THE OLYMPICS (3)
I am sitting here watching the opening ceremony for the London Olympics, and trying to recognise my son in the crowd (I have more chance of winning the lottery, I know). One thing is clear from the show so far; Britain has been responsible for a large proportion of the world's great pop music.
We are off to London to watch the games tomorrow, so only random blogging for two weeks. I thought about taking my Hong Kong t-shirt, the one that says "white people don't understand this" in chinese characters on the front. But then I thought that there might in fact be quite a lot of Chinese speakers at the games, so I decided not to. I'll have to content myself with my plain green one.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 27 July 2012
Thursday 26 July 2012
SEA BATHING
Sea bathing in Denmark is not for the faint-hearted. It is like I remember my childhood holidays in Britain, with grey skies, even greyer seas (North Sea, English Channel, Irish Sea), shingle beaches, little or no sun, howling winds. And very cold water.
I had no problem with those circumstances when I was eight years old. What spoiled me was 8 years in Tanzania, with blue skies, even bluer sea (Indian Ocean), sandy beaches, lots of sun, little wind. And lovely warm water.
Since coming to Denmark in 2000, I have found it difficult to readapt. My wife hasn't; she has happily relapsed into Viking mode, and is always badgering me to do the same. This week it has been really hot here, almost 30 degrees. And I am quite proud to say that she has managed to persuade me to go swimming in the sea both yesterday and today. I even managed to enjoy it.
Walter Blotscher
Sea bathing in Denmark is not for the faint-hearted. It is like I remember my childhood holidays in Britain, with grey skies, even greyer seas (North Sea, English Channel, Irish Sea), shingle beaches, little or no sun, howling winds. And very cold water.
I had no problem with those circumstances when I was eight years old. What spoiled me was 8 years in Tanzania, with blue skies, even bluer sea (Indian Ocean), sandy beaches, lots of sun, little wind. And lovely warm water.
Since coming to Denmark in 2000, I have found it difficult to readapt. My wife hasn't; she has happily relapsed into Viking mode, and is always badgering me to do the same. This week it has been really hot here, almost 30 degrees. And I am quite proud to say that she has managed to persuade me to go swimming in the sea both yesterday and today. I even managed to enjoy it.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 25 July 2012
BURNING DESIRE
Weeds get everywhere on our property. In amongst the stones in the yard, underneath the gravel in the driveway, everywhere. I pull them up from time to time, but they just come back again. It's like painting the Forth Bridge.
My wife has had enough. Today she bought one of those small blowtorches, that the council sometimes use when they want to keep weeds from encroaching on roads. Two hours later, and the grounds have taken on a charred look. By killing the roots as well as the foliage, it should have a bigger effect. I hope so.
Walter Blotscher
Weeds get everywhere on our property. In amongst the stones in the yard, underneath the gravel in the driveway, everywhere. I pull them up from time to time, but they just come back again. It's like painting the Forth Bridge.
My wife has had enough. Today she bought one of those small blowtorches, that the council sometimes use when they want to keep weeds from encroaching on roads. Two hours later, and the grounds have taken on a charred look. By killing the roots as well as the foliage, it should have a bigger effect. I hope so.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 22 July 2012
BRADLEY WIGGINS (2)
Bradley Wiggins became the first Englishman to win the Tour de France, when it finished in Paris this afternoon. As I predicted at the start, the combination of lots of time-trialling and a strong Sky team to help him in the mountains played to his strengths. In the end, it wasn't even close, his closest competitor more than three minutes back. And that was his Sky teammate Chris Froome.
Although this was a triumph for Wiggins, it was even more of a triumph for Sky. The team only came into being at the start of 2010, with the goal of winning the Tour de France within five years. Many teams have that goal, and never attain it; so to do so two years early is pretty amazing. They also have Mark Cavendish on the team, the best sprinter in the world, and current world champion following his victory in Copenhagen last year. Overshadowed for much of the race, he still managed to win three stages, including the final sprint on the Champs Elysees for the fourth year in a row. The sight of Wiggins himself leading him out over the final kilometer showed how much this was a team effort.
Some commentators are already beginning to pick at Wiggins' victory; Alberto Contador and Andy Schleck weren't there, defending champion Cadel Evans was clearly below par, Wiggins didn't win a stage outside the two time trials, Froome looked to be stronger than his captain in the mountains. These are all quibbles in my view. Sky had a detailed plan, and they executed it to perfection. You can only beat the people who turn up, and Wiggins did that and more. And even if Contador and Schleck had taken time from him in the mountains, I doubt very much if they would have been able to keep up with Wiggins over 100km of flat time-trialling.
The biggest discussions have been over Froome's role as super-domestique. If he had attacked his captain in the mountains, could he have won the Tour? A lot of this is froth. Cycling is a team sport par excellence, so if the team management have formulated a plan around one captain, then it's stupid to change the plan, unless the captain falls completely to pieces (which Wiggins never did; he was either second, behind Fabian Cancellara, or first for the whole of the race). And although Froome distanced Wiggins on the finish to Thursday's mountain stage to Peyragudes, before falling back to help him, he would only have gained 20 seconds or so if had continued. There was a lot of speculation about what would have happened if Froome had genuinely attacked earlier. But it remains speculation. After all, mountain attacks often blow up (as Evans' own did in the Alps); and although Wiggins is not at his best in the mountains, he is no slouch either.
Anyway, we'll soon find out if Froome really is that good. Rumour has it that he will ride the Vuelta a Espana in August, where he will be up against a returning Alberto Contador on home turf and with something to prove. My guess is that Contador will win, and by some distance.
Walter Blotscher
Bradley Wiggins became the first Englishman to win the Tour de France, when it finished in Paris this afternoon. As I predicted at the start, the combination of lots of time-trialling and a strong Sky team to help him in the mountains played to his strengths. In the end, it wasn't even close, his closest competitor more than three minutes back. And that was his Sky teammate Chris Froome.
Although this was a triumph for Wiggins, it was even more of a triumph for Sky. The team only came into being at the start of 2010, with the goal of winning the Tour de France within five years. Many teams have that goal, and never attain it; so to do so two years early is pretty amazing. They also have Mark Cavendish on the team, the best sprinter in the world, and current world champion following his victory in Copenhagen last year. Overshadowed for much of the race, he still managed to win three stages, including the final sprint on the Champs Elysees for the fourth year in a row. The sight of Wiggins himself leading him out over the final kilometer showed how much this was a team effort.
Some commentators are already beginning to pick at Wiggins' victory; Alberto Contador and Andy Schleck weren't there, defending champion Cadel Evans was clearly below par, Wiggins didn't win a stage outside the two time trials, Froome looked to be stronger than his captain in the mountains. These are all quibbles in my view. Sky had a detailed plan, and they executed it to perfection. You can only beat the people who turn up, and Wiggins did that and more. And even if Contador and Schleck had taken time from him in the mountains, I doubt very much if they would have been able to keep up with Wiggins over 100km of flat time-trialling.
The biggest discussions have been over Froome's role as super-domestique. If he had attacked his captain in the mountains, could he have won the Tour? A lot of this is froth. Cycling is a team sport par excellence, so if the team management have formulated a plan around one captain, then it's stupid to change the plan, unless the captain falls completely to pieces (which Wiggins never did; he was either second, behind Fabian Cancellara, or first for the whole of the race). And although Froome distanced Wiggins on the finish to Thursday's mountain stage to Peyragudes, before falling back to help him, he would only have gained 20 seconds or so if had continued. There was a lot of speculation about what would have happened if Froome had genuinely attacked earlier. But it remains speculation. After all, mountain attacks often blow up (as Evans' own did in the Alps); and although Wiggins is not at his best in the mountains, he is no slouch either.
Anyway, we'll soon find out if Froome really is that good. Rumour has it that he will ride the Vuelta a Espana in August, where he will be up against a returning Alberto Contador on home turf and with something to prove. My guess is that Contador will win, and by some distance.
Walter Blotscher
Saturday 21 July 2012
DENMARK AND NORWAY
Denmark has been associated with Norway since at least the time of King Canute (he of the obsequious courtiers, who were taught a lesson when he sat on the beach and let the tide wash over him), who forged an empire around the North Sea shortly before the Norman Conquest in 1066. Interestingly, the Norwegian throne was always hereditary, whereas the Danish one was elective until 1660, when Denmark became an absolutist state. So it was easier for the coming Danish king to become king in Norway than in Denmark, where the bolshy nobility tended to demand concessions in return for their support. Under the extraordinary institution of the Union of Kalmar, which lasted from 1397 to 1521, Denmark, Norway and Sweden (plus the colonial overseas settlements of Finland, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, the Shetland Islands and the Orknies) were all united under the Danish king. Because he controlled the sounds giving access to the Baltic Sea, and the rich pickings of herring and "naval stores" (timber, pitch and other stuff), Denmark was the big cheese of northern Europe during the Middle Ages. And by levying tolls on ships wishing to trade, the Danish king became quite wealthy. It is estimated that at the start of the Thirty Years War in 1618, Christian IV was the second wealthiest prince in Europe after Duke Maximilian of Bavaria (an inheritance that Christian blew by joining in the war in the hope of acquiring north German bishoprics for his younger sons, getting comprehensively stuffed by the Imperialist forces at the Battle of Lutter, and then seeing his kingdom invaded thereafter).
The Union foundered on the Swedes' eternal reluctance to be ruled by a foreigner. So when it was dissolved in 1521, Sweden (+ Finland) went one way and Denmark-Norway (+ the isles) another. Where Denmark was an undisputed loser, Sweden was one of the big winners of the Thirty Years War, a power shift which has lasted until the present day. But it only became apparent after a further Swedish-Danish war in 1657-8, where the Swedes crossed the ice from their provinces in north Germany and threatened Copenhagen from the rear. As the price of peace, Denmark had to cede three provinces in southern Sweden (roughly all of the land south of Gothenburg), that had been Danish for more than 600 years. From a position of weakness, the Danish king took the opportunity to introduce absolutism.
The union with Norway lasted until 1814. During the Napoleonic wars, Denmark tried to stay neutral. But the British objected to the Danes' trading with France, and attacked Copenhagen in 1801 and 1807, pushing Denmark into the Napoleonic camp. With his defeat, Norway was taken away from Denmark and given to Sweden. The Norwegians objected, and declared independence, with a liberal constitution. A Swedish invasion crushed independence; but the Swedes had to accept a mere personal union, which lasted until 1905, Norway retaining separate institutions and that constitution.
After 800 years together, Norwegians and Danes were tightknit, and a number of famous "Danes" were in fact Norwegian. The languages are also very close, so although Scandinavians tend to talk to each other simply by speaking their own language (or English), it's easier for Danes and Norwegians to understand each other than Danes and Swedes. The Danes took the loss of Norway as a national humiliation, and turned their attention south to Schleswig-Holstein, a process exacerbated by the Danish king's German roots, his position as Duke, and his mistrust of Norwegians' liberal instincts. The Norwegians on the other hand quickly established the sort of national identity and culture, which Danes only really began to develop after 1864, when they were comprehensively beaten by the Prussians, and Schleswig-Holstein passed into Bismarck's hands.
2014 will mark the 200th anniversary of the dissolution of the union of the two countries. Yet whereas there will be big celebrations in Norway, I suspect that they will be much more muted here in its southern neighbour. The loss of Norway was the biggest territorial loss in Danish history; not many people will want to celebrate that.
Walter Blotscher
Denmark has been associated with Norway since at least the time of King Canute (he of the obsequious courtiers, who were taught a lesson when he sat on the beach and let the tide wash over him), who forged an empire around the North Sea shortly before the Norman Conquest in 1066. Interestingly, the Norwegian throne was always hereditary, whereas the Danish one was elective until 1660, when Denmark became an absolutist state. So it was easier for the coming Danish king to become king in Norway than in Denmark, where the bolshy nobility tended to demand concessions in return for their support. Under the extraordinary institution of the Union of Kalmar, which lasted from 1397 to 1521, Denmark, Norway and Sweden (plus the colonial overseas settlements of Finland, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, the Shetland Islands and the Orknies) were all united under the Danish king. Because he controlled the sounds giving access to the Baltic Sea, and the rich pickings of herring and "naval stores" (timber, pitch and other stuff), Denmark was the big cheese of northern Europe during the Middle Ages. And by levying tolls on ships wishing to trade, the Danish king became quite wealthy. It is estimated that at the start of the Thirty Years War in 1618, Christian IV was the second wealthiest prince in Europe after Duke Maximilian of Bavaria (an inheritance that Christian blew by joining in the war in the hope of acquiring north German bishoprics for his younger sons, getting comprehensively stuffed by the Imperialist forces at the Battle of Lutter, and then seeing his kingdom invaded thereafter).
The Union foundered on the Swedes' eternal reluctance to be ruled by a foreigner. So when it was dissolved in 1521, Sweden (+ Finland) went one way and Denmark-Norway (+ the isles) another. Where Denmark was an undisputed loser, Sweden was one of the big winners of the Thirty Years War, a power shift which has lasted until the present day. But it only became apparent after a further Swedish-Danish war in 1657-8, where the Swedes crossed the ice from their provinces in north Germany and threatened Copenhagen from the rear. As the price of peace, Denmark had to cede three provinces in southern Sweden (roughly all of the land south of Gothenburg), that had been Danish for more than 600 years. From a position of weakness, the Danish king took the opportunity to introduce absolutism.
The union with Norway lasted until 1814. During the Napoleonic wars, Denmark tried to stay neutral. But the British objected to the Danes' trading with France, and attacked Copenhagen in 1801 and 1807, pushing Denmark into the Napoleonic camp. With his defeat, Norway was taken away from Denmark and given to Sweden. The Norwegians objected, and declared independence, with a liberal constitution. A Swedish invasion crushed independence; but the Swedes had to accept a mere personal union, which lasted until 1905, Norway retaining separate institutions and that constitution.
After 800 years together, Norwegians and Danes were tightknit, and a number of famous "Danes" were in fact Norwegian. The languages are also very close, so although Scandinavians tend to talk to each other simply by speaking their own language (or English), it's easier for Danes and Norwegians to understand each other than Danes and Swedes. The Danes took the loss of Norway as a national humiliation, and turned their attention south to Schleswig-Holstein, a process exacerbated by the Danish king's German roots, his position as Duke, and his mistrust of Norwegians' liberal instincts. The Norwegians on the other hand quickly established the sort of national identity and culture, which Danes only really began to develop after 1864, when they were comprehensively beaten by the Prussians, and Schleswig-Holstein passed into Bismarck's hands.
2014 will mark the 200th anniversary of the dissolution of the union of the two countries. Yet whereas there will be big celebrations in Norway, I suspect that they will be much more muted here in its southern neighbour. The loss of Norway was the biggest territorial loss in Danish history; not many people will want to celebrate that.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 20 July 2012
CRIME RATES
The homicide rate in England and Wales is at its lowest for 29 years. Put simply, Brits are killing each other less often.
Recorded crime is also at its lowest for 23 years, and in Scotland for 37 years. Unlike the homicide rates, recorded crime rates can be fiddled somewhat. But together, they suggest that Britain is a safer place to be than before.
America, on the other hand, seems to be bucking the trend. Today there was yet another mass murder episode, this time at a Batman premiere. Could the difference be due to the fact that there are so many more guns in the U.S.?
Walter Blotscher
The homicide rate in England and Wales is at its lowest for 29 years. Put simply, Brits are killing each other less often.
Recorded crime is also at its lowest for 23 years, and in Scotland for 37 years. Unlike the homicide rates, recorded crime rates can be fiddled somewhat. But together, they suggest that Britain is a safer place to be than before.
America, on the other hand, seems to be bucking the trend. Today there was yet another mass murder episode, this time at a Batman premiere. Could the difference be due to the fact that there are so many more guns in the U.S.?
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 19 July 2012
KILLER SNAILS
The Iberian forest snail ("Arion Lusitanicus", known popularly in Denmark as the killer snail) is a brown snail with a voracious appetite. In its native southern Europe and Spain, the hot, dry climate and natural predators combine to keep down the numbers. But here in wet Scandinavia, there is no natural predator. So, if they manage to survive a cold winter, their numbers explode during the summer, threatening both local kitchen gardens and the domestic black forest snail ("Arion Ater").
It is thought that the invasive species arrived in Scandinavia through the importation of plants. It was first seen in Sweden in 1975, in Norway in 1988 and in Denmark in 1991. In each country the pattern was the same; half a dozen years of low activity followed by a huge increase in numbers. With no natural predator, humans' killing them is the only option; yet that is not without problems, since killer snails are also cannibalistic, so dead snails merely attract more of the same. My post-badminton beer sessions have often been taken up with animated discussions of the best way to kill these wretched creatures. Beer traps appear to be the consensus weapon of choice; though I have recently heard of a foodstuff that constipates them so much that they die of starvation (as also happens to the next snail that eats its dead companion).
Although we have a wood on our property, I have never seen a killer snail in the 10 years I have lived here. Until this summer. So the problem has finally reached us.
Snails of all sorts tend to "come out" just after it has rained. It has rained for most of today, and I went out on a bike ride this evening after it had stopped. Crikey, there were a lot of snails out on the roads, more of them brown than black, I'm afraid. A lot of the brown ones died under my front wheel as I whizzed along. Just another billion to go.
When I got back, I went down and checked my kitchen garden, and found to my horror three killer snails sitting on top of my lettuces. The pesky things had managed to cross the ditch that I had dug around it, so it shows how resourceful they are. The three died a nasty death, being speared by my garden fork. I suspect that they were the first executions of many.
Walter Blotscher
The Iberian forest snail ("Arion Lusitanicus", known popularly in Denmark as the killer snail) is a brown snail with a voracious appetite. In its native southern Europe and Spain, the hot, dry climate and natural predators combine to keep down the numbers. But here in wet Scandinavia, there is no natural predator. So, if they manage to survive a cold winter, their numbers explode during the summer, threatening both local kitchen gardens and the domestic black forest snail ("Arion Ater").
It is thought that the invasive species arrived in Scandinavia through the importation of plants. It was first seen in Sweden in 1975, in Norway in 1988 and in Denmark in 1991. In each country the pattern was the same; half a dozen years of low activity followed by a huge increase in numbers. With no natural predator, humans' killing them is the only option; yet that is not without problems, since killer snails are also cannibalistic, so dead snails merely attract more of the same. My post-badminton beer sessions have often been taken up with animated discussions of the best way to kill these wretched creatures. Beer traps appear to be the consensus weapon of choice; though I have recently heard of a foodstuff that constipates them so much that they die of starvation (as also happens to the next snail that eats its dead companion).
Although we have a wood on our property, I have never seen a killer snail in the 10 years I have lived here. Until this summer. So the problem has finally reached us.
Snails of all sorts tend to "come out" just after it has rained. It has rained for most of today, and I went out on a bike ride this evening after it had stopped. Crikey, there were a lot of snails out on the roads, more of them brown than black, I'm afraid. A lot of the brown ones died under my front wheel as I whizzed along. Just another billion to go.
When I got back, I went down and checked my kitchen garden, and found to my horror three killer snails sitting on top of my lettuces. The pesky things had managed to cross the ditch that I had dug around it, so it shows how resourceful they are. The three died a nasty death, being speared by my garden fork. I suspect that they were the first executions of many.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 18 July 2012
SYRIA (4)
The bomb at the country's national security headquarters, which has killed at least three high-ranking Syrian defence officials (the Defence Minister, a former Defence Minister and the brother-in-law to President Assad), marks a turning point in this conflict. For two reasons.
First, it shows that the rebel forces can infiltrate the highest echelons of the country's security apparatus. Secondly, and by extension, it shows that the regime can't protect its privileged citizens, let alone the man in the street.
The average loyal Syrian (and, even more importantly, the oligarchical businessmen who prop up the Assad regime) must now be wondering whether it is worth it. The conflict is by no means over, but Assad's departure now seems to be a question of when rather than whether.
Walter Blotscher
The bomb at the country's national security headquarters, which has killed at least three high-ranking Syrian defence officials (the Defence Minister, a former Defence Minister and the brother-in-law to President Assad), marks a turning point in this conflict. For two reasons.
First, it shows that the rebel forces can infiltrate the highest echelons of the country's security apparatus. Secondly, and by extension, it shows that the regime can't protect its privileged citizens, let alone the man in the street.
The average loyal Syrian (and, even more importantly, the oligarchical businessmen who prop up the Assad regime) must now be wondering whether it is worth it. The conflict is by no means over, but Assad's departure now seems to be a question of when rather than whether.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 17 July 2012
BMI (2)
The BBC website currently has a programme, where you can calculate your Body Mass Index, and compare it with both the rest of the population of your home country, and the rest of the world. At 1.80m and 75kg, I have a bmi of 23, making me thinner than 90% of British males aged 45-59 and 63% of males in that age group in the whole world. If everybody had the same BMI as me, then the world population's total weight would be almost 7 million tonnes less.
Apparently I am most like someone from the Comoros Islands. If I get down to 74kg, then I would be most like someone from the Philippines. After 50km on the bike this afternoon, I was down to 74.2. But it's that last couple of hundred grammes that are the hardest.
Walter Blotscher
The BBC website currently has a programme, where you can calculate your Body Mass Index, and compare it with both the rest of the population of your home country, and the rest of the world. At 1.80m and 75kg, I have a bmi of 23, making me thinner than 90% of British males aged 45-59 and 63% of males in that age group in the whole world. If everybody had the same BMI as me, then the world population's total weight would be almost 7 million tonnes less.
Apparently I am most like someone from the Comoros Islands. If I get down to 74kg, then I would be most like someone from the Philippines. After 50km on the bike this afternoon, I was down to 74.2. But it's that last couple of hundred grammes that are the hardest.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 16 July 2012
THE LOCAL CINEMA (6)
The local cinema closes for the month of July; after all, volunteers have to have a holiday like everyone else. We open up again on 6 August.
Up until today, one of the Board used to decide which films to show. However, she no longer has the time, so we have set up a small committee to do it. We met this evening and set the programme for the first eight weeks of the new season.
Balancing between childrens' cartoon films, adult thrillers and something for the pensioners is not easy, but we came up with a programme that I think will sell. We start with the last of the Batman trilogy and Ice Age 4, both of which are doing very well elsewhere. I'll watch them, even if nobody else does.
Walter Blotscher
The local cinema closes for the month of July; after all, volunteers have to have a holiday like everyone else. We open up again on 6 August.
Up until today, one of the Board used to decide which films to show. However, she no longer has the time, so we have set up a small committee to do it. We met this evening and set the programme for the first eight weeks of the new season.
Balancing between childrens' cartoon films, adult thrillers and something for the pensioners is not easy, but we came up with a programme that I think will sell. We start with the last of the Batman trilogy and Ice Age 4, both of which are doing very well elsewhere. I'll watch them, even if nobody else does.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 15 July 2012
THE OLYMPICS (2)
I was in London this weekend for a friend's 50th birthday party (cheap Ryanair ticket, only hand luggage). With only two weeks to go before the big event starts, it was interesting to gauge the level of interest.
Which was huge. Everybody at the party seemed to have applied for tickets, and were happy to get what they got (if they got anything at all). Even if it was table tennis, it would still be a once-in-a-lifetime experience that they could be part of.
True, there will probably be traffic chaos during the two weeks. The (private) security contractor seems to have made a complete hash of things, resulting in the Government's calling in part of the army to handle matters. And the corporate sponsors (Coke, McDonald's et al) will make life a pain within the Olympic Village for those seeking refreshments. But it is still going to be a great do.
Walter Blotscher
I was in London this weekend for a friend's 50th birthday party (cheap Ryanair ticket, only hand luggage). With only two weeks to go before the big event starts, it was interesting to gauge the level of interest.
Which was huge. Everybody at the party seemed to have applied for tickets, and were happy to get what they got (if they got anything at all). Even if it was table tennis, it would still be a once-in-a-lifetime experience that they could be part of.
True, there will probably be traffic chaos during the two weeks. The (private) security contractor seems to have made a complete hash of things, resulting in the Government's calling in part of the army to handle matters. And the corporate sponsors (Coke, McDonald's et al) will make life a pain within the Olympic Village for those seeking refreshments. But it is still going to be a great do.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 13 July 2012
CIRCUMCISION
A court in Germany has ruled that male circumcision that is not medically necessary is an assault and conflicts with a child's right to decide its own religion, and so is illegal. Unfortunately, the case has quickly developed into a "Germany versus Jews" spat. Whereas the real issue in my view is how much latitude should be given to religion in an increasingly secular society based on universal rights.
Many medical procedures such as surgery would undoubtedly constitute an assault (or worse) if doctors did not get specific permission before they did them. That's why patients usually have to sign a consent form before going into the operating theatre (when I broke my arm in a cycling accident, I had to give my consent to their possibly taking some bone from my pelvis in order to pin the arm, a procedure which turned out to be necessary). In the case of children, who are deemed not to have legal competence (and sometimes of others, such as the mentally ill), the person who gives consent is the parent or guardian, or possibly a court.
So, male circumcision is an exception to the general rule, which can only be justified on religious grounds. To be fair, those grounds are of long standing, since circumcision is mentioned at the very beginning of the Old Testament. Both Jews and Muslims practise circumcision; though whereas the latter can do it at any time before puberty, for the former, it must take place precisely 8 days after birth. Whatever the date, it is unlikely that the affected boy is capable of making a rational decision about it.
Not being circumcised myself, I have to admit to being puzzled as to why so many people in the world want to practise it. It doesn't appear to have any lasting consequences in general; though, as the case in Germany illustrates, it does sometimes go wrong, as any medical intervention can. And I can imagine that there are at least some boys who resent the effects of their parents' decision. My puzzlement increases when I think about female circumcision, which most of the world condemns as barbaric, even though it has also been widely practised (through perhaps more for cultural, as opposed to religious, reasons). On the other hand, it is undoubtedly the case that if the procedure had to wait until the affected person were a legal adult (i.e. nearly always post-puberty), then it would be a much bigger medical deal. And it would also be contrary to religious practice.
Since I am neither Jewish nor Muslim, I fortunately don't have to wrestle with the consequences of this decision. But I have to say that I don't envy those who do. Cases that have to balance almost opposing rights are always tricky. Judging by the immediate response, this one is going to be trickier than most.
Walter Blotscher
A court in Germany has ruled that male circumcision that is not medically necessary is an assault and conflicts with a child's right to decide its own religion, and so is illegal. Unfortunately, the case has quickly developed into a "Germany versus Jews" spat. Whereas the real issue in my view is how much latitude should be given to religion in an increasingly secular society based on universal rights.
Many medical procedures such as surgery would undoubtedly constitute an assault (or worse) if doctors did not get specific permission before they did them. That's why patients usually have to sign a consent form before going into the operating theatre (when I broke my arm in a cycling accident, I had to give my consent to their possibly taking some bone from my pelvis in order to pin the arm, a procedure which turned out to be necessary). In the case of children, who are deemed not to have legal competence (and sometimes of others, such as the mentally ill), the person who gives consent is the parent or guardian, or possibly a court.
So, male circumcision is an exception to the general rule, which can only be justified on religious grounds. To be fair, those grounds are of long standing, since circumcision is mentioned at the very beginning of the Old Testament. Both Jews and Muslims practise circumcision; though whereas the latter can do it at any time before puberty, for the former, it must take place precisely 8 days after birth. Whatever the date, it is unlikely that the affected boy is capable of making a rational decision about it.
Not being circumcised myself, I have to admit to being puzzled as to why so many people in the world want to practise it. It doesn't appear to have any lasting consequences in general; though, as the case in Germany illustrates, it does sometimes go wrong, as any medical intervention can. And I can imagine that there are at least some boys who resent the effects of their parents' decision. My puzzlement increases when I think about female circumcision, which most of the world condemns as barbaric, even though it has also been widely practised (through perhaps more for cultural, as opposed to religious, reasons). On the other hand, it is undoubtedly the case that if the procedure had to wait until the affected person were a legal adult (i.e. nearly always post-puberty), then it would be a much bigger medical deal. And it would also be contrary to religious practice.
Since I am neither Jewish nor Muslim, I fortunately don't have to wrestle with the consequences of this decision. But I have to say that I don't envy those who do. Cases that have to balance almost opposing rights are always tricky. Judging by the immediate response, this one is going to be trickier than most.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 12 July 2012
THE 2011 PROJECT (8)
My last post on this showed a well-prepared piece of ground with one rhubarb plant in it. Now you can see the effect of three months of subterranean activity.
First, we have the potatoes. I need to remove more overhanging branches next winter, since they all lean to the right in order to catch the sun. But they have all come up. As have the carrots next to them.
Now for some lettuces. Most of these have done fairly well.
Finally, here is my squash plant. I planted two, and one has taken hold, so that's not bad.
I'm getting there.
Walter Blotscher
My last post on this showed a well-prepared piece of ground with one rhubarb plant in it. Now you can see the effect of three months of subterranean activity.
First, we have the potatoes. I need to remove more overhanging branches next winter, since they all lean to the right in order to catch the sun. But they have all come up. As have the carrots next to them.
Now for some lettuces. Most of these have done fairly well.
Finally, here is my squash plant. I planted two, and one has taken hold, so that's not bad.
I'm getting there.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 11 July 2012
A DISMAL SUMMER
Weather conditions in Europe currently seem to have an inverse relationship with the strength of local economies. In the places with serious problems, such as Greece, Italy and Spain, there is a heatwave; while in the more economically sensible north, there is not much sun and a lot of rain. Britain has had the wettest April and June on record, plus flash floods; and the former drought has now been decisively put to rest. Star performer Sweden had 113mm of rain in a couple of hours the other day, more than it usually gets in a month; and lots of those pretty red wooden houses in Småland are currently under water and rotting. There hasn't been any flooding here in Denmark, but there have been lots of cloudbursts (defined as 15mm of rain in 30 minutes) and heavy showers.
My wife treated us to an ice cream this evening at the excellent ice cream shop up the hill. It's really good ice cream; but as I ate it, I thought to myself that it would have tasted even better, sitting in some balmy Mediterranean harbour than under grey Scandinavian clouds.
Walter Blotscher
Weather conditions in Europe currently seem to have an inverse relationship with the strength of local economies. In the places with serious problems, such as Greece, Italy and Spain, there is a heatwave; while in the more economically sensible north, there is not much sun and a lot of rain. Britain has had the wettest April and June on record, plus flash floods; and the former drought has now been decisively put to rest. Star performer Sweden had 113mm of rain in a couple of hours the other day, more than it usually gets in a month; and lots of those pretty red wooden houses in Småland are currently under water and rotting. There hasn't been any flooding here in Denmark, but there have been lots of cloudbursts (defined as 15mm of rain in 30 minutes) and heavy showers.
My wife treated us to an ice cream this evening at the excellent ice cream shop up the hill. It's really good ice cream; but as I ate it, I thought to myself that it would have tasted even better, sitting in some balmy Mediterranean harbour than under grey Scandinavian clouds.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 9 July 2012
ROGER FEDERER (3)
Roger Federer provided yet another reason to be considered the best male tennis player of all time, when he beat Andy Murray in 4 sets in the Wimbledon final yesterday. Records tumbled for Federer during the course of the tournament's two weeks. An increase in his own record of Grand Slam victories from 16 to 17; the first man to reach 8 Wimbledon finals; matching the record of 7 Wimbledon victories held by Pete Sampras and William Renshaw; and beating Jimmy Connors' record of 31 Grand Slam semi-finals. Most impressively, his victory takes him back up to number one in the world, meaning that he will shortly beat Pete Sampras' record for the most weeks in the number one position. And all achieved a month shy of his 31st birthday, in what is undoubtedly a young man's game.
He had some luck, not least when great rival Rafael Nadal was unceremonioulsy dumped out of the tournament in the second round by the player ranked 100th in the world, in what was one of the great upsets of all time. He also had the good fortune, because of the rain, to play many of his matches under the new centre court roof, where the still air helps his super-accurate serve. But he also had to make his own, comprehensively defeating the current world number one and defending champion Novak Djokovic in the semi-final and then Murray, the great hope of the British, in the final. The match was close for the first two sets; but in the last two, Federer was in a different class. One relevant statistic is that he hit 62 winners in the final, more than anybody else in any match during the whole tournament. If he hadn't also hit an uncharacteristically large number of unforced errors, then Murray would have been thrashed instead of beaten.
And what of Murray, who has now appeared in four Grand Slam finals and lost all four, three of them to Federer? With Nadal's early exit and Djokovic's defeat in the other half of the draw, Murray only had to beat "the old man" to become the first Brit to take the title since 1936 (being the first in the final since 1938 laid one record to rest, but the country wanted more). Particularly at the start, he probably played the best tennis he has ever done; but in the end, it was not enough.
Sport can be cruel. In another age, Murray would probably have won many Grand Slam titles. But he has had the misfortune to play at the same time as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. They all keep saying that Murray will win one at some point; after all, his new coach Ivan Lendl also lost his first four Grand Slam finals, was two sets to love down against John McEnroe in the French Open in his fifth, yet came back to win that and seven more. Even so, I still have my doubts. He is already 25, the same age as Djokovic and less than a year younger than Nadal. Yet they have already won 5 and 11 Grand Slam titles respectively, they are still ranked above him, and they are still playing.
As is Federer. He doesn't dominate the game as he did in 2003-5, but he is still a brilliant player. Basically, when the new generation came along, he had to go back to the drawing board and reinvent himself. It is the mark of a really great champion that he has managed to do that.
Walter Blotscher
Roger Federer provided yet another reason to be considered the best male tennis player of all time, when he beat Andy Murray in 4 sets in the Wimbledon final yesterday. Records tumbled for Federer during the course of the tournament's two weeks. An increase in his own record of Grand Slam victories from 16 to 17; the first man to reach 8 Wimbledon finals; matching the record of 7 Wimbledon victories held by Pete Sampras and William Renshaw; and beating Jimmy Connors' record of 31 Grand Slam semi-finals. Most impressively, his victory takes him back up to number one in the world, meaning that he will shortly beat Pete Sampras' record for the most weeks in the number one position. And all achieved a month shy of his 31st birthday, in what is undoubtedly a young man's game.
He had some luck, not least when great rival Rafael Nadal was unceremonioulsy dumped out of the tournament in the second round by the player ranked 100th in the world, in what was one of the great upsets of all time. He also had the good fortune, because of the rain, to play many of his matches under the new centre court roof, where the still air helps his super-accurate serve. But he also had to make his own, comprehensively defeating the current world number one and defending champion Novak Djokovic in the semi-final and then Murray, the great hope of the British, in the final. The match was close for the first two sets; but in the last two, Federer was in a different class. One relevant statistic is that he hit 62 winners in the final, more than anybody else in any match during the whole tournament. If he hadn't also hit an uncharacteristically large number of unforced errors, then Murray would have been thrashed instead of beaten.
And what of Murray, who has now appeared in four Grand Slam finals and lost all four, three of them to Federer? With Nadal's early exit and Djokovic's defeat in the other half of the draw, Murray only had to beat "the old man" to become the first Brit to take the title since 1936 (being the first in the final since 1938 laid one record to rest, but the country wanted more). Particularly at the start, he probably played the best tennis he has ever done; but in the end, it was not enough.
Sport can be cruel. In another age, Murray would probably have won many Grand Slam titles. But he has had the misfortune to play at the same time as Federer, Nadal and Djokovic. They all keep saying that Murray will win one at some point; after all, his new coach Ivan Lendl also lost his first four Grand Slam finals, was two sets to love down against John McEnroe in the French Open in his fifth, yet came back to win that and seven more. Even so, I still have my doubts. He is already 25, the same age as Djokovic and less than a year younger than Nadal. Yet they have already won 5 and 11 Grand Slam titles respectively, they are still ranked above him, and they are still playing.
As is Federer. He doesn't dominate the game as he did in 2003-5, but he is still a brilliant player. Basically, when the new generation came along, he had to go back to the drawing board and reinvent himself. It is the mark of a really great champion that he has managed to do that.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 8 July 2012
Saturday 7 July 2012
EATING OUT
One of the advantages of a new lawn is that you can eat outside in the summer on it during those long Scandinavian evenings.
As we did this evening. My wife's two small nieces are staying the night, so we had children's food; chicken drumsticks and pasta salad. Then they all went off for a late night dip in the sea, while I stayed behind and weeded my kitchen garden, as the sun fell slowly to the horizon.
Walter Blotscher
One of the advantages of a new lawn is that you can eat outside in the summer on it during those long Scandinavian evenings.
As we did this evening. My wife's two small nieces are staying the night, so we had children's food; chicken drumsticks and pasta salad. Then they all went off for a late night dip in the sea, while I stayed behind and weeded my kitchen garden, as the sun fell slowly to the horizon.
Walter Blotscher
Friday 6 July 2012
KONETUR AND OLDERMANDSGILDE
For the past 100 years, on the first Thursday of July, all of the women in the local village have gone on a konetur (literally "wife's trip"). Until the day, nobody other than the organisers knows what will happen. And, this being an all-female gathering, nobody (i.e. the men) gets to know much about what went on.
The difference this year was that the men decided to do something as well. So they held an oldermandsgilde (literally an "oldermands" party). In the olden days, the leading farmers in the village sometimes had important matters to discuss. This they did by sitting on large stones, arranged around a big tree (both the stones and the tree still exist). The job of the oldermand, a post which rotated amongst them from one year to the next, was to walk round the village and summon the others by blowing on a horn. The horn now has a place of honour on the wall of the village hall, built next to the tree and where the 22 of us had the dinner.
For starters, we had eel that had been marinated in port and then fried, followed by fish with prawns and new potatoes, rhubarb tart and creme fraiche, then coffee and cream cake. This was all washed down by copious amounts of beer, schnaps and white wine. There were some serious tummies on display, starting with the chef, who was almost as wide as he was large; so portions were generous, to say the least (to give you an idea, I had three helpings of eel, and there were still some left over). There was also some serious drinking.
What I most remember about the evening was an animated conversation about bees with my neighbour, organiser of the party, maker of the cakes, brother to the chef, and only slightly slimmer. Apparently he has four hives, and is an experienced beekeeper. It's amazing what you find interesting after a heavy meal and lots of alcohol.
Walter Blotscher
For the past 100 years, on the first Thursday of July, all of the women in the local village have gone on a konetur (literally "wife's trip"). Until the day, nobody other than the organisers knows what will happen. And, this being an all-female gathering, nobody (i.e. the men) gets to know much about what went on.
The difference this year was that the men decided to do something as well. So they held an oldermandsgilde (literally an "oldermands" party). In the olden days, the leading farmers in the village sometimes had important matters to discuss. This they did by sitting on large stones, arranged around a big tree (both the stones and the tree still exist). The job of the oldermand, a post which rotated amongst them from one year to the next, was to walk round the village and summon the others by blowing on a horn. The horn now has a place of honour on the wall of the village hall, built next to the tree and where the 22 of us had the dinner.
For starters, we had eel that had been marinated in port and then fried, followed by fish with prawns and new potatoes, rhubarb tart and creme fraiche, then coffee and cream cake. This was all washed down by copious amounts of beer, schnaps and white wine. There were some serious tummies on display, starting with the chef, who was almost as wide as he was large; so portions were generous, to say the least (to give you an idea, I had three helpings of eel, and there were still some left over). There was also some serious drinking.
What I most remember about the evening was an animated conversation about bees with my neighbour, organiser of the party, maker of the cakes, brother to the chef, and only slightly slimmer. Apparently he has four hives, and is an experienced beekeeper. It's amazing what you find interesting after a heavy meal and lots of alcohol.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday 5 July 2012
THE HIGGS BOSON
I'll be upfront about this; I don't give a monkey's for the Higgs Boson, of which there is now apparently proof.
It's not because I am completely ignorant of the science. I did relativity as the special subject in my maths degree at university; and I managed to read about half of A Brief History of Time before getting brain ache (if you don't have a maths degree, then you'll probably be floundering after chapter one or two, which is one of the reasons I have always wondered why it sold more than 10 million copies). True, I didn't continue after graduating; but I know roughly what they are going on about.
I have also visited CERN, the place just outside Geneva, where the experiments took place. As a lad, I played the bassoon in a youth orchestra, and we went on a trip to France. Our hosts arranged for us to visit CERN, which straddles the French-Swiss border. So we went down underground and looked at all of the equipment and the rather nerdy people who operated it.
But the facility I visited is not the one that exists today. In 1989 it was replaced with a 27km long tunnel ring, containing a large electron positron collider (in 2000 the LEP was replaced by the current large hadron collider in the same tunnel). By chance, my first job in the Treasury in 1985-86 was overseeing the science budget, when the decisions about the LEP tunnel were taken. So I knew quite a lot about its origins.
Why, then, am I so underwhelmed by this discovery? The basic reason is that particle physics research is essentially "toys for boys". I say boys deliberately, since most of the scientists are men. And their toys are enormous magnets that take ever smaller particles, fire them up to ever faster speeds, smash them into walls, and take snapshots of the results. To put it bluntly, apart from the academic qualifications of the protagonists, it is not that different from Mythbusters, an American TV programme that my son sometimes watches.
Normally I don't care if very intelligent men get a kick from looking at ever smaller bits of matter. The problem is that it is enormously expensive; and in a world of limited resources, I can't see that greater knowledge of the cosmic soup is more important than (say) finding a cure for cancer or developing the electric car or providing the world with clean water. Nor is this just my view. I can remember from my Treasury days that the biggest opponents of a large public contribution to the new LEP tunnel were not the hard-nosed accountants (the science budget had been fixed, we were discussing how to divide it up), but scientists in other fields, who rightly feared that particle physics was getting a disproportionate share of the cake, both money and brainpower. I think that that fear has been realised.
Peter Higgs deserves a Nobel prize for his work. But the discovery of what he predicted leaves me rather cold.
Walter Blotscher
I'll be upfront about this; I don't give a monkey's for the Higgs Boson, of which there is now apparently proof.
It's not because I am completely ignorant of the science. I did relativity as the special subject in my maths degree at university; and I managed to read about half of A Brief History of Time before getting brain ache (if you don't have a maths degree, then you'll probably be floundering after chapter one or two, which is one of the reasons I have always wondered why it sold more than 10 million copies). True, I didn't continue after graduating; but I know roughly what they are going on about.
I have also visited CERN, the place just outside Geneva, where the experiments took place. As a lad, I played the bassoon in a youth orchestra, and we went on a trip to France. Our hosts arranged for us to visit CERN, which straddles the French-Swiss border. So we went down underground and looked at all of the equipment and the rather nerdy people who operated it.
But the facility I visited is not the one that exists today. In 1989 it was replaced with a 27km long tunnel ring, containing a large electron positron collider (in 2000 the LEP was replaced by the current large hadron collider in the same tunnel). By chance, my first job in the Treasury in 1985-86 was overseeing the science budget, when the decisions about the LEP tunnel were taken. So I knew quite a lot about its origins.
Why, then, am I so underwhelmed by this discovery? The basic reason is that particle physics research is essentially "toys for boys". I say boys deliberately, since most of the scientists are men. And their toys are enormous magnets that take ever smaller particles, fire them up to ever faster speeds, smash them into walls, and take snapshots of the results. To put it bluntly, apart from the academic qualifications of the protagonists, it is not that different from Mythbusters, an American TV programme that my son sometimes watches.
Normally I don't care if very intelligent men get a kick from looking at ever smaller bits of matter. The problem is that it is enormously expensive; and in a world of limited resources, I can't see that greater knowledge of the cosmic soup is more important than (say) finding a cure for cancer or developing the electric car or providing the world with clean water. Nor is this just my view. I can remember from my Treasury days that the biggest opponents of a large public contribution to the new LEP tunnel were not the hard-nosed accountants (the science budget had been fixed, we were discussing how to divide it up), but scientists in other fields, who rightly feared that particle physics was getting a disproportionate share of the cake, both money and brainpower. I think that that fear has been realised.
Peter Higgs deserves a Nobel prize for his work. But the discovery of what he predicted leaves me rather cold.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday 4 July 2012
DANISH INTEREST RATES (2)
Interest is the price paid in order to borrow money. And in the same way as prices don't dip below zero - there's no such thing as a free lunch - nominal interest rates don't fall below zero either. Real ones, namely those adjusted for inflation, can and do; but nominal ones don't. After all, that would be paying somebody to keep your money for you.
That at least is the theory. The practice, however, is rather different. Twice in the past couple of weeks, the Danish central bank has sold bonds with a negative interest rate of 0.05%. Furthermore, these bonds are not 3-month or 6-month paper, but 2-year and 10-year bonds.
What is happening? It can't be Danish investors that are purchasing these bonds; even at low interest rates, they would get a better return by putting their money in the bank. No, the buyers are foreigners, who are essentially betting that the Danish krone will rise against their currency (mainly euros) during the next 2 or 10 years. So what they lose on the interest will be more than offset by a gain on the exchange rate.
Or, to be more precise, they are betting that the euro will fall against the krone. Investors think that the euro crisis will continue for some time to come and are voting with their feet. Things must be bad if Denmark's currency has become a safe haven.
Walter Blotscher
Interest is the price paid in order to borrow money. And in the same way as prices don't dip below zero - there's no such thing as a free lunch - nominal interest rates don't fall below zero either. Real ones, namely those adjusted for inflation, can and do; but nominal ones don't. After all, that would be paying somebody to keep your money for you.
That at least is the theory. The practice, however, is rather different. Twice in the past couple of weeks, the Danish central bank has sold bonds with a negative interest rate of 0.05%. Furthermore, these bonds are not 3-month or 6-month paper, but 2-year and 10-year bonds.
What is happening? It can't be Danish investors that are purchasing these bonds; even at low interest rates, they would get a better return by putting their money in the bank. No, the buyers are foreigners, who are essentially betting that the Danish krone will rise against their currency (mainly euros) during the next 2 or 10 years. So what they lose on the interest will be more than offset by a gain on the exchange rate.
Or, to be more precise, they are betting that the euro will fall against the krone. Investors think that the euro crisis will continue for some time to come and are voting with their feet. Things must be bad if Denmark's currency has become a safe haven.
Walter Blotscher
Tuesday 3 July 2012
A LOCAL TRAGEDY
If Denmark seems to be a relatively sleepy, secure, almost boring place, then that's because it is. Yet even in the nicest garden, there can lurk a serpent or two.
The "landbetjent" (literally country policeman) in the next door town from mine committed suicide back in May. Yet it is not until now that the reason has emerged. He was also the treasurer for the local branch of Lions Club, a worldwide charity. Over the past four years, it appears, he had embezzled around kr.250.000 from the club, by constructing totally fictitious accounts. When this came out - as it inevitably did - he felt forced to take his own life.
"Foreninger" (associations) are big in Denmark. Most forms of non-work activity take place in one; my bridge club, for instance, or the local football club, or the local cinema where I am the chairman. They are run on a voluntary basis, but that does not necessarily mean that they are small beer. Over kr.1 million went through the cinema's bank account last year, for instance; and since there is VAT on cinema tickets, we have to account to the authorities on a proper basis. It's hard to imagine how someone can fool his fellow lions and auditors for four years, but I suppose that that is what happens once in a while, if everybody in a society is comfortably well-off and trusting of others.
Walter Blotscher
If Denmark seems to be a relatively sleepy, secure, almost boring place, then that's because it is. Yet even in the nicest garden, there can lurk a serpent or two.
The "landbetjent" (literally country policeman) in the next door town from mine committed suicide back in May. Yet it is not until now that the reason has emerged. He was also the treasurer for the local branch of Lions Club, a worldwide charity. Over the past four years, it appears, he had embezzled around kr.250.000 from the club, by constructing totally fictitious accounts. When this came out - as it inevitably did - he felt forced to take his own life.
"Foreninger" (associations) are big in Denmark. Most forms of non-work activity take place in one; my bridge club, for instance, or the local football club, or the local cinema where I am the chairman. They are run on a voluntary basis, but that does not necessarily mean that they are small beer. Over kr.1 million went through the cinema's bank account last year, for instance; and since there is VAT on cinema tickets, we have to account to the authorities on a proper basis. It's hard to imagine how someone can fool his fellow lions and auditors for four years, but I suppose that that is what happens once in a while, if everybody in a society is comfortably well-off and trusting of others.
Walter Blotscher
Monday 2 July 2012
HEALTHCARE IN AMERICA (5)
John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, "stepped up to the plate" last week (to use an American phrase). In holding that the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is constitutional, he affirmed the principal legislative achievement of Barack Obama's first term. More importantly for the longer term, however, he managed to take a lot of the political heat out of the Court's ruling, not an easy thing to do, when four of the nine justices are reliably conservative (and would have thrown the whole thing out) and the other four are reliably not (and approved it). His opinion is notable for an absence of political rant, and for careful legal reasoning. It's worth reading.
There were four issues to be decided, but the crucial one was the constitutionality of the so-called mandate, the requirement to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. On this, the Chief Justice sided with the conservatives in debunking the Government's principal argument, namely that the mandate was covered by the constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. As he put it, regulating something presupposes that there is an activity to regulate; and, by definition, the uninsured are not actively part of the healthcare insurance market. Accepting the Government's argument would open the door to letting it "regulate" (i.e coerce) lots of other things that people currently don't do (some of which, by coincidence, affect spending on healthcare eg not eating healthy food).
However, having shot down the Government's main justification, he then accepted its fall-back position, namely that the fine is, in reality, a tax, namely a tax on not purchasing insurance. Since Congress has the power to levy taxes, this makes the mandate constitutional. Although President Obama and other politicians had gone to great lengths during the passage of the bill to deny that the fine was a tax, the Chief Justice ruled that it was. He was particularly persuaded by the fact that if a young, healthy, currently uninsured person decided not to purchase insurance, but simply paid the "fine", then that was all that would happen. As would be the case, if he paid his taxes.
The four non-conservative judges would have upheld the mandate under the interstate commerce argument. However, since they also accepted the tax argument, a 5-4 majority held that the mandate was constitutional; Obamacare was saved.
Commentators are now writing reams on the implications of this decision. The most likely one in my view is that the Chief Justice is being pragmatic. Lawyers dislike being cast as the tools of political zealots, and the run-up to this case did that in spades. John Roberts is going to be Chief Justice for many years to come, and he won't want to go through that sort of thing on every case. By emphasising that he wants to concentrate on legal, rather than political, arguments, he has done his country quite a service.
Walter Blotscher
John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, "stepped up to the plate" last week (to use an American phrase). In holding that the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare, is constitutional, he affirmed the principal legislative achievement of Barack Obama's first term. More importantly for the longer term, however, he managed to take a lot of the political heat out of the Court's ruling, not an easy thing to do, when four of the nine justices are reliably conservative (and would have thrown the whole thing out) and the other four are reliably not (and approved it). His opinion is notable for an absence of political rant, and for careful legal reasoning. It's worth reading.
There were four issues to be decided, but the crucial one was the constitutionality of the so-called mandate, the requirement to purchase health insurance or pay a fine. On this, the Chief Justice sided with the conservatives in debunking the Government's principal argument, namely that the mandate was covered by the constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. As he put it, regulating something presupposes that there is an activity to regulate; and, by definition, the uninsured are not actively part of the healthcare insurance market. Accepting the Government's argument would open the door to letting it "regulate" (i.e coerce) lots of other things that people currently don't do (some of which, by coincidence, affect spending on healthcare eg not eating healthy food).
However, having shot down the Government's main justification, he then accepted its fall-back position, namely that the fine is, in reality, a tax, namely a tax on not purchasing insurance. Since Congress has the power to levy taxes, this makes the mandate constitutional. Although President Obama and other politicians had gone to great lengths during the passage of the bill to deny that the fine was a tax, the Chief Justice ruled that it was. He was particularly persuaded by the fact that if a young, healthy, currently uninsured person decided not to purchase insurance, but simply paid the "fine", then that was all that would happen. As would be the case, if he paid his taxes.
The four non-conservative judges would have upheld the mandate under the interstate commerce argument. However, since they also accepted the tax argument, a 5-4 majority held that the mandate was constitutional; Obamacare was saved.
Commentators are now writing reams on the implications of this decision. The most likely one in my view is that the Chief Justice is being pragmatic. Lawyers dislike being cast as the tools of political zealots, and the run-up to this case did that in spades. John Roberts is going to be Chief Justice for many years to come, and he won't want to go through that sort of thing on every case. By emphasising that he wants to concentrate on legal, rather than political, arguments, he has done his country quite a service.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday 1 July 2012
BRADLEY WIGGINS
Now that my Mum has gone home, I have time for blogging; and watching the Tour de France, which started yesterday. With Contador suspended until August, and a route with fewer mountains and 100km of time trialling, the race is the most open for years. But the biggest surprise of all is that 2012 might just be the year when the winner of La Grande Boucle is a Brit.
The man in question is Bradley Wiggins, a three-time Olympic gold medallist at Athens and Beijing on the track, who then switched to road racing. That change is harder than it seems, track cycling being relatively short and without mountains. Some thought his fourth place in the 2009 Tour was just a flash in the pan. But a change in his training programme has led to some fantastic results this year, with wins at Paris-Nice, the Tour de Romandie and the Dauphine, all week-long stage races. The most satisfying thing for Wiggins has surely been beating his rivals for the Tour in these races, notably last year's winner Cadel Evans. There's a lot of psychology in cycling, and Wiggins starts the Tour with a decided edge.
And so it proved yesterday, as he blasted over the 6.4km prologue in Liege. He couldn't beat the king of this sort of thing, Fabian Cancellera, who won by seven seconds; but although the gaps weren't huge, he still took time out of the other overall contenders, Evans, Robert Gesink, Vincenzo Nibali and Denis Menchov. As one of the best at time-trialling and with a strong Sky team to support him in the mountains, Wiggins is my pick for this year's Tour.
The only doubt I have about him is his slightly weird sideburns, which are long and unfashionable. But even they are beginning to grow on me.
Walter Blotscher
Now that my Mum has gone home, I have time for blogging; and watching the Tour de France, which started yesterday. With Contador suspended until August, and a route with fewer mountains and 100km of time trialling, the race is the most open for years. But the biggest surprise of all is that 2012 might just be the year when the winner of La Grande Boucle is a Brit.
The man in question is Bradley Wiggins, a three-time Olympic gold medallist at Athens and Beijing on the track, who then switched to road racing. That change is harder than it seems, track cycling being relatively short and without mountains. Some thought his fourth place in the 2009 Tour was just a flash in the pan. But a change in his training programme has led to some fantastic results this year, with wins at Paris-Nice, the Tour de Romandie and the Dauphine, all week-long stage races. The most satisfying thing for Wiggins has surely been beating his rivals for the Tour in these races, notably last year's winner Cadel Evans. There's a lot of psychology in cycling, and Wiggins starts the Tour with a decided edge.
And so it proved yesterday, as he blasted over the 6.4km prologue in Liege. He couldn't beat the king of this sort of thing, Fabian Cancellera, who won by seven seconds; but although the gaps weren't huge, he still took time out of the other overall contenders, Evans, Robert Gesink, Vincenzo Nibali and Denis Menchov. As one of the best at time-trialling and with a strong Sky team to support him in the mountains, Wiggins is my pick for this year's Tour.
The only doubt I have about him is his slightly weird sideburns, which are long and unfashionable. But even they are beginning to grow on me.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
