View from Trafalgar Square (3 Aug 2005)
October 28th, 2005 by MrLuxuryFashionGuru
Singapore Street Opera (12 Aug 2005)
October 27th, 2005 by MrLuxuryFashionGuru
Are we there yet?
October 25th, 2005 by MrLuxuryFashionGuruFinally, a moment to recollect my thoughts, to give some actual thought to what I’m wearing*, and to pick up some of the stuff on my bedroom floor.
*I don’t think I’ve looked as bedraggled this semester as this afternoon at 3.05pm when I left the Core Program office after turning in my Justice paper.
Ok, so as promised, here’s what I’ve been up to since 10pm two days ago (people should tell me if they find these itineraries boring so I stop putting them up).
Sunday
10pm: Fiddling with group essay for MIT class. I told my group I would have a draft for them to vet by Friday (yes, the day before)
10.30pm: Leave for HUCEP with Ryan
10.45pm: In CVS buying Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, Flaming Hot! Cheetos, Twerps and assorted other junk food.
11pm: I’m back at my desk eating cheetos, drinking a can of ginger ale
11.30pm: I’ve finished the cheetos, the ginger ale and two peanut butter cups (anyone keeping a calorie count? I am – that’s nearly a thousand. I don’t even want to think about fat calories). I feel fairly disgusted. The group essay is about half done.
12.15am: I email off the group essay (realising that I don’t know the names of my group members to put on the paper). I start work on the other essay I have due at 9am that morning.
12.30am: In the Quincy gym, walking on the treadmill while reading the background materials for my essay. There are five readings to respond to.
1.50am: Ryan comes looking for me because it’s time to sign out from HUCEP. I have walked three miles, supposedly burned about 500 calories and read two of the articles… the two shortest ones.
2.15am: Back in the room, I take a shower, then realise that I’ve left my Nalgene bottle in the gym, so I decide to go back there and do a little more reading.
3am: Sitting in the brightly-lit gym, reading
4.30am: I’ve starting to drowse after having read about half an article and wondering, “why do I have 200 pages of reading to do??”
4.35am: I fall asleep on the floor in the gym. Fortunately I have my blanket with me, so it’s not that sad. Actually, it’s still really sad.
about 4.50am: I wake up, in the dark, on the floor and wonder where I am. I realise I’m in the gym, wake my arms about so that the motion-sensor lights come on, and read just a little more.
5.30am: I’m in my room, going to bed.
Monday
10am: I’m awake, and my essay is now both unwritten and an hour overdue. I also have class in an hour and nearly half the source-materials unread.
10.40: I’ve skimmed the remaining source material (skimmed = guessed what the author wrote based on aub-headings) and hunker down to write the synthesis essay.
11.20: I’ve submitted my paper, which is just over two pages. I hurry over to Sander’s Theater for my class which started at 11am.
11.27am: I slide into the row where Ryan has a banana (breakfast!) waiting for me. Fortunately Professor S. has just finished his summary of what we did last time and is only beginning to move to new material.
12noon: One class down, many more to go. I hurry back to Quincy, get my lunch and bring the tray back to my room.
12.10pm: I’m speed-reading the discussion materials for International Law. There are about 50 pages, so it’s not impossible to finish before section starts at 1pm.
1pm: I bring my tray back to the dining hall, get dessert and walk into my section which is conveniently held in a room at the back of the dining hall. I have about five pages left to read.
1.20pm: I have finished reading the materials for the section. The sugar from the desert starts to induce a food-coma made worse by my general fatigue. Occassionally I read the odd page from my French sourcebook for my next class.
2.20pm: Section unexpectedly ends early, after a rather insipid discussion on the role of and possible reforms for the UN security council.
2.25: Back in my room to dump the absurdly heavy Gov sourcebook. I read another couple of pages of French.
2.50pm: I leave my room with twenty pages of French to go.
2.57pm: I realise just before walking into class that we were supposed to have viewed a French film to be discussed in class that day. Naturally I cannot even remember what film, and certainly have made no attempt to view it in advance. Drat.
3pm: Class starts. Seventeen impossibly convoluted pages of French left to read.
5pm: Class ends. I still have five pages of the reading undone. Oh well.
5.04pm: I’m in Sanders again, this time for Dins rehearsal, which started at 4pm while I was in class.
5.09pm: Rehearsal ends, after one final song.
5.15pm: In Quincy having dinner with Jeff.
6pm: Rehearsals start up again, this time in Adams JCR.
6.50pm: I leave for class at MIT. It’s raining, again.
6.53pm: I miss the bus. And feeling exasperated I hail a taxicab. The ride down Mass Ave costs $7.
7.03pm: I arrive at the classroom only to discover that the location has shifted to another room within the labyrinthine MIT complex.
7.09pm: I find the new location, it appears locked and empty. I am now quite overheated from rushing about, and mystified as to where the class might be.
7.10pm: The TF for the class emerges from the locked room. It turns out the new location is in an adjoining room hidden off to the side behind the locked door.
7.15pm: I’ve received back both the essays I wrote in the last eighteen hours. The group essay did ok, though not exceptionally well. My other essay earned the worst grade I’ve gotten out of four essays. It’s not a bad grade, I guess, but I don’t want to slip in this class.
9pm: Class finally ends. I still love the class, but I’m beginning to see that the Professor is pretty immovably certain about some things that I feel justified in not believing.
10pm: A short walk, quick detour to pick up a free DVD from blockbuster, a bus ride and trip to CVS to buy replacement batteries for my dead wireless mouse later, I am home.
11.30pm: I’ve watched two episodes of ANTM because I feel like I deserve it (I really don’t) and then start getting ready for bed.
12.30am: Asleep.
Tuesday
9.30am: I’m awake, and I have a paper strictly due at 3pm. It is clear that there’s going to be a bit of a crunch. I’ve already written the opening paragraph and conclusion, which take up about two pages of a seven page limit.
10am: I’ve officially skipped my first class. The essay is coming along nicely. I feel guilty about missing an important lecture on the International Court of Justice.
11.30pm: My second class of the day begins. Professor M. is talking about the libertarian analysis of federal abortion laws. My essay is probably about five pages.
1pm: Where did the time go? I’ve eaten two peanut butter cups. I’m worried about running out of space.
2pm: Lunch is ending in the dining halls. I’m clearly not going to get to eat there today. My essay is nearly done but needs to read over with a fine tooth comb. I also need to jettison some of my original ideas in order to make the time and page limit.
2.45pm: I’m clearly running out of time. I start writing a bibliography, which is horrendous because I can’t find a couple of important references so I’m forced to fudge it a little, meaning I leave out the publisher and year for one of my references.
2.50pm: I’ve printed my essay to the Quincy computer lab in the basement of the next building. Just because I’m slightly paranoid I throw my essay onto the network.
2.53pm: I’m panicking because my essay has printed wrongly (my pc settings were for two-pages-per-sheet) so I log on to the network and print another copy. Have I mentioned it’s raining, still?
2.57pm: I’m sprinting towards the Core Program office on Dunster Street with my essay in hand. It’s raining, and I only know roughly where the building is, partly with Devon’s help. A line from my TF’s email instructions is ringing in my head: “Don’t turn in your paper late. 3.01pm and you already lose a third of your grade.”
2.59ish: I join a stream of students hurrying to turn their papers in. This is after all a class with over a thousand enrolled students. My glasses fog up the moment I enter the building so I can’t really see either way. I stumble up to the second floor and turn my paper in. On the way out I meet Matt, Will and Evan.
3.10pm: I realize that I forgot to list the principal source of my paper in my bibliography – it’s the source material that the question asked us to respond to. Whoops. Too late. Too bad. In the end it turns out that neither Ryan nor Emily even included a bibliography so I guess it’s not that big a deal. I hope.
3.15pm – 6pm: I buy myself some lunch, tidy my room, change the fluffies’ diapers, call back Dr H to talk about research work, change clothes and eat lunch. I’m starting to feel less bedraggled. I also realise I don’t believe one of the major arguments I proposed in my justice essay.
6.05pm – 8.05pm: Dins rehearsal.
8.05pm-9.30pm: Blog writing, emails, laundry etc.
10pm: I’m hoping to be in the Quincy gym, probably reading for Justice tomorrow. And we’ve come full circle, no?
Retiring early, relatively speaking
October 25th, 2005 by MrLuxuryFashionGuruNot getting to bed till 5.30 in the morning is bad for my:
a) eating habits
b) complexion
c) short term memory
d) attention span
e) wakefulness during classes
f) general sense of well-being
h) circardian rhythms
I’ll write a play-by-play of the past 24-hours sometime tomorrow, after I’ve recovered from writing the Justice paper due in about 14 hours…. But first, I’m going to get some sleep.
Retiring early, relatively speaking
October 25th, 2005 by MrLuxuryFashionGuruNot getting to bed till 5.30 in the morning is bad for my:
a) eating habits
b) complexion
c) short term memory
d) attention span
e) wakefulness during classes
f) general sense of well-being
h) circardian rhythms
I’ll put a play-by-play of the past 24-hours sometime tomorrow, after I’ve recovered from writing the Justice paper due in about 14 hours…. But first, I’m going to get some sleep.
And I thought I would go to bed early!
October 23rd, 2005 by MrLuxuryFashionGuruAs I wrote to Will later:
“There’s no way I expect to be able to come up with a unifying principle for morality that’s universal and absolutist, secular and humanist but also convincing and flawlessly prescriptive (not to mention in some ways very different from theories we’ve studied so far). I can try though 🙂 And I think I’m intuitively right, but of course don’t we all?”
Yes, this is definitely part of why I love being here. (Aim screennames have been edited, very very slight other content editing has been done as indicated.)
—
j (4:05:45 AM): [Telling] the truth would [in all cases] be the moral course because you cannot be *expected* to compromise morality in the name of morality. I say that is a logically/morally false claim.
W (4:06:49 AM): what if there were a situation in which by telling a lie, you would ensure that no one else ever told a lie
W (4:07:22 AM): but by telling the truth you would ensure that the world devolved into a mass of people who had no regard for truth
W (4:07:27 AM): then
j (4:07:30 AM): As a head of state you are supposed to do everything within your rightful power to achieve your society’s goals. I do not think society can delegate the right to lie to the president, so it is not his right to do so.
W (4:07:52 AM): assuming that is the situation
W(4:08:33 AM): is it the moral course to tell the truth and by so doing cause the moral downfall of the whole world? […]
j (4:12:07 AM): I know this is interesting to you, but my answer is going to be the same, again and again. You, as an individual, as president, as imperial dictator for life over all the universe, do not have the moral right to lie, cannot be delegated that right by others who do not have it either. You are hence not morally responsible for any situation that arises from something that could not have been stopped save by lying (or any other action you do not have a right to). Referencing my email conclusion, if a doctor arrives on the scene and the victims could only be saved if the doctor did something morally wrong (eg. kill one to use for parts for the rest), s/he cannot be morally expected to do so. It is as if the doctor arrived too late to save anyone.
j (4:13:21 AM): In other words, you did not “cause” anything by not lying, in the moral sense.
j (4:13:58 AM): Yes, there are things you could have done, but they are not moral actions, you cannot be expected to do them, you have no right to do them.
Celtics v. Bulls
October 19th, 2005 by MrLuxuryFashionGuruYesteday the Dins spent a couple of hours getting to and waiting at an open audition to sing the (American) national anthem for the Boston Celtics. After hearing many, many increasingly tiresome renditions of the Star Spangled Banner (we were group number 111), we finally got our chance onstage. I guessed the judges liked what they heard, because they invited us to sing for them… tonight. So in a couple of hours I will go sing with the Dins at a Boston Celtics v. Chicago Bulls pre-season game. I have to admit that the coolness of all this is slightly wasted on me since I have never seen an entire basketball game, nor have I ever really wanted to. But we get a free pair of tickets each, so I guess I’m going, at least for a little bit 🙂
And of course what I really want to do tonight is think about how different theories of international law and international relations can “shed light” on the extradition cases of Pinochet from the UK to Spain and Hissene Habr
Libertarian Perspectives on Economic and Social Policy
October 14th, 2005 by MrLuxuryFashionGuruWow, this class really gets me fired up, largely because I am sooo incredibly skeptical about the things the professor argues for. And the scary thing (to me, at least), is that so many students just eat it up, and uncritically accept claims like “Even in countries like Singapore with strongly enforced drug prohibition, the numbers show no significant difference in substance abuse with the US or elsewhere.”* and “Economic analysis shows that recycling is usually about equal to or even worse than new production in terms of cost and pollution.”** Arghh. Admittedly I respect his far greater experience and knowledge, and also his good faith effort to be even-handed in presenting and answering the counter-arguments. Yet I fundamentally think limited and democratic paternalism can be a very good and economically efficient way of ordering society.
*This is outright wrong if you believe the 2005 UN World Drug Report
—> The professor was arguing that all drugs should be legal and treated like any other consumer good (how can crack cocaine be a “good”??!) like blue jeans or toaster ovens.
** Well, except that recycled paper/cardboard pulp is now the largest US export good by volume, and recycling aluminium reduces the need for horrifically damaging aluminium ore mines. Clearly there are many economists (like the ones at these highly profitible recycling firms) who think the economic analysis is in favor of recycling.
—> The professor’s position was that compulsory residential recycling programs are silly since market incentives will lead to optimal behavior as necessary. Which is an ok position at first glance, but ignores possibilities like the negative incentives for people to sort their trash, and also the important potential for government-mandated programs to capture economies of scale. For example, Harvard pays something like $80/ton of trash that’s landfilled, but gets paid $60/ton of paper it sells to a recycling firm. Clearly few Harvard students are going to be persuaded to sort all their trash by any monetary reward because it would probably be about $1 per person per semester, or even $6 over 16 weeks if that student throws out 100kg or 220 pounds of paper. Yet Harvard (20,000 students, not including staff) cumulatively throws out hundreds of tons of paper every semester, which could either mean a huge landfill bill, or a very sweet profit for the school. This is ignoring any environmental benefit like the reduced need for forests to be turned into wood-pulp plantations etc.
—
This was the “short” email I tried to write to him, but just couldn’t stop myself from turning it into a fairly lengthy response on what I thought were some of the bigger problems with what I heard in class today. As background, today we talked about environmental protection, and the relevant point the professor was arguing for is that “in most/many cases, private contracting and other market mechanisms can usually help to internalise externalities and achieve a socially optimal situation, if only there were clear property rights to environmental goods like clean water, clean air, silence etc. etc.”
Dear Professor M,
As discussed after lecture today, could I (and the rest of the class) have access to a couple of sample mid-terms and final exams from last year? This coming Monday is the add/drop deadline, so it would be particularly useful if students could have access to these past exams as soon as possible.
—
Concerning today’s lecture, my intuition is that people have a limited amount of money, and face many potential harms, which together lead to logical/practical difficulties in applying Libertarian Land principles generally. Starting with the infinite number of negative environmental externalities we face, just for water pollutants we have to consider lead, mercury, arsenic (and many other heavy metals), PCBs, all manner of pesticides, all types of bacteria etc. etc. Taken case-by-case, people would probably be willing to pay significant amounts of money to prevent each one of these pollutants from being in their drinking water. But summed over all the many externalities and sources of externalities that people might have to consider in environmental pollution (eg. not just arsenic, but arsenic from all kinds of different industrial/agricultural sources which would each expect compensation to not produce/dump their waste in the river), the cost per person/household seems like it would be extraordinarily high. (This is my hunch, even if each potential source of harm were to be each compensated by just a dollar or even a cent per household.)*Because there exists a virtually infinite number and sources of harmful externalities, it seems that one of two things might happen – either people would have to “be rational” and scale back what they would be willing to pay to protect themselves against these externalities (e.g. Q: “How much is not suffering long-term arsenic poisoning worth to you?” A: “Only $0.00001, because I cannot afford anything more.”).
Alternatively they would simply come up with a final “bill” that would be well beyond anyone’s means. So even in theory this does not seem like a principle that could be viably applied in a general fashion.Yet the reality is that we *can* afford to have all these harms at the low levels of the status quo (assuming our water is safe to drink right now, for example), the prima facie proof being the status quo. You said after lecture that the costs are just being pushed around because these costs are somewhere out there but I’m not certain this is true. On one level it seems possible that these costs are partly being borne in the form of foregone economic development, for example (which society can afford, as opposed to paying sums of money we do not have). Alternatively, it seems as if many of these costs just don’t exist in reality. Recalling the dorm room example, in the status quo no exchange of money would be necessary so neither of us would incur any monetary costs. We would rely instead on systems of reciprocity or fuzzy “social capital” (Putnam, 2000) or mutual respect or some moral principle or mutually-agreed guideline.**
* This also assumes that the “property right” for clean water or the right to dump waste in a river is privately owned, e.g. by industry, rather than held in common by the relevant community, e.g. the town council. (Which reminds me of my concern that companies/individuals that don’t value/care at all about the environment can hold everyone else hostage as long as they hold a property right to something other people value. A frightening example is PCBs, which persist in the environment over many human generations and concentrate in our bodies to cause developmental disorders. Any company could then potentially hold the world hostage if they owned the right to dump PCB waste in the ocean.) But technically I’m not sure this assumption matters because the logic seems to work in reverse too – if companies had to ask communities what they would expect to be compensated for every single type of harm that the company might generate to residents, the amount demanded may well be absurdly high since residents cannot rationally say “The increased risk of developmental defects in future unborn children due to your factory emissions over the next decade is worth…. $1,000 total.” If the questions were posed this way communities would likely list a higher number, and in total the costs to companies would likely be prohibitive.My reflexive theory about this is that collective bargaining and “bundled” negotiations (such as when the government makes standards decisions for everyone, or when companies simple abide by existing zoning laws), where many different externalities are tied together (e.g. “emissions” rather than individual pollutants), helps many of the externalities and costs to be hidden/overlooked/forgotten. Which is another way of saying that transaction costs are lowered because there are fewer elements to each transaction.
** We probably have a greater store of reciprocity or respect (ie social capital) to dole out or bargain with (since we create this instantaneously and almost without costs in many cases) than we do actual cash.–I would not be surprised to learn that I’m missing something important about the way the Libertarian system of almost total property rights would work, but in my mind not only are the logical implications impracticable (or at least inconvenient), but there are also huge problems surrounding the initial execution of the system. How would the property rights to silence or clean air or a healthy ecosystem be divisible or enforceable? And how will these rights be distributed, and who will have the right to distribute them (intuitively it seems that you can’t give away rights to things you don’t own to begin with)? Will it be decided by an international system of law, the federal government, indigenous peoples?)
—
I would love to hear your thoughts on these fundamental issues, and I look forward to looking at a couple of sample mid-term and final exams from previous years of the course.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Tidying = guilt-free procrastination
October 9th, 2005 by MrLuxuryFashionGuruFall is definitely here. The temperature plummeted about 15 deg F last night, leaving us in the 50s. I can’t say I’m complaining – it had to happen sometime or other.
I finally gave the fluffies a bath, swept and mopped my floor and packed up all my stuff. I can officially say that I feel moved-in, finally.
I guess that means I should start doing work now.