Go down, not left !

Bob’s post about liberty reminded to to finish a post I started about 3 years ago.

Most people think of politics in terms of left and right. In America, there are liberals and conservatives and anyone in the middle is a moderate.

This is a gross over-simplification and distorts the political discourse in many ways but the most assidious is the assumption that, if you are one side, people on the opposite side will have the opposite view.

For example, Andrew Sullivan considers himself a conservative and at least once a week he points to some policy of the Bushies that he does not like and claims that if it is this bad under the Republicans, imagine how much worse it would be under the Democrats.

I consider myself a liberal but I find myself agreeing with Sullivan’s political views rather more often than the simplistic left/right model of politics might predict.

Political CompassThe ideas at the Political Compass help resolve the paradox. The Political Compass posits two axes – the usual left/right one plus an up/down axis that represents authority/liberty.

I took their test and it put me at [-6.13, -6.82] in the bottom left quadrant along with Mandela, Gandhi and the Dalai Lama – in the opposite quadrant to Bush & Thatcher. I’d guess that Sullivan is in the bottom right quadrant so it wouldn’t be surprising to find that we often agree on matters of liberty.

So here’s the thing. Almost everyone I know who thinks about politics is below that line. Even two friends who consider themselves conservatives are below that line (they were both closer to the vertical axis than they expected too).

I understand that I live in an odd part of the country – people are more educated here, more liberal and more individualistic than the country as a whole – but my hunch is that there are rather a lot of us around. If you believe the myths about the country’s founding, being below that line is what made America in the first place.

The Dems have had a helluva time in the last few elections distinguishing themselves from the Pubbies. Whenever a democrat speaks up for social justice, they are slammed as Tax and Spend liberals. Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed small-government conservatives are in open revolt as this Congress and this Administration are headed so far up the chart they are getting nose bleeds.

So, here’s my free advice to Howard Dean and the gang –

Go down! Not Left!

For completeness, here are some prominent international figures on the same axes. Go take the quiz. Let us know where you end up.

Politicians Compass


It was a warm, balmy evening last night, so Georgina and I decided to go out on the town. We got all dressed up in our finest rags – Georgina wore those long, dangly diamond earrings – and set off from our room in the residential hotel where we live determined to have a grand old time. We saw loads of people we knew on the stairwell on the way down to the lobby. There was that dude who was in my class in the 4th year at Chis & Sid and a few guys from the navy but the first people we spoke to were Aaron and his girlfriend (who was that girl?) who were both naked under their open trenchcoats. As far as I recall, this was the first time that I had ever dreamt about Aaron and it was definitely the first time I had seen him naked.

We quickly noticed that everyone was naked under their trenchcoats but this didn’t trouble us in the slightest. We were determined to have a grand old time.

When the barman at the restaurant where we stopped for a cocktail explained that it was National Naked Under a Trenchcoat Day, we were a little bit disappointed that we hadn’t known but we were having such a fun time that we soon forgot about it. This was the first time we gone out on our own in, like, forever.

When we returned to the hotel, the trenchcoat people were still there and we stopped to share some gossip. As I walked up the stairs chatting with Marty, I heard a huge cheer from behind me. Georgina had removed all her clothing and tossed it to me with a wink and a smile. I was so proud! Proud like the time I watched my new wife go skinny dipping on a deserted Jamaican beach while I kept a look out and watched the sun rise. “Looks like she is having fun!” said Marty as we continued up the stairs. When I turned back to admire my wife one more time, she had disappeared!

I looked everywhere for her, searching frantically from room to room. “Have you seen Georgina? Have you seen Georgina?” “We thought she was with you”, replied her shocked mother (she shocks easily).

I set out into the dawn of a deserted London to look for her. London had, of course, turned into a demolition site by now and the roar of the bulldozers and the tattered remnants of the wind-blown porno mags made my search seem very poignant. With my heart in my weary boots, I wandered from street to street angrily kicking aside the discarded bus tickets until – “Beep! Beep! Beep!” – the warning alarm of the reversing bulldozer transformed into the even sadder tone of my alarm clock telling me it was time to get up and go to work.

What a sad, sad start to the day.

Flamboyant Genius – a little bit flawed – never in a modest mood

When I said that Crick was a flawed, flamboyant genius, I was guessing really. Pretty good guess, it turns out, as Matt Ridley’s fascinating mini-biography makes vividly clear.

Let’s get the flaws out of the way first. What I had in mind first time around was his total disdain for the institutions of religion and monarchy but, on reflection, I think he really deserves respect for standing up for what he believed in at potentially great cost to his career.

There are a bunch of interesting anecodotes about his antipathy to organized religion—Crick makes Richard Dawkins look like the Archbishop of Canterbury—but my favourite episode occurred when Crick was offered a founding fellowship of Churchill College. The college was being founded in honour of Winston Churchill as a specifically scientific college in an attempt to imitate the success of MIT. Crick had initially refused the fellowship because the college planned to add a chapel (the initial plan did not include one) and Crick thought a chapel had no place in a place of science. He was persuaded to change his mind because it was considered unlikely that the college would ever raise the funds to build the chapel. Crick became a fellow.crick photo

Shortly after that, one Timothy Beaumont donated the entire cost of the chapel and the foundations were dug before the fellows even got to have a say. Crick resigned immediately and sent a letter of resignation to Winston Churchill. He received the following reply:

I was sorry to learn that you have resigned from Churchill College, and am puzzled by your reason. The money for the chapel was provided specifically for that purpose by Mr Beaumont and not taken from general college funds. A chapel, whatever one’s views on religion, is an amenity which many of those who live in the College may enjoy, and none need enter it unless they wish.

Crick sent this reply:

To make my position a little clearer I enclose a cheque for ten guineas to open the Churchill College Hetairae [courtesans] fund. My hope is that it will eventually be possible to build permanent accommodation within the College, to house a carefully chosen collection of young ladies in the charge of a suitable Madam who, once the institution has become traditional, will doubtless be provided, without offense, with dining rights at the High Table.

Such a building will, I feel confident, be an amenity which many who live in Cambridge will enjoy very much, and yet the institution need not be compulsory and none need enter it unless they wish. Moreover it would be open (conscience permitting) not merely to members of the Church of England, but also to Catholics, Non-Conformists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zen Buddhists and even atheists and agnostics such as myself.

The trustees may feel my offer of ten guineas to be a joke in rather poor taste. But that is exactly my view of the proposal of the Trustees to build a chapel, after the middle of the 20th century, in a new college and in particular one with a special emphasis on science. Naturally some members of the college will be Christian, at least for the next decade or so, but I do not see why the college should tacitly endorse their beliefs by providing them with special facilities. The churches in town, it has been said, are half-empty. Let them go there. It will be no further than they have to go for their lectures.

Even a joke in poor taste can be enjoyed, but I regret that my enjoyment of it has entailed my resignation from the college, which bears your illustrious name.

The chapel was eventually built outside of college grounds.

Crick refused to attend weddings, funerals and baptisms in church but suggested that, if humanism were to take off it would need its own rituals, anticipating Kev and Jeff’s House of Death by 40 years. I think Francis Crick would have appreciated a sad, silent clown.

There is another great story which has a broke, father-of-three, Francis Crick writing to Jim Watson to request—and being refused—Watson’s blessing for a show about the double helix on BBC Radio:

Do you still feel you can’t allow the Third Programme Broadcast? I’ve yet to find anyone who would object to it, and things have cooled down a bit now. Also, it would bring in $50 to $100 which at the moment I could do with.

Watson refused his blessing:

If you need the money that bad, go ahead. Needless to say, I should not think any higher of you and shall have good reason to avoid any further collaboration with you.

Crick graciously declined to do the broadcast but this episode was perhaps in the back of his mind when he and Watson had their great falling out over the latter’s The Double Helix (Amazon, here I come again). Crick did everything he could to try to suppress Watson’s book which (I am told…still waiting for delivery) is written as much as a warts-and-all autobiography as an account of the science that led to the breakthroughs with DNA that won them their Nobel Prize. Crick succeeded in getting Harvard Press to refuse to publish it and, after its eventual publication, bore a grudge for several years.

But, as Julio suggested, none of that rises to the level of ‘flawed’. But flaws, sadly, there are. In the 70s, Crick was very outspoken on such contentious topics as eugenics, population control and race. He made suggestions that seem outrageous now (and, presumably, then) such as forced sterilization, social experiments on twins (who would be subject to madatory separation at birth) and a form of licensing to discourage breeding among the genetically unfit.

I won’t spend too much time on Crick’s flamboyance. Just open the book at any page to read of the parties at his residence, The Golden Helix (at one party in particular, guests were handed a sketchpad and required to provide a sketch of the nude life model in the foyer) or of his reckless yachting adventures or his eccentric choice of friends including one who would habitually use Crick’s name whenever he was arrested (often) or picking up women on foreign beaches (all the time).


The book is ultimately, of course, about Crick’s genius which seems almost unfathomable. Consider a man who quit his well-paying job to enter academia but could not decide whether to first solve the secret of life or whether to explain the nature of consciousness. With the double helix well-documented and the DNA code cracked Crick still found time, at the age of 60 to start work on the second problem. Sadly, time ran out for Francis Crick in 2004. I am sure he would have cracked that one too if he had only started a little earlier.

One day, when I am rich, I will have a house with a study and on the walls of that study will be the portraits of all my heroes. Francis Crick will be up there with Bob, George, Winston and the others.

Play Beautiful !

A couple of years of ago, Beckham left ManU for Real Madrid and, a few days later someone new showed up wearing the No7 shirt. “Who is that?”, I wondered.

Within about 3 minutes, I said “I think we got the better end of the deal here. This guy is much better than Beckham”. This guy was Cristiano Ronaldo. Ronaldo is one of those rare geniuses that appears every now and again and, like most of his predecessors (Best, Bowles, Hoddle, Marsh, Cantona, Maradonna), he is flawed.

I love watching players like Ronaldo. If there is a single category of player that is my very favourite kind it is Flawed Flamboyant Genius. You can go a whole lifetime without having a Flawed Flamboyant Genius on your team. It seems that most fans – and many managers – don’t like Flamboyant Geniuses so I am rather fortunate that my team – ManU – rather likes having them around. Right now I am in the incredibly lucky position of watching two of them every week – for Rooney is a Flawed Flamboyant Genius too – and I love them both. Rooney is slightly ahead in the Genius department but Ronaldo has Flamboyance streaming from every pore and is therefore my favourite player of the two.

Julio blogged yesterday about how all the England fans boo’d him during the Germany and France games – he was extremely unpopular in England even before the world cup. What Ronaldo did during the England/Portugal game was no different to what Rooney would have done had the roles been reversed. It is terrible and sad that Ronaldo will be forever blamed for knocking England out of the world cup and ridiculous too. Ronaldo bears no responsibility for the red card. Rooney got sent off all on his own.

I hope beyond hope that Ferguson is able to work his magic and keep Ronaldo at ManU but, even if he does, this year will be extremely difficult for him.

Eric Cantona – my second favourite flawed flamboyant genius (and bearer of a red No7) of all time – had a series of commercials during this world cup entitled “Joga Bonito” and he ended each one saying

Play Beautiful!

If Ronaldo is forced out of England because of petty spite, the beautiful game will have lost a little of its beauty and that will be a great shame.

Funerals for atheists

A little while ago, Jeff and I attended a funeral because Julio reminded us that you should always go to the funeral and on the way back we talked about how the one thing religions really do well is funerals and that it was a pity that atheists didn’t have anything as good.

The discussion led to all kinds of ideas and eventually a business plan for Kev and Jeff’s House of Death. A big part of the funeral experience comes, I think, from the comforting traditions. Traditions are always difficult things to get going of course but, if enough of us put our heads together, maybe we could come up with a few.

Coincidently, Scott Adams is planning his funeral today, too. One of his readers suggested a sad clown for his funeral. Just sitting up front, moping, not saying anything. One idiot poster was surprised that an atheist would want a funeral at all as though atheists don’t believe in death or something. I had always hoped for one of those Tibetan jobbies with the long sticks and the vultures but Georgina is against it. Most likely I’ll end up with one of those gatherings where my best friends sit around and laugh and get drunk and tell stories like at the best funerals that I have attended.

Religious funerals have a built-in advantage over atheist funerals because they help explain the whole what-happens-next issue in a way that is comforting to children. I know what happens afterwards, but it would be nice to have a story to tell my five year old daughter – something that weaves in the Circle of Life with a generous helping of how extraordinarily lucky we are to experience life in the first place.

Julio, Fabienne and Morgane, our thoughts are with you.

Monty Hall in Squeak

Over at www.developertesting.com, I wrote about the Monty Hall problem and how I was convinced of the answer by an unused variable in my Java simulation.

Markus wrote a nice simulation in Squeak (dunno what it will do if you don’t have squeak installed but it makes a good excuse for you to go get it).

I am always on the lookout for ideas for a science project for Dylan. For me, the ideal kid’s science project has a hypothesis that

  1. will almost certainly be wrong
  2. can be tested empirically
  3. can be proven mathematically

with extra credit if you can write a computer simulation of it. Dylan’s project last year was “What should you do if draw three cards to an inside straight in poker?”. He said you should raise. I usually beat him at poker 🙂