Well, I just got back from an Oxford History tour, and it was really interesting. I'm sitting here talking to a Mets fan (BOO!), but I'm so happy to find someone else to talk sports with that I'll take a Mets fan. Shakespeare, literature, and history are wonderful, but sometimes, you just need a break from the academics. Anyway, upwards and forwards to yesterday:
Thursday
I finally rolled out of bed at 10:15 to go to lecture. The lecture was fairly interesting. It was on whether or not "evidence-based" government is possible in today's society. Evidence-based government is using research and other methods to make policy decisions. Of course because the lecturer was an academic, he thought it was definitely possible, but he did a good job of showing both sides. What is evidence? How do you value different types of evidence? Which evidence should you use when? Does it always point in the right direction? However, he feels that academics and politicians can be smart enough to decide which to use and when and that making decisions based on evidence is better than just winging it (did you hear that GW?). I had an interesting lunch essentially made up of fruit and meat. The lunch line is really weird, and most of the stuff doesn't look too appetizing. So, I had these sausage rolls that look like Hot Pockets, a banana, and cantelope. After lunch, I went to finish researching and writing papers. I finished the one for my CFB class, and I have reached the conclusion that ethnic clustering is due to both choice and constraint (he triumphantly says before he has the grade for it). I even started on the other paper and got a whole paragraph into it. Then, I went to dinner where we had an appetizer of honeydew melon (I think) with ham and a dill-type sauce (I seriously think the British just wonder what strange combination can I come up with today), a dinner of lamb stew and mash(ed potatoes), and a dessert of pecan pie with ice cream. It might have been the best dinner so far. Then, one of the English professors who used to be in the Royal Shakespeare Company as an actor brought his wife in to talk about Shakespearean costume. It was actually really interesting. Green costumes can mean youth, energy, and prostitution. Characters will always tell you when they are going to change clothes or else that actor is playing a different part in the play. Even though some directors try for historical accuracy, they very rarely achieve it. She did a really good job. Afterward, we went to Matt's room to have another group writing session, and this time, we actually worked for about an hour and a half. We drank some tea and talked some more until approximately 1:30. I left at that point, but evidently, Matt found a secret passage way from his cabinet to John J's (they live next to each other) closet after I left. Sorry, yesterday wasn't too interesting, but everyone is starting to feel the papers coming down on them like lava from a volcano. Therefore, everyone is kind of refusing to leave their rooms (it's safe in there -- the cobblestones are hot lava). I guess you know that most of them aren't undergraduates when they are afraid to stay up in to the wee hours of the morning to finish a paper (no Mom, I wouldn't do such a thing).
Observations:
- Australians and the British think we are absolutely nuts for drinking iced tea. Well, you know what, I think you all are either British criminals or have bad teeth. So there.
- When you are inside, it is sunny. When you try to walk to Sainsbury's for a snack, it pours.
- I have no secret passage ways in my room (depression).
3 comments:
Secret passageway: that's marvelous! But no personal secret passageway? I would be out of sorts about that. Fortunately you are not a boorish American who will go down to the porter and demand a better room with a secret corridor or trap door. Anyway, the fact that there was one elsewhere is just way too cool.
I'm intrigued by the evidence-based government talk. Is it just an outgrowth of the Enlightenment emphasis on rational government? An insistence on evidence as opposed to the tradition (for good or ill, the ill being represented quite well in the previous evening's debaters' positions about prior revocations of civil liberties)? Sometimes I wonder if the call for evidence-based analysis or government, which I've heard here and there, is actually just the call to sharpen a tool that's become blunt, or put new clothes on a threadbare emperor, either in reality or academic discourse. What do you think?
I love Ian McKellen's RIII.
Have a great weekend!
Lisa
He never mentioned the Enlightenment period, but it could very well be a subconscious or an unintentional credit to the Enlightenment. Honestly, I think it is mainly common sense that you would try to figure out everything you could about the situation and then make a decision. It scares me to think that government leaders would just make a decision based on tradition or opinion (even though those may have their place). It may be the new clothes approach as an older Labour party who has been in power for years is trying to remake itself in an attempt to keep itself in power ("The Labour Party, new and better than ever! Now with evidence backing our decisions!). With so much new information and so many new studies, it seems natural to use evidence in government, but as the tutor said, picking and choosing while getting the government to truly buy into it is a whole other story.
As for the passageway, yeah I was a little upset. I tried every lamp shade and knob in an attempt to uncover one but to no avail. It is pretty cool to see a passageway, and they even found a few things in there (wedge of cheese, picture). However, the "passageway" is only about 6-7 inches long, but still.
Careful becoming too Europhilic. Remember that there are morons and Marks on every continent. Those people do sound pretty dumb though. What are your other papers on?
--LL
Post a Comment