A New Year's Resolution and The End

I've tried, you know. I've really tried to get the enthusiasm back for this blogging malarkey, but it just isn't happening. So I think I'll set myself up with a New Year's Resolution that I can almost certainly stick to - no more blogging here. As such, this is the last post that will be published here.

Thanks to all who stopped by and offered their opinions, or those who just read in silence. There have been testy debates and moments of enlightenment for blogger and commenters. Which is exactly what I wanted. So again, thanks.

Is this the last time the Nameless Libertarian will write? Probably not. I'd be amazed if I can make it through the whole of a US Presidential election without passing some sort of comment on it. But those comments won't be here - if they happen, then I'll be following the example of another fallen blogger Mr Eugenides and putting them up over at DK's place. And I'd be amazed if there are no further reviews of the adventures of a certain Time Lord - but they will happen somewhere else, probably under a different name.

So that's it, really. Nothing more to say. Just to put that final full stop and end this blog once and for all. Nothing more; the end.

Of course, they say you should always end on a song. Well, I've never been sure who "they" are, but this strikes me as sound advice. So, ladies and gents, here to play out The Appalling Strangeness is one Steven Patrick Morrissey:

On Relativism, Pluralism and Reality

One of the most tedious charges that has been levelled at me by people who don't really know what they are talking about is that I am some sort of relativist. This is clearly nonsense. Yeah, I believe that morality and ethics are to some extent dependent on contingent factors such as time and place - as an extreme example, the morality of the Stone Age is always going to be different from what can be described as moral in this day and age. But I don't believe everything is relative, and I find the relativist position deeply troubling as it allows for little meaningful differentiation between concepts such as right and wrong.

Rather, I would describe myself as someone who is very aware of the fact of value pluralism*. Even with just a casual look at our country - and other countries across the globe - we see not a truth, or a universally valid understanding of what is good, but rather numerous and often conflicting subjective truths and individual understandings of the good life. That is the fact of value pluralism; there is a complete plurality when it comes to modern understandings of how we should live our lives.

Before we take a look at what this means, let's be clear on what it doesn't mean: firstly, value pluralism does not mean that all conceptions of what makes up a good life are all of equal worth. It is pretty easy to show, for example, that someone who believes that the consumption of crack is the purpose of their life and is therefore prostituting themselves is leading a tangibly less worthwhile life than someone who has a stable job that allows them to pay for their interests, hobbies, and chosen way of living.

Furthermore, I am not claiming that there is no objective truth; there may very well be. What I am pointing to is that the subjective truths all live in potentially unending conflict with that objective truth, should it actually exist and be attainable by human minds.

And that's where reality comes in here; the fact of value pluralism is, well, a fact. You might believe that your subjective truth is the same as the objective truth; you've then got to persuade the rest of the world that what appears to them to be just your subjective truth is actually *the* truth. And good luck with that. Because even totalitarian states have failed, despite all of their brainwashing and the perpetual threats of lethal violence, to make all humans inhabiting that society agree on one understanding of the truth. Just look at the conflict that would (and has) occurred when Christians debated their beliefs with Marxists. The end result is precisely that - not consensus, but conflict. And then you have to take into account the plethora of reasonable people who are not convinced by either the communists or the god-botherers. The fact of value pluralism is that people are going to disagree with you - often vehemently - no matter how much you know you are in the right.

So the question then arises - what does this mean for politics? Well, politics itself can continue to be an often bitter debate over how we should live our lives. What the state needs to be, however, is as small as it possibly can be, and as unobtrusive in judging the plurality of lives led by its citizens as possible - if for no other reason than to allow for what John Stuart Mill once called "experiments in living".

But there will, of course, be some moments where the state will have to make a value judgement about what is acceptable in its society. Female genital mutilation would be one example - even though some faiths and cultures believe this to be acceptable does not mean that it should be allowed. But cases like this involve the use of naked power, and the use of power (and force) to make others conform to what you want is a very blunt tool whose usage can go badly wrong. It is a tool that must be used sparingly if there is to be a truly free society.

And finally, let me anticipate a problem that certain people will have with this idea - yes, the fact of value pluralism may hurt your faith in whatever creed floats you boat. But take a look at the world around you; value pluralism is a fact. The pressing question is how we deal with that fact.

*And I'm happy to acknowledge a considerable intellectual debt here to both Isaiah Berlin and John Gray.

The Year in Doctor Who

I was thinking of doing a countdown/reassessment of the Doctor Who episodes of the year, but my opinons haven't really changed and a simple countdown is pretty boring*. So instead I'm offering an overview of the Year in Who.

In terms of the main show, it was quite a year. In fact, I struggle to think of a season of Doctor Who that has ever been as consistently good as this one. There was only one real clunker, and even some of the filler episodes were minor classics in their own right. I mean, a few years ago the slots held by The Girl Who Waited and The God Complex were represented by the likes of Love and Monsters and Fear Her. And it is one of the filler episodes - one of the few not dominated in some way by the overall story arc - that wins my award for the best episode of the year - The Doctor's Wife was an incredible, moving and inventive episode of Doctor Who. I would love to see Neil Gaiman writing another episode on the future.

And there were some brilliant performances in this season. Karen Gillan deserves a lot of praise for The Girl Who Waited, which is a startling rejoinder to those critics who have commented that she is more there for her looks rather than her acting ability. Likewise, Let's Kill Hitler finally gave some great lines to Arthur Darvil, who has perfected his bemused everyman routine. It also allowed Alex Kingston to play a very different version of River Song. But the best performer of the season was the star. Matt Smith has shown his versatility across 2011, and his performance in A Good Man Goes To War showed his incredible range across just forty-five minutes. Watch the Colonel Runaway conversation for a restrained yet compelling anger from the Doctor. Or watch the scene when he realises that Madame Kovarian has actually stolen Melody from under his nose. This year has shown one of the most talented actors the show has ever had as its star at the very height of his powers.

We also got some great monsters this season. The dolls in Night Terrors might have been derivative. but they were very creepy. The Minotaur of The God Complex was also derivative but striking; the nightmare maze it inhabited has probably entered the psyche and the nightmares of many a child. But the Silence were the monsters of the year; it would be good to see more of them and fully explore what they are about.

But while almost everything was well in the parent show, the same can not be said for Doctor Who's various spin-offs. The Sarah Jane Adventures ended as it really had to, given the circumstances, but at least it ended on a high. The Curse of Clyde Langer was a great instalment of that show, and a story that puts to shame many of the stories in the parent show.

Torchwood may have ended, or it may be back. But if it does end, then it effectively committed suicide. Miracle Day was a bloated mess of a series - about 50% longer than it should have been, it was turgid, bloated nonsense that took an interesting premise and then did nothing with it across the course of circa ten hours. The sole truly interesting moment was when a character met a fiery end in the camps; aside from that, it was a colossal waste of time and a massive step back from the really rather good Children of Earth. As I say, I don't know whether this was the last series of Torchwood, but the truth is that they don't deserve another series even if they happen to get one.

And last but by no means least, any review of the year in the Doctor Who universe has to note that said universe lost two of its most important figures last year - Nicholas Courtney and Elisabeth Sladen. Short of the eleven actors who have played the lead role, it is difficult to think of any other actors who have been quite so important to the series. They deserved the accolades that made up their obituaries, and their deaths are deeply saddening. And their is a real poignancy in watching a story like Planet of the Spiders, and noting that the three protagonists are no longer with us. Rest in peace, Lis and Nick.

And what about next year? Well, we've got quite the wait until the good Doctor returns to our screens. When he does, we've been promised the tragic end to the story of the Ponds and a new friend for the Doctor. How will it end for the Ponds? I suspect that Moffat will stop short of killing them off, but I do think that there will be something very final about their departure. And the whole series is gearing up to the 50th anniversary and the fall of the eleventh - I suspect that either 2012 or 2013 will see the end of the Eleventh Doctor. So much to look forward to... even if it isn't coming for a while.

*Oh, alright, if you insists - here's the countdown:

14: The Curse of The Black Spot
13: The Rebel Flesh
12: Closing Time
11: Night Terrors
10: The Almost People
9: A Good Man Goes To War
8: Day of the Moon
7: The Impossible Astronaut
6: The Doctor, The Widow and the Wardrobe
5: The God Complex
4: The Girl Who Waited
3: Let's Kill Hitler
2: The Wedding of River Song
1: The Doctor's Wife

Ah, a festive tradition - a Christian belly-aching about Christmas losing its essential meaning. Cue a whole host of comments, some backing the author, some trotting out the old cliches about how Christmas is actually a pagan festival and so on, until Christmas is consigned to the dustbin as the festive season ends.

So has Christmas lost its meaning? No, no I don't think it has. But that is because I don't think that it has just the one meaning. It was once a pagan thing. And yeah, there is Christian content - hence Christ-mass. But it has come to be about other things as well for some - presents, family, food, drink. For some it is just about having a holiday. And for others still it is an annual chance to be a grouch. To a large extent, the meaning of Christmas is what you choose to make it.

Therefore, if you want to have a Christian Christmas, feel free to do so. Go to church. Sing carols. Celebrate the birth of Christ. But don't expect those who have a different interpretation of the meaning of Christmas to conform to your expectations of that holiday. I don't believe in God, and will not be spending this or any other Christmas feigning deference to your favoured myth.

Doctor Who: The Doctor, The Widow and the Wardrobe

Well, quite simply that was the best Doctor Who Christmas special ever. It managed to take the different elements of a good Christmas story, and bind them together to create the sort of Christmas day television that grabs the imagination and consistently entertains without ever being too taxing for post-Christmas dinner viewing.
Sure, the story was loosely (and I mean very loosely) on the old C. S. Lewis story, taking some of its trappings from The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe. But it was far less slavish in the following of its inspiration that last year's A Christmas Carol, and was all the better for it. This was a Doctor Who story - albeit one fuelled by a sense of fun than menace (but what else to expect for an episode being watched on Christmas Day?) through and through.

A key part of that sense of fun was down to Matt Smith - one of the most talented actors to ever take on the role of the Doctor. Yes, he can do angry; yes, he can provide an irascible Doctor as well as one steeped in the desire for destructive revenge. However, those readings of the Doctor were not present on Christmas Day - and quite right too. Madge's story was tragic enough without having an overbearing, angry Doctor to contend with. Yes, he was silly; but he needed to be silly to help Madge at her moment of heartbreak.

And Madge was a great "companion" for this story. She, rather than the Doctor, was the motive force that made it all work. Claire Skinner made you believe that she was a Stoic widow admirably trying to save Christmas for her two kids, and the moment when she began to tell her children that their father was dead was truly heartbreaking.

But her husband was actually still alive, I hear some of you cry. Wasn't that just a massive cop-out? Well, the story explained exactly what happened - it will be one of those twists that really works for some and doesn't for others. For me, it felt like it was properly plotted in to the whole story, rather than an RTD style "reset switch" solution to the story. Besides, did anyone really think that the crazy, silly, impossible Doctor would come into Madge's world at Christmas and not (help to) bring her husband back? I mean, maybe in a mid-season filler episode, but not in a special broadcast on Christmas Day. Yeah, it was a bit cheesy that she managed to save her husband but so what? That's Christmas for you.

So in short, we got another festive romp. And great, that's absolutely the way it should be. Yes, Doctor Who needs darkness, and menace. But not all the time. Every now and again, the Doctor should take time off to be a barmy caretaker making an impossibly brilliant house for two kids. And Christmas is the perfect time for doing it.

The Near Impossibility of President Ron Paul

Now the rest of the GOP field has peaked too early, people are adopting that predictable position - through nothing more meaningful than a crude process of elimination - that maybe the Republican nomination is Ron Paul's for the taking. This I doubt; what I find even more doubtful is that Paul would be a credible contender in a straight contest with Obama.

Before I explain why, let me explain my own thoughts on Paul. Yeah, he's dead right on some things - and I've been very impressed with his reasoned and non-bellicose approach to foreign policy, which is a great thing coming from a (nominal) Republican. I have little time, though, for his anti-abortion stance or for his apparent god-bothering. But hey ho. No candidate is perfect, and he's the best of a truly atrocious bunch. So while I wouldn't go so far as to say I want him to win - such passion over a deeply predictable contest that I will not be able to vote in strikes me as utterly pointless - but I suppose I would prefer him to. So why am I so dismissive of his chances?

Well, quite simply (and really rather obviously) what I want does not impact on reality in any meaningful way. Reality does not conform to my wishes. And the reality is that the deck is stacked against Paul to a massive extent. He is unlikely to win the nomination for his party, since even if he does win some early upset victories then the Republican establishment will intervene in favour of a much more mainstream and middle of the road candidate. I reckon there will be a replay of the 2004 Democrat primary campaign, where the genuinely interesting (although possibly a little barmy) Howard Dean was swiftly marginalised by the much more pedestrian yet mainstream John Kerry. The nomination will probably be Romney's; he's a safe pair of hands who will not damage the party too much even as he hands victory to Obama.

But suppose Paul did get the nomination - what then? Well, Obama would crush him. The Democrat electioneering machine would spend all of its time telling the American people that Paul is some sort of dangerous radical who would leave innocent people to get ill and die without health insurance. Hell, they could even outflank on the issue of security. Yeah, those charges might be false, but so what? Since when have presidential elections been about taking the high road? The Obama campaign would do everything they possible could to make Paul into a Goldwater for the new millennium, while simultaneously painting their guy to be solid, dependable and statesmanlike for the cameras.

Perhaps a truly great communicator could make libertarian ideals appeal to the American masses; the problem is that great communicator is not Ron Paul. Sure, he manages to avoid sticking his foot in his mouth most of the time, but that is not enough to win enough Americans over to what is potentially a radical realignment of the nature of government and state in their country. Plus, he's up against Obama, whose pompous speaking style manages to add gravitas to even the most anodyne and meaningless of pronouncements. Again, yeah, you can argue that this is unfair, but it is also reality. A Ron Paul presidential campaign might be enough to provoke a misled American people into handing a reluctant landslide to Obama.

Paul's best hope for next year is that his stance and policies in some way influence the Republican programme; in other words, that the long process of explaining his version of libertarianism begins. Then the next time a libertarian runs for the Republican nomination, these ideas are more mainstream and people are more likely to understand them and get behind them. It could be enough to get a Republican libertarian nominee in 2016 or 2020. It will certainly help to wrest control of that party away from the Christian fundamentalist path that Bush Junior put it on. But President Paul remains deeply unlikely to the point where it is basically an impossibility. It might comfort some libertarians on both sides of the Atlantic to pretend otherwise, but unfortunately it remains a pipe dream that helps them to escape from a political reality that remains stubbornly immune to the penetration of libertarian ideals into the political mainstream.

Merry Christmas y'all! Hope you have a good one celebrating in whatever way you see fit and whatever way works for you.

Oh, and don't forget to watch this. I'll be publishing a review of it in the not too distant future.

Unlikely Festive Films

'Tis the season to watch festive films. And what a choice you have! You can watch the curious tale (on paper at least) of a retarded angel saving a put-upon banker from jumping in the river after a particularly bad day in the office*. Or you could watch the once popular Tim Allen turn into Santa in an at times similar manner to the central character in Cronenberg's version of The Fly (albeit it without the body parts falling off or the sheer viscera and pain). Then there's the surprisingly watchable Muppet Christmas Carol, in which Jim Henson's creations sing their way through Dickens' most famous tale. Or there's the genuinely funny Elf, in which Will Ferrell brings a certain level of charm to the one character he can play well - that of the earnest simpleton. But it is more than possible that by the end of the festive season you'll be sick of the traditional festive films, yet at the same time you might not want to watch something as unseasonal as Eraserhead or Black Swan. So I give you five films that are seasonal if only because they are set during the festive season:

Trading Places

A festive favourite that involves two men fucking up the life of an employee over a one dollar bet. It's a great film, though; pretty much perfectly cast and blessed with Eddie Murphy at his peak. The story is entertaining, fast moving and often very funny. So yeah, the central plot may not be that festive, but if you ever want something light yet absorbing for a post-Christmas dinner film, then you could do far worse than this one.

On Her Majesty's Secret Service

Once upon a time it used to be a quasi-tradition that there would be a Bond film broadcast on TV on Christmas day. Actually, it might still be for all I know - there is very little I watch on TV these days, and films I have on DVD are, fairly, obviously, not included in what I do watch. But if I had to choose one Bond film to watch on Christmas Day, it would be this one. Firstly because it is partly set at Christmas - even to the extent where it contains a Christmas song (albeit one that is so sweet and sickly that it could send even the healthiest of us into a diabetic coma). Secondly, it is quite possibly the best Bond film ever - well directed, with a proper story and central romance combined with some great performances. Of course, there is the massive drag factor of George Lazenby - an actor who seems permanently bewildered not only by the fact that he is James Bond, but also by the fact that there is a film crew following him and like shooting stuff and shit. So whenever you watch this one, picture Connery, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig or even Moore as the star. It may be tough to pull off at times (especially when the late George Baker's voice is crudely dubbed onto Lazenby's flapping mouth), but trust me, this makes the whole film much better.

The Poseidon Adventure

A simple premise for this one: a voyage across the ocean during the festive season goes wrong. In fact, it is safe to say it goes really badly wrong. Capsized by a freak tidal wave, a group of plucky survivors fight their way through the upturned ship. Of course, disaster, destruction and death are not necessarily that festive, but there is something curiously Christmassy about a disaster movie. And there are very few disaster movies quite as good as this one. But if you can't get hold of it, then check out Voyage of the Damned - it's more or less that same story, but set in space and with additional Time Lord goodness.

Batman Returns

Ahhh, Christmas in Gotham. And what does director Tim Burton give us as a present? The darkest cinematic interpretation of the dark knight prior to Christopher Nolan deciding that a broken hero with post-traumatic stress disorder was the way forward for the franchise**. A city under siege; traumatised parents killing their deformed, cat-eating baby; said cat-eating baby turning into a bestial version of the Penguin with a penchant for nose biting and attempted mass murder. Plus there's Catwoman; a PVC clad vengeance machine who ultimately turns her back on Bruce Wayne - favouring, instead, death by electrocution with her murderous boss. So yeah... set at Christmas. Not a great Christmas for Bruce Wayne/Batman. Or Gotham. Or Selina Kyle/Catwoman. Or Oswald Cobblepot. Or pretty much any character who appears in the film.

Gremlins

Perhaps the most Christmassy of all the films listed here as this not only takes place at Christmas but contains numerous references to Christmas and is set against the backdrop of snow. It is even, at times, trying to be a twisted version of It's a Wonderful Life. Of course, it also contains vicious little monsters who create havoc and hurt, maim and kill arbitrarily. Indeed, they'd be some characters in this film who might prefer to have spent the festive period in Gotham circa 1992. But there is glee in this film - even if it is often a malicious, sadistic glee. It is a fun and fast-moving motion picture, even if occasionally scary, and as such is perfect for Christmas.

So that's my list of non-festive festive film treats. If you have any suggestions in a similar vein, well, you know where the comments section is...

*Actually, I really love It's a Wonderful Life, despite what I've written here. But it has to be seen to be believed, because any summary of it does make it sound cheesy and annoying.
**And was actually right in this decision.

On Kim Jong-Il and Idiots

A brief missive from the blogging wilderness:

Today is a special sort of a day. Today you may get incontrovertible proof that some people you know are total idiots. Because today some people, in the wake of his death, may feel lead to defend Kim Jong-Il. They may well feel that he represented some sort of realistic alternative to the capitalist liberal democratic model of statehood dominant in much of the rest of the world. If they believe this, then they have fallen foul of the empty politics of symbolism. They see problems in capitalism, yet are unthinkingly embracing an alternative that is far, far worse. If they defend him, then they have shown their commitment to evidence free idealism over actual engagement with reality. In short, they have shown themselves to be absolute idiots.

Because Kim Jong-Il really was a vile human being. He exploited his father's personality cult to propagate a regime that is virtually at war with its own people. He led the world's sole remaining Stalinist regime committed to an experiment with a whole nation that not only failed, but failed decades ago - leaving many starving and a whole people brutalised and brainwashed. If this is the socialist future, then we'd be as well to consign it to the past as soon as we possibly can.

In short: Kim Jong-Il is dead. While it is impossible to say what happens next, at this point the only appropriate response is good riddance to bad rubbish.