Saturday 7th June 2025
Blog Page 925

Reviewing Moffat: Sherlock Series Four

0

This series of Sherlock is particularly varied, playing around with genre far more than usual. The first episode, ‘The Six Thatchers,’ feels at many times more like an action or spy film than a detective drama. The third, ‘The Final Problem,’ shifts more in a Saw-style horror direction, with a tone perhaps the most unremittingly dark of any episode to date. However, the fact that the second episode, ‘The Lying Detective,’ which sticks most closely to the usual tone and nature of Sherlock, is by far the most enjoyable of the series, creates doubt whether this variety particularly adds anything.

While I enjoyed ‘The Six Thatchers,’ it didn’t quite live up to my high expectations of Sherlock. The plot is thrilling, but lacks the programme’s usual intrigue and vibrancy. It is too obviously designed to square away series three’s complications, with Sherlock’s murder of Magnusson rapidly hushed up, and to set up for the rest of the series. Too much of the storyline works backwards from the goal of bumping off Mary, rendering it too obviously engineered. John’s text message affair seems out of character, rather than exploring any existing flaws, meaning that his guilt and self-criticism lacks emotional resonance. The opening mystery of the dead boy in the car feels comfortingly Sherlock, and the conflict between the domestic responsibilities created by new parenthood and Sherlock’s world of cases and adventure is gently comical. However, the case isn’t connected well into the rest of the storyline, and the episode feels somewhat fragmented.

‘The Lying Detective’ really reminded me why Sherlock is so well-loved. It is emotionally poignant, psychologically appealing, with an appropriately intricate plot. Short- and long-form plotting are well balanced: the episode is built around a central case, while subtly riddled with hints about the new villain – the structure which served the first two series so well.  Culverton Smith is a perfect single-episode antagonist, creepy and compelling, tapping into fears about how money and power can thwart justice, through parallels with Jimmy Saville, and arguably Trump. The aftermath of Mary’s death is handled powerfully, and Sherlock’s obedience to her requests for his near self-destruction is frightening in its earnestness. Sherlock and John’s moment of agreement that Sherlock ‘killed [John’s] wife’ is heartbreaking, and the healing between the pair is convincingly incomplete. The camerawork used to portray Sherlock’s drug-addled state is beautiful and appropriately disorientating, meaning that we, like Sherlock, can not necessarily trust what we are seeing. Our brief loss of faith in Sherlock’s powers of deduction, usually such a reassuring certainty, becomes deeply unsettling.

Perhaps most welcome in this episode, however, is the return of the programme’s sharp comedy. Humour at John’s expense when people think his blog is kept by Sherlock during tense moments at the hospital only helps increase frustrated suspense, and we are treated throughout to classic Sherlock frankness: ‘I’m not sweet, I’m just high.’ The uncontestable comic star, however, is Mrs Hudson, as she masterfully manages her tenants, disarming Sherlock through a pretence of dropping tea, and persuading John to examine Sherlock before revealing that he’s locked in her car boot. Seeing an elderly female character with such self-assurance and strength is always wonderful, in particular the revelation that it is she driving a red sports car at top-speed, pursued by a police car and helicopter. No one could help but giggle as she reveals regarding Sherlock’s handcuffs that she’s ‘borrowed them before,’ or declares self-importantly, ‘Of course I didn’t call the police. I’m not a civilian!’

Euros’ control over ‘The Final Problem’ enables interesting psychological and ethical exploration of Sherlock’s characters, but changes the show enough to make the summary-style ending seem disingenuous. The choice to close with a focus on the legend of Sherlock Holmes, with Sherlock and John replicating at 221B all the marks and bullet holes that had previously built up naturally, rather than on the characters and relationships that are the real heart of the programme, ends the series on an oddly insincere note. The sudden disappearance of John’s trauma-induced hallucinations of Mary, Sherlock’s new concern for his own life after her sacrifice, and the damage to their friendship, also feels somewhat false. Euros, however, proves a formidable replacement for Moriarty, her exploitation of his legacy creating a satisfying impression of him passing on his role. Although we miss his electric and fun brand of evil, her clinical amorality is gripping in its own way. The extended flashback sequence featuring Moriarty was fun and well executed, exhuming his taste for oddly-placed pop songs, homoeroticism and sheer love of destruction – and I am sure everyone is relieved that the writers resisted the temptation to bring him back for good. Moriarty’s posthumous involvement in Sherlock finally feels finished.

This series of Sherlock had three good episodes, but only one great one. Euros was a worthy new villain, and if Sherlock does continue then I would love to see her return, although hopefully within a series less overambitious with its genre-play.

Letter from abroad: Spain and France

0

The year abroad sometimes feels like an eternity. But, conveniently, it allows you to spend another year ignoring how unprepared you are for Finals.

The stress of organising your stint on the continent can seem unnerving. However, when you realise on the night before departure that you have no choice but to accept the fact that half of your year abroad is still yet to be planned, things become a lot easier. The year abroad is a lesson in language, certainly, but also in optimism and improvisation.

My plans for last summer were wild. I intended to volunteer to work in a library in Barcelona for a month and then do a language exchange in Madrid. Working at the National Library of Catalonia was a particularly interesting experience. And, whilst the staff tried their best to speak Castilian and allow me to (at least try to) understand and participate, they would often slip back into Catalan without realising.

Unfortunately, in embracing the culture so ferociously, I soon realised that I was perhaps going slightly overboard. Struggling to find cheap accommodation in Madrid, I realised I had to change my plans. About a week before the end of my library work I found an opportunity at a nearby summer school. When your command of the language isn’t muy good, and socialising proves difficult for you in English, let alone in Spanish, spontaneity and optimism are essential for survival.

While in Spain my errors went unnoticed for the large part (largely because my friends didn’t speak perfect Spanish either), in France I got laughed at. I even got laughed at because I told people I was pregnant (which, incidentally, I was not). I grew fond of laughing at myself. In general, however, people are very positive and complimentary towards your efforts to speak their language. Whilst I know that my French accent is atrocious, my French friends say it’s rather cute. Given that my vocabulary is also quite bizarre, it’s actually nice to know that they find it funny. Additionally, even though my speech is often too literally translated from English, they tell me it’s rather charming. But, as I say, they are my friends, so they’re probably just being nice.

In all honesty, one of the hardest parts of the year abroad isn’t speaking the language; after a few weeks your brain starts to adapt and communicating becomes a lot easier. What’s difficult is how new everything is: a new culture, a new job, a new apartment and none of your old friends by your side. Before moving to Spain and then France, my friends and I would often joke about the ‘tactics’ we’d use to make friends. Whilst this was funny light-hearted conversation at the time, loneliness can be a real issue.

Yet, as with everything, optimism and improvisation get you through; you can make friends in the most random of places, such as in the park or, unsurprisingly, at the pub. I even once tried the tactic of just straight up asking people if they would be my friend. It worked. It isn’t until you live in a country, and tell people unwittingly that you are pregnant, that you realise in the world outside of Oxford there are no collections for you to fail, but rather a life from which to learn from.

Not Wong: I can’t wait until I could see your political hot-take of the day

0

In some sense or another, this article is indubitably meta-, and suspiciously self-referential at points. In other senses, this is written in reaction to the trend of rising insta-hot-takes that has been permeating the social media sphere for recent years. I’ve compiled a set of relevant ‘sins’ of hot takes, and – should you, too, be amused by them – would strongly encourage you to engage in the exceptional activity of hot-take-spotting the next time you’re on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or whatnot. The caveats are apparent: i) this article probably violates some – if not all – of them and ii) these ‘sins’, despite my nomenclature, are probably often necessary and important features of public catharsis and collective healing. Caveats aside, here goes the list:

 

  1. The Other

We get it. You’re writing this piece to establish and critique the Other, and frame your commentary as coming from an independent and externally objective viewpoint. You’re defending the “Constitutional principles of American democracy” and advocating that we allow Donald Trump in the UK to “have a conversation with him and educate him into a better man” (even though chances are that he’ll point at your placards of protests and snort, “Fake News!”). But what you’re really doing is borrowing the moral high ground of the “Constitution” and “Educate the sinner” tropes to frame away the voices of those who find Trump’s presence abhorrent. To you, they exist as the Other – the petulant (against your maturity), the snowflakes (against your resilience), and the myopic (against your visionary quixotic quest of “negotiating with Trump” from behind iron fences 50 meters away from his expensive Presidential car a.k.a. “the Beast”). Alternatively, you may find yourself justifying the punching of Richard Spencer and framing all those who oppose the violence used upon him as “Neo-Nazis and fascist apologists” – the cruel and barbaric Other to your moral righteousness, the reactionary to your progressiveness, and a collective, homogeneous group that is worthy of moralistic dismissal. Online hot-takes not only develop the concept of the Other within their analysis – their critique is often predicated upon galvanising and reinforcing views already established within particular sociological groups; it is established on the basis of the dialectic between the Self and Other, with the Other’s discourse artificially strawmanned and essentialised into an easy target for unnuanced abuse.

 

  1. Your Source Only Matters in so far as You Know Them.

It is an unquestionable fact that 99 per cent of online statistics quoted in a majority of hot takes are either false or borrowed from elsewhere (which would, by proxy, render them false too). In the age of cyberbalkanisation and increasing prominence of traditional and external media outlets on social media, it is unsurprising to see some users echoing the views and thoughts of writers in established outlets. What is surprising, however, is the likelihood of individuals to parrot the thoughts of not only reputable investigators, but also conspiracy theorists, pop stars, and radical politicians. There is often the claim that we have entered a “post-truth era” – but this analysis is a tad simplistic: the concept of “truth” has never lost its perceived importance and legitimacy; it is merely that our imagination of “truth” has changed substantially. Social media have transferred substantial volumes of power to traditionally underrepresented marginalised and local discourses (cf. Foucault), and exponentially amplified their abilities to contest important discursive claims and push through conceptions of the “hard truth”. Internet hot takes from the ordinary Joe and Mary are the end products of these discourses – it doesn’t matter that no sources are cited and no data is provided: in an age when truth is still valuable but defined fundamentally as a property of the truth-maker, that your hot take is sourced from pure gossip doesn’t prevent it from being recycled amongst your friendship group and clotted with likes, loves, and wows. Maybe even the occasional angry react, too.

 

  1. You Don’t Say!!!

“Donald Trump is now the President of the USA.”, “Violence is bad.”, “Theresa May needs to get the British act together and sort out Brexit.” These propositions range from being plausibly true to absolutely true (at least in this world) – and yet we’re still inundated, every day, with excellent variations of them. Now, don’t get me wrong: political awareness and engagement and fundamentally important attributes of democracy – but it genuinely doesn’t take 100 hot takes emphasising some mundanely obvious, blatantly conspicuous facts in order for people to know that the world is awfully messed up in the Status Quo. I’ll admit it – grandstanding on social media is an inherent and instrumental part of public catharsis, see above, and rationalisation of exogenous shocks. But there comes a point of excessive fatigue, when over-used critiques and slogan-based analysis become worn-out and tedious, as opposed to inspiring and invigorating. A general tip to all aspiring hot-take writers, myself included, if what you’re saying isn’t i) new or ii) adds important effects in reinforcing, buttressing, nuancing, or shaping anything that is i) – it may be worth giving it a miss. I know – we’re all on a learning curve here.

 

  1. Virtue Signalling

Discourse-making is an inherently in-group vs. out-group activity. Those who echo your discourse belong to your in-group; those who disapprove of your discourse fall within your out-group. As you write more and more posts, the trenches between the permanent in-group and permanent out-group are deepened, and you begin to shift your incentives from trying to convert the undecided onlookers (i.e. the mythical “moderates”) to keeping your discursive allies (i.e. your “fans”) close to you. A large number of hot takes is virtue signaling, in that not only do they (as in 1.) seek to undermine the Other: they seek to do so with the ultimate end goal of constructing a better image for the author – whether it be in expressing that the author holds unique epistemic access (“I know things you never will.”); that the author is particularly meritorious or praiseworthy for moral reasons (“My moral outrage reflects well upon my public persona.”), or that the author has distinctively individualistic and independent views, this piece is most definitely parodying itself at this point.

It is worth noting that the above ‘sins’ are not inherent: they only become intolerable and problematic when done in excess, with excessive self-aggrandising focus. We human beings do need an Other to feel emotionally connected to the content we pursue and read; overtly academic and well-cited articles may be rigorous, but lose out in layman accessibility and generic interest. Not everyone is an original thinker – so to demand innovative and creative insights from everyone is not only an unreasonable demand, but a futile one at its very core. And finally – virtue (and vice!) signaling allows us to manage and regulate our public identities by putting at least some identity-sculpting agency back in our hands. Yes – we’ve had enough of horrendous hot takes, but that doesn’t mean every hot take needs to be stellar, rigorously evidenced, and thoroughly nuanced. That’d render it a cold take.

Spotlight: Sal Para

0

Sal Para is the Oxford-based electro-pop artist you should be listening to right now. A deceptively simple, yet catchy beat, quickly joined by ethereal-sounding synths, opens ‘Her’, the first track off Sal Para’s debut and recently released Her EP.

The song builds in sound, adding layer upon layer of synths and a bass that mirrors the resonating, other-worldly vocals which hypnotically assure “When we’re together/ I, I only think of you”. The lyrics seem stuck on a loop, yet sound different with every delivery.

‘Black Sun’, the b-side to Her, is a more abstract effort—when listened to at full volume the synthetic beat, constantly extending and receding, is mind-numbing.

Sal Para is the first singing made by the newly formed Tremor Recordings, an independent electronic music label currently based in Oxford and bringing you local events that fuse music and art like never before.

It is difficult not to get lost in Sal Para’s music: it draws you in with entrancing melodies and mellow beats. Her is intoxicating and filled with a freedom that only comes at the start of a musical career, and a promising one at that.

Hungry for Ho fun

0

Zheng has Tripadvisor’s seal of approval as the best Chinese restaurant in Oxford, and understandably so. It certainly has the most diverse and comprehensive menu, featuring the best of China’s regional and related cuisines: Szechuan, Cantonese, Shanghainese, Malaysian and Singaporean. The small building in Jericho where it is located may have an unassuming façade, but it hides one of Oxford’s hidden gems.

My favourite Chinese dish is fried ho fun noodles with beef, something I’ve eaten a million times in restaurants in London’s Chinatown and Hong Kong, and in my mum’s kitchen. It’s my personal litmus test of the quality of a Chinese restaurant, and Zheng’s version passed with flying colours: not too oily, beef perfectly seared, and the onions and bean sprouts cooked until just soft. The dim sum was also of excellent quality, with efficient service—you can see why this place is a local favourite.

The main downside is slightly more expensive pricing. Most dim sum dishes are a fiver, which can obviously get quite pricey if you order a selection, while most main courses are around £10.

If you’re looking for something a bit friendlier to a student budget, Noodle Nation is a cheap ‘n’ cheerful joint in the town centre. Most main courses are between £6 to £8, to which you can add a 10 per cent student discount and 10 per cent more on Mondays. The tables are laid out in sociable benches just like Wagamama’s, with a similarly bustling atmosphere.

As befits the name, there’s a wide range of noodle types on offer—chow mein, vermicelli mai fun, flat ho fun and thick cylindrical udon—which you can mix and match with your chosen meat or vegetable. There’s also a relatively good veggie menu, with the option to have most of the stir fries and curries with mixed vegetables and cashew nuts.

If you’re feeling like an appetiser, I would particularly recommend the meat ‘potsticker’ dumplings or veggie spring rolls which have gorgeously crunchy and crisp wrappers. The hearty portions and slick service make the restaurant a perfect spot for a quick and satisfying lunch or dinner.

Of course, these are only two of the many fantastic Chinese restaurants in Oxford— this New Year, go out and discover them.

慢慢吃! (Bon appetit!)

Zheng, 82 Walton St
Noodle Nation, 100-101 Gloucester Green

Emmanuel Macron assures parents that he is “definitely not having a party”

0

Having found several litres of vodka, gin, and a curious assortment of liqueurs stashed away in the basement of their house, and identifying a Facebook page established by the former economy minister and French Presidential Hopeful Emmanuel Macron with which he has invited 577 people to the family home on 11 and 18 June, Macron’s parents have confronted their son about this apparent contradiction in his promises to “not have a Party.” The former businessman has since replied that he keeps true to his renunciation of Partying in 2009 (after three solid years of liberté, égalité, and rock and roll), and that this gathering of people with alcohol—and “maybe just a few joints, yes”—was ‘definitely, definitely not a Party.’

“Will there be 577 people hanging out, with fast music to which one could conceivably dance? Yes. Will some of those people be indulging in the odd drink here or there? Yes,” Macron is reported to have responded to his parents. “But this is not a Party,” he continued, “I simply want to show that I’m capable, if necessary, of controlling a large group of people who want to do the same things I want to do.”

Emmanuel Macron’s parents have been suspicious of their son’s commitment against Parties since 2012, when he began hanging around with “that chap who’s always up to no good—you know, the one, the one no one likes”, seemingly referring to French President Francois Hollande “constantly returning home late smelling like cigarettes, cheap booze, and a stagnant economy”.

Francois Hollande is reported to be very excited about Macron’s “definitely not a Party,” and intends to ditch Manuel Valls’ party to attend it, wondering when he will receive his invitation.

Emmanuel Macron told Cherwell that there was “no way in a thousand hells” he would invite the unpopular President to his Party—that was definitely not a Party—and suggested that Hollande might in fact be more comfortable staying at home with a hot mug of cocoa, not dragging his not-Party to the murky depths of a four per cent approval rate (a figure he noted was better than only one other leader of a democratic country, who was themselves recently impeached).

Asked about whether he was concerned that Valls’ Party may limit the attendance of his own not-Party, Macron responded “You mean Le Pen’s? Or Fillon’s?” shrugged, and left.

Review: The Leopard

Giuseppe di Lampedusa wrote little in his lifetime. A short story, a brief memoir, the first chapter to an unfinished novel, several essays on literature. The work which has kept his name alive since his death in 1957, aged sixty, is The Leopard, first published in Italy in 1958 as Il Gattopardo. It became the largest selling Italian novel in history and is often named as one of the finest historical works ever written.

Yet this slim volume, a brief work compared to the portentous span of War and Peace or Buddenbrooks, is not meant to be easily digested and moved on from. Rather, it is a work of serious fiction, a reflection on Sicilian society during the Risorgimento, the period of Italian reunification during the eighteen-sixties. Lampedusa, a Sicilian aristocrat himself, whose grandparents lived through the momentous changes he describes with great intellectual clarity.

The protagonist is Don Fabrizio Corbera, Prince of Salina, who sees his position under threat by the social upheaval of political revolution and seeks to assure his family’s place in the new order my marrying his nephew Tancredi to Angelica, the daughter of the bourgeois but wealthy Don Calogero. In doing so, he breaks with aristocratic tradition, purposefully arranging a marriage between two different classes, because, as he explains in perhaps the most famous line in the novel, “everything needs to change, so everything can stay the same.”

Lampedusa’s Prince is an amateur astronomer and refuses a seat in the newly-created Senate: he understands that his time has passed, that it is for the new generation of Tancredi and Angelica to take the reins of power. It’s a meditation on the transition of power from one class to another, written with a great degree of self-awareness; Lampedusa, in modernist fashion, enjoys playing the omniscient narrator, informing the reader as he describes an opulent palace that it will later be destroyed during the Second World War.

Archibald Colquhoun’s English translation from 1960 perfectly serves the novel, creating a parallel to the original’s sensitive, poetic language: looking up at Venus, Don Fabrizio wonders, ‘When would she decide to give him an appointment less ephemeral, far from stumps and blood, in her own region of perennial certitude?’, a wonderful image of longing for escape from the transience of worldly duties.

Lamepdusa has a few stylistic slips as befits a début novelist; when the Prince refers to “some German Jew whose name I can’t remember,” the allusion to Karl Marx is heavy-handed, the kind of trap historical novels fall into by trying to flatter the reader’s superior knowledge.

For the most part though, The Leopard is free from such slips; indeed, the beauty of the prose is commensurate to its structure, where the ball intended to mark Angelica’s entrance into elite society is preceded by the family priest, Pirrone, who visits his home village and arranges a marriage between his sister and the peasant who has made her pregnant. The sense of control in the highly ordered society of Sicily translates downwards from the aristocracy to the proletariat.

Sumptuously written, it pays repeated readings and doesn’t seem to have aged a day since its publication, remaining one of the greatest Italian novels, enduring to this day.

Debate: Was the Obama administration successful?

Yes:

Obama succeeded on most fronts and Americans will miss him with Trump as president

Theo Davies-Lewis

They say a picture speaks a thousand words.

“This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period,” asserted White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer. The crowd of people that actually turned out for Trump’s inauguration was nowhere near the numbers that Barack Obama amassed for his inauguration back in 2009. Clearly, not all Americans—particularly the political establishment in Washington—are pleased with their new Commander-in- Chief.

But Obama himself is often derided by the public, and Trump has even called him “the worst president, maybe in the history of our country.” This is simply not the case. During his honeymoon period after the inauguration, Republicans were worried about whether they would ever be able to stop Obama’s Democrats. By the end of his tenure as president, they certainly had done that, and much more.

Obama’s legacy is already being dismantled by Trump’s administration. His accomplishments in job growth, offering affordable healthcare, attempting to administer gun control, combating climate change and tackling terrorism must not be underestimated. Obama was not only a good president, he was a great one.

The best place to begin when assessing Obama’s legacy is what most presidents are remembered for: jobs. Bill Clinton created 23 million, while Ronald Reagan added 16 million jobs to the American market. For Obama, it wasn’t as easy to stimulate job growth. He took office during the most difficult economic period since the Great Depression. With that considered, Obama’s record is staggering. Since employment bottomed in 2010, almost 16 million jobs have been added to the economy. December 2016 also marked the 75th straight month of payroll gains—an all-time record.

The unemployment rate was 10 per cent in 2009, and has since fallen to 4.7 per cent: an unbelievable achievement. The grand total for Obama’s two terms, after figuring in the severe job losses of 2009 is 10.5 million jobs. Even Obama’s critics acknowledge that wages are rising, and Obama’s economic competence is responsible.

On the other hand, one of Trump’s biggest strengths during the presidential campaign was attacking Obama’s record on violence and law and order. Yet, do not be too quick to place the blame entirely on Obama for the social problems in the country. Congress and the Senate have been against him, and even then, he has been able to make some positive steps in implementing background checks for gun ownership.

In addition, Obamacare is also set to be dismantled by Trump. ObamaCare offers subsidies to low and middle income Americans to aid them in obtaining affordable quality health insurance and also does things like expand Medicaid to almost 20 million more Americans. How can we write this off? In the UK, we may take our NHS for granted, but Obama has made significant strides to alter how the health system works in the US as a whole, and emphasise the importance of affordable care for all.

While it may not be a large concern to many of Trump’s administration, Obama has also succeeded in combating climate change. During his time in office, Obama preserved 260 million acres for future generations (more than any of his predecessors), signed the Paris Agreement alongside 195 nations to reduce climate pollution, and his Clean Power Plan was the first ever national limit on carbon pollution from its largest source. In essence, Obama has led the way in fighting climate change, which is quickly becoming a non-issue in Trump’s America.

Whatever Americans think of Obama, he has certainly improved their relations with the world. Before his inauguration, the US had lost one war in the Gulf and was losing another in Afghanistan. In a poll of 19 countries, two thirds had a negative view of America. Obama dealt with bin Laden, the world’s most dangerous terrorist. He has withdrawn troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Yes, we are facing huge problems with the rise of ISIS in the Middle East, but Obama can hardly be blamed for the failures of the Bush and Blair years.

Overall, Obama’s record is admirable. He has, like any president, not achieved all that he wanted to. Like many leaders, perhaps history will be far kinder to him. We will see how Trump will attempt to essentially destroy his achievements. Issues like climate change and affordable healthcare are of no importance to him, and the US will soon be left wishing that presidents were not restricted to two terms, so that they really could Make America Great Again.

No: 

The reality of President Trump has created a myth about the administration of President Obama

Felix Pope

Obama’s presidency, bookended by the neoconservatism of Bush and the neofascism of Trump, was always destined to be viewed through decidedly rose-tinted glasses. Young and charismatic, he was the harbinger of a new post-racial America, one in which hope would replace fear, love would trump hate, and changing demographics would forever consign the GOP to history.

To read the glowing hagiographies churned out in the last few weeks by liberals on both sides of the Atlantic you might even think that he’d succeeded. He expanded the healthcare rolls, supported gay marriage, and prevented the economy from total collapse in the wake of ‘08.

But the fact that these were his greatest achievements is, in fact, his worst condemnation. His victories were modest, technocratic and limited in scope and vision, at a moment when seismic change was possible. The popular support and emotion the Obama campaign had generated was immense—if there was ever a moment to reshape American society, to disavow militarism, overturn unrestrained free market capitalism, and to genuinely achieve ‘change we can believe in’ it was then.

But the moment was lost, in part thanks to unprecedented Republican obstructionism, in part thanks to the fallout from the global economic crisis, but more so because of Obama’s own choices. The rightward shift was evident early, as Rahm Emanuel was appointed Chief of Staff. Emanuel, an ex-investment banker and political hack, would later repeatedly attempt to convince the President to massively scale down Obamacare.

His Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, was an ex corporate exec seeking to slash government debt. He kept Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, who pushed for the surge in troop numbers in Afghanistan, a policy directly contrary to Obama’s pledges on the campaign trail. At every level the Obama administration was staffed by the representatives of corporate America, Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. The policies they helped enact varied from those that were a moderate betrayal of Obama’s promises to those that were distinctly right wing.

Witness the unparalleled expansion of drone warfare and the security state. The CIA now has the ability to strike and kill anyone on the planet at any time, largely with legal immunity and largely classified and therefore hidden from public view. The unrelenting attacks and inevitable civilian casualties have only served to further radicalise the Middle East, turning those who ought to be our allies against us. These powers will now be handed over to President Trump.

Having argued passionately against the Patriot Act and in favour of civil liberties during his campaign, one might have expected Obama to restrain the NSA’s intrusion into our communications data. In reality, he only sought to extend it. His administration expanded the NSA’s power to share data with other agencies, granted immunity to telecommunications companies that aided Bush in spying on Americans, and by 2010 was collecting 1.7 billion emails, phone calls, and other communications.

Ironically, a volume of data that great would most likely have hindered the intelligence agencies by increasing the haystack in which they searched for a needle. Left-wingers are rightly outraged by Trump’s promise to deport three million undocumented immigrants, but seem to forget that Obama deported 2.4 million himself from 2009 to 2014.

He opposed gay marriage until it became politically expedient to support it. He intervened in Libya without committing to any program of nation building afterward, turning it into a failed state and a breeding ground for ISIS. He backed TPP and TTIP, two free trade treaties that would have driven down standards on worker’s rights and further eroded America’s manufacturing base. Even his much vaunted health care reforms were based upon plans drawn up by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, and had previously been implemented by Mitt Romney as governor of Massachusetts.

The inescapable truth is that for all the rhetoric, for all the campaign trail pledges, Obama is little more than a moderate Republican, and would be seen as such had the right in America not veered so sharply away from the main- stream. After eight years of electoral failures under Obama’s leadership, the Presidency, the Senate, the House, 70 per cent of state legislatures, more than 60 per cent of state governors, and (soon enough) the Supreme Court will be in Republican hands.

In the coming weeks and months the small good Obama has achieved will be dismantled, piece by piece, by Donald Trump, and little will remain of his legacy other than the bitter reminder that even the most inspiring of politicians can fail. Judged by the standards set out in his initial Presidential run, by the heady optimism of 2008, Obama has utterly and comprehensively failed in his quest for change.

One thing I’d change about Oxford… the weather

0

It’s 1st week, which means a flurry of ‘catchup’ conversations on the staircase as you haul your life’s possessions into your college room. These chats inevitably revolve around three key topics: holidays (New Year gossip), Collections (think you can out-fail me?) and, a last resort, the weather (the ultimate awkward-conversation classic). But if there is one thing I could change about Oxford, it would genuinely be the weather.

Having just returned to Oxford from holidays at home in Sydney, it’s all been a bit of a shock. The grey skies, 4pm sunsets, and fussing over gloves, scarves, and beanies, simply cannot compare with a month spent drinking watermelon mojitos in a bikini at Bondi.

Checking my phone every morning brings a wave of melancholy as I jealously scroll through beach snaps of my tanned friends or snapchats emblazoned with “38 degrees *heart-eye emoji face*”.

I’ve resorted to eating ice cream and drinking tropical cocktails at sub-zero temperatures just to maintain the illusion of summer as I face each week’s weather forecast.

Although I still find frost exciting (Sydney’s average winter temperature is a frost-bite inducing 13 degrees), the prospect of a permanently temperate, say Mediterranean, climate does sound appealing. Think of all the benefits of Trinity Term—punting, Pimms, sitting on the quad—but all year long.

On a more serious note, there are numerous physical and psychological benefits associated with warmer weather and sunlight exposure, such as increased Vitamin D intake, exercise frequency and up-beat socialising. As a coxswain whose exercise now consists of shivering, despite wearing ten thermal layers, I would much prefer outdoor sunrise runs.

Ultimately, a perpetual summertime Oxford would simply be a more vibrant, active, and happier place. So as I face the long post-Christmas winter, collections and an Australia Day in the Northern Hemisphere, I believe we could all do with a little extra sunshine to brighten up our days.

Nick D’Aloisio: Oxford’s new media hero

0

Oxford has educated some of the giants of British history: Walter Raleigh, Margaret Thatcher and C.S. Lewis are just a few examples of alumni who will go down in history.

Yet, no matter how aware we are of the past heroes of our university, we now live in a world that often looks to the future, dominated by ‘new media’: the means of mass communication in the digital age. Nick D’Aloisio—the south Londoner who sold his app Summly to Yahoo for $30m when he was only 17-years-old—embodies this era. He also happens to be an undergraduate at Hertford College.

Googling D’Aloisio’s name will result in a variety of articles: you can learn about how he has launched apps in Las Vegas, or how he won the Apple Design Award in 2014. What has attracted this teenage tech supremo to go back to work, to study, and to learn more? “I’m not at Oxford for the degree”, he once insisted, “It’s more just environment, you’re meeting others, really intelligent people who have completely different interests.”

If you head to Hertford, and marvel in the history and architectural distinctiveness on show, exemplified by the famous Bridge of Sighs, you can comprehend what D’Aloisio says. Oxford has enabled him to explore the philosophical side of his work and shown his deep-rooted competitiveness. He could already be considered as one of those Oxford figures who have shaped the tech world, such as Tim Berners-Lee or Reid Hoffman.

D’Aloisio’s views of new media have also been influenced by recent events. He’s referenced how news initially reported on social media, such as Twitter, or through WikiLeaks and other user generated sources, can lead to the proliferation of ‘fake news’.

However, Oxford is itself leading in the development of New Media. As D’Aloisio has said before, it’s not simply the computing behind New Media that is important—but those classical disciplines on offer at Oxford too.

D’Aloisio believes that Oxford has shaped him and will continue to influence his career. New Media is always evolving, and one can almost imagine D’Aloisio’s next big idea coming from the hours spent in the Computer Science department, or in a brief break when reading about design (specifically, 1960s modernism) in his spare time in one of Oxford’s libraries. Speaking in a newspaper interview, he described how it was “refreshing” to take computer science here compared to somewhere like Stanford. “In Oxford, it is seen as very theoretical or mathematical, it’s not seen as entrepreneurial”, D’Aloisio added.

D’Aloisio wants to learn in an age which is always changing and does, to a large extent, revolve around money. He could have been snapped up by Stanford or MIT, but clearly the Oxford experience is what D’Aloisio is looking for: “In the [Silicon] Valley everyone cares about making money; at Oxford they’re the opposite.”