THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND CELIBACY
The spate of revelations of sexual abuse by Catholic priests, and the equally disturbing reports of cover-ups by the religious authorities (including, possibly, by the Pope himself) reflect incredibly badly on the church. The fact that the revelations extend to Denmark, a country in which nearly all Christians are Lutheran and where the Lutheran church is part of the state, shows just how widespread the rot has been.
Yet in some ways the most surprising aspect of the affair has been the Church hierarchy's obstinate refusal to in any way countenance a possible link between the priests' actions and their obligation to be life-long celibates. Sex is, after all, a basic human urge; and not to have it, ever, is (in a literal sense) unnatural. It takes an incredible dedication and willpower not to succumb.
It was not ever thus. In the first millennium of Christianity, priests were usually married (though monks were not). However, priestly celibacy became one of the papacy's weapons of choice in the mid-11th century in its long battle for supremacy with the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV and his successors. Despite the formal rule, priests and bishops continued to have sexual relationships, though these were nearly always in the form of concubinages rather than marriages. It was only after the Reformation of the 16th century, when the divisions between Catholics and Protestants became sharper, that the rule started to become law.
The Pope has it in his power to change the rule. Indeed, he has already relaxed it; converted Anglican priests, who were already married when they converted, are allowed to remain married. Relaxing it further would in my view do more to boost the standing of the Catholic church than anything else. Yet if there is one thing certain in this world, it is that this Pope will not do that. A pity; and not just for the next generation of altar boys.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 30 March 2010
Monday 29 March 2010
TURKEY AND THE EU
Should Turkey be part of the European Union? That question has resurfaced, as Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel heads to Ankara for an official visit. Germany matters, since more than 3 million Turks live in Germany; and with the German population likely to shrink over the next 50 years, they will become a bigger and bigger part of society.
Turkey was one of the very first countries outside of the original six EEC member states to ask to join; it applied for associate membership as early as 1959, and obtained an association agreement in 1963. It applied for full membership in 1987, and started accession negotiations in 2005. These are progressing, albeit slowly.
The fact that EU-Turkey negotiations have been going on for 50 years shows how difficult they have been. Ex-communist countries that would not have dreamed of being part of the EU in the 1960's are now fully signed-up members of the club; and, in some cases, even have the euro for their currency. Coups, Cyprus, the (mis)treatment of its sizeable Kurdish minority, and other legal issues, have hampered efforts to align Turkey with the growing body of European law and practice.
However, underlying all of this work lurks a more fundamental question, namely whether Turkey should be a member of the European Union at all. Ms. Merkel thinks not; and I have to say that I agree with her. I do not doubt that Turkey could, with time, meet the necessary legal standards. I have no problem with the fact that most Turks are Muslims, whereas most current Europeans are not. Nor am I worried that Turkey would be both the biggest and poorest member state; other biggish, poor nations (eg Spain, Poland) have joined successfully.
My objection is more historical. I just don't believe that the boundary of Europe lies in the mountains dividing Turkey from Iraq, Syria and the Caucasus. It is a tricky question where the Eastern border of Europe lies; could Russia, in principle, ever join? But I don't have any doubt about where the boundary of South East Europe lies, and it is on this side of the Bosphorus.
The great mistake in dealing with Turkey, in my opinion, was not telling them this at the start. For better or worse, the whole Europe project is precisely that; a European one. Countries outside of the EU can have dealings with it, and the EU has a raft of agreements with countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. But it is a European club.
Ms. Merkel will almost certainly upset her hosts by telling them this. But better late than never.
Walter Blotscher
Should Turkey be part of the European Union? That question has resurfaced, as Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel heads to Ankara for an official visit. Germany matters, since more than 3 million Turks live in Germany; and with the German population likely to shrink over the next 50 years, they will become a bigger and bigger part of society.
Turkey was one of the very first countries outside of the original six EEC member states to ask to join; it applied for associate membership as early as 1959, and obtained an association agreement in 1963. It applied for full membership in 1987, and started accession negotiations in 2005. These are progressing, albeit slowly.
The fact that EU-Turkey negotiations have been going on for 50 years shows how difficult they have been. Ex-communist countries that would not have dreamed of being part of the EU in the 1960's are now fully signed-up members of the club; and, in some cases, even have the euro for their currency. Coups, Cyprus, the (mis)treatment of its sizeable Kurdish minority, and other legal issues, have hampered efforts to align Turkey with the growing body of European law and practice.
However, underlying all of this work lurks a more fundamental question, namely whether Turkey should be a member of the European Union at all. Ms. Merkel thinks not; and I have to say that I agree with her. I do not doubt that Turkey could, with time, meet the necessary legal standards. I have no problem with the fact that most Turks are Muslims, whereas most current Europeans are not. Nor am I worried that Turkey would be both the biggest and poorest member state; other biggish, poor nations (eg Spain, Poland) have joined successfully.
My objection is more historical. I just don't believe that the boundary of Europe lies in the mountains dividing Turkey from Iraq, Syria and the Caucasus. It is a tricky question where the Eastern border of Europe lies; could Russia, in principle, ever join? But I don't have any doubt about where the boundary of South East Europe lies, and it is on this side of the Bosphorus.
The great mistake in dealing with Turkey, in my opinion, was not telling them this at the start. For better or worse, the whole Europe project is precisely that; a European one. Countries outside of the EU can have dealings with it, and the EU has a raft of agreements with countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere. But it is a European club.
Ms. Merkel will almost certainly upset her hosts by telling them this. But better late than never.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 28 March 2010
DENMARK AND GERMANY
Denmark has always had a tricky relationship with Germany. Or, more precisely, with the various German-speaking states. Since although Denmark has been a country in its own right for more than 1000 years, Germany has only existed since the second half of the nineteenth century.
In the Middle Ages, German was the lingua franca of the Baltic, encouraged by trade and the dominance of the (Lübeck-based) Hanseatic League. Under one weak Danish king, the country was effectively mortgaged to the Counts of Holstein. The Oldenburg family later became kings of Denmark, and German was the court language in both Denmark/Norway and Sweden. Senior advisers were often ethnic Germans. The King of Denmark also came to hold the Duchies of Schleswig-Holstein in personam, and often spent more of his time in the duchies than in his kingdom.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, nation states became ever more important and powerful, and there was less and less room for an independent duchy. The so-called "Schleswig-Holstein" question was complicated, but essentially boiled down to whether the duchies should be part of Germany or part of Denmark. Bismark eventually decided the issue by force; and the Danes' catastrophic defeat by Prussia in 1864, and the consequent loss of the duchies, created huge anti-German resentment.
The defeat, and Denmark's subsequent absence from European realpolitik for the next 70 years (including the First World War), are widely held to be the makings of the country. It turned inward, and underwent a quiet revolution in both economic development and social cohesion. However, antagonism towards Germany did not die, and increased after the Nazis' occupation of the country for most of the Second World War.
That antagonism remains today. Germany is Denmark's biggest export market, and Denmark is highly dependant on German tourists, who flock to its windy west coast or sail across the Baltic to the southern islands. Yet the German mark/euro is not appreciated. German is taught in most secondary schools as a second foreign language after English, and knowledge of German is often a requirement for Danish jobs; but Danes don't like speaking it. The Danish minority in Schleswig-Holstein retains a disproportionate affection in national affairs. Most importantly, Denmark has a little-known EU opt-out which allows it to ban the sale of summer houses to other EU (read German) citizens.
The background to all of this musing was a very good film on television this evening called Flammen og Citronen (the Flame and the Lemon), the codenames for two members of the Danish resistance movement during the Second World War. Denmark's role under the Nazis has always been a bit of a taboo subject. After capitulating within hours in 1940, the country was "occupied" for the rest of the war (it was never "conquered"). Various parts of the population were undoubtedly sympathetic to the Nazis; and although there was a resistance movement, it was not particularly effective. Most people seem to have accepted the realities, and got on quietly with their lives.
Given anti-German tendencies, this makes Danes uncomfortable; why was there not more resistance? As such, the whole Second World War era is, in contrast to (say) the U.K., pretty well absent from Danish life. A good comparison is with Vichy France, another country that was occupied by, and got along with, the Nazi regime.
As with Vichy, it has taken Danes a long time to explore through culture a difficult part of their past. Flammen og Citronen is a welcome step forward.
Walter Blotscher
Denmark has always had a tricky relationship with Germany. Or, more precisely, with the various German-speaking states. Since although Denmark has been a country in its own right for more than 1000 years, Germany has only existed since the second half of the nineteenth century.
In the Middle Ages, German was the lingua franca of the Baltic, encouraged by trade and the dominance of the (Lübeck-based) Hanseatic League. Under one weak Danish king, the country was effectively mortgaged to the Counts of Holstein. The Oldenburg family later became kings of Denmark, and German was the court language in both Denmark/Norway and Sweden. Senior advisers were often ethnic Germans. The King of Denmark also came to hold the Duchies of Schleswig-Holstein in personam, and often spent more of his time in the duchies than in his kingdom.
In the second half of the nineteenth century, nation states became ever more important and powerful, and there was less and less room for an independent duchy. The so-called "Schleswig-Holstein" question was complicated, but essentially boiled down to whether the duchies should be part of Germany or part of Denmark. Bismark eventually decided the issue by force; and the Danes' catastrophic defeat by Prussia in 1864, and the consequent loss of the duchies, created huge anti-German resentment.
The defeat, and Denmark's subsequent absence from European realpolitik for the next 70 years (including the First World War), are widely held to be the makings of the country. It turned inward, and underwent a quiet revolution in both economic development and social cohesion. However, antagonism towards Germany did not die, and increased after the Nazis' occupation of the country for most of the Second World War.
That antagonism remains today. Germany is Denmark's biggest export market, and Denmark is highly dependant on German tourists, who flock to its windy west coast or sail across the Baltic to the southern islands. Yet the German mark/euro is not appreciated. German is taught in most secondary schools as a second foreign language after English, and knowledge of German is often a requirement for Danish jobs; but Danes don't like speaking it. The Danish minority in Schleswig-Holstein retains a disproportionate affection in national affairs. Most importantly, Denmark has a little-known EU opt-out which allows it to ban the sale of summer houses to other EU (read German) citizens.
The background to all of this musing was a very good film on television this evening called Flammen og Citronen (the Flame and the Lemon), the codenames for two members of the Danish resistance movement during the Second World War. Denmark's role under the Nazis has always been a bit of a taboo subject. After capitulating within hours in 1940, the country was "occupied" for the rest of the war (it was never "conquered"). Various parts of the population were undoubtedly sympathetic to the Nazis; and although there was a resistance movement, it was not particularly effective. Most people seem to have accepted the realities, and got on quietly with their lives.
Given anti-German tendencies, this makes Danes uncomfortable; why was there not more resistance? As such, the whole Second World War era is, in contrast to (say) the U.K., pretty well absent from Danish life. A good comparison is with Vichy France, another country that was occupied by, and got along with, the Nazi regime.
As with Vichy, it has taken Danes a long time to explore through culture a difficult part of their past. Flammen og Citronen is a welcome step forward.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 27 March 2010
LIBEL LAW
Defamation (libel and slander) is a tort, a civil wrong. Like other torts, such as trespass and nuisance, it is designed to protect something, in this case a person's reputation.
In England and Wales, the law of defamation is mainly a common law creation. That means that it is subject to the quirks of history and precedent that bedevil/enrich (take your pick) all of the common law. It is, for instance, one of only four civil offences (along with fraud, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment), where there can still be a trial in front of a jury. There is a "multiple publication rule" dating from a famous 19th century case, which holds that every publication constitutes in principle a separate and distinct cause of action; workable, perhaps, in an age of books and newspapers, but not appropriate for the internet age, where every hit on a website can be a separate publication. And since reputation way back then was a big thing - at least for the minority of bigwigs who had recourse to the king's courts - damage is presumed. This puts the burden on the defendant to prove that their statements are true, which can sometimes be impossible.
True, some things are getting easier. There is now a "Reynolds defence" of responsible journalism if the subject matter is in the public interest; and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (now codified into English law) supports freedom of expression. However, Article 8 guarantees respect for private life, and private life has been held to include reputation. Sorting out the balance of competing interests can be fiendishly complicated.
It is not surprising, therefore, that libel actions are mainly undertaken by rich people with deep pockets. Indeed, the supposed benefits to the claimant are so great that there is a view that London is a source of "libel tourism", where rich expatriates with little connection to England and Wales sue defendants with equally little connection to the juridisiction on the basis of publication within England of minute amounts of material. This is of particular concern to scientists wishing to debunk claims by multinationals and NGO's wishing to expose corruption or other sharp practices.
Nobody really knows whether the libel tourism label is true or not. However, what is undoubtedly true is that reform of the libel laws is moving sharply up the political agenda. The publication on 23 March of a report by the Libel Working Group on some of the difficulties and possible solutions elicited a commitment from the Justice Secretary Jack Straw that there will be reforms if the Labour Government is reelected at the coming General Election. Watch this space ...
Walter Blotscher
Defamation (libel and slander) is a tort, a civil wrong. Like other torts, such as trespass and nuisance, it is designed to protect something, in this case a person's reputation.
In England and Wales, the law of defamation is mainly a common law creation. That means that it is subject to the quirks of history and precedent that bedevil/enrich (take your pick) all of the common law. It is, for instance, one of only four civil offences (along with fraud, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment), where there can still be a trial in front of a jury. There is a "multiple publication rule" dating from a famous 19th century case, which holds that every publication constitutes in principle a separate and distinct cause of action; workable, perhaps, in an age of books and newspapers, but not appropriate for the internet age, where every hit on a website can be a separate publication. And since reputation way back then was a big thing - at least for the minority of bigwigs who had recourse to the king's courts - damage is presumed. This puts the burden on the defendant to prove that their statements are true, which can sometimes be impossible.
True, some things are getting easier. There is now a "Reynolds defence" of responsible journalism if the subject matter is in the public interest; and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (now codified into English law) supports freedom of expression. However, Article 8 guarantees respect for private life, and private life has been held to include reputation. Sorting out the balance of competing interests can be fiendishly complicated.
It is not surprising, therefore, that libel actions are mainly undertaken by rich people with deep pockets. Indeed, the supposed benefits to the claimant are so great that there is a view that London is a source of "libel tourism", where rich expatriates with little connection to England and Wales sue defendants with equally little connection to the juridisiction on the basis of publication within England of minute amounts of material. This is of particular concern to scientists wishing to debunk claims by multinationals and NGO's wishing to expose corruption or other sharp practices.
Nobody really knows whether the libel tourism label is true or not. However, what is undoubtedly true is that reform of the libel laws is moving sharply up the political agenda. The publication on 23 March of a report by the Libel Working Group on some of the difficulties and possible solutions elicited a commitment from the Justice Secretary Jack Straw that there will be reforms if the Labour Government is reelected at the coming General Election. Watch this space ...
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 25 March 2010
SMUG BUILDER
I must admit that I was rather pleased at myself today.
I am filling in a doorway in a large barn, and I had to start by raising the concrete foundation to the same height as that of the walls on either side. It is one of those slightly tricky jobs, where you build a wooden structure, fill it with concrete, let the concrete set, and then take the structure away again, leaving a concrete shape in - hopefully - the right dimensions.
Since this is the first time I have ever done such a thing, I was a bit nervous. But it went well. My building skills are going onward and upward.
Walter Blotscher
I must admit that I was rather pleased at myself today.
I am filling in a doorway in a large barn, and I had to start by raising the concrete foundation to the same height as that of the walls on either side. It is one of those slightly tricky jobs, where you build a wooden structure, fill it with concrete, let the concrete set, and then take the structure away again, leaving a concrete shape in - hopefully - the right dimensions.
Since this is the first time I have ever done such a thing, I was a bit nervous. But it went well. My building skills are going onward and upward.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 24 March 2010
A BIG NUMBER
£1.2 trillion is a large wad of notes. Written in full, the number stands as £1,200,000,000,000. It is so large that as I write it, I have to check more than once that I have got the number of zeros right.
This large number is what the U.K. Treasury expects the public sector net debt for the United Kingdom to be at the end of the 2011-12 fiscal year; in other words, in two years' time. In layman's terms it is what the British Government owes on behalf of the citizens it represents, and it works out to around £20,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
This number was not highlighted in the Chancellor's Budget press release issued today, it is in fact tucked away in table C13 of Appendix C of the Treasury's full set of Budget documents, the part dealing with the public finances. I am not surprised. The word billion has become increasingly common in recent years, but trillion has yet to catch on. There are, after all, not many things that require discussion of a thirteen digit number; and if you owe a lot of money, it is generally wise to keep quiet about it. If you can, of course ........
Walter Blotscher
£1.2 trillion is a large wad of notes. Written in full, the number stands as £1,200,000,000,000. It is so large that as I write it, I have to check more than once that I have got the number of zeros right.
This large number is what the U.K. Treasury expects the public sector net debt for the United Kingdom to be at the end of the 2011-12 fiscal year; in other words, in two years' time. In layman's terms it is what the British Government owes on behalf of the citizens it represents, and it works out to around £20,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
This number was not highlighted in the Chancellor's Budget press release issued today, it is in fact tucked away in table C13 of Appendix C of the Treasury's full set of Budget documents, the part dealing with the public finances. I am not surprised. The word billion has become increasingly common in recent years, but trillion has yet to catch on. There are, after all, not many things that require discussion of a thirteen digit number; and if you owe a lot of money, it is generally wise to keep quiet about it. If you can, of course ........
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 23 March 2010
SPRING
Spring is here. The snow has finally gone, and the temperature in Denmark is above freezing. Not much above, but positive nevertheless. After the consistent cold, it feels almost like summer.
Now is the time for the plant kingdom to show its resilience and muscle. After being buried under icy particles of water and cut off from both sun and light, plants have the chance to shine.
And how. Our house abuts a small wood. One day it looks just like a wood in winter, all bare trees and rotting vegetation underfoot. The next day - literally - it is an abundance of colour, as white, yellow and blue flowers spring up from nothing. It is exilharating to watch the change.
The trees won't come out in bloom for at least another month. But the long, grey winter months are over.
Walter Blotscher
Spring is here. The snow has finally gone, and the temperature in Denmark is above freezing. Not much above, but positive nevertheless. After the consistent cold, it feels almost like summer.
Now is the time for the plant kingdom to show its resilience and muscle. After being buried under icy particles of water and cut off from both sun and light, plants have the chance to shine.
And how. Our house abuts a small wood. One day it looks just like a wood in winter, all bare trees and rotting vegetation underfoot. The next day - literally - it is an abundance of colour, as white, yellow and blue flowers spring up from nothing. It is exilharating to watch the change.
The trees won't come out in bloom for at least another month. But the long, grey winter months are over.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 22 March 2010
HEALTHCARE IN AMERICA
There are two important aspects of the healthcare bill that narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday. The first is that it will give healthcare coverage to 32 million Americans, who currently don't have it. Seen with European eyes, that can only be right.
Secondly, it rescues the Obama presidency from what might have been a complete disaster. After just over a year in office, and despite promising advances on a number of fronts, he lacks concrete achievements. By staking so much of his political capital on healthcare reform, an issue that stymied Bill and Hilary Clinton together, he effectively went for broke. After the recent election upset in Massachusetts, where the Republicans took Edward Kennedy's old seat, healthcare reform looked dead in the water. So he has done well to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
Republican critics are complaining about the procedural measures in Congress, which have been used to pass the bill, notably the use of budget resolutions in the Senate, which only require 50 votes, instead of the normal 60 for new legislation (a figure which the Democrats, post-Massachusetts, no longer have). However, it is the critics which are in the wrong in my view. The Senate has already passed the bill that the House has just endorsed, and with the requisite 60 votes. In other words, the big issue has already been accepted. What will now happen is amendments. Most democracies work on the principle of a simple majority, and I can't see anything wrong with having a simple majority in the Senate amend something they have already accepted. Constitutional lawyers and irate Republicans may well get into a lather, but I can't see that the average American will.
What the average American may get into a lather about, on the other hand, is the effect of the legislation in practice. At the moment it appears to be deeply unpopular. But perhaps they will accept it in time. We'll see.
Walter Blotscher
There are two important aspects of the healthcare bill that narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives yesterday. The first is that it will give healthcare coverage to 32 million Americans, who currently don't have it. Seen with European eyes, that can only be right.
Secondly, it rescues the Obama presidency from what might have been a complete disaster. After just over a year in office, and despite promising advances on a number of fronts, he lacks concrete achievements. By staking so much of his political capital on healthcare reform, an issue that stymied Bill and Hilary Clinton together, he effectively went for broke. After the recent election upset in Massachusetts, where the Republicans took Edward Kennedy's old seat, healthcare reform looked dead in the water. So he has done well to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
Republican critics are complaining about the procedural measures in Congress, which have been used to pass the bill, notably the use of budget resolutions in the Senate, which only require 50 votes, instead of the normal 60 for new legislation (a figure which the Democrats, post-Massachusetts, no longer have). However, it is the critics which are in the wrong in my view. The Senate has already passed the bill that the House has just endorsed, and with the requisite 60 votes. In other words, the big issue has already been accepted. What will now happen is amendments. Most democracies work on the principle of a simple majority, and I can't see anything wrong with having a simple majority in the Senate amend something they have already accepted. Constitutional lawyers and irate Republicans may well get into a lather, but I can't see that the average American will.
What the average American may get into a lather about, on the other hand, is the effect of the legislation in practice. At the moment it appears to be deeply unpopular. But perhaps they will accept it in time. We'll see.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 21 March 2010
THE GREAT PACIFIC GARBAGE PATCH
There is apparently an area of the Pacific Ocean called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. It is larger than the state of Texas, and perhaps even larger, that is filled with rubbish. The area is in the North Pacific Gyre, one of the world's five major circular oceanic flows, bounded by the west coast of the United States and East Asia.
Garbage patch is a bit of a misnomer, since this implies to the layperson a mass of flotsam and jetsam floating along on the surface of the sea. Although there is some of that, much of the garbage consists of small particles of plastic, chemical sludge and even toxic materials that have not broken down, but are suspended in the upper water column just below the surface. The debris is often not visible with the naked eye, but water samples show concentrations of these things which are well above normal. The small bits are dangerous for birds and fish that feed in the water, and so on up the food chain (including, eventually, us humans).
Although there is disagreement about the size of the patch, everyone agrees that it is getting bigger. The banking heir and environmentalist David de Rothschild has been trying to draw attention to the problem by starting a trans-Pacific voyage on a catamaran made from reclaimed plastic bottles. My attention has been duly drawn, and I wish him every success.
Walter Blotscher
There is apparently an area of the Pacific Ocean called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. It is larger than the state of Texas, and perhaps even larger, that is filled with rubbish. The area is in the North Pacific Gyre, one of the world's five major circular oceanic flows, bounded by the west coast of the United States and East Asia.
Garbage patch is a bit of a misnomer, since this implies to the layperson a mass of flotsam and jetsam floating along on the surface of the sea. Although there is some of that, much of the garbage consists of small particles of plastic, chemical sludge and even toxic materials that have not broken down, but are suspended in the upper water column just below the surface. The debris is often not visible with the naked eye, but water samples show concentrations of these things which are well above normal. The small bits are dangerous for birds and fish that feed in the water, and so on up the food chain (including, eventually, us humans).
Although there is disagreement about the size of the patch, everyone agrees that it is getting bigger. The banking heir and environmentalist David de Rothschild has been trying to draw attention to the problem by starting a trans-Pacific voyage on a catamaran made from reclaimed plastic bottles. My attention has been duly drawn, and I wish him every success.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 20 March 2010
Thursday 18 March 2010
EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS
What makes an ordinary person do extraordinary things; in particular, extraordinarily bad things?
That question was answered in part by a French television programme shown last night on France 2. The 80 participants in "The Game of Death" had signed contracts to be in what they thought was a pilot for a new reality show. The contracts stipulated that they should administer electric shocks to a hidden contestant, whenever the latter failed to answer a question correctly. Egged on by a glamorous presenter, and an enthusiastic audience, they did just that, despite the voltages getting bigger and bigger, and the hidden contestant screaming and begging them to stop. Fully 80% of the participants hit the button for the maximum shock of 460 volts, a potentially lethal amount.
The show was a sham. There was no electricity, and the hidden contestant was an actor. What the documentary producers wanted to show was how ordinary people could do awful things, if put in a position where they have to defer to authority. In other situations, that authority could be a military person; in this case, it was the combination of national TV and a persuasive hostess. The result is disturbing.
The first foreign country I ever visited was Germany, as a teenager on a language exchange. As a Brit, I had grown up to believe that Germans were bad, a view reinforced by the fact that my mother's house had been bombed in the Coventry blitz while she was a girl. Yet I liked Germany and I liked the Germans I met. A couple of men in the factory where I later worked had been on the Eastern Front, and I tried to work out how these mild-mannered people could have got caught up in something so awful as Hitler's Third Reich. Why didn't more people disobey or rebel?
The answer, confirmed it seems by the game show experiment, is that we are programmed to obey. If the message is attractive enough and the figure of authority is persuasive enough, then it takes a very large amount of willpower not to be bowled along by it. Before you know what you are doing, you have imperceptibly shifted from being an ordinary person, living in harmony with your Jewish neighbours, to denouncing them and helping send them off to concentration camps. You wouldn't do that of your own accord; but if the system to do it is put in place, then you go along with it.
This has lessons in my view for today. In particular, one should beware of people in public life, who peddle simple messages. The world is a complicated place; and if there were an easy solution to a problem, then someone would have found it by now. Iraq is perhaps the best modern example of a simple message that went wrong. But there will be others.
Walter Blotscher
What makes an ordinary person do extraordinary things; in particular, extraordinarily bad things?
That question was answered in part by a French television programme shown last night on France 2. The 80 participants in "The Game of Death" had signed contracts to be in what they thought was a pilot for a new reality show. The contracts stipulated that they should administer electric shocks to a hidden contestant, whenever the latter failed to answer a question correctly. Egged on by a glamorous presenter, and an enthusiastic audience, they did just that, despite the voltages getting bigger and bigger, and the hidden contestant screaming and begging them to stop. Fully 80% of the participants hit the button for the maximum shock of 460 volts, a potentially lethal amount.
The show was a sham. There was no electricity, and the hidden contestant was an actor. What the documentary producers wanted to show was how ordinary people could do awful things, if put in a position where they have to defer to authority. In other situations, that authority could be a military person; in this case, it was the combination of national TV and a persuasive hostess. The result is disturbing.
The first foreign country I ever visited was Germany, as a teenager on a language exchange. As a Brit, I had grown up to believe that Germans were bad, a view reinforced by the fact that my mother's house had been bombed in the Coventry blitz while she was a girl. Yet I liked Germany and I liked the Germans I met. A couple of men in the factory where I later worked had been on the Eastern Front, and I tried to work out how these mild-mannered people could have got caught up in something so awful as Hitler's Third Reich. Why didn't more people disobey or rebel?
The answer, confirmed it seems by the game show experiment, is that we are programmed to obey. If the message is attractive enough and the figure of authority is persuasive enough, then it takes a very large amount of willpower not to be bowled along by it. Before you know what you are doing, you have imperceptibly shifted from being an ordinary person, living in harmony with your Jewish neighbours, to denouncing them and helping send them off to concentration camps. You wouldn't do that of your own accord; but if the system to do it is put in place, then you go along with it.
This has lessons in my view for today. In particular, one should beware of people in public life, who peddle simple messages. The world is a complicated place; and if there were an easy solution to a problem, then someone would have found it by now. Iraq is perhaps the best modern example of a simple message that went wrong. But there will be others.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 17 March 2010
CLOUD COMPUTING
Cloud computing is all the rage. I have to admit that I don't understand much of the technical side of it. But the basic idea is that companies and individuals "outsource" their computer functions, both data and programmes, to a specialist provider with vast storage capacity (the "cloud"). When you want to use the computer, you simply download the relevant programme and data using the internet. As with other outsourcing functions, you hand over the running to experts (in return for a fee), and avoid the need for costly hardware, server rooms and other things. You don't need much more than a laptop with an internet connection.
Superficially, this is extremely attractive. Yet I must admit that I have deep suspicions that the benefits do not exceed the hidden costs. The biggest of these is the threat to security. Once the data is in the hands of the provider, you lose control of it. Each time you upload and download, the data passes through the - unregulated and unsecured - internet (yes, you can encrypt, but what small business or individual wants to do that all of the time just to get onto Facebook?). Providers are not 100% secure (think of Microsoft and its ubiquitous patches). And there is a small army of cyber criminals who are doing all they can to get their hands on your information. Nowadays they do that mainly by hacking or phishing, but in a cloud world, wouldn't it simply be easier to bribe a provider's data manager?
There are also jurisdictional issues. Is the data of a Danish company, handed over to a U.K. provider but stored on a server in India, covered by Danish, English or Indian law or a mix of them? What happens if data is "lost" (the loss of the tax records of half of the U.K. population spring to mind)? Who pays compensation and how is it calculated (the value of information can be wildly different to different people)? Will there be sufficient privacy safeguards when the provider can in principle oversee everything you do with a particular programme?
Techies will presumably say that they are well on the way to solving these problems, and that I am a stone-age neanderthal that just doesn't "get it". Well, I don't. As one fellow sceptic put it, you wouldn't give your personal tax data in an envelope to someone off the street, whom you had never met before. Yet it seems that when you upload your personal data to a server somewhere in cloudland, you are doing pretty much the same thing.
Walter Blotscher
Cloud computing is all the rage. I have to admit that I don't understand much of the technical side of it. But the basic idea is that companies and individuals "outsource" their computer functions, both data and programmes, to a specialist provider with vast storage capacity (the "cloud"). When you want to use the computer, you simply download the relevant programme and data using the internet. As with other outsourcing functions, you hand over the running to experts (in return for a fee), and avoid the need for costly hardware, server rooms and other things. You don't need much more than a laptop with an internet connection.
Superficially, this is extremely attractive. Yet I must admit that I have deep suspicions that the benefits do not exceed the hidden costs. The biggest of these is the threat to security. Once the data is in the hands of the provider, you lose control of it. Each time you upload and download, the data passes through the - unregulated and unsecured - internet (yes, you can encrypt, but what small business or individual wants to do that all of the time just to get onto Facebook?). Providers are not 100% secure (think of Microsoft and its ubiquitous patches). And there is a small army of cyber criminals who are doing all they can to get their hands on your information. Nowadays they do that mainly by hacking or phishing, but in a cloud world, wouldn't it simply be easier to bribe a provider's data manager?
There are also jurisdictional issues. Is the data of a Danish company, handed over to a U.K. provider but stored on a server in India, covered by Danish, English or Indian law or a mix of them? What happens if data is "lost" (the loss of the tax records of half of the U.K. population spring to mind)? Who pays compensation and how is it calculated (the value of information can be wildly different to different people)? Will there be sufficient privacy safeguards when the provider can in principle oversee everything you do with a particular programme?
Techies will presumably say that they are well on the way to solving these problems, and that I am a stone-age neanderthal that just doesn't "get it". Well, I don't. As one fellow sceptic put it, you wouldn't give your personal tax data in an envelope to someone off the street, whom you had never met before. Yet it seems that when you upload your personal data to a server somewhere in cloudland, you are doing pretty much the same thing.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 16 March 2010
EXECUTIVE PAY
There is something intellectually dishonest about the way many top executives are compensated. The process goes something like this. The company's Directors, wishing to appear to be impartial or at least objective, hire a firm of independent compensation consultants. The consultants duly carry out a survey, often worldwide, of the pay of executives in the company's industry. That survey provides a benchmark, against which the pay of the company's own executive is measured. Since the company's own executive is deemed by the Board to be of above average quality, he/she gets an above average compensation package.
The dishonesty lies in the assumption that the company's own executive is always above average. It is, by definition, impossible for all executives to be above average. But what Board would say that its own executive is below average? After all, it was they who picked him/her; and to admit otherwise would reflect badly on their judgement. The result is that everybody, or nearly everybody, gets above average pay rises, thereby ratcheting up the benchmark prior to the next round of compensation surveys.
Everybody does well out of this system. The executive in question, the compensation consultants, the Board members (who are often rewarded by a grateful executive). Everybody except, of course, the shareholders who ultimately have to pay for all this. In the large, publicly-quoted, multinationals where this goes on, that means you and me.
Board spokesmen are often heard saying that the market for talent is a global one, and that they have to pay the going rate if they want to attract good people. That is both true and false. The market is indeed global; but the "going rate" is being artificially inflated through the process above. If the CEO of Exxon's salary is currently US$10m a year, are they really saying that there is no talented oil executive in the world who would do the job for (say) US$2m? I have to say that I doubt it.
Walter Blotscher
There is something intellectually dishonest about the way many top executives are compensated. The process goes something like this. The company's Directors, wishing to appear to be impartial or at least objective, hire a firm of independent compensation consultants. The consultants duly carry out a survey, often worldwide, of the pay of executives in the company's industry. That survey provides a benchmark, against which the pay of the company's own executive is measured. Since the company's own executive is deemed by the Board to be of above average quality, he/she gets an above average compensation package.
The dishonesty lies in the assumption that the company's own executive is always above average. It is, by definition, impossible for all executives to be above average. But what Board would say that its own executive is below average? After all, it was they who picked him/her; and to admit otherwise would reflect badly on their judgement. The result is that everybody, or nearly everybody, gets above average pay rises, thereby ratcheting up the benchmark prior to the next round of compensation surveys.
Everybody does well out of this system. The executive in question, the compensation consultants, the Board members (who are often rewarded by a grateful executive). Everybody except, of course, the shareholders who ultimately have to pay for all this. In the large, publicly-quoted, multinationals where this goes on, that means you and me.
Board spokesmen are often heard saying that the market for talent is a global one, and that they have to pay the going rate if they want to attract good people. That is both true and false. The market is indeed global; but the "going rate" is being artificially inflated through the process above. If the CEO of Exxon's salary is currently US$10m a year, are they really saying that there is no talented oil executive in the world who would do the job for (say) US$2m? I have to say that I doubt it.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 14 March 2010
YPRES
My wife visited Ypres in Belgium recently and brought me back a book about the conflict in Flanders during the First World War. The Ypres salient was the site of three major battles, in 1914, 1915 and 1917, none of which achieved much apart from the wholescale killing and maiming of vast quantities of human beings. The waterlogged landscape around the mediaeval cloth town was churned up by rain and shellfire into a vast sewer of rotting corpses, poison gas, blood and excrement. There were odd successes, such as the (literal) destruction of the Messines Ridge by mining. But the overwhelming impressions were ones of stupidity and futility.
One should not perhaps judge the generals too harshly; developments in armaments technology meant that nobody in August 1914 could have foreseen what would happen. But what is staggering is that millions of ordinary soldiers - on both sides - put up with what was literally hell on earth. Was it pride in one's country or simply a desire not to let one's comrades down? With the recent deaths of the last survivors of the First World War, we shall probably never really know.
Walter Blotscher
My wife visited Ypres in Belgium recently and brought me back a book about the conflict in Flanders during the First World War. The Ypres salient was the site of three major battles, in 1914, 1915 and 1917, none of which achieved much apart from the wholescale killing and maiming of vast quantities of human beings. The waterlogged landscape around the mediaeval cloth town was churned up by rain and shellfire into a vast sewer of rotting corpses, poison gas, blood and excrement. There were odd successes, such as the (literal) destruction of the Messines Ridge by mining. But the overwhelming impressions were ones of stupidity and futility.
One should not perhaps judge the generals too harshly; developments in armaments technology meant that nobody in August 1914 could have foreseen what would happen. But what is staggering is that millions of ordinary soldiers - on both sides - put up with what was literally hell on earth. Was it pride in one's country or simply a desire not to let one's comrades down? With the recent deaths of the last survivors of the First World War, we shall probably never really know.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 13 March 2010
SUICIDE BOMBERS AND THE MEDIA
Yesterday in Lahore, 54 people were killed, and about 100 injured, in two separate suicide bomb attacks. Yet this appalling incident was only about the tenth item on last night's Danish national news, well after stories such as the increasing use of cocaine by young people in nightclubs on Friday evenings, and the level of noise in kindergartens.
When I was growing up, there were no suicide bombers. Very, very occasionally, someone decided to set fire to themselves as a form of protest; a Tibetan monk, perhaps. However, while bizarre, it harmed only the person concerned. There were also bombers from time to time, notably the IRA. But they never wanted to blow themselves up.
One of the major developments of modern times is the coming together of these two themes. There are now suicide bombs virtually every day. And because the bombers are willing to lose their own lives in the act, casualties are high. Lahore was by no means unusual; Iraq and Afghanistan have had similar experiences.
Not only are such incidents common, they are also becoming commonplace. Media organisations place them lower and lower in their list of newsworthy items. My children have grown up to believe that they are a part of everyday life. That is a tragedy.
Walter Blotscher
Yesterday in Lahore, 54 people were killed, and about 100 injured, in two separate suicide bomb attacks. Yet this appalling incident was only about the tenth item on last night's Danish national news, well after stories such as the increasing use of cocaine by young people in nightclubs on Friday evenings, and the level of noise in kindergartens.
When I was growing up, there were no suicide bombers. Very, very occasionally, someone decided to set fire to themselves as a form of protest; a Tibetan monk, perhaps. However, while bizarre, it harmed only the person concerned. There were also bombers from time to time, notably the IRA. But they never wanted to blow themselves up.
One of the major developments of modern times is the coming together of these two themes. There are now suicide bombs virtually every day. And because the bombers are willing to lose their own lives in the act, casualties are high. Lahore was by no means unusual; Iraq and Afghanistan have had similar experiences.
Not only are such incidents common, they are also becoming commonplace. Media organisations place them lower and lower in their list of newsworthy items. My children have grown up to believe that they are a part of everyday life. That is a tragedy.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 11 March 2010
GOATS
I want to write about goats. Not the nibbling, munching kind, but non-politicians brought into the U.K. Government in order to form a Government Of All the Talents. Surgeons become Ministers in the Department of Health, admirals become Ministers for Security, businessmen become Ministers for Trade, and so on.
In the U.K. Ministers have to be members of Parliament. So the goats are made Life Peers, ennabling them to sit in the House of Lords, the Upper Chamber. Two widespread criticisms of this system are first, that because they are not subject to questioning by the (more important and elected) House of Commons, the mechanism is undemocratic. And secondly, when the goats resign (as they often do when they discover that government is not what they expected), they get to retain the Life Peerage, with the title, the expenses and the prestige.
Other countries also import outsiders into Government who are not M.P.s; Denmark, for instance (Connie Hedegaard, the Climate Minister who ran the recent Copenhagen summit, was a journalist before she became a Minister, though she had been in politics some time before that). And countries that have a strong separation of powers (eg France, the U.S.) prohibit Ministers from also being members of Parliament or Congress; if Deputies, Congressmen or Senators are picked to be a Minister, then they must resign their seat.
There is no shortage of proposals to the U.K. goat problem. For instance, the former Prime Minister, John Major, has suggested that goats should lose their peerage once they resign as a Minister. However, that strikes me as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The requirement that Ministers be in Parliament is, under the U.K.'s largely unwritten constitution, a convention rather than a law. If Parliament wants goats to be accountable to Parliament (i.e. to the House of Commons), then the sensible solution is to pass a law allowing anybody to become a Minister, but requiring them to answer to questions in the House of Commons. Nobody would then have to ennoble a goat.
Walter Blotscher
I want to write about goats. Not the nibbling, munching kind, but non-politicians brought into the U.K. Government in order to form a Government Of All the Talents. Surgeons become Ministers in the Department of Health, admirals become Ministers for Security, businessmen become Ministers for Trade, and so on.
In the U.K. Ministers have to be members of Parliament. So the goats are made Life Peers, ennabling them to sit in the House of Lords, the Upper Chamber. Two widespread criticisms of this system are first, that because they are not subject to questioning by the (more important and elected) House of Commons, the mechanism is undemocratic. And secondly, when the goats resign (as they often do when they discover that government is not what they expected), they get to retain the Life Peerage, with the title, the expenses and the prestige.
Other countries also import outsiders into Government who are not M.P.s; Denmark, for instance (Connie Hedegaard, the Climate Minister who ran the recent Copenhagen summit, was a journalist before she became a Minister, though she had been in politics some time before that). And countries that have a strong separation of powers (eg France, the U.S.) prohibit Ministers from also being members of Parliament or Congress; if Deputies, Congressmen or Senators are picked to be a Minister, then they must resign their seat.
There is no shortage of proposals to the U.K. goat problem. For instance, the former Prime Minister, John Major, has suggested that goats should lose their peerage once they resign as a Minister. However, that strikes me as using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The requirement that Ministers be in Parliament is, under the U.K.'s largely unwritten constitution, a convention rather than a law. If Parliament wants goats to be accountable to Parliament (i.e. to the House of Commons), then the sensible solution is to pass a law allowing anybody to become a Minister, but requiring them to answer to questions in the House of Commons. Nobody would then have to ennoble a goat.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 10 March 2010
INTERNATIONAL LAW
International law is much in the news these days. The legality (or not) of the Iraq war, the fight against terrorism and Guantanamo Bay, the prosecutions and possible prosecutions of present and former Government leaders for war crimes (Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia), the International Criminal Court.
Yet there seems to be a certain ambivalence, if not hypocrisy, in its application. Tony Blair's main justification for removing Saddam Hussein was that he did not comply with U.N. security council resolutions over a long period of time. Not so far from Baghdad is another country that has not complied with U.N. security council resolutions over a long period of time; Israel. Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, and is, therefore, an occupying power under international law. As such, it has no right to build settlements on that territory, though it has done so virtually ever since.
Israel's recent approval of 1600 new homes for ultra-Orthodox Jews in East Jerusalem was roundly condemned as illegal by both visiting U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. However, in contrast to Iraq's earlier flaunting of international law, this one is highly unlikely to lead to military intervention.
All Europeans should feel a strong sense of humility and shame about what happened to the Jewish people during the 20th century. But this is not about the Jewish people, it is about the state of Israel and how it interacts with the rest of the international community. It is high time that the only outsider with real clout within the country - namely the U.S. - started putting serious pressure on Israel to change its ways.
Walter Blotscher
International law is much in the news these days. The legality (or not) of the Iraq war, the fight against terrorism and Guantanamo Bay, the prosecutions and possible prosecutions of present and former Government leaders for war crimes (Sudan, Rwanda, Bosnia), the International Criminal Court.
Yet there seems to be a certain ambivalence, if not hypocrisy, in its application. Tony Blair's main justification for removing Saddam Hussein was that he did not comply with U.N. security council resolutions over a long period of time. Not so far from Baghdad is another country that has not complied with U.N. security council resolutions over a long period of time; Israel. Israel annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, and is, therefore, an occupying power under international law. As such, it has no right to build settlements on that territory, though it has done so virtually ever since.
Israel's recent approval of 1600 new homes for ultra-Orthodox Jews in East Jerusalem was roundly condemned as illegal by both visiting U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. However, in contrast to Iraq's earlier flaunting of international law, this one is highly unlikely to lead to military intervention.
All Europeans should feel a strong sense of humility and shame about what happened to the Jewish people during the 20th century. But this is not about the Jewish people, it is about the state of Israel and how it interacts with the rest of the international community. It is high time that the only outsider with real clout within the country - namely the U.S. - started putting serious pressure on Israel to change its ways.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 9 March 2010
VIGILANTE JUSTICE
I think it is right that the U.K. Government has not disclosed the reasons for Jon Venables' return to prison.
In 1993 2-year old James Bulger was kidnapped from a shopping centre by two 10-year old boys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. They later bludgeoned the toddler to death, and left his body on a railway line. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales being only 10, they were tried and convicted for murder in an adult court (a decision later condemned by the European Court of Human Rights).
The Home Secretary had said that they should serve a minimum of 15 years in prison. However, the ECHR also said that their "tariff" should be set by a judge, not a politician; and in 2000, the then Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf ruled that their tariff had expired. In 2001 the boys, now 19, were released on licence, with new identities. The courts also placed a lifetime, blanket injunction on the media, preventing them from revealing anything about the boys' whereabouts or identities.
The automatic sentence for murder in England and Wales is life imprisonment. Convicted offenders do not often spend the rest of their life in prison; but if they are released, they only remain free on licence. If the licence is breached, then the person must go back to prison. Often, but not always, the breach of the licence is the committing of a new crime.
Jon Venables has apparently breached the terms of his licence. According to the Justice Secretary Jack Straw, "extremely serious allegations" have been made against him. However, he declined in Parliament to spell out what these are, since he did not wish to prejudice any possible future trial. A police investigation is ongoing.
This is surely right. Although various people - and not just James Bulger's mother - have said that the public has a "right to know", the Justice Secretary was supported by Baroness Butler-Sloss, the now-retired judge that had issued the injunction in 2001. As she pointed out, Jon Venables has not yet been charged with anything, there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in all criminal cases, and there is "at least the possibility that he has committed no offence" (in which case he would be released on licence again). Most importantly, she reminded the general public that the reason behind the blanket injunction, namely the possibility of vigilante violence, or even murder, against the two offenders, still exists; "those who wanted to kill him in 2001 are likely to be out there now," she said.
The killing of a child is a particularly horrible crime. But everyone has the right to atone for their sins. Furthermore, the public interest is not the same as what interests the public. Jack Straw did the right thing, and is to be applauded for so doing.
Walter Blotscher
I think it is right that the U.K. Government has not disclosed the reasons for Jon Venables' return to prison.
In 1993 2-year old James Bulger was kidnapped from a shopping centre by two 10-year old boys, Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. They later bludgeoned the toddler to death, and left his body on a railway line. The age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales being only 10, they were tried and convicted for murder in an adult court (a decision later condemned by the European Court of Human Rights).
The Home Secretary had said that they should serve a minimum of 15 years in prison. However, the ECHR also said that their "tariff" should be set by a judge, not a politician; and in 2000, the then Lord Chief Justice Lord Woolf ruled that their tariff had expired. In 2001 the boys, now 19, were released on licence, with new identities. The courts also placed a lifetime, blanket injunction on the media, preventing them from revealing anything about the boys' whereabouts or identities.
The automatic sentence for murder in England and Wales is life imprisonment. Convicted offenders do not often spend the rest of their life in prison; but if they are released, they only remain free on licence. If the licence is breached, then the person must go back to prison. Often, but not always, the breach of the licence is the committing of a new crime.
Jon Venables has apparently breached the terms of his licence. According to the Justice Secretary Jack Straw, "extremely serious allegations" have been made against him. However, he declined in Parliament to spell out what these are, since he did not wish to prejudice any possible future trial. A police investigation is ongoing.
This is surely right. Although various people - and not just James Bulger's mother - have said that the public has a "right to know", the Justice Secretary was supported by Baroness Butler-Sloss, the now-retired judge that had issued the injunction in 2001. As she pointed out, Jon Venables has not yet been charged with anything, there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in all criminal cases, and there is "at least the possibility that he has committed no offence" (in which case he would be released on licence again). Most importantly, she reminded the general public that the reason behind the blanket injunction, namely the possibility of vigilante violence, or even murder, against the two offenders, still exists; "those who wanted to kill him in 2001 are likely to be out there now," she said.
The killing of a child is a particularly horrible crime. But everyone has the right to atone for their sins. Furthermore, the public interest is not the same as what interests the public. Jack Straw did the right thing, and is to be applauded for so doing.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 8 March 2010
THE OSCARS
There is something awful about the Oscar awards ceremony. Despite being almost 100% actors, everybody seems so wooden, reading or remembering cheesy lines. The applause is even more canned than normal. The thank-you speeches are terrible (don't you think the nominees would rehearse one, in case they won?), as are some of the frocks. Having well-known actors give pre-result eulogies to the nominees for best actor and actress is a particularly toe-curling idea.
It was good this year that Avatar did badly (I am one of the few people on the planet that hasn't seen it, but my 15-year old daughter says it is crap). Good that small-budget films did rather well. And good that a woman, Katherine Bigelow, finally got the best director award.
Apart from that, good that it won't come round again for almost a year!
Walter Blotscher
There is something awful about the Oscar awards ceremony. Despite being almost 100% actors, everybody seems so wooden, reading or remembering cheesy lines. The applause is even more canned than normal. The thank-you speeches are terrible (don't you think the nominees would rehearse one, in case they won?), as are some of the frocks. Having well-known actors give pre-result eulogies to the nominees for best actor and actress is a particularly toe-curling idea.
It was good this year that Avatar did badly (I am one of the few people on the planet that hasn't seen it, but my 15-year old daughter says it is crap). Good that small-budget films did rather well. And good that a woman, Katherine Bigelow, finally got the best director award.
Apart from that, good that it won't come round again for almost a year!
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 7 March 2010
GOLDEN WEDDING (2)
A postscript to yesterday's blog on the golden wedding.
The inn where the party was held is owned and run by a married couple. Nothing unusual in that, except that he is 90 and she is 89! He still makes all of the food, and she still runs the front of house, just as they have been doing since 1947.
In an age, where youth and early success are given increasing priority, they are an inspiration to us all.
Walter Blotscher
A postscript to yesterday's blog on the golden wedding.
The inn where the party was held is owned and run by a married couple. Nothing unusual in that, except that he is 90 and she is 89! He still makes all of the food, and she still runs the front of house, just as they have been doing since 1947.
In an age, where youth and early success are given increasing priority, they are an inspiration to us all.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 6 March 2010
GOLDEN WEDDING
Yesterday I went to my first ever golden wedding anniversary, that of my wife's aunt and uncle.
In rural Denmark this is a big deal. It is always held on the date itself, in this case a Friday. The day before, family, friends and neighbours build a "gate of honour" out of flowers and branches, and this is put up at the entrance to the couple's driveway at sunset. On the morning of the anniversary, which was a brilliant spring day, more people - around 30-40 in number - gather outside the house. A few traditional songs are sung, until the couple emerge; and then, at precisely 8.00am, the flag is raised on their flagpole. Everybody is invited in afterwards for coffee and something to eat, washed down by one or more "little ones", a bitter drink that tastes a bit like alcoholic cough medicine.
After going home for a midday nap - doesn't anybody have to work? - everyone reconvened at 5.00pm for the formal party at the local inn, where there was another gate of honour. A three-course dinner was interspersed with singing, speeches, crying, and lots more alcohol. Then there was dancing and more alcohol, before the whole thing finished around 2.00am with "night" food, and a walk home in the newly fallen snow.
I was already pretty sloshed at 10.00am after six or seven little ones (my neighbour was particularly insistent). So I woke up this morning with quite a hangover. Still, the event is quite possibly the only golden wedding I will go to in my whole life. I wouldn't have missed it for the world.
Walter Blotscher
Yesterday I went to my first ever golden wedding anniversary, that of my wife's aunt and uncle.
In rural Denmark this is a big deal. It is always held on the date itself, in this case a Friday. The day before, family, friends and neighbours build a "gate of honour" out of flowers and branches, and this is put up at the entrance to the couple's driveway at sunset. On the morning of the anniversary, which was a brilliant spring day, more people - around 30-40 in number - gather outside the house. A few traditional songs are sung, until the couple emerge; and then, at precisely 8.00am, the flag is raised on their flagpole. Everybody is invited in afterwards for coffee and something to eat, washed down by one or more "little ones", a bitter drink that tastes a bit like alcoholic cough medicine.
After going home for a midday nap - doesn't anybody have to work? - everyone reconvened at 5.00pm for the formal party at the local inn, where there was another gate of honour. A three-course dinner was interspersed with singing, speeches, crying, and lots more alcohol. Then there was dancing and more alcohol, before the whole thing finished around 2.00am with "night" food, and a walk home in the newly fallen snow.
I was already pretty sloshed at 10.00am after six or seven little ones (my neighbour was particularly insistent). So I woke up this morning with quite a hangover. Still, the event is quite possibly the only golden wedding I will go to in my whole life. I wouldn't have missed it for the world.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 4 March 2010
MICHAEL FOOT
Michael Foot was a decent and principled man. But he was a hopeless political leader. After the Winter of Discontent and the subsequent electoral defeat by Margaret Thatcher in 1979, the British Labour Party rather lost its way. By electing Michael Foot instead of the much more able Denis Healey, it paved the way for 18 unbroken years of Conservative Government. Only after Tony Blair had taken control of the party and ditched a lot of the collectivist ideals championed by Mr. Foot, could it hope to be reelected.
Mr Foot was often - and again is - called a "great parliamentarian". In my view, that is a label attached to people who spend a long time in Parliament, but who do not succeed in Government. Michael Foot wanted to run the country. It was a good thing he never got the chance.
Walter Blotscher
Michael Foot was a decent and principled man. But he was a hopeless political leader. After the Winter of Discontent and the subsequent electoral defeat by Margaret Thatcher in 1979, the British Labour Party rather lost its way. By electing Michael Foot instead of the much more able Denis Healey, it paved the way for 18 unbroken years of Conservative Government. Only after Tony Blair had taken control of the party and ditched a lot of the collectivist ideals championed by Mr. Foot, could it hope to be reelected.
Mr Foot was often - and again is - called a "great parliamentarian". In my view, that is a label attached to people who spend a long time in Parliament, but who do not succeed in Government. Michael Foot wanted to run the country. It was a good thing he never got the chance.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 3 March 2010
LAST WORD FROM VANCOUVER
The 2010 Winter Olympics are over. I don't know whether they were the best games ever or the worst games ever - both epithets have been used - but I enjoyed them. I think the time zone helped, since it meant you could watch things live in the evening. They certainly cheered up an otherwise chilly European winter.
A look at the final medals table is interesting. Canada, with home field advantage, won, followed by Germany and the U.S.A. No surprises there. They came mainly on the negative side, with Austria failing to get a single men's alpine skiing medal, and Russia posting their worst result ever, with just three gold medals. With the next games due to be held in the Black Sea resort of Sochi in 2014, rumours abound that current Russian sports officials are for the chop.
Some countries are good at only one thing. The Netherlands got 7 of their 8 medals in long-track speed skating, but are crap at the short-track variety. The masters of that, on the other hand, are South Korea, with 8 of their 14 medals in the sport.
But the most perplexing result of all is that of Norway, a small country of less than 5 million people, that got the fourth largest medal haul. Yes, it is a cold, northern land, but how come they always do so much better than their neighbours Sweden or Finland? Norway have in fact the best overall record at the Winter Olympics, well ahead of the U.S. and twice as good as Canada. It must be something in the diet.
Finally, hats off to some great individual performances. Simon Ammann of Switzerland doing the double in ski-jumping to match his double in Salt Lake City in 2002; Marit Bjoergen of Norway winning 3 golds, a silver and a bronze in cross-country skiing; Andre Lange of Germany taking gold in the 2-man bob for the third time in a row; Lindsey Vonn of the U.S. winning the women's downhill under intense pressure; and finally the great Ole Einar Bjoerndalen of Norway winning his sixth Olympic gold medal in the biathlon at the age of 36.
Walter Blotscher
The 2010 Winter Olympics are over. I don't know whether they were the best games ever or the worst games ever - both epithets have been used - but I enjoyed them. I think the time zone helped, since it meant you could watch things live in the evening. They certainly cheered up an otherwise chilly European winter.
A look at the final medals table is interesting. Canada, with home field advantage, won, followed by Germany and the U.S.A. No surprises there. They came mainly on the negative side, with Austria failing to get a single men's alpine skiing medal, and Russia posting their worst result ever, with just three gold medals. With the next games due to be held in the Black Sea resort of Sochi in 2014, rumours abound that current Russian sports officials are for the chop.
Some countries are good at only one thing. The Netherlands got 7 of their 8 medals in long-track speed skating, but are crap at the short-track variety. The masters of that, on the other hand, are South Korea, with 8 of their 14 medals in the sport.
But the most perplexing result of all is that of Norway, a small country of less than 5 million people, that got the fourth largest medal haul. Yes, it is a cold, northern land, but how come they always do so much better than their neighbours Sweden or Finland? Norway have in fact the best overall record at the Winter Olympics, well ahead of the U.S. and twice as good as Canada. It must be something in the diet.
Finally, hats off to some great individual performances. Simon Ammann of Switzerland doing the double in ski-jumping to match his double in Salt Lake City in 2002; Marit Bjoergen of Norway winning 3 golds, a silver and a bronze in cross-country skiing; Andre Lange of Germany taking gold in the 2-man bob for the third time in a row; Lindsey Vonn of the U.S. winning the women's downhill under intense pressure; and finally the great Ole Einar Bjoerndalen of Norway winning his sixth Olympic gold medal in the biathlon at the age of 36.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 2 March 2010
PUBLIC APOLOGIES
Everybody seems to be saying sorry these days. Politicians are particularly keen on apologising for historical failures, such as slavery. But the range of subjects is much wider than that.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is good that people own up to their mistakes. But I sometimes have a problem either with the selective choice of those mistakes or the fact that the owning up takes place in public. Blanket coverage of the inappropriate devalues the meaning of the appropriate. The latter would include the Australian Government's apologies over its past treatment of aborigines and orphaned children. It could have included an apology by Tony Blair for the civilian costs of the Iraq War. But when asked by the Inquiry whether he had any regrets, he appeared not to have any.
Three different apologies have been on view in recent weeks, one bad, one good and one in between. The bad one was Tiger Woods' "press conference" (to a selected audience of friends, colleagues and sponsors, who were not allowed to ask questions) apologising to the world for having had extra-marital sex. Mr. Woods is a brilliant golfer, quite possibly the best ever; but the issue of where he puts his club off the course has nothing to do with any of us except him, the women concerned and - most of all - his wife. The revelations may well affect his value as a wholesome family man in the eye of his sponsors; again, though, that is a matter between him and them, not us.
The in-between one was the apology by the President of Toyota, Akio Toyoda, to the company's customers for the faults in its cars. Toyota, the world's largest car company, is currently in the middle of a recall of millions of its vehicles to fix problems associated with its accelerator pedals and brakes, problems that have led to a number of horrific accidents. In principle, a public apology was the right thing to do; it is, after all, difficult to communicate quickly with millions of people in any other way. However, the apology was tarnished by two things. First, the fact that it had taken Toyota so long to admit to the problems. Secondly, minute scrutiny of the depth of Mr. Toyoda's bow, bowing being the normal Japanese way of apologising. What could have been an honest "mea culpa" by the company ended up as a bit of a boomerang.
The good apology was that by the quality Danish newspaper Politiken. In a joint press release together with organisations representing almost 100,000 of the prophet's direct descendants, the newspaper apologised for any offence caused to Muslims (and others) by its reprinting of the (in)famous Mohammed cartoon by Kurt Westergaard originally published in Jyllandsposten. It was hoped that the apology would lead to greater understanding between Denmark and the Muslim world.
I support what they did. In the same way as you apologise if you have been rude to another person, so Politiken apologised to the many people who felt that it had been rude to them. The newspaper was careful to stress that it had the right to be rude, since freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Danish constitution. That distinction, between a right and the exercise of that right (together with judgement about when to exercise it), was originally highlighted by the thoughtful former Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, who supported Politiken's decision. Regrettably, however, his is a rather lone voice in Danish politics. It is not at all surprising that Politiken was instantly condemned by the anti-Muslim Danish People's Party, which has kept the minority right-wing Government in power since 2001, but it was disappointing to hear their views echoed by the left-wing opposition. Competition for votes, it seems, trumps decent behaviour.
Walter Blotscher
Everybody seems to be saying sorry these days. Politicians are particularly keen on apologising for historical failures, such as slavery. But the range of subjects is much wider than that.
Don't get me wrong, I think it is good that people own up to their mistakes. But I sometimes have a problem either with the selective choice of those mistakes or the fact that the owning up takes place in public. Blanket coverage of the inappropriate devalues the meaning of the appropriate. The latter would include the Australian Government's apologies over its past treatment of aborigines and orphaned children. It could have included an apology by Tony Blair for the civilian costs of the Iraq War. But when asked by the Inquiry whether he had any regrets, he appeared not to have any.
Three different apologies have been on view in recent weeks, one bad, one good and one in between. The bad one was Tiger Woods' "press conference" (to a selected audience of friends, colleagues and sponsors, who were not allowed to ask questions) apologising to the world for having had extra-marital sex. Mr. Woods is a brilliant golfer, quite possibly the best ever; but the issue of where he puts his club off the course has nothing to do with any of us except him, the women concerned and - most of all - his wife. The revelations may well affect his value as a wholesome family man in the eye of his sponsors; again, though, that is a matter between him and them, not us.
The in-between one was the apology by the President of Toyota, Akio Toyoda, to the company's customers for the faults in its cars. Toyota, the world's largest car company, is currently in the middle of a recall of millions of its vehicles to fix problems associated with its accelerator pedals and brakes, problems that have led to a number of horrific accidents. In principle, a public apology was the right thing to do; it is, after all, difficult to communicate quickly with millions of people in any other way. However, the apology was tarnished by two things. First, the fact that it had taken Toyota so long to admit to the problems. Secondly, minute scrutiny of the depth of Mr. Toyoda's bow, bowing being the normal Japanese way of apologising. What could have been an honest "mea culpa" by the company ended up as a bit of a boomerang.
The good apology was that by the quality Danish newspaper Politiken. In a joint press release together with organisations representing almost 100,000 of the prophet's direct descendants, the newspaper apologised for any offence caused to Muslims (and others) by its reprinting of the (in)famous Mohammed cartoon by Kurt Westergaard originally published in Jyllandsposten. It was hoped that the apology would lead to greater understanding between Denmark and the Muslim world.
I support what they did. In the same way as you apologise if you have been rude to another person, so Politiken apologised to the many people who felt that it had been rude to them. The newspaper was careful to stress that it had the right to be rude, since freedom of expression is guaranteed by the Danish constitution. That distinction, between a right and the exercise of that right (together with judgement about when to exercise it), was originally highlighted by the thoughtful former Foreign Minister Uffe Ellemann-Jensen, who supported Politiken's decision. Regrettably, however, his is a rather lone voice in Danish politics. It is not at all surprising that Politiken was instantly condemned by the anti-Muslim Danish People's Party, which has kept the minority right-wing Government in power since 2001, but it was disappointing to hear their views echoed by the left-wing opposition. Competition for votes, it seems, trumps decent behaviour.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 1 March 2010
OLYMPIC ICE HOCKEY (2)
What a (re-)match! Canada start well and go 2-0 up. The U.S. fight back in the second period and score a goal. Canada begin the third period by hitting the post twice, and having a number of great chances, but are again thwarted by Ryan Miller. The U.S. claw their way into it, take their goalie out with just over a minute to play, use the extra man to create enormous pressure, and equalise with 25 seconds left! You would think that the momentum had swung to the U.S., but in sudden-death overtime it is mainly Canada, and Sid "the Kid" Crosbie enhances his youthful "legend" aura by scoring the winner ...
That was a great tournament. I suspect Canada has a collective hangover this morning.
Walter Blotscher
What a (re-)match! Canada start well and go 2-0 up. The U.S. fight back in the second period and score a goal. Canada begin the third period by hitting the post twice, and having a number of great chances, but are again thwarted by Ryan Miller. The U.S. claw their way into it, take their goalie out with just over a minute to play, use the extra man to create enormous pressure, and equalise with 25 seconds left! You would think that the momentum had swung to the U.S., but in sudden-death overtime it is mainly Canada, and Sid "the Kid" Crosbie enhances his youthful "legend" aura by scoring the winner ...
That was a great tournament. I suspect Canada has a collective hangover this morning.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
