Welcome to this Researcher's Journal. If you'd like to comment on anything they have written here, just click the relevant 'Discuss this Entry' button.

Otto's Journal: Obama?
Jan 21, 2009


Here's the thing. A lot of people whose views I respect, and a lot of people around the whole world are very enthusiastic about Barak Obama being inaugurated this week. It's rare to see much optimism and enthusiasm for a politician. The election is being talked of in historic, epoch-making terms and I've already heard people saying things like they'll always remember where they were, that their grandchildren might ask about this day and so on and so forth.

But I have to admit, the whole thing leaves me cold. I don't deny the historical significance of what's happened, nor that Obama is likely to be a much better President than Bush. The world will be a significantly better place with America pursuing a less unilateral foreign policy and perhaps even doing something about Climate Change.

However, although I don't wish America ill in any way, I just don't look to America or her President as the leader of the free world or for leadership or example. Some of America's founding principles are noble and admirable, but some are not - or perhaps it is fair to say, the way they are put into practice are not. I'm not a knee-jerk leftist-Spartist anti-American (or at least I don't think I am). I don't think something is bad just because America does it or supports it.

There is much to admire about America and American culture (entertainment, 'can do' attitude, openness etc etc) , and I have to say that I've never met an American in person that I didn't like. But for me, America is so far from a fair society in terms of distribution of wealth and fair equality of opportunity - further even than the UK - that I just don't see America as an example. However progressive Obama is in an American context, it seems to me that the American Democrats are well to the right of the British Tories.

If the new President means a more equal America, then that's great and I'm pleased for them. But I'm not sure it's worth quite this amount of hype and enthusiasm outside of the US. In the UK, we should be looking to the social democracies of Europe for an example, not just to the US. The extent to which America dominates our news media is frankly alarming - how much coverage does the French or German election get in comparison, even considering relative geo-political importance.

The extent to which the media and ordinary people in the UK are discussing American *domestic* policies is rather surprising - is it (a) any of our business (as non-Americans) and (b) should it really be of any interest? Aren't we too obsessed with America?

(1 reply, Latest reply: Jan 26, 2009)

Otto's Journal: College Saga
Jun 1, 2007


A quick plug for one of my favourite things at the moment - College Saga. It's a series of videos that spoof Fantasy Roleplaying Games in general, and the Final Fantasy Series in particular. I'm not a hardcore FF player by any means, but I've played a couple of them, and certainly enough to find this very, very funny. I particularly love the camera work.

This is a must for anyone who's every played one of the FF games...

http://www.retardism.com/collegesaga/main.htm

(1 reply, Latest reply: Jun 1, 2007)

Otto's Journal: FORZA ROSSONERI!
May 23, 2007


I won't be watching the Champions' League Final tonight - Wednesdays is my regular night for playing sport, rather than watching. But if I was watching, I'd be cheering on AC Milan.

Never mind all this "support the English team" nonsense. I'm an Everton fan, and there's no way I'll support Liverpool. Bitter? Possibly? Envious? Certainly.

But it's impossible to be any other way, given the wall-to-wall sycophantic media coverage that Liverpool and their "best fans in the world" get, not to mention the hoardes of glory-hunting part-time fans who seem to seep out of the woodwork on these occasions. Now granted, I'm an armchair footie fan who only goes to see Everton a couple of times a season, but I don't pretend to be anything else. When I was a kid I used to go and watch Everton all across London with my friend and his family, who were all from Liverpool. And last time we won anything (FA Cup, 1995) you would have seen me watching the match on TV as usual, not bedecked in club colours and proclaiming an utter devotion that only comes out when we're winning.

Last time they won it, in Istanbul, the truth of the matter is that AC imploded for a short period of the game, but were, in truth, dominant for the whole first half and looked the most likely to score after it came to 3-3 and throughout extra time. And Liverpool won on penalties. Yet to read the match reports in the English press, you'd think it was some kind of heroic victory. Liverpool didn't win it, AC lost it and then it went to penalties. Think how differently it would have been reported if it had been the other way round.

But as someone said on an Everton forum recently, Liverpool are Satan's own team, and if there's any luck going, they'll get it.

(23 replies, Latest reply: Jan 29, 2009)

Otto'sJournal: The shrill of secular illiberalism
Jul 6, 2006


My philosophical hero, John Rawls, wrote a book called 'Political Liberalism' in which he explored the consequences of what he called 'permanent pluralism' (or something like that). Roughly, this is the view that there are now and will always be very different conceptions of the 'good life', very different world views, very different moral and metaphysical outlooks. Given this, how can people agree to live together within a stable state?

Rawls' suggestion is what he calls an 'overlapping consensus' - trying to find points of agreement between otherwise very different views about what the state should look like. He aruged that people should have a sense of themselves as citizen, and as private individual. As private individual, I might believe x and y and z, but as a citizen I accept that I have the right to believe this and argue for it, but not to impose it on others.

Thus, the state stays neutral between these competing conceptions. Rawls argued that people should have a loyalty to this 'overlapping consensus' as something that protects their rights now, and their rights to change their mind about their life in the future. Not a 'mere modus vivendi'.

What troubles me is a tendancy to reject this overlapping consensus. Surprisingly, it's coming not from the religous fundamentalist, but from a new kind of secular fundamentalist. These SFs are not content just to fight and argue against certain metaphysical viewpoints and to try to reduce the religious influence in society (which is reasonable), but to try to silence voices from the political debate (which is not).

This is often accompanied by the setting up of 'straw target' religious views that are attacked and easily destroyed, ignoring or failing to engage with more sophisticated versions. The typical 'straw target' religious person is a fanatic, a controller, a fascist, an evolution denier, completely irrational. There are many like that in all religions - Christianity has its Taliban as well as Islam. But a great many religious people, particularly in the western world, are not like that at all.

I'm a liberal, secular, humanist. I don't want to live in a more religious society, but it's only possible to advance liberal, secular, and humanist aims by understanding the arguments of one's opponents. And understanding them properly, not just attacking straw targets. And in general, I think, people have a duty as citizens and as credible thoughtful people to properly understand the viewpoints of others.

I find it worrying when secular, sensible people start to close themselves off to other ideas, to ridicule other views rather than trying to understand them, to try to silence and attack ad homenim rather than letting the arguments be heard, and then seeking to win the debate properly and fairly. Especially as that's what they accuse their opponents of doing.

(10 replies, Latest reply: Jan 12, 2007)

Otto's Journal: Chinese Food
Jun 28, 2006


My local Chinese takeaway is called the 'Tasty Wok', and is very good indeed. Food excellent, prepared quickly, staff friendly and efficient.

However, I had something of a shock when I phoned to place an order the other day. Usually I'd just drop in on the way home. 'Tasty Wok' is a good name for a Chinese takeaway when written down, but when spoken, it sounds rather too much like "Taste Ewok". And when people answer the phone, they sometimes use a question intonation tone, so it sounds like an offer or a question....

"Sweet and Sour Wicket, please, and a Chief Chirpa Chop Suey....."

Beeeeechaaawawa.....

(No replies)