It's Just A Party, Janet

Moral idiocy

2009-11-08T20:19:37Z

It probably shouldn't come as a surprise by now that one can become chief rabbi in the UK while still being a bit thick, as Jonathan Sacks has recently confirmed. The link goes to an article about Lord Sacks' recent screed about how Europe is less moral because it's more secular. You'd be right in thinking that this is the sort of thing people have been banging on about for years now - he hits all the buzzwords, "consumerism", "instant gratification", you know the sort of thing. He makes one especially bizarre claim about ethics that I thought deserved a bit more light being shone on it:

“Parenthood involves massive sacrifice of money, attention, time and emotional energy.
Where today in European culture with its consumerism and instant gratification – because you’re worth it – where will you find space for the concept of sacrifice for the sake of generations not yet born?
Europe, at least the indigenous population of Europe, is dying.”

Ignore the racist dogwhistle at the end, there - although it is quite shameful for someone in Sacks' position - I'm interested in the claim that an adult without children nevertheless owes something to potential unborn children. And that one of the things she owes to unborn children is to bring them into being. How many children must one father or birth before one's obligations are fulfilled? I can't see how this obligation to parent would ever end.

And my thanks to Lux for pointing out that having children is hardly an unambiguous moral good given the growing threat of anthropogenic climate change. If you want to reduce your carbon footprint - which is really sacrificing for future generations - forget cycling to work or buying organic food, just don't have children. Even without the environmental consequences, it's just difficult to see how a bigger population is better in any sense. All this seems to be taken for granted by Sacks, I assume for religious reasons.

Unadulterated, weapons-grade lunacy

2009-10-27T10:29:47Z

Everybody, check out this completely insane explanation of the Totally Real Science of homeopathy! "Dr" Werner will explain to you how mass doesn't exist so you can cross out the "m" from Einstein's equation, and also the string particles that Dr Hawkings discovered let us hear! It's science!

ohnefuehlen @ 2009-09-28T17:55:00

2009-09-28T17:05:22Z

"Outcry over Polanski's detention"? Really?

I genuinely don't understand why this is controversial. Roman Polanski drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl. After pleading guilty, he fled the USA before he could be sentenced. So that's two crimes for which he should be in jail. Is it suddenly a minority opinion that rapists should serve jail time? Even if those rapists make films?

Bizarro Academia

2009-08-10T17:48:51Z

Making the rounds on the sciencesphere right now is the course outline for William Dembski's courses on Intelligent Design and Christian Apologetics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Of particular note is the requirement that his undergraduates on the ID course "provide at least 10 posts defending ID that you’ve made on “hostile” websites, the posts totalling 2,000 words, along with the URLs (i.e., web links) to each post (worth 20% of your grade)". This explains a great deal! The "masters course" has a similar requirement.

In all seriousness, the sample exams available starkly expose completely empty and worthless courses. The questions are clearly designed to elicit essentially identical answers from each students, the only relevant skill is the ability to regurgitate on cue. Observe:

Why do materialistic neuroscientists think that the data from neuroscience confirm a materialistic understanding of mind? Critique their interpretation of these data and argue for a nonmaterialist neuroscience.

According to Richard Dawkins, faith is believing in the absence of evident (sic). By contrast, Nancy Pearcey argues that the attempt to remove Christian faith from the realm of knowledge and evidence has led to Christianity’s cultural captivity. Make the case that Christian faith is a matter not of subjective opinion but of objective knowledge.

Trace the connections between Darwinian evolution, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Why are materialists so ready to embrace these as a package deal? What view of humanity and reality is required to resist them?

Sigh.

I'm already sick of today

2009-06-29T14:30:26Z

I'm just going to have to stop reading the news for the sake of my blood pressure:

Overweight celebrities such as Gavin and Stacey star James Corden are making dangerous weight gain appear normal, a medical expert is warning.

Professor Michael McMahon of Nuffield Health says fat stars are seen as role models, helping to make being overweight acceptable.

He says it is akin to the dangers of skinny media images and anorexia.

For fuck's sake. There are about three fat celebrities, and they're all named in that article. And James Corden and Ruth Jones are famous for one show, and Beth Ditto's had one album. That's it, I'm seriously stretching to think of another celebrity who might credibly be called fat. Chris Moyles doesn't count, he's in radio. But apparently the danger of fat people not self-hating for five consecutive waking fucking minutes is so great that we must consider any deliberate portrayal of anyone larger than the accepted standard as a dire threat to the sanctity of our nation. How on Earth can a few fat celebrities possibly outweigh (AHAHAHAHA) the entire modelling industry?

The excellent Melissa McEwan of Shakespeare's Sister said it best:

If you're fat, you're not only meant to be unhappy, but deeply ashamed of yourself, projecting at all times an apologetic nature, indicative of your everlasting remorse for having wrought your monstrous self upon the world. You are certainly not meant to be bold, or assertive, or confident—and should you manage to overcome the constant drumbeat of messages that you are ugly and unsexy and have earned equally society's disdain and your own self-hatred, should you forget your place and walk into the world one day with your head held high, you are to be reminded by the cow-calls and contemptuous looks of perfect strangers that you are not supposed to have self-esteem; you don't deserve it. Being publicly fat and happy is hard; being publicly, shamelessly, unshakably fat and happy is an act of both will and bravery.

The patronising tone of this bullshit is just too much for me.

Researchers found many obese people refused to take any action about their situation with almost one in five not contemplating doing anything to lose weight.

Imagine that! As many as twenty percent of overweight people think you should shut your fucking gob about what you think is best for them!

Tired of this shit. I'm off to found a commune or something.

Say what?

2009-06-29T12:53:14Z

In an article about the Metropolitan Police's botched handling of the G20 protests, something jumped out at me:

Chairman of the committee Keith Vaz said the public "clearly don't understand" the reasons for using kettling and other public order strategies.

"What's acceptable, what's within the police rule book - the use of distraction tactics, for example, slapping or hitting people - shocked the public," he told the BBC.

Wait. Unprovoked violent attacks on protesters is an official police tactic?

You're right, Vaz - I don't think the UK public quite understands that.

ohnefuehlen @ 2009-06-27T10:48:00

2009-06-27T10:00:19Z

This is interesting as hell. A Swedish couple are refusing to impose gender norms on their child, Pop.

“We want Pop to grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset,” Pop’s mother said. “It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead.”

The child's parents said so long as they keep Pop’s gender a secret, he or she will be able to avoid preconceived notions of how people should be treated if male or female.

Pop's wardrobe includes everything from dresses to trousers and Pop's hairstyle changes on a regular basis. And Pop usually decides how Pop is going to dress on a given morning.

There seem to be two great benefits here. Firstly, greater autonomy for the child - avoiding all the "don't play with dolls unless they're soldiers" crap. Secondly and most importantly, a lot of people find that their gender doesn't match their sex, and I can only imagine that being raised without the weight of society demanding that your behaviour match what's between your legs helps in those cases.

The article quotes an essential psychologist who disapproves, but I don't buy her objection:

“I don’t think that trying to keep a child’s sex a secret will fool anyone, nor do I think it’s wise or ethical,” says Pinker. “As with any family secret, when we try to keep an elemental truth from children, it usually blows up in the parent’s face, via psychosomatic illness or rebellious behaviour.”

But what truth is being kept from Pop? They know what they look like naked - Pop knows hir biological sex. And Pop's gender is not decided, and wouldn't be decided even if s/he were being raised traditionally. We don't realise this because we expect everyone's gender to conform to their sex, and are totally shocked if our child turns out to be trans. But the fact that the majority decide their gender does match their sex doesn't change the fact that that is a decision. Pop's parents are taking the step of waiting for their child to answer that question in their own time. I think that's great.

ohnefuehlen @ 2009-06-26T00:12:00

2009-06-25T23:13:33Z

Oh my God, Michael Jackson's dead. I can hardly believe this.

Nobody ever sang like him, danced like him, or did music videos like him. He perfected pop.

Here's probably my favourite video of his, it's completely insane:

Follow-up

2009-06-23T13:55:13Z

The thought behind the cut is brief, and can be ignored by anyone who didn't read (or, having read, didn't care about) my last post.

Novak highlights the "natural" parents, i.e. the contributors of genetic material, as those who ought to be raising a child, a moral imperative almost on the level of a right to life. But take the example, used by Novak, of a lesbian couple, one of whom is inseminated by a man (friend or stranger, doesn't matter) so that they can have a child. This pregnancy, and subsequent child, is the product of two unions. One is biological, the man's (let's call him Ted) sperm with the woman's (let's call her Selma) ovum. The other is intentional, the two women (let's call the other woman Lisa) having decided together to raise a child.

Selma and Lisa have made this decision together. They're reading up on parenthood, setting money aside, turning the study into the kid's room, knitting baby clothes. Ted, on the other hand, ejaculated into a cup. Why is he given precedence as a parent (which he does not want to be, at least in the sense of raising a child directly) over Lisa, who desperately wants to be the mother of this child? And why does the child have a right to be raised by Ted, based on a shared genetic heritage? I just don't understand this privileging of the biological.

Easy Pickings

2009-06-22T18:31:14Z

In September I start my MA in History of Philosophy, and if all goes to plan I'll start my PhD in philosophy a year after that, meaning that in five, six years tops I should be a doctor of philosophy and looking for work. This is an intimidating prospect, for all that it's far off - competition is fierce for academic jobs given how few are available.

But here's a ray of hope - I could become Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto! I would certainly do a better job of it than Professor David Novak, the latest to tilt at windmills and try to make a secular case against gay marriage.

His arguments here are a rehash of long-debunked idiocies, with a patina of pretension. You've heard it all before: the point of the institution of marriage is allegedly to encourage, protect and to a certain degree control procreation and the raising of children. Ergo, vis a vis, concordantly, no queers allowed. I'll quote him directly:

If the public reason for the institution of marriage is to facilitate procreation and the exercise of parental rights and obligations as well as filial rights and obligations, then it follows that marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples. Only they are capable of procreation.

No, it does not follow at all. I have a knife that was designed to cut vegetables, but I am violating no moral law if I use it to open a package. The public reason for the institution of the playground across the road is for children to play in, but I can still have a go on the swings. This is the genealogical fallacy: marriage was "originally meant" for one man and one woman to raise kids in, and nothing can, will, or should ever change. As an aside, here, it's absurdly ahistorical to claim that this is marriage's Eternal Purpose. Control of virginity, economic domination of women, not ringing any bells here?

To the well-known objection that we commonly allow men and women to marry despite their inability or unwillingness to have children, Novak waves an airy hand and quote some Latin:

But I would answer that objection by citing the old legal principle: de minimis non curat lex, which could be translated (freely) as: The law is only made for what usually obtains. The fact is, the overwhelming number of people who marry are fertile and are of an age to be fertile.

But, given the comparative portion of straights to non-straights, this would still be the case given gay marriage.

And then, of course, in reality many gay couples actually do raise children together. But Novak thinks this is gross and mean:

First, consider surrogacy or artificial insemination. This involves a violation of a child’s natural right to have both natural parents raise him or her.

Oh, please. Yes, it is quite properly the assumption that a child's birth parents will raise them. But how on Earth does that become a hallowed right? Where is that right found? Novak barely bothers to argue for this very strange-sounding right, except by a lazy appeal to the presumed feelings of "overwhelming numbers" of children, a tactic eerily reminiscent of this hilarious and revolting NOM ad. Why should, of all things, genetic resemblance - because that is the only criterion for "natural parenthood" being invoked - create mind-forg'd manacles binding two people? That's Blake, by the way. See, we can all quote old things and sound smart. Novak's bizarre hostility to the idea goes so far that he calls it a "conspiracy ab initio to prevent the child so conceived from being raised by —often not to even recognize—his or her own natural mother"! "Ab initio" means "from the start", by the way - why Novak couldn't just say that, I don't know.

The paragraph continues on in that vein, all a hysterical condemnation of homosexuals and liberals based on phantasmagoric "natural rights". He even manages to slip an anti-choice message in there! That's a bonus.

What about adoption, though? Some bright-eyed moppet cruelly abandoned by the doubtless God-fearing heterosexual couple whose natural and decent copulation brought said moppet into this vale of tears, couldn't this kid be raised by Two Daddies? Novak grudgingly admits that it's probably better for an orphan to be raised by a gay couple than to labour their short life in some Dickensian workhouse, but het couples should still be given preference! Why?

That is because a heterosexual couple can better simulate—perhaps improve upon—the heterosexual union that produced this child and should be raising this child. It better simulates the duty of the natural parents to this child, a duty they would not or could not exercise. This, by the way, is not arguing empirically that opposite sex couples are necessarily better at raising children than same-sex couples. My arguments are based on the concepts of rights, not on the concept of utility. Thus my arguments are a priori, not a posteriori.

Because heterosexual parents look more like the kid's genetic parents! What an utterly specious bit of logic. It's a fun concept to play around with, taken to its logical conclusion ("Okay, apparently Timmy's mum liked Star Wars, how do you feel about that? And would you consider dying your hair? We're really trying to create as much resemblance as possible...") but an utterly silly standard for adoption. The logic here seems to be "heterosexual unions do produce children, therefore heterosexual unions ought to raise children". This involves two logical leaps in one bad argument - from "do" to "ought", and from "produce" to "raise"! Kids, try and colour in the blanks! Why a heterosexual couple's duty to children in their care differs substantially from a homosexual couple's duty to children in their care would seem to be the cornerstone of this argument, so it's a shame that Novak doesn't even bother to mention it.

This is illogical, insubstantial nonsense, which I strongly suspect is an attempt to justify a pretheoretical dislike of homosexuals. Surely someone, somewhere, can do a better job than Novak.

You can only blame your problems on the world for so long, before it all becomes the same old song

2009-06-09T18:50:33Z

I've heard from a few different people, now, that they didn't vote in the European elections because it was too confusing, they didn't know who all the parties were or what they stood for or what MEPs did.

Guys? This information is widely available from a variety of sources. It's just a google away. I know that if you're not used to thinking politically, or you don't already have a broad familiarity with UK and EU political systems, or you're not used to tracking down specific information on the Internet, that this can be difficult and irritating.

But EU elections are every five years. A bit of factfinding and then a walk down to the library once every five years isn't much to ask in the way of political participation.

Democracy grants massive power to huge numbers of people, but along with that power comes, say it with me, responsibility. All the moaning about the varied evil of politicians doesn't do a bit of good if we don't actually make any effort to put teeth to our feelings.

(this is not aimed at anybody in particular, & I'm not interested in attacking whatever perfectly good reasons you may have had for not voting. But I still think you should have voted! If turnout had been anything remotely decent, I am quite convinced that the BNP would not be heading to Europe now)

They're hiring TEMPS at the PIPE factory

2009-06-03T22:50:53Z

Today I found this horrific ad for a job on Gumtree. I present it for your amusement:

We are hiring a FUN & enthusiastic Admin Assistant for our UK OFFICE! Must enjoy a fast paced changing environment with a great ATMOSPHERE and be willing to TRAIN for more than ONE position! We take our COMPANY, our EMPLOYEES very serious - we just don't take OURSELVES too serious!

Must have AWESOME phones manners and be EXTREMELY articulate. Great customer service skills would be a bonus. Must have COMPUTER/TYPING skills working with MSWORD, MSEXCEL & MSOUTLOOK! Great time management skills and ability to thrive under pressure are an added bonus. Highly ORGANISED but able to have FUN too! We will settle for NOTHING less than BRILLIANT - and we are willing to PAY for it! We ONLY promote from WITHIN our company and our LOYALTY is for ONLY those committed AND devoted to OUR business!

The role will start as a temp role for three months to fill a gap due to expansion within the business with the possibility of extending. To apply: We will select the PERSON - not the PAPER - for a ONE-ON-ONE interview send us your CV and PHOTO and a "LETTER OF INTENT" explaining why YOU are the ONE we are looking for! ALL candidates WILL be considered for an INTERVIEW! People don't PLAN to fail - they FAIL to plan! So, PLAN on making a GREAT 1st impression on us and give it your BEST shot! GOOD LUCK!

Resident Evil 4: First impressions

2009-06-01T11:51:20Z

I guess the Secret Service spent all its budget on fancy walkie-talkies that show my face even though I'm holding them to my ear, and can't afford to hire anyone who speaks Spanish for this super-important, highly sensitive hostage rescue mission in Spain.

My theory so far (I'm only at the farm) is that the first guy who attacked me thought I was trying to rob him. Everyone else since then has been attacking me because I walked in and shot old Pedro. All the bodies are from a dangerous epidemic that swept through the village; burning them is hygienic. Basically I'm just walking through a rural Spanish village shooting everyone I see until I find the President's daughter. woop

Up Against The Wall When The Revolution Comes

2009-04-15T08:58:55Z

Easter is a very important time of the year for Christians, and probably for like Jews or something too, I don't remember. They had the thing with the seder plate? Not Hanukkah, that's at Christmas. Anyway, did you know it's important for atheists too? Yes, it's the time when we have to justify our existence and all the horrible things we've apparently done. Madeleine Bunting piles on at the Guardian with an editorial that is notable only for the textbook fashion in which she recites the same nonsense.

I've always thought that the accusation that New Atheists are overly certain and unshakeable in their unbelief to be pretty nice coming from the religious, but aside from being hypocritical it's a total strawman. Even Dawkins, who you'd think had done something more offensive than publish a few books to hear his name denounced from every pulpit, does not claim that God's existence has been disproven to a mathematical certainty. I have heard no New Atheist claim anything of the sort, and I do keep up with the movement.

The second slander from Bunting is also peculiar - she accuses New Atheists of having "no knowledge of the vast variety of other forms of religious faith". This is so close to being true! And yet so bloody far. Yes, atheists are generally uninterested in the minutiae of dogma and theology over which various sects and creeds argue. Of course we are; all these debates presuppose the existence of God, and thence go on to argue about how best to understand him, interpret his will, whatever. So to an atheist they're counterfactual, and engaging in them becomes an odd sort of shadow-boxing. Imagine for a moment there is a God, and then wonder whether a priesthood can stand as intermediary between it and the lay, or whether transubstantion is possible? These arguments are ghostly and weightless when we're still wrestling with a much more foundational question.

But it's not even a question at all, apparently! I can only quote Bunting here:

Armstrong and Gray converge again on where they pinpoint the key mistake. Belief came to be understood in western Christianity as a proposition at which you arrive intellectually, but Armstrong argues that this has been a profound misunderstanding that, in recent decades, has also infected other faiths. What "belief" used to mean, and still does in some traditions, is the idea of "love", "commitment", "loyalty": saying you believe in Jesus or God or Allah is a statement of commitment. Faith is not supposed to be about signing up to a set of propositions but practising a set of principles. Faith is something you do, and you learn by practice not by studying a manual, argues Armstrong.

"We need to get away from the endless discussion about wretched beliefs; religion is about doing - and what every faith makes clear is that the doing is about compassion," she argues.

What on Earth does this mean? Not a thing. This attempted retreat is as transparent as it is cowardly. I'm reminded of the litmus test for the meaningfulness of political speech; speech is meaningless if nobody could reasonably disagree with it. Trying to reduce your faith merely to "doing" - doing what? "Doing compassion" - is just this sort of bland nothingness. We're all Christians, or we're evil. If to be Christian - or Muslim or Baha'i or whatever - is just to be good, then we can dispense immediately with all religions, because we already have a word for what they are.

Finally, I find this kind of thing extremely insulting to humanity as a whole:

So the media has been promoting the wrong argument, while the bigger question of how, in a post-religious society, people find the myths they need to sustain meaning, purpose and goodness in their lives go unexplored.

Is not the suggestion that meaning, purpose and goodness can only by sustained by myths incredibly nihilistic? I believe that these things really exist in an important way - that, without needing myths or comforting lies, we can engage fruitfully with goodness and meaning to enrich our lives. It is because I think these things really exist that I place great importance on our beliefs being true, not just happy. If you believe in meaning and goodness existing in the world, you will surely want to know as much about the world as possible, because true beliefs will lead you to goodness. But if you don't believe in this sort of thing, I suppose you'll be happy with people believing whatever makes them behave.

State of Sean

2009-04-10T12:08:39Z

-I'm flat broke in London. London is generally a good place to be, but it is not a good place to be skint. Got a couple leads on jobs, though, so hopefully this state of affairs won't continue. Got an interview thing today, in fact! Only for a part-time job, but that'd be better than nothing.

-I start my MPhilStud at KCL in September, I think I mentioned already. This is cool, but I'm worried about losing my touch, philosophy-wise, in the meantime. I bought the complete works of Plato at Foyles, I'm working my way through that. Meeting up with Rory recently made me realise how lopsided my education has been - Sheffield's freeform system let me focus almost exclusively on ethics, politics and pure logic. I'm hot on that shit, but I have basically no epistemology or philosophy of mind. I've got some catching up to do there.

-I have a beard, in case any of you aren't on Facebook (I think that's actually illegal now). Suits me pretty well, I reckon.

-The police are creeping me out. Have you seen this shit? This is the actual police encouraging you to report on your neighbours, in a country that permits citizens to be held without charge for forty-two days and our cops occasionally just kill innocent people, for throwing away things without an obvious explanation and, I cannot believe this, looking at the CCTV cameras.

-In good political news from the other side of the Atlantic, Vermont's legislature recently overrode the governor's veto to equalise marriage, Iowa's Supreme Court declared that a ban on equal marriage was against the state's constitution, and DC's city council voted to recognise all marriages performed in other states, although that last one has to be approved by Congress. Awesome news. I genuinely cannot understand opposition to gay marriage. There's absolutely no good reason for it; there's no reason at all for it except homophobia. Even religious objections are unreasonable - it's not like churches are going to be forced to do anything they don't want to do. Civil marriage doesn't have anything to do with whatever religious institutions choose to recognise, so I can't see why the religious objection exists for anyone who isn't a genuine theocrat. It says a lot about prejudice that it's taking so long to do something that's so common-sense.

-Is 'Cactus' by the Pixies the sexiest song ever? You decide. Actually, wait, I'll decide. It is.

Chilli

2009-03-18T12:21:50Z

My veggie chilli recipe is probably the recipe of which I am most proud. It continually evolves, but here is a rough guide.

Base Ingredients:
Onion (necessary)
Garlic (obv)
Carrot (yes)
Aubergine (calm down)
Parsnip (whoa)

Definitely onion, garlic and carrot. Aubergine and parsnip are optional, and can sub for carrot. Celery if you've got any handy. Chop 'em fine, chuck 'em in oil. Add the Spices:

Spices:
Salt
Pepper (just ground)
Chilli (ideally flakes, powder will do, not fresh)
Cumin
Coriander
Smoked paprika

The last three are in approximately equal amounts. A teaspoon of chilli, or two if you're trying to prove something. Stir everything up, cover and sweat them on a low-to-medium heat for about 10-15 minutes, or until they're cooked through. Aubergine will take a bit longer.

Everything Else:
Mushrooms
Peppers
Beans (kidney or pinto)
Chopped tomato (tin)
Tabasco (tablespoon)
Soy sauce and/or Worcestershire sauce and/or mushroom ketchup

Chop the mushrooms and peppers fine. Courgettes could go in here too. If the beans are in chilli sauce all the better, if they're not you might want to add more cumin, coriander and paprika (that's basically all there is in your average tinned chilli sauce). Stick everything in, then add:

Witness the Richness:
Chocolate
Red wine
Stout
Espresso
Peanut butter

Not all of them. The object here is to add some depth of flavour. I like to add a few square of a good dark chocolate, Green & Black's 70% for preference, and a double shot of espresso. This makes a slightly sweet chilli, which I prefer. Red wine or stout are good if you want to add some more liquid. Simmer for about 20 minutes to cook the new additions through, and serve.

Very Happy

2009-02-16T03:17:17Z

Expect me to be even more proud of myself than usual, because a few days ago I got word that I've got into King's! KCL has accepted me onto the MPhilStud programme (a two-year Master's course after which I could take a two-year PhD course (!)) for philosophy. I am Super Excited, and now scrabbling around applying for funding. This has provided a welcome relief from the various shit that has come into sudden contact with various fans, on which more later post-resolution.

But! Happy!

Blah

2009-02-06T01:25:25Z

Well, my first night in Seoul was a bit of a wash, but last night was pretty cool. I found a rock/metal bar in Sinchon (I saw blacked-out windows, decal-ed with the motif 'JUDAS OR SABBATH' and a fluorescent sign promising 'METAL', so I was sold) which had a ton of music DVDs behind the bar and requests got played on the projector. I got befriended by a couple of random Korean metalheads, one guy was called Le-Hyo but the other guy kept saying "just call me Lee", which as I think I've already explained is the least helpful thing possible, upwards of 20% of Koreans being called Lee. Anyway, it's amazing how language and cultural barriers stop mattering when you find out that this guy also knows all the words to Alice Cooper's 'Poison'.

The highlight of the evening, though, was my seeing the best music video I have ever seen. I present it here without further comment; please, just watch it all the way through. Especially you, darkspree.

Happy New Year!

2009-01-26T11:33:34Z

Am writing this on the Saemaeul (express) train from Busan back to Yeongdong. Love technology.

Weekend was awesome. We've got a four-day weekend for New Year, so we decided to head to Busan to relax. We stayed in Haeundae Beach, which is a slightly touristy area of Busan but it's fun. We had a really excellent hotel room (big bath and shower, massive TV, computer with free internet, all for 65,000 won (thirty-two pounds fifty) a night!), and Haeundae is lovely. Feels like I haven't seen the sea in an age, and it's a beautiful beach. First night we had delicious burritos in a bar called the Fuzzy Navel, which wasn't very Korean but what the hell.

The second day we decided to relax pretty hard. Took a nice walk along the seafront to have breakfast at the local Kraze Burger. Kraze Burger is a Korean burger chain that makes extremely delicious burgers. It was actually the first thing we ate in Korea, in Incheon airport. We try to get it when we can, which isn't often 'cause they're pretty much only in Seoul and Busan. After that, we took a taxi to a spa our guidebook recommended.

I should write about the Korean bathhouse. It's an important institution. Walk in, pay about 5,000 won, head to your sex's designated bath and get naked. The bathhouse contains quite a variety of tubs - the men's section of our usual one, the Yuseong Spa in Daejeon, has a warm bath (40 degrees C), a cold one, a hot one (46 degrees), a ginseng bath, an outside bath, and a herbal bath. The big thing to do is to alternate between the cold and hot baths, which is meant to be good for the circulation. There's also a few saunas, including a "Finland sauna" which is kept at about 102 degree C, terrifyingly. The Vesta Spa in Busan had balconies so you could stand outside naked looking out at the sea, which was quite something.

When you're sufficiently clean and pink, you go back to the lockers and put on a loose-fitting uniform to rejoin the opposite sex in the jjimjilbang. The jjimjilbang is a large relaxing space to, basically, chill out. People lie around reading books or watching TV. There's a cafe, a couple more saunas, ice cream - and happily for me, a masseuse. I've been having terrible back pain lately, so I splashed out a bit and paid for a very comprehensive (and brutal!) massage. Seriously, about halfway through my spine went crack at terrifying volume. I'm feeling much better now.

Today we visited Beomeopsa, Busan's biggest temple, which is a traditional thing to do on New Year's Day. What's very striking about Buddhist temples here is that they're always set somewhere distinctly apart from the rest of the world, usually on mountains. A few weeks ago we visited the temple at Songnisan, which roughly means "Remote from the ordinary world mountain", and it was a similar experience. Beautiful treelines and mountains obscure your view of the sprawling city you just left, and you're surrounded by devotional art and stunning architecture. It's quite an experience.

On the way back down the mountain we stopped off for pajeon (spring onion pancake) and makkoli (fermented rice wine), a traditional combination and one of our favourites. Visual standards for restaurant quality are completely different here than they are in England. Places that look like cheap grotty diners will regularly turn out to serve famously delicious food. This was the best pajeon we've ever had, and it was served in a polythene tent structure with a wood stove by the side of the road. The plastic roadside tent is a bit of a Korean institution, actually, they crop up everywhere.

Seems like I'm always talking about food. I worry I'm going to turn into one of those gap year arseholes, constantly banging on about how this would be much cheaper in Korea, and in Korea you can get octopus tentacles in any supermarket, and how you can't make proper kimchi without Korean cabbage. It's probably inevitable.

My next project: a list of things I miss terribly about England, alongside a list of things I expect to miss terribly about Korea.

Political spectrum quiz

2009-01-23T05:18:32Z

'Cause I'm bored.

My Political Views
I am a left social libertarian
Left: 5.53, Libertarian: 4.79

Political Spectrum Quiz

My Foreign Policy Views
Score: -4.59

Political Spectrum Quiz

My Culture War Stance
Score: -8.26

Political Spectrum Quiz

Study: Mathematicians Are Awesome, Say Mathematicians

2009-01-06T07:37:04Z

A brief note before I leave work: based on aggregates of "environment, income, employment outlook, physical demands and stress", the career I'm hoping to end up in is the 12th best job in the world. Take that, physicists!

2008: Mixed results!

2008-12-30T08:33:15Z

I don't have the energy for a proper post thing, so here's a meme:

1. What did you do in 2008 that you'd never done before?
Lived in another country. Earned a degree. Suffered mental health problems.

2. Did you keep your new year's resolutions, and will you make more for next year?
I don't make 'em. I'm bad at keeping promises.

3. Did anyone close to you give birth?
Nope.

4. Did anyone close to you die?
Nobody I can think of. I'm going to feel really shitty if I've forgotten someone.

5. What countries did you visit?
Amsterdam. I don't think Korea counts.

6. What would you like to have in 2009 that you lacked in 2008?
Money. Mental health. Productive rest and activity.

7. What date from 2008 will remain etched upon your memory, and why?
I simply cannot remember dates. Sorry.

8. What was your biggest achievement of the year?
My First. Still well pleased with myself.

9. What was your biggest failure?
Various personal failures, opportunities missed, &c.

10. Did you suffer illness or injury?
Nothing physical. For about half the year I was being medicated for panic disorder, brought on largely by my degree. I stopped taking the medication when exams finished, and it's been very manageable since.

11. What was the best thing you bought?
Can't think of anything in particular - most of my money goes on ephemerals.

12. Whose behaviour merited celebration?
Lux, for shouldering a lot of my burdens. Paul, for waiting til I dropped back into 2nd place before firing that blue shell. Tom and Mary, for being stand-up chaps and fine housemates. Plenty of other people. I have some good friends.

13. Whose behaviour made you appalled and depressed?
Nobody in particular jumps out at me.

14. Where did most of your money go?
Food - I ate out about as often as my student loan and overdraft could support. No regrets!

15. What did you get really, really, really excited about?
Korea. Doing my MPhilStud. Going to London. Note that I've still only done one of those things.

16. What song will always remind you of 2008?
2008 was a year of music for me. Maybe the Crystal Castles remix of 'Atlantis to Interzone' by Klaxons. Maybe 'The Take Over, The Break's Over' by Fall Out Boy.

17. Compared to this time last year, are you:
i. Happier or sadder? Happier
ii. Thinner or fatter? 'Bout the same.
iii. richer or poorer? Richer.

18. What do you wish you'd done more of?
Reading. Planning.

19. What do you wish you'd done less of?
Nothing. I did far too much nothing.

20. How will you be spending Christmas?
Spent it ripping shit up in Seoul. Good times, but I missed my family - this has been my second Christmas without them.

21. Did you fall in love in 2008?
Not newly and fully. I felt old loves grow and fluctuate and discovered new feelings for new people.

22. How many one-night stands?
Pfft, like I would have anything as easily defined as a one-night stand. That's not nearly complicated and messy enough.

23. What was your favourite TV program?
I lied above: 2008 was a year of TV for me. House, Battlestar Galactica, Arrested Development, Dexter. Once I took a bunch of mushrooms and stayed up watching Boston Legal all night. Good times.

24. Do you hate anyone now that you didn't hate this time last year?
I don't hate anybody.

25. What was the best book you read?
This is always difficult: Iain M. Banks' Matter, probably, or Haruki Murakami's Norwegian Wood. Oddly for me, I seem to like Murakami's slow sad quiet books better than his surreal adventures.

26. What was your greatest musical discovery?
Can't think what I discovered anew this year, actually. Hmm.

27. What did you want and get?
A First, and hope of an academic career along with it.

28. What did you want and not get?
Pass.

29. What was your favourite film of this year?
The Dark Knight was excellent, as was Iron Man, but the best film this year, the last several years, and maybe that I've ever seen was Ang Lee's Lust, Caution. See it.

31. What did you do on your birthday, and how old were you?
I was 21. In Sheffield, Lux cooked a huge roast dinner and a cheesecake for a load of my friends. In London, we went out for dinner and to art galleries like we always do on my birthday, and got really drunk on like a case of champagne. Times were good.

33. How would you describe your personal fashion concept in 2008?
Relaxed verging on hipsterish. My principal concessions to fashion have been shirts worn open over t-shirts, increasingly cool t-shirts, nice coats and nice jeans (from Uniqlo).

34. What kept you sane?
Lux, Paul, videogames, food, alcohol and beta blockers.

35. Which celebrity/public figure did you fancy the most?
Yeah, it's probably Obama.

36. What political issue stirred you the most?
Gay marriage. It's the perfect union of the rightness of the cause and the complete idiocy and logic-blindness of the people on the wrong side. Drives me apoplectic.

37. Who did you miss?
Nobody til I got to Korea. Then, a bunch of people.

38. Who was the best new person you met?
Probably Brooke.

39. Tell us a valuable life lesson you learned in 2008:
-More effort can always be wrung out of you.
-Self-medicating to this end is effective in the short term.
-The worst that can possibly happen is often not all that bad. So don't be such a coward.
-There's a point after which you're no longer weighing up the pros and cons, you're just wasting time.

40. Quote a song lyric that sums up your year:
Can't think of anything, sorry.

A Revelation

2008-12-23T03:51:36Z

Every day after work, Lux and I meet in KIN, the best cafe in Yeongdong. It's extremely cute (the wall is covered in little Post-Its, which are supplied along with pens for people to leave message, and the owner sits there knitting all day) and serves excellent coffee.

Today I learned that KIN is Korean textspeak. Turn it 90 degrees clockwise, and you get 즐 (jeul), which is a Rude Word in Korean - I'm told it's a swearier "shut up". So basically we're frequenting STFU Cafe. Good times.

Korea!

2008-11-27T10:42:10Z

I've been here for nearly three weeks, so I should probably find time
to put a proper update together.

The scariness of the language barrier is starting to wear off. I'm
learning hangul (the script in which Korean is written - its history
is pretty fascinating, look it up), and am almost at the point where I
can actually _read_ it, as opposed to a step-by-step deciphering of
some mysterious code. The Korean language is still utterly beyond me
except for a few simple terms. Hello (annyeong haseyo), goodbye
(annyong-hi kyeseyo), thank you (kamsa hamnida), train station (gicha
yeok), please (chuseyo). In dealings with merchants and waiters, we
rely on extremely elementary Korean, vague gestures, and English
baby-talk. So far we're muddling through, though we've had to give up
on a few enterprises through inability to communicate.

One such was when I bought garlic yesterday. It is not possible, I
report after several experiments, to buy garlic here in quantities
smaller than about a kilogram. We have a fruit bowl at home entirely
filled with the stuff. The cultural explanation for this is probably
kimchi. Kimchi is the staple of staples in Korea. It's some vegetable
(mainly cabbage), fermented in, amongst other things, chilli and
garlic. Lots of garlic. They eat it with every single meal and
constantly make vast quantities of the stuff. Fridges sold here have
between a fifth and a third of their volume set aside just for kimchi.
Our home needs are rather more modest, and we are thus overwhelmed
with garlic.

The city in which we live is Yeongdong-gun. It has a population of
about 50,000, of whom about eight are English speakers. I know this
because they were all at dinner last week. When only a handful of
locals speak your language you become pretty tight-knit, and we've
been inducted. Our main friends are Bryan and Denise, a Canadian
couple who've been here for three months. Their confidence is
reassuring, almost as reassuring as it is to learn that we have
somebody other than each other to talk to. Not that we lack for
attention - Koreans, especially out here where they don't see many,
are totally fascinated by Westerners. In fact, a Korean schoolgirl
just gave me a carton of apple juice. The other night in a restaurant,
the waitress (or possibly manager/owner) showed us photos from her
holiday in Europe. Anyone with any English wants to try it. A typical
interaction with a child at my school the other day went:

Child: Hello!
Me: Hello! How are you?
Child: Yes.

So that's the point we're at now.

Speaking of work: I work at Hwanggang Elementary School. Hwanggan is a
little town about 17 or so kilometres away; I can get the bus in, but
most mornings I get a ride with one or other of the teachers. The
actual teaching is pretty fun. I teach everyone from kindergarteners
to sixth grade, and am basically a classroom assistant for Mr Jin, the
real English teacher. I correct everybody, and speak English loudly
and clearly. The disappointing part of the job mainly comes in the
hours. Today I taught four classes, two hours and forty minutes of
work. I was _at_ work, however, for over _seven_ hours. I'm in by nine
and don't get to leave until half past four. I'm struggling to find
things to fill all this wasted time - I'm reading books, surfing the
Net, working on my Korean, but I still get super bored. It's a bit
irritating.

And now I'm out of time. Hopefully my next update will be more
coherent! It's doubtful.

Selling Out to Pressure Groups

2008-11-24T06:40:01Z

Kevin Werbach, co-chair of Barack Obama's FCC transition team, is a Level 70 Tauren shaman. The Republican Party is already criticising the possible lack of a strong Alliance presence in the future Obama administration.