Pastures anew in New England

BEST things about America so far...

2010-12-22T18:09:00.000-08:00

If anyone still reads this I'll be frankly amazed! Its been a prolonged absence, I know. Im sorry - the last month has been nothing but research papers and revision (Harvard broke the whole 'no-exams' contract we had) so Ive not really had anything interesting to say for myself... However, the semester has now drawn to a close so I thought I would take this opportunity to draw up a short list of the best things about Harvard and America I have come across so far... Its doubtless incomplete but this is what immediately comes to mind:

Vending machines in the library..... that sell stationery! This clearly excites me far more than it should, but I can't help it. Embrace the inner geek. Who wants Doritos when you could get a blank CD? Who wants a KitKat when you can have a calculator?? Nobody, I tell you. Nobody at Harvard, anyway...

The etiquette of drivers. Over here - in Cambridge, anyway - the pedestrian reigns supreme. When we want to cross the road, we cross the road. When we tell a car to stop, it blinking well stops! Just remind me to adjust before returning to the UK...

Toilet facilities. I know, I know, I'm sorry to bring this up but it has to feature. Everything is automatic - hand soap, paper towels, taps, flushes... its just brilliant! Granted, its probably to make things less confusing for Americans rather than a case of hygiene but still! (sorry, quick aside - who on earth knew hygiene had an 'i' in it?!)

Cafes that stay open late at night. There's something so comforting about knowing that everything doesn't just shut down at 6pm and that even at 11pm you can nip off to Starbucks for a change of scenery (/pumpkin bread. Don't judge me.)

The power of the British accent: nothing you say can be wrong. It is unthinkable that anything said in a British accent can be anything other than 100 percent fact. Its frankly brilliant.

On the topic of accents, cash machines: imagine my delight when my local one spoke to me in a Scottish accent. I admit, I didn't chose the bank based on this quirky bonus but in future Im going to add this into my list of selection criteria (just below 'how well do their free pens write?' and just above 'what are their interest rates like?' - I'm all about priorities, people).

I shall leave it there - I could probably think of a lot more but I will save that for next semester! The next post will inevitably be longer - the WORST / most confusing things about America so far...

Harvard Vs Yale Football

2010-11-26T22:45:00.000-08:00

Last weekend was an auspicious occasion: 200 young men, half in crimson, half in white, donned some ridiculous padding and made ready for battle. There was tension in the air - clearly a lot of dignity was at stake: Yaleians (?) wore intimidating hats declaring "Harvard sucks!" while Harvardians - ever the more sophisticated of Ivy Leaguers, I'm told - opted for merchandise running with a message of subtle yet biting irony: "FALE". If ever there was a time for handbags, this was most certainly it...

I don't really know what to say other than it was right up there with some of the most ridiculous things I've ever witnessed. Probably because I'm comparing it to rugby - y'know, that sport without the helmets, where people play continuously without stopping every 5-20 seconds for the sake of sorting out a wedgie or performing some chest-bumps? Yeah thats the one, well I'm comparing it to that...

Now I won't do it a total disservice: the half-time entertainment was inspired. This is where the two university orchestras took over - and let me tell you, I nearly wet myself laughing when, after the football players left the field, both brass bands charged at each other from their opposite ends of the field to meet in the middle in the strangest braveheart-does-bandcamp style face-off you've ever seen. Never has a trombone been made to look so intimidating. Yale kept things classy by performing a rendition of that acclaimed hit by Cee Lo Green, while Harvard kept up the battle-theme with a Pirate's of the Caribbean number. Magic. Next we were treated to a bizarre Avatar reenactment (I say bizarre because I haven't seen the film) and a lot of smashing up model-mascots with baseball bats... no biggie.

Anyway, you'l all be pleased to know that the ending was a happy one: Good triumphed over Evil, red conquered white. What a thoroughly ridiculous sport!

addendum

2010-11-20T20:31:00.000-08:00

I totally forgot to mention in my last post that I was also fortunate enough to have dinner with him as well (as the title suggests!) - it was excellent!

Dinner with Thorbjørn Jagland

2010-11-20T20:27:00.000-08:00

Yesterday afternoon I ~~happily skipped~~ unwillingly dragged myself away from my research on India's Bharatiya Janata Party to attend this year's Samuel L. and Elizabeth Jodidi lecture delivered by Thorbjørn Jagland to the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.

By means of quick introduction, Jagland was Norway's Prime Minister from 1996-1997, President of the Storting (parliament) from 2005-2009, and is currently both the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and Chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee. Its fair to say that we were pretty lucky to have him... Enough about his past and present titles, though, and onto what he actually had to say.

First of all, I should make clear that it was predominantly in his capacity as chairman of the Nobel Peace Prize committee that he was speaking, delivering a talk aptly entitled 'Individual Rights - Universal Peace'. Now, if I'm honest, the lecture itself was sort of all over the place: littered with barely relevant (though quite entertaining) anecdotes and quotes, it was really more a verbalisation of his stream of consciousness than anything else. Nonetheless, a handful of interesting things certainly came out of it. For the sake of your patience, though, I'll concentrate on three things (which I'll set out now just in case you suddenly need to rush off and watch some paint dry... its ok, I know how it is) : 1) His justification for awarding Obama the Peace Prize in 2009, 2) Liu Xiaobo's receipt of the award this year, and 3) his notion that human rights stand above national sovereignty. There we go - you've been duly warned!

So onto the first of these issues - Obama getting the prize in 2009. There's nearly always controversy surrounding whoever gets the Peace Prize and 2009 was no exception. However, its probably most instructive to begin by detailing the official criteria according to which the recipient is chosen, as laid out by Alfred Nobel (inventor of dynamite) in his will. By his stipulation, the award should be given 'to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses'. By the Committee's estimations, Obama - barely 9 months into his presidency - seemed to fit the bill...

On what particular grounds? Two things really: his vision of a world without nuclear weapons and his commitment, as President of the US, to have his country engage in more multilateral diplomacy. At heart, this decision clearly wasn't based on accomplishment - for me, the first 9 months of the Obama administration, consumed almost entirely by domestic issues, were decidedly disappointing from an international relations standpoint - a period of missed opportunities, really. Rather, the decision seemed to amount to more of a plea than a reward - a plea to follow through on that grand rhetoric which aimed to sculpt the figure of C21st-US leadership into a more appropriate and palatable form. Maybe he deserved it, maybe he didn't - for now, I can see both sides of the debate and am content to sit on the fence. Instead, what really interests me is something that the debate nonetheless throws up - the inescapable fact that America is a deeply puzzling place... and I'll come back to that.

Ok so now onto the second issue: Liu Xiaobo, the human rights activist who has been calling for democratic reforms in China and is currently in prison for 'inciting subversion of state power'. For me, this is super interesting: I think I mentioned in a previous post that I'm writing a paper all about China's (or rather, the CCP's) portrayal of itself to the West so this is really hugely relevant for me. What I found quite interesting was the view of a couple of Chinese people in the audience who asked questions, both of which suggested that the award had actually done more harm than good as concerns human rights in China - and in the short term, its hard to disagree. The great firewall has blocked anything with Liu Xiabo's name, while more generally it has served to significantly increase the insecurity of the CCP which only translates into increased repression. China's angry response highlights a couple of things worth noting: first, it reminds us yet again that if there is one thing the CCP hates more than anything, it is challenges to its sovereignty - that is, outside actors meddling in its internal affairs. Second, I think it also shows an acute awareness on the part of the CCP of the long-term influence the decision could have. This is no flash in the pan - the western media (which the Communist Party utterly detests) now has in Liu Xiabo a permanent focal point when it comes to the human rights struggle in China. Whatever he does in the future is guaranteed significant worldwide coverage - and the CCP is going to find that very difficult to deal with.

This issue of China and sovereignty brings me nicely onto my last issue: Jagland's notion that human rights are above sovereignty. Now just to briefly say, Jagland in general is very much for states devolving more and more of their sovereignty to international bodies - for him the C21st is one characterised more than ever by interdependence among states, and as such he really does subscribe to the notion that global values and global rules should have a very prominent place in the way states conduct both internal and external affairs. But not everyone by any means thinks along these lines: China obviously doesn't want to devolve sovereignty to anyone, but we certainly shouldn't kid ourselves that the US is any different. Rhetorically, the US stresses its willingness to adhere to the same rules as everyone else but too often the reality is quite different. To put it another way, the US is quite happy to play a very active role in drawing up international treaties for this that and the next thing and its often even quite happy to sign them. But ratify them? No thank you very much... or when they do ratify them, its usually on the condition that they are 'non-self-executing' (e.g. the Convention Against Torture). What this all comes down to is that when it comes to international law, the US really is no role model. So my point is merely this: Jagland's notion that human rights are above sovereignty is a wonderful ideal. They absolutely should be universal. Unfortunately, though, the reality again falls well short - and not just in China. I can't think of a more basic human right than that to life - and yet, here I am sat in a country in which nearly every state deems this a right humans do not have.

Elections? What elections...?

2010-11-09T21:13:00.000-08:00

Definitely time for an update.

So its probably not escaped your attention that we've had some midterms over here. Actually, scratch that - it might have. Heck, it nearly escaped my attention and I'm over here!

Its funny, because going through the interviews for getting the fellowship to come here, my answer to the inevitable question of "why do you want to go to the US?" was that - among other reasons - I will get to witness first-hand the midterms - midterms that I, as many other people of course do, hold to be hugely significant. And yet, somehow they managed to come and go almost without me even noticing (except for the annoying campaign adverts that would come on at the start every time I tried to watch amazing videos like this one on YouTube)....

When Obama assumed the presidency, it was a moment marked by an effervescence of promise and hope. However, some observers - determined not to get carried away on a wave of popular sentiment - astutely compared it to the moment that Woodrow Wilson became president many years prior. He too had the hopes of the world bearing down on him yet - as these observers warned - it wasn't long until the reality that one person can only do so much, that change can't happen over night kicked in. And so, history appears to have repeated itself*. The reasons I came up with for these midterms having been so muted - in Boston/Cambridge at least - are twofold.

First, I don't have a TV. If I did, I'm pretty sure this post would be more along the lines of my British sensibilities being offended by American electioneering. Lucky for you I don't have a TV then. Second, and most importantly, I think its because the writing was already on the walls well beforehand. In two senses - in the first, Massachusetts - as a Democrat strong-hold - was never really going to be hugely competitive (though, that said, results were far closer this year than they have been in a really long time). More generally, though, I think it was fairly clear to everyone that this was going to be a massively disappointing verdict from the polls for Obama (after all, midterms are never that good for the incumbents, though admittedly this was worse than usual). There was a sense in which, like Woodrow Wilson before, the man in the White House never stood a chance of living up to the enormous expectations heaped on him. I'm certainly not saying that Obama has achieved nothing, merely that Americans have had a long way to fall from the dizzying heights of optimism that abounded two years ago. Its clear that they are now deeply disillusioned and looking for someone to blame.

Instead of elaborating any further, I'll just point you to an article that I thoroughly recommend on the topic. Apart from the paragraph where it questions the ability of Americans to relate to Obama's race, this article comes closest to capturing my feelings on what this recent round of voting means and can tell us. Its an interesting read...

*Disclaimer: having discovered a previous supervisor now drops in occasionally to check up on my blog I should probably say that, no, I don't believe history truly repeats itself... just a rhetorical flourish, y'know?!

Life is really hard.

2010-11-02T20:20:00.000-07:00

As of last week, my levels of sophistication have increased tenfold. 'For why?', you may ask. Well I went clubbing. YACHT clubbing.

It began with a chance email I sent a couple of weeks ago to the master of Caius, Sir Christopher Hum. I'm writing this research paper on China, you see, (all about national image building and public diplomacy as part of Chinese foreign policy, 1989-2010 for those who care...) and thought it might be quite 'cool' (I use the word liberally, of course) to be able to drop in some comments from a former British Ambassador to China. In return, I was rather lucky to receive a last-minute invite to the annual Caius NYC gathering to be held at none other than the New York Yacht Club...

A week later I was boarding my bus and bound for New York! It was a whistle-stop tour to be sure - I was in the city for less than 24 hours - but it was nice to finally make my way to the big apple and see what all the fuss is about. I really thought I wouldn't like New York - I thought it would be too big, too impersonal, too busy, and too superficial. But the very short time I spent there was, by all accounts, highly enjoyable. The reception at the yacht club was phenomenal - the food was to die for and the room we were all congregated in was stunning. Most important, though, I managed to talk to some really fascinating people. What was most striking about the evening, I think, was that here was a room full of ridiculously accomplished people - people who hang out on Wall Street, get invited to the White House - and yet here they were, more than happy to go out of their way to speak to a small-time student - special though I am. It did fill me with a rather warm feeling, a huge sense of privilege at knowing that, while I may have graduated and moved on from Cambridge, you never really leave it behind. As the title of our college magazine so aptly puts it, "Once a Caian, Always a Caian"...

Nostalgia aside, the evening really was brilliant. After drinks, a group of us then went on to have sushi at a restaurant just off 5th Avenue which made me feel truly cosmopolitan! Ah the city that never sleeps.... I could definitely get used to it.

I'll finish by saying that if there's one thing I've come away from the last couple of weeks feeling, its that I'm now - more than ever before - acutely aware of the atomizing forces of modern culture and - well capitalism, I guess. Don't get me wrong, I've always had a sense of it: but with Benjamin in London, myself over here hopping between New York and Boston, and William having just moved to Melbourne, I suppose I feel like I've been well and truly sucked into the trend...

What the US has to say about Kenya

2010-10-22T22:30:00.000-07:00

Another noteworthy episode of the past couple of weeks was the discussion I went to with the current US Ambassador to Kenya, Michael Ranneberger. The first thing I should note is that it really was a discussion - made possible by the fact that it was only a small group of 20-25 of us or so, which really was perfect. Any more people and it may have turned into a less stimulating lecture, but as it was we could take the Ambassador up on issues, push for clearer answers and genuinely engage in a dialogue about America's intentions and goals in the region.

The discussion was interesting on two levels. First, content-wise it was of course interesting to hear what the US take on the 2007 post-election violence was and what its hopes and aims for Kenya's future are. For the sake of the KEP-ers reading this (you mock, but I know you do!), I'll see if I can note the main points to come out of the discussion:

First of all, the ambassador was quick to point out, with significant pride, that the US - when it became apparent during the vote count that things were being fiddled by both candidates - was the only power to push for a political settlement over calling fresh elections which is what Britain and the EU did. The sense of pride he took from this seemed a little odd - lets face it, neither solution was going to stop people feeling bitterly disappointed that Odinga hadn't won, but I'll come back to this a bit later. The other brief aside to add to this is that the elections were a lot closer than the media portrayed, with blatant vote-fixing on both sides. Odinga - contrary to the (utterly flawed) polls - was never going to run away with it.

America's current policy with regards to Kenya is to really put pressure on them to implement this new constitution. This is no mean feat seeing as both Kibaki and Odinga essentially just want to preserve the status quo - that is, limited accountability, corruption, personalistic politics.

In addition, the ambassador himself seems to have a real passion for focussing on the young people in Kenya. In encouraging them to join the equivalent of our youth councils and engaging them in political discussions he seems to have become less than popular among the kenyan elite. I have to say that I think this is the most hopeful thing not just for Kenyan politics but for African politics in general - to cut short a topic I could go on and on about, the most significant obstacle I see to democratic consolidation in Africa isn't the region's poverty but its current political personnel (though thats not at all to imply the two are mutually exclusive).

The US isn't concerned about Chinese investment in the region: he recognised that China had no intentions whatsoever to involve itself in the politics of Kenya and that its investment was purely infrastructural. It was interesting that he noted that this was undercutting the emergence of small- and medium-businesses in Kenya which is damaging, yet in the same breath suggested that the US would do well to go back to delivering aid as it used to in the form of infrastructural projects....

The final thing of note was his predictions for the 2012 elections: unless the new constitution is properly implemented, he imagines that the potential for more violence in 2012 is significant.

The second level on which the discussion was interesting was that I feel like it gave me quite a unique glimpse of what an American ambassador is like, and a better understanding of what actually goes on in these discussions with the likes of Odinga and Kibaki behind closed doors. In terms of Ranneberger's frankness and his real willingness to with engage us, I really can't fault him. But at the same time, there was a lot in the way he spoke that I found very difficult to admire or like.

For example, on recounting a meeting he had been present at with Condoleezza Rice, he proudly exclaimed that: "She just ripped right through them, she tore Kibaki to pieces! It was brilliant, I've never seen anyone speak to anyone like that! She just ripped right through him and told him straight!" More recently, Hillary Clinton also "Tore Odinga to pieces! I'd never dare use such forceful language! It was incredible!" - you get the picture.

There's a lot wrong with the way so many African politicians go about their business, no doubt. And its certainly true that its absolutely paramount that Kibaki and Odinga don't get away with dragging their feet with respect to implementing the political reforms that they have agreed to. But at the same time, when I hear a US ambassador talking like this I feel just as much - if not even more - despair for the prospects of democracy not just in Africa's fledglings, but those all over the world. Why? Because it smacks of US arrogance, something that countless commentators (most of whom are Americans, I should add) have warned against for a considerable amount of time now. Its because of language like this, no doubt, that so many people in these developing countries view the US with such deep suspicion, and also why leaders of these developing countries are increasingly turning to China for aid: as Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade has said; "China's approach to our needs is simply better adapted than the patronizing post-colonial approach".

In taking this gung-ho, "here's what we want and here's what you'l do" approach, the US risks alienating a lot of people - and that would be bad - very bad - for democratic prospects. Taking one issue to highlight this: It's of course correct to highlight human rights abuses, but at the same time US representatives have got to be far more sensitive to the thin line they are walking, and need to realise that often they appear sanctimonious and thoroughly hypocritical (Guantanamo, anyone? Should we make a list?) - not just to political elites, but their populations too. I found it odd when he claimed that 'Kenyans really love Americans', because thats not the impression I got at all. Granted, they love Obama, but thats very different to liking US policy in Africa. On the whole, I was staggered to find that Kenyans thought far higher of Britons than they did Americans but who knows - maybe I wasn't speaking to the right people. I'm certainly not saying that America has no right to push these political elites for change - of course it does, and it should. But some ways are less damaging than others.

And I suppose this goes back to my post about Cathy Ashton's lecture and the Chatham House report which said that America would do better to stop trying to lead all on its own as the world's supreme superhero. Unfortunately though, from the 2-hour glimpse I got of Michael Ranneberger I saw no signs of change. In his estimations, America is the only power really taking an active interest in Kenya, the US has all the ideas, and its the one applying all the pressure. In short, its not the amount of pressure being applied that worries me, its far more the manner in which the US is going about it...

Get out, Britannia!

2010-10-22T21:13:00.000-07:00

Once again, it seems like an age since I last wrote... So here's an update of the last couple of weeks. I will break this down into a few posts, otherwise it will be mammoth!

Lexington, Concord and Walden Pond

The other weekend, graced with brilliant sunshine, a group of us decided that it was about time we ventured beyond Cambridge / Boston to see a few other sights that the area has to offer. Here began our roadtrip to Lexington, Concord, and Walden Pond...

Even to those of you who are - like me - unfamiliar with American history, the first two of these places may sound vaguely familiar. The battles of Lexington and Concord were, after all, where it all began to go down hill for America: yes.... independence. Witnessing the first military engagements of the American Revolutionary War, this is where Captain Parker (commander of the Lexington militia) - on the approach of the British advance party - is said to have uttered the famous words: "Stand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Apparently we meant to have a war and apparently they beat us... apparently.

Anyway - historical grudges aside - Lexington and Concord are two incredibly pretty little towns, well worth a visit if you're ever in New England. I think what I most appreciated about them was the fact that they are obviously enormously important historical sites, and yet - aside from the token Redcoat here and there - the towns weren't spoiled by being horrifically 'gimmicky'. That said, of course, we did have lunch at the 'Colonial Inn'... But still, top marks.

For the remainder of the day we went a couple of miles down the road to Walden Pond, famous for having been the retreat of Henry David Thoreau (writer / transcendentalist / philosopher / abolitionist - the list goes on), who spent two years in the woods here from 1845-47. After walking around the pond on a brilliant autumn day, you couldn't really argue with the fact that Thoreau chose a truly stunning spot at which to conduct his brief flirtation with the hermit lifestyle. I'm not sure if it was while he was here that he first articulated the desire for "not at once no government, but at once better government", but either way, maybe Osborne et al could pop off to the woods for a couple of years and come back a bit more enlightened... No?!

US Cambridge Vs Cambridge UK

2010-10-14T20:20:00.000-07:00

Having just closed a document entitled 'Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain', I've suddenly become painfully aware that I will never get back the last two hours of my life. However, in an effort to make the next hour a little more worthwhile (and gently bring myself back round to consciousness) I thought I would finally get around to laying out one or two of the major differences I've found between studying here and studying in the UK...

First of all I should point out the obvious: at Cambridge I studied history, while out here I am studying political science. Certainly, the two subjects really are quite different in their approaches: I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that while historians tend to 'problematise' anything and everything, for political scientists its all about boiling big, complicated issues down to their simplest form - or 'putting things in boxes' as I (perhaps unfairly) tend to characterise it. Nonetheless, even with this in mind, I think there are some clear differences worth detailing between studying at Harvard and studying at Cambridge, so here goes....

The first - and most significant - difference I would put my finger on is that of Breadth vs Depth. At Harvard, regardless of the subject undergraduates take four courses per semester whereas at Cambridge - for history anyway - you take one paper per term, be it Africa from 1800 to the present day, India from 1750-2000, or some other quite specific area/time period. At Cambridge, in short, you get depth and specialisation far more than at Harvard where its all about an extensive breadth of information though in no particular depth.

In terms of what I think is better, here are my thoughts. For history, I would say that Cambridge has the far preferable system - the fundamental skills of the subject which centre largely on essay-writing and the formulation of arguments is done far more effectively through having to produce an essay every week than it is having to produce an essay once every 6 weeks or so. I cant really imagine studying history here, it would just be a bit of a nightmare I think. In fact, its interesting (and quite satisfying!) that the majority of professors who I've spoken to seem to rate a history degree from Oxbridge extremely high owing to the intensity of the weekly workload in comparison to what undergrads here have to do. The general assumption on the part of the professors is that if there's one thing a Cambridge student will be able to do far better than any Harvard one, its write an essay.

But thats not at all to imply that at Harvard you get less work to do throughout the week. I would say that, on average, for each paper I have about 200-300 pages of reading, often more which feels quite similar to what I was used to at Cambridge, in addition to writing two research papers that have to be in by the end of term. Further, managing your time between the four different papers is a nightmare for someone who has - for the last three years - been used to having a week to answer one question and not have to juggle anything else in between. Thats certainly taking a lot of getting used to...

So down to the more nitty-gritty. One major difference between here and Cambridge is the weekly 'section' for each paper and what is expected of students from it. I suppose its vaguely comparable to a supervision in that its structured time with a teaching fellow, though here its done in classes as opposed to 1:1. Its basically an hour where a group of about 8-10 people discuss the week's readings and lectures, but crucially students are graded on their 'participation' in discussion. I have mixed feelings about this: on one hand, I think its something that was neglected at Cambridge. Sure, we would have to make and defend arguments with our supervisor but its not really the same as having to challenge people and advance arguments in a group setting, which I think there is a lot to be said for skills-wise. And apart from the odd exceptions, I would say that the students here are far faster and far more confident when challenged to think on their feet than students back home... its just a different approach to learning where the emphasis is far more on discussion than on written argument I think.

Having said that though, I hate the notion of grading people for their level of participation. Why? Because it encourages people to talk for the sake of talking, not for the sake of having something useful or insightful to say. I cant even count the number of times someone has raised their hand at the end of a lecture and begun their sentence with "you mentioned [insert something that could be looked up on wikipedia] and I was wondering if you could speak a bit more about it..." Its not useful - people just thinking of questions - any questions - for the sake of being seen to be participating. But then again, even if its quite a large annoyance in the short-term, the bigger picture is that its a way of making people more confident to speak out which can only be a good thing so I should probably stop complaining...

Another nitty-gritty point I will quickly make (its more of a rant, really) goes back to the issue of essays. I had to write my first one this week (hence my protracted blog absence...) which was an incredibly frustrating experience. Not only is the word limit far too constraining, but you also get marked down for reading more than is set on the reading list (in my case, a mammoth list of 4 articles - no not books, articles) which is just a bizarre concept for me... I think its a political science thing. Regardless, its pretty nonsensical.

As a gross generalisation that might well be unfounded, I tend to find myself thinking that the Cambridge learning experience gives you more room to be your own person, to come up with your own individual opinions and really make an argument that is yours. Your taught how to write - and how to write persuasively. Here, on the other hand, because you don't have time to go into anything in any substantial depth, you have to just settle for the various arguments of other people without ever really developing your own. At the same time, however, your taught to engage with each other and participate far more which I do think is incredibly important.

Now, from all this it may sound like I value the Cambridge experience far more than the Harvard one, but its actually too hard a call to make. For example, having been here for however many weeks I feel like I have learnt far more than I did in twice that time at Cambridge. Breadth, then, is in no way a bad thing but actually a very satisfying thing. The sheer variety of stuff you cover in a semester also makes sure that things don't get half as monotonous as they could at Cambridge - three years of weekly essays is not conducive to sanity, I can tell you that much!

However unsatisfactory it may be, then, Im afraid that the only conclusion I can come to is that both have their different strengths and weaknesses and its just too difficult to raise one above the other. For history I would choose Cambridge every time, yet for political science Harvard is literally leagues ahead. What can I say other than I've somehow ended up with well and truly the best of both worlds!

Cathy Ashton comes to Cambridge

2010-09-30T15:15:00.000-07:00

On Monday, Baroness Ashton - High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the EU, First-Vice-President of the European Commission, and British Labour politician - came to Harvard to give the 19th Annual Paul-Henri Spaak Lecture. Interested both to hear what she had to say about 'The EU Facing Global Challenges', and even more so to see what Americans thought of the EU, I went along. And this is what I can report...

First of all, Cathy Ashton is a very good speaker - lets face it, she wouldn't be where she is now if she wasn't. But still, after a rather stumbled and embarrassing introduction from Beth Simmons (Director of the Weatherhead Centre for International Affairs here and my lecturer for International Law), it was particularly nice to see someone stand up without notes and really engage with the audience. But as I said, its in her job description(s), isn't it.

The second thing that struck me was one of her opening statements: "I think the European Union was more an American dream than it was a European dream." The validity of this statement is not what concerns me, rather I wondered to myself why she felt she had to include the point at all. Indeed, she never really built on it - she just sort of threw it in there. But I suppose in that one sentence, she gave away (if ever there was really any doubt) the purpose of her standing in front of us - first, to remind Americans that the EU exists, and second, to convince them of its importance. How better to do this, after all, than come right out and say 'this is why you should care: you helped make it'. With that simple enough statement, it was active partnership - not rivalry or passive ambivalence - that she stressed. And in essence, that's really what the talk was all about: emphasising the need for global ties in order to find the solutions necessary to global problems.

Since reading a report compiled last year by Chatham House entitled 'Ready to Lead? Rethinking America's Role in a Changed World', my interest in the way the US views Europe has really grown. The central premise of this article - written by director of Chatham House, Robin Niblett - is that in 2009 the Obama administration found itself facing a changed world, one that prompted a rethinking of American ideas and practices of 'global leadership'. To condense a 49-page report into one sentence: Niblett suggests that under these circumstances, America needs to lead 'more by example and less by intervention', while also echoing Ashton's claim that current global challenges 'require cooperative international solutions' - in other words, the US also needs to turn increasingly to partnership.

Now of course this line is to be expected from a British organisation, but there is nonetheless a great deal of truth in the case advanced. Indeed, we all know that over the last few years (I keep that ambiguous...), the American image and its capacity to lead responsibly and effectively has taken quite a battering - especially during the Bush years (a little reminder for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KogebxJkHig). In 2009, then, Barak Obama was faced with one (almost impossibly) huge task: to revive the world's view of America. How? Well, perhaps just as Niblett says - not by trying to polish up the same old faded image, but by replacing it altogether with a new one, one that stresses leading with others and by example. It is, after all, what the times demand.

So how does all this link in with Cathy Ashton's visit to Harvard? Well, the most striking thing for me about Monday's talk was the audience. During the hour of questions and answers in which about thirty people asked questions, I can remember only two Americans taking the mic. There's no way of being sure, but it certainly seemed to me that - on top of the numerous empty seats and woeful absence of undergraduates - the composition of the audience was overwhelmingly European. The logical conclusion, I suppose, is that - rather depressingly - American students at Harvard don't seem to care all that much about the EU. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of people in Europe who don't care about the EU but it really is depressing that not even Harvard can cobble together much interest in one of the future's most important economic and political unions.

So what's my point? Well, at a talk all about highlighting the need for global partnership in a changed world, America seemed conspicuously absent...

Weekend update

2010-09-22T16:45:00.000-07:00

At the weekend, Dermot and I ventured into Boston and saw yet another side to this somewhat multifaceted city. We got the subway to Park street only to emerge from the underground to find Boston Common absolutely swamped with a mass of young people. At first we thought that this might just be a weekend-thing but soon decided that there were just too many people for it to be a regular weekly occurrence. Indeed it was not...

We wandered through the park looking at the various stalls, still having no idea what it was all in aid of, and then a chance comment from myself to Dermot... "Is it just me or do a lot more people smoke in Boston than in Cambridge? Cos in Harvard everyone seems really healthy..."

We thought nothing of it. Hell, Dermot didn't even agree.

So we kept walking (Boston Common is pretty big, after all) and came to a set of stalls set up near a main stage which were selling posters. Given my room's bare walls, I was keen to stop and have a look around to see if I could find anything, while Dermot sought to find out what a somewhat agitated man was preaching on the main stage. While he made his way into the crowd, I conferred with myself and decided that my observations were definitely correct: "Its not just me, there's a very noticeable cloud of smoke rising from that crowd. People definitely smoke more in Boston."

When Dermot returned he imparted his findings. It turns out that this was the 'MassCann Freedom Rally': Mass for Massachusetts, Cann for Cannabis, and the agitated man on the stage speaking to a sea of stoned followers?! An ardent member of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition. Apparently they'd all rather it wasn't banned...

Suddenly feeling ourselves to be a little out of place then - and prompted by the arrival on stage of 'Age Against the Machine' - we headed out of the park and set off for a venue we felt a little more at home with... *cough* the Boston public library *cough*

John Harvard's foot and a sense of belonging

2010-09-14T21:17:00.000-07:00

Today (among other things, I should quickly note), I've been wondering what it is that makes us come to feel like we 'belong', makes us feel like we are part of a community - whatever form that may take - as opposed to standing on the periphery. And one hypothesis I came up with is this: it seems to me that the difference between standing there on the edge and being right in the centre comes down, in some part at least, to shared knowledge.

Let me return to my favourite topic of late to sketch out my point - the history of the Glenalmond backpack trend. As I've already mentioned, loyal reader, this accessory went out of fashion during the transition from 3rd form to 4th form. Throughout that first year at our new, unfamiliar, school we had gradually come to see that something was amiss: why was it that all those in the years above didn't seem to harbour the same affection for the practical satchel? Moreover, what could possibly be the reason for them not caring to speak to us? It was only after a maths class on dependent variables that the penny dropped.

By the end of third form, then, we hesitant and anxious youngsters had amassed a body of shared-knowledge about the Glenalmond student community which, by throwing out that JanSport, allowed us to begin fourth form with a certain arrogant swagger. Having stood on the periphery of this strange group, we were now very much a part of it.

At Cambridge it was also a case of gradually learning the customs and traditions. In fact, substitute the rucksack for Jack Wills merchandise and you immediately have a case in point. But also take, for example, the gate frame on Clare bridge - the one with three arches for you to choose from to walk through. To the outsider or the fresher, any arch will surely do - all three, after all, allow you safe passage to the path beyond. That's certainly what reason and logic would say, but not so - to the ever grade-conscious student community, it is common knowledge that you walk through the middle arch at your own academic peril, with a 3rd awaiting all those who make that mistake.

Just as fourth formers say of backpack-clad third formers "if only they knew", so the old timers stand on the other side of that gate telling one in three freshers (with just a hint of sadistic enjoyment) "its too late now".

Among Harvard students, so too exists a body of collective knowledge. My first real awareness of this came one evening last week, as myself, Kathleen and her friend Aaron (a senior here) sat on the steps to the Widener Library in the middle of Harvard Yard, just past the famous statue of John Harvard with his 'lucky' shiny shoe. Suddenly, Aaron turned to me and quite out of the blue said: "Whatever you do, don't ever touch that statue of John Harvard...[a pause in which I look at him bemused thinking 'why?!' then he quickly resumes -]... hundreds of people pee on it every night." And so passed this little-known factual gem from one generation of Harvardians to the next...

As I've hinted at, though, its only when you can enjoy that satisfying moment of looking on and saying smugly to yourself "if only they knew" or "its too late now" that you have confirmation that your no longer on that periphery. Imagine my selfish contentment, then, as I walked through Harvard Yard this morning to see a queue of tourists patiently waiting their turn to step up to John and place a hand on his 'lucky' foot... if only they knew!

Whales and kayaks

2010-09-13T19:43:00.000-07:00

Apologies for the absence, its been a busy week and I'm yet to get into a regular blogging routine!

Where to begin? Well, last Saturday Kathleen made the trip to Boston to see what all the fuss is about. To those of you who don't know, an introduction is probably necessary - Kathleen was on the same project as me out in Kenya last summer, and is a Biochemist at that lesser establishment on the Isis. We shan't hold it against her. She also hails from Cleveland, Ohio - which we probably should hold against her.

Aside from spending most of our time hopping from cafe to cafe, we did do one quite exciting thing which was to kayak down the Charles River. Having boarded our trusty vessel at MIT we maneuvered ourselves between toppers and motorboats, jostling for position at the head of the pack. I maintain that I had good technique but it would be an overstatement to say I contributed in any way to our boat going in a forward direction: while Kathleen assumed the role of both rudder and engine, I assumed that of chief navigator (i.e. 'straight on!'). I did take some excellent photos of Boston, though, and will try and put some up just as soon as I get a lead to connect my camera to my laptop.

So Kathleen stayed until Tuesday and for the rest of that week I was just busy with lectures and reading (i.e. I cant remember what I was doing so that will have to do!). The weekend just past, however, brought another welcome excursion in the form of whale watching...

We caught the boat in Boston and the journey was pretty long and rough - I will spare you the details but I will say this: when your 'strongly advised' to take motion sickness tablets, don't be that person who says 'pah, I'm tough, I'll be fine...' - you will garner no sympathy as you lean over the side of the boat, green of face (as you might detect, I spent the entire trip feeling hugely smug). After about an an hour and a half on the boat, then, we managed to locate a group of humpback whales and just floated among them (really quite close) while they played about around us. Mostly all you could see were the arches of their backs and the blow of air as they came up to the surface, but occasionally we were really lucky to see one emerge clumsily from the water which really was quite surreal. So now I've seen whales! Plus, as a day of graduate 'organised-fun', it was a good opportunity to meet yet more people.

I'm going to end this relatively short post here as that sums up the 'leisure' side to the last 10 days or so, but watch this space as I have a post in the pipeline documenting my impressions of uni over here as compared with uni back in the UK.

First few days of classes

2010-09-04T10:54:00.000-07:00

The walk to my first class on Wednesday morning had a very 'back to school' sort of feel about it. I think I can explain why in one simple observation - in America, they embrace the backpack far more than we Brits do. At Glenalmond, it went out of fashion at the start of 4th form when our wiser, more worldly selves suddenly recognised it to be an obstacle to our acceptance by the years above: overnight, practicality was swapped for a disproportionately sore shoulder, bad posture, and wet books - but at least this new accessory better pandered to our social needs.

As such, Wednesday morning's sea of backpacks reminded me of those early, carefree days when your JanSport or your Quicksilver was - dare I remind you - all the rage. Your books were dry, your straps were done up, and you were ready to take on the world with the weight spread evenly across your back.

I - as you might have guessed - did not don my trusty JanSport on Wednesday, striving fashion icon as I am. But I certainly was filled with that same fresh excitement of getting to learn about new things in a new place that I felt both at the start of Glenalmond, and then at Cambridge. In fact, walking through Harvard Yard I would say that the anticipation was even greater - because for the first time in as long as I can remember, I felt a real sense of my current education being about the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake - not for the sake of passing exams, of getting a degree, of finding a job (all worthy ends, of course!), but purely for the sake of knowing more about things that fascinate me.

So enough of the philosophising, what classes have I been to and what were my impressions?

Well, the first class I went to was one given by the anthropology department on an introduction to archeology. No, this wasn't in the list I posted last time - I had, in fact - and completely unbeknown to me until it was too late - turned up to my International Law lecture an hour early. It was 10am, I somehow thought it was 11am, I'm not really sure how... Bottom line is this though: I may be a worldly graduate, but I'm still utterly hopeless when it comes to the simple things. Like telling the time.

Luckily, it was a very good lecture indeed - it was just history, after all. Plus, I rate any lecture that begins by projecting, in all its archeological splendour, a clip of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

The other classes I've been to over the last few days have been just brilliant. The politics and government of China class promises to be enormously interesting, looking at exactly the themes I hoped to learn about, as does that on international law, which is tackled more from a political science rather than a legal perspective. Perhaps most of all, though, I'm looking forward to my course on the foundations of comparative politics, purely for the course's immense breadth both in terms of content and geographical scope. My final course will either be modern Latin American history or the Politics of India - both of which I know I'm sure to enjoy.

I'm going to finish this post by reiterating my feeling that there's a lot to be said of inquiry, of learning for its own sake. Towering institutions like Harvard are, after all, built on such premises. Every now and again - particularly in those late-night library moments - I've found it tempting to question the worth of academia: whats the point of further study, wouldn't my time and small intellect be better spent getting a proper job? Being at a place like Harvard though, surrounded by boundless opportunities, really does make you appreciate - in its purest distillation - the importance and worth of following that basic instinct to ask of everything 'how' and 'why', be it in a practical real-life setting, or through abstract theorising in a library basement.

Conclusion: Mum and Dad, I'm doing an M Phil!

(...Only joking!...maybe)

Soaking up the sun!

2010-08-31T08:58:00.000-07:00

Classes begin tomorrow so I thought I'd make use of this last day without any work whatsoever to post an update on the last few days.

To be honest there isn't that much to report - the weather has been so amazing that its actually been hard to do much purely because of the heat (something I didn't take into consideration when packing...). Each day its been upwards of 30 degrees so for a pale, sun-deprived Scot its been a real shock to the system! Last time I enjoyed weather this good I was in Lamu paradise, just off the coast of Kenya - Boston is good, but its not that good!

The one thing we have done is taken a trip to one of the harbour islands, a recommendation of nearly every guide book you come across. This involved getting the T (subway) to the aquarium stop at Boston and then catching a ferry that took us to Spectacle island, situated about 5 or 6 miles away from Boston. We spent a few really relaxing hours just wandering around the island (its pretty small) and catching some rays. The major disappointment of the day, however, was the absence of the promised hotdog eating contest - still, I imagine there will be plenty more opportunities to witness such an event while here...!

Coming back from the island also gave us a good chance to see a little bit more of Boston - hurried as we were. Certainly, Boston just keeps getting higher in my estimations - the architecture is tasteful, it feels pretty clean, and the array of shops is quite incredible. I think next weekend will have to be spent having a proper look around the city!

Apart from that, though, the last few days have really only consisted of meeting people for lunch, drinks and dinner... I could get used to this life of leisure! However, classes of course start tomorrow and I will be thrown back into a quite different working routine to what I experienced at Cambridge. I'm actually looking forward to finally getting started though - and the courses I've chosen promise to be hugely insightful. For those who are interested, I plan on taking four from the following this semester (though am yet to settle on exactly which ones):

1) Government and politics of China
2) International Law
3) Islam and modernity in Central Asia
4) Modern Latin American History
5) International organisations in the C20th
6) Politics of India

Some of them will no doubt be quite tough but, at the end of the day, grades and marks don't matter for me (there's no degree at the end of it, after all) - the whole year is just an incredible opportunity to try an array of new things and expand my knowledge about parts of the world I feel I should know more about. How lucky am I?!

"Complete the danged fence"

2010-08-29T09:14:00.000-07:00

Roughly forty years ago, Richard Nixon - in reference to the staunch liberalism of its faculty and students - dubbed Harvard 'The kremlin on the Charles'.

Of course, its not always been this way - until the 1960s Harvard was, by reputation, conservative. Furthermore, today people speak of an erosion of liberal principles on campus: while in 1969 students stormed University hall in protest against the ROTC's presence on campus, now there is overwhelming support to bring the organisation back. Moreover, under half of students in a recent poll wanted to see the abolition of the death penalty. Such examples are numerous.

Despite these recent findings, though, Harvard remains considerably more liberal than the US population at large, and on Wednesday in particular I was reminded of this.

On Wednesday, McCain 'slammed' Hayworth in the contest for Republican senate nomination in Arizona. As usual, an inordinate amount of money was ploughed into each candidate's respective campaign ($20 million in McCain's case), but of most interest to me was McCain's handling of the big issue - immigration reform. Previously, his stance has been as palatable as you can hope for from a Republican, supporting a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. During the campaign, however, he stood far to the right on this issue, calling for that 'danged fence' to be completed. Interestingly, Tea Party supporters quickly noted that McCain had already had 28 years to 'complete the fence'. Either way, from both sides illegal immigrants were getting it in the neck.

Now don't get me wrong, illegal immigration is a far cry from an ideal situation. But equally, there's two sides to every story. All too often, the only story told is that of the drain on resources by these people who come through the fence without documents.

I've just gone through the whole process of trying to get into this so-called Land of the Free which has been, frankly, an expensive nightmare. Interestingly, I have to carry my visa documents absolutely everywhere I go - hardly conducive to that warm feeling of liberty I had so hoped to experience while out here. My point really is that it is so hard - and so costly - for people to come here through all the official channels - though I'm not for a minute condoning taking the 'unofficial' route. All I am saying is that I understand why people take it.

While at Cambridge, I spent some time studying Latin America and its history during the C20th. In fact, not only was it the most enjoyable and fascinating topic I studied throughout the three years, it was also largely what prompted my sudden interest in the US - or more specifically, an interest in how the US perceives itself, how it is perceived by others and why. Throughout much of the C20th, the relationship between the US and Latin American countries was one-sided. Known as America's backyard, the US interfered in the region at will, frequently propping up military dictatorships (and even helping them to power) and using aid money to buy or force political outcomes. Studying this region during the C20th, in short, can make you look at the US through very cynical eyes. Its not too outrageous to say, in fact, that much of the region's poverty and its inability to take steps to remedy its structural problems can be traced back the the US, be it through its support of oppressive, embezzling right-wing regimes, or through its imposition of structural adjustment programmes that made the fatal mistake of cutting crucial social spending to a minimum. The bottom line is this: the US - like it or not, admit it or not - has played no small part in the severe poverty of this region.

So back to all those illegal immigrants scrambling over, under and through the fence in order to enter the economic power-house that is the US of A. By highlighting the poverty from which so many of these people come and the US' part to play in their dire plight, I am not saying that they should be allowed automatic entry as some form of compensation or good-will gesture. No country has enough resources to offer such a tabula rasa. My point is this though: so many of these people - the majority, even - come not to sponge off the system but to do honest work and simply earn enough to support their families, a pursuit that no human should be vilified for. Indeed, the second sentence of the Declaration of Independence, embodying the roots of that great American Dream, states that 'all men are created equal' and that they are 'endowed...with certain inalienable Rights' including 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'

With this in mind, it is narrow-minded to paint these people with the same single face - that of the burdensome thief that ought to be firmly and finally shut out - 'vermin' in Sarkozy's France. Particularly given the millions upon millions of dollars they contribute to the American economy, but most especially when you consider the contribution they make to that rich culture of diversity that America is both founded on and so vehemently prides itself on. Their faces - while some people may forget or ignore it - are all different, all simply human.

Winthrop

2010-08-27T11:24:00.000-07:00

Unlike the majority of graduates, I have a set of rooms in undergraduate accommodation - Winthrop House, one of Harvard's twelve undergrad houses (*obligatory name-drop* - the one JFK was at). My suite is pretty fantastic to be honest, and from asking around not many have been as lucky as me: its comprised of three rooms - a bathroom, bedroom and a great, sizeable living room kitted out with, for added comfort, a sofa and sofa chairs. Whats more, all of my rooms have fantastic large windows that look out across Winthrop's small quad with the Charles river just a few metres beyond.... it really is quite cool!

The rest of Winthrop is pretty nice too - although it was all built in 1912, its tried to replicate the old oxbridge college look with a fair bit of success. The library is undoubtedly its best feature, though its collection pales in comparison to Caius. Despite its rather stagnant collection, though, it certainly promises to be a valuable workspace (particularly given the low quality of music that is presently emanating at some decibels from the flat next door). Plus, being the 'special' student that I am, I also get my own personal key! Which, on reading that back, probably doesn't make me that cool...

One surprise is that when I got here I found myself promoted to the position of 'resident tutor'... at some point I think you just have to say enough is enough, Im quite special enough without all of these additional titles. That said, I think I'll see what the job entails before I break the news...

So that's Winthrop. Perfectly central - only 5 mins from Harvard Yard which is ideal. Plenty of room for visitors, too!

First impressions of life on the other side of the pond

2010-08-27T08:25:00.000-07:00

As our plane approached the runway at Boston's Logan airport, with everything below us - the bay, the sailing boats, the cars driving on the wrong side of the road - coming more clearly into vision, I was hit by that great sense of transition. The long wait was finally over and I couldn't help but feel, with great excitement and anticipation, that something very special was about to begin.

The first few days in Cambridge - separated from Boston by the Charles River - have been a veritable whirlwind of orientation programmes, registration deadlines, tutor meetings and library tours (after all, I am here to do some work!). Along the busy way, however, I've met a great bunch of people that is slowly added to each day. While this week is essentially a freshers week for graduates, there hasn't been the same unnerving urgency about forging friendships instantly - and for that reason perhaps, over these last few days it really feels like everything has happened a great deal more naturally, albeit at an appreciably slower pace.

A selection of highlights, then:

Tour of the Harry Elkins Widener Memorial Library

Located within Harvard Yard, this is an interesting place for two reasons: its striking architecture and the story behind it. Not much to look at from the outside, you walk in and are greeted by romanesque pillars, high ceilings, an abundance of natural light, and the portrait of Harry Widener looking out at you from the 'Treasure Room'. The whole library - as its name suggests - is a memorial to this young man. Widener came from two very wealthy families and during his time as a Harvard undergraduate began collecting books, a pursuit be continued - full-time - after leaving the university. To cut a long story short, Widener, aged 27 or so, his mother and his father were among those to board the Titanic: only Eleanor was to survive. The library, opened in 1915, was built with the $3 million donated to the university by the mother, along with Widener's (enormous) personal book collection. It was stipulated by Eleanor that the portrait of Harry must be seen by everyone who enters the building. The collection itself is quite incredible - too much to describe but this is a link to the website, its well worth a look -

http://hcl.harvard.edu/libraries/houghton/collections/widener/

Impromptu trip into Boston

Yesterday, given the amazing weather (a welcome change from the rain we have had most days!) a couple of us decided to get the subway into Boston where we sat in a park listening to some live music. It was only after 45 minutes or so that we realised it was a Christian band intent on 'spreading the word'. However, it was certainly an enjoyable afternoon and nice to explore beyond the river. I should also say, Benjamin - I have seen Crane, Poole and Shmidt HQ but am yet to get a photo in front of it!

Cafe culture

Someone said to me before I left that New England - and the Boston area in particular - has a very European feel to it. Thats certainly the impression I've got since arriving - there are loads of cafes (many of which are really very nice) which stay open long into the evening and are nearly always jammed packed. In fact, its a very sociable place in general in the evening, in a way that Britain perhaps isn't - which I've always tended to put down to our climate. There are of course pubs and bars, but by and large I've found that students tend to be found just as much - if not more so - drinking their mocha light frappuccionos and their caramel macchiatos in coffee houses across Cambridge. Add me and my standard order of English Breakfast to that list....

American food

Although I'm writing in the 'highlights' section, my experience so far of food in America has been mixed. The major annoyance is only being able to buy fruit in supermarkets. In fact, the nearest place I'm able to buy fruit - and bear in mind this is an urban area - is a 2 mile walk away....! Suddenly solving America's obesity problem seems easy and logical enough! In general I've found food to be marginally (and sometimes considerably) more expensive than in the UK. In restaurants its different though - I'd say actually probably slightly cheaper if not the same and you certainly get more for your money (and in my case, nearly always a 'doggy bag' too...). One thing I was horrified to see was Starbucks selling burgers - upmarket ones, granted, but still wholly inappropriate if you ask me! Certainly, if there's one thing that has surprised me more than anything else in coming to America, its the difficulty in eating healthily - having to make a conscious effort to seek out a place that sells healthy food which was just something I really didn't expect.