welcome them ahead of the likes of Zenden and Diao at any rate.
That we clearly have a stronger squad on paper matters little when the match starts, however; and while last season we were able to record two 3-1 victories today was to be disappointing all round. We dominated the early play, but never created clear chances, with the result Everton were able to establish a 2-0 lead against the run of play - indeed I think well into the second half they'd only had those two shots on target.
Though we had many more opportunities, very few were clear openings. Gerrard did hit the post - and I think we probably should have had a penalty as someone (Hibbert? Carsley?) handled the rebound on the ground.
Sadly our squad was lacking pace (no Bellamy or Gonzales), which left us a bit short of options when we were looking to come back. The loss of Riise to what looked like another serious ankle injury just after we'd made our third substitution was a big blow - hopefully he won't be out more than a month, but if it's aggravated the injury he was just coming back from, then I fear worse.
With ten men, and not long to go, we were never likely to claw our way back; but the third goal - in which Reina tried to palm a shot over from a good way out, then had to scamper back to stop it crossing the line, and succeeded only in pushing it onto Johnson's forehead - was both comical and cruel.
As last year, we've got off to a pretty slow start, but this time I think it's been partly due to the disruption of internationals and injuries. I'm hoping we can pull ourselves together, not so much for Chelsea next weekend as the commencement of the Champions League - a group we have to come through.
The fact of the matter is this:-Everton fans are going to say they are going to win,us Liverpool supporters are going to say Liverpool are going to demolish them and the Neutrals (Most of em anyway) say that its going to be a tough game and will probably end in a hard fought draw. On a personal standpoint though I still think its going to be 4-1 to the Reds.
The thread contained a lot of argument about who from the Everton side would get into Liverpool's side. Many reds said no one, while the blues generally picked out Cahill, Arteta and Andy Johnson, plus sometimes Yobo and/or Lescott. For the record, I think such debates are complicated by the fact that Liverpool now have much more of a squad rather than a settled eleven. I'd certainly say any of those players could be in that squad - I'd welcome them ahead of the likes of Zenden and Diao at any rate.
That we clearly have a stronger squad on paper matters little when the match starts, however; and while last season we were able to record two 3-1 victories today was to be disappointing all round. We dominated the early play, but never created clear chances, with the result Everton were able to establish a 2-0 lead against the run of play - indeed I think well into the second half they'd only had those two shots on target.
Though we had many more opportunities, very few were clear openings. Gerrard did hit the post - and I think we probably should have had a penalty as someone (Hibbert? Carsley?) handled the rebound on the ground.
Sadly our squad was lacking pace (no Bellamy or Gonzales), which left us a bit short of options when we were looking to come back. The loss of Riise to what looked like another serious ankle injury just after we'd made our third substitution was a big blow - hopefully he won't be out more than a month, but if it's aggravated the injury he was just coming back from, then I fear worse.
With ten men, and not long to go, we were never likely to claw our way back; but the third goal - in which Reina tried to palm a shot over from a good way out, then had to scamper back to stop it crossing the line, and succeeded only in pushing it onto Johnson's forehead - was both comical and cruel.
As last year, we've got off to a pretty slow start, but this time I think it's been partly due to the disruption of internationals and injuries. I'm hoping we can pull ourselves together, not so much for Chelsea next weekend as the commencement of the Champions League - a group we have to come through.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Doctorates
I found this very interesting piece about preparing for doctoral studies in the Guardian (via). Getting to the end, I found the author is about to start a DPhil in Political Theory at Oxford. Maybe I'll be able to keep a closer eye on his progress!
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Are Voters Rational? (4)
Following parts one, two and three, here's the final installment of this essay.
IV. Rationality, Plurality and Permission
Though there have been some, like Plato, who have supposed rationality lays down a fully determinate life plan for everyone, liberals have generally recognised it is best to leave everyone to live their own life by their own lights (limited by something like the harm principle). They recognise the limits of reason, in at least one of the ways identified by Swift (above).
Rationality, understood in a more modest sense, very rarely requires us to do (or not do) any particular thing. Though there may be a rational requirement not to believe both Q and not-Q, it is generally open to us to believe either. If J and K entail L, we are not rationally required to believe L – merely to accept it or abandon either J or K. Rationality frequently permits options. I can have either toast or cereal for breakfast, without threat to my rationality. If I decide to go for a walk, it is no more rational to go left than right. Plenty of matters involve areas of rational indifference, where one has discretion to just choose.
The examples given above concern relatively trivial matters, but there are more significant choices that cannot be resolved rationally. Many values are incommensurable, such that it is neither true that X is better than Y, nor that Y is better than X, nor yet that the two are equally good (consider being an academic or a management consultant). In these cases, it may be that X is better in one respect (say, it is more intrinsically satisfying) but Y better in another (say, more financially lucrative), and there may be no possible trade off between these different values. In such circumstances, we are rationally permitted to choose X or Y, but not rationally required to choose either one.
When we choose between, say, becoming an academic and a management consultant, our choice can be at best partially reasoned. We can have rational justification for either option, but since neither is rationally compelled, we cannot be judged irrational for not taking one (though we may be irrational for not taking either, and instead becoming a road-sweeper or something else clearly dominated by either). Sometimes two choices may have very different outcomes for us – for instance, given a choice between saving my own leg or a stranger’s life, I may be rationally permitted to choose either option.
If rationality allows us a wide range of discretion, then it appears there is nothing I am rationally required to do between, say, 4 and 5pm this afternoon. There may be some options ruled out – e.g. if I was to spend the time counting blades of grass on my lawn – but I could spent the time reading, going for a walk, writing a letter, organising my finances, watching a movie, tackling some households chores, relaxing in the garden or engaged in any one of countless other activities. Choosing any one of these pursuits would not count against my rationality, they would all be permissible uses of my time. If it happened to be an election day, then taking a stroll down to the polling booth and exercising my democratic right to a say in the nation’s government would seem to be another possibility figuring in such a list. It is something I can do if I feel like it, but needn’t if I feel I have something I’d rather do. Whether or not I do it says nothing about my rationality. It is quite possible – judging from overall observation of my behaviour – that I could be found irrational, even insane, but it is also possible that I am a perfectly rational and reasonable person, who happens to have a penchant for voicing my opinion and voting in elections, though I know my vote alone will make no difference to the outcome.
While I do not think RCT adequately explains people’s voting behaviour – since this is also influenced by the non-rational desires, socialisation and morality, as well as rational factors such as costs, benefits and probability (which all seem to have some role in comparative statistics predictions) – this does not mean that people aren’t rational, merely that rationality doesn’t explain or determine everything. The limits of RCT do not tell against the assumption that people are rational and, while this consistency doesn’t validate the assumption, we have no reason to doubt that voters are rational
IV. Rationality, Plurality and Permission
Though there have been some, like Plato, who have supposed rationality lays down a fully determinate life plan for everyone, liberals have generally recognised it is best to leave everyone to live their own life by their own lights (limited by something like the harm principle). They recognise the limits of reason, in at least one of the ways identified by Swift (above).
Rationality, understood in a more modest sense, very rarely requires us to do (or not do) any particular thing. Though there may be a rational requirement not to believe both Q and not-Q, it is generally open to us to believe either. If J and K entail L, we are not rationally required to believe L – merely to accept it or abandon either J or K. Rationality frequently permits options. I can have either toast or cereal for breakfast, without threat to my rationality. If I decide to go for a walk, it is no more rational to go left than right. Plenty of matters involve areas of rational indifference, where one has discretion to just choose.
The examples given above concern relatively trivial matters, but there are more significant choices that cannot be resolved rationally. Many values are incommensurable, such that it is neither true that X is better than Y, nor that Y is better than X, nor yet that the two are equally good (consider being an academic or a management consultant). In these cases, it may be that X is better in one respect (say, it is more intrinsically satisfying) but Y better in another (say, more financially lucrative), and there may be no possible trade off between these different values. In such circumstances, we are rationally permitted to choose X or Y, but not rationally required to choose either one.
When we choose between, say, becoming an academic and a management consultant, our choice can be at best partially reasoned. We can have rational justification for either option, but since neither is rationally compelled, we cannot be judged irrational for not taking one (though we may be irrational for not taking either, and instead becoming a road-sweeper or something else clearly dominated by either). Sometimes two choices may have very different outcomes for us – for instance, given a choice between saving my own leg or a stranger’s life, I may be rationally permitted to choose either option.
If rationality allows us a wide range of discretion, then it appears there is nothing I am rationally required to do between, say, 4 and 5pm this afternoon. There may be some options ruled out – e.g. if I was to spend the time counting blades of grass on my lawn – but I could spent the time reading, going for a walk, writing a letter, organising my finances, watching a movie, tackling some households chores, relaxing in the garden or engaged in any one of countless other activities. Choosing any one of these pursuits would not count against my rationality, they would all be permissible uses of my time. If it happened to be an election day, then taking a stroll down to the polling booth and exercising my democratic right to a say in the nation’s government would seem to be another possibility figuring in such a list. It is something I can do if I feel like it, but needn’t if I feel I have something I’d rather do. Whether or not I do it says nothing about my rationality. It is quite possible – judging from overall observation of my behaviour – that I could be found irrational, even insane, but it is also possible that I am a perfectly rational and reasonable person, who happens to have a penchant for voicing my opinion and voting in elections, though I know my vote alone will make no difference to the outcome.
While I do not think RCT adequately explains people’s voting behaviour – since this is also influenced by the non-rational desires, socialisation and morality, as well as rational factors such as costs, benefits and probability (which all seem to have some role in comparative statistics predictions) – this does not mean that people aren’t rational, merely that rationality doesn’t explain or determine everything. The limits of RCT do not tell against the assumption that people are rational and, while this consistency doesn’t validate the assumption, we have no reason to doubt that voters are rational
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Farrelly Visit
I'm pleased to learn that Colin Farrelly will be visiting Oxford for the coming year. To be honest, I don't know his work well, but it looks interesting so I anticipate enjoying the opportunity to see more at close hand.
Monday, September 04, 2006
Walk
My old friend/flatmate Mike came to visit Oxford before departing for another two years in Taiwan today. He wanted to try a walk from his Timeout guidebook, that took us north from the train station, round Port Meadow - past the Perch and the Trout - stopping at a more out of the way (but very nice) pub called The Plough for lunch.
Then it was back over into Woodstock Rd, and through St Giles' Fair on our way back into college. Although I did end up covered in mud after we stumbled into a boggy patch in a field (annoyingly just before lunch), it was a good walk - about three hours, not including lunch.
Sunday, September 03, 2006
Oxford
Just to let everyone know, I did indeed get back to Oxford yesterday.
Unfortunately I have no internet connection in my flat just yet, until my new computer is registered on the college network. (Apparently I'll be able to do this online from mid-July!)
Unfortunately I have no internet connection in my flat just yet, until my new computer is registered on the college network. (Apparently I'll be able to do this online from mid-July!)
Friday, September 01, 2006
Transfer Window
So, despite talks of a late £2m bid for Blackburn's Lucas Neill, there were no last minute arrivals at Anfield - though Kromkamp did return home to PSV.
Personally, I wasn't too enthused about the move for Neill, but he would have been cheap and experienced cover, able to play right back or central defence. As it is, having already sold youngsters Barragan (to Deportivo La Coruna) and Raven (to Carlisle), we don't really have any cover for Finnan any more. Carragher can play there, but we need him in central defence - Hyypia and Agger are both good players, but left-sided really. I suppose we could play Carra, Hyypia and Agger in a back three, as Finnan and Riise/Aurelio (or even Warnock) would make good wing-backs, but it still leaves us short down the right side - I'm not sure Pennant could fill that role, and Gerrard would be wasted. Maybe we'll have to hope for Alves, or some other cover, in January.
The big stories of the day were Cole finally moving to Chelsea. Personally, I think Arsenal should have got much more than £5m on top of Gallas. Cole was reportedly rated at £20-25m, and Gallas isn't worth more than £10m tops in my opinion.
Anyway, while that's hardly a surprise, the arrival of two of the biggest young talents in South American football - courted by the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea - at West Ham certainly was a shock. I'd like to know how much they cost, and what the behind the scene financial deals are (it now looks like WHU could be bought out).
Personally, I wasn't too enthused about the move for Neill, but he would have been cheap and experienced cover, able to play right back or central defence. As it is, having already sold youngsters Barragan (to Deportivo La Coruna) and Raven (to Carlisle), we don't really have any cover for Finnan any more. Carragher can play there, but we need him in central defence - Hyypia and Agger are both good players, but left-sided really. I suppose we could play Carra, Hyypia and Agger in a back three, as Finnan and Riise/Aurelio (or even Warnock) would make good wing-backs, but it still leaves us short down the right side - I'm not sure Pennant could fill that role, and Gerrard would be wasted. Maybe we'll have to hope for Alves, or some other cover, in January.
The big stories of the day were Cole finally moving to Chelsea. Personally, I think Arsenal should have got much more than £5m on top of Gallas. Cole was reportedly rated at £20-25m, and Gallas isn't worth more than £10m tops in my opinion.
Anyway, while that's hardly a surprise, the arrival of two of the biggest young talents in South American football - courted by the likes of Man Utd, Arsenal and Chelsea - at West Ham certainly was a shock. I'd like to know how much they cost, and what the behind the scene financial deals are (it now looks like WHU could be bought out).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)