ROGER FEDERER
Roger Federer is one of the all-time great sportsmen. He holds the record for the most victories in the four major tennis championships (Australian, French and U.S. Opens, plus Wimbledon), and is one of only a few players in history to have won all four. He is also charming, elegant, tenacious and brilliant. I am a huge fan.
So, it was somewhat of a surprise that he lost this afternoon to the Czech Tomas Berdych in the quarter finals at Wimbledon. Federer hasn't been at his best this tournament; and Berdych played out of his skin. But that didn't make the defeat any less painful.
For me, that is. It was so painful that I immediately had to go out for a cycle ride. Which lost me a few pounds, but didn't make me feel any better. And I couldn't even console myself with Roger's winnings.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday, 30 June 2010
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
THE RULE OF LAW (AND THE IRAQ WAR, AGAIN, AGAIN .....)
If you haven't read the Rule of Law by the English judge Thomas Bingham, then I highly recommend that you do.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, to give him his full name, was the first person ever to hold the three offices of Master of the Rolls (head of the civil division of the Court of Appeal), Lord Chief Justice (head of the criminal division of the Court of Appeal) and Senior Law Lord (head of the court of final appeal). In the last job, he was the first to be appointed as such from the start, instead of - as the title suggests - being promoted on seniority. He ran the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, its formal title, for most of the noughties, until he retired in 2008.
In a short book, Lord Bingham teases out the practical meaning of what is often a platitudinous phrase beloved of politicians. He then goes on to consider its effect in two practical situations; the possible conflict with the uniquely British concept of the Sovereignty of Parliament, and the difficulties of maintaining the rule of law in the face of international terrorism and in the absence of a world government or court system. He had to deal with both of these issues when in the House of Lords, and his measured judgments in key cases dealing with the legality of the Parliament Act, the use of control orders, and the admissibility of evidence obtained under torture, repay careful reading. He also saw, much earlier than most, the effect that the Human Rights Act would have on the development of English law.
Along the way, he leaves the reader in no doubt whatsoever that he believes that the Iraq War was illegal. This is relevant, since at the time of the invasion, he was the United Kingdom's most senior judge. The decision to go to war was taken by the House of Commons; and so, under the concept of the Sovereignty of Parliament, cannot be challenged in the domestic courts. Nevetheless, the decision was made on the recommendation of the Cabinet, following formal legal advice submitted by the Attorney General (the Government's in-house lawyer). We now know that Lord Goldsmith changed his mind on the issue, and went against the views of other Government lawyers, notably those in the Foreign Office. Lord Bingham has now made it clear in public, that if his court had been asked to rule on the point, then he at least would have said no.
The Iraq Inquiry, having taken a time-out during the election campaign, is now back in business. One of its peculiarities, given the seriousness of the issues involved, is that none of its five members is a lawyer. One can't help feeling that if Lord Bingham had been appointed to the inquiry team, then Lord Goldsmith - and even Tony Blair - would have had a much more uncomfortable ride in giving evidence than they did. If the committee members haven't yet read the Rule of Law, then the secretariat should quickly make it required reading.
Walter Blotscher
If you haven't read the Rule of Law by the English judge Thomas Bingham, then I highly recommend that you do.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, to give him his full name, was the first person ever to hold the three offices of Master of the Rolls (head of the civil division of the Court of Appeal), Lord Chief Justice (head of the criminal division of the Court of Appeal) and Senior Law Lord (head of the court of final appeal). In the last job, he was the first to be appointed as such from the start, instead of - as the title suggests - being promoted on seniority. He ran the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, its formal title, for most of the noughties, until he retired in 2008.
In a short book, Lord Bingham teases out the practical meaning of what is often a platitudinous phrase beloved of politicians. He then goes on to consider its effect in two practical situations; the possible conflict with the uniquely British concept of the Sovereignty of Parliament, and the difficulties of maintaining the rule of law in the face of international terrorism and in the absence of a world government or court system. He had to deal with both of these issues when in the House of Lords, and his measured judgments in key cases dealing with the legality of the Parliament Act, the use of control orders, and the admissibility of evidence obtained under torture, repay careful reading. He also saw, much earlier than most, the effect that the Human Rights Act would have on the development of English law.
Along the way, he leaves the reader in no doubt whatsoever that he believes that the Iraq War was illegal. This is relevant, since at the time of the invasion, he was the United Kingdom's most senior judge. The decision to go to war was taken by the House of Commons; and so, under the concept of the Sovereignty of Parliament, cannot be challenged in the domestic courts. Nevetheless, the decision was made on the recommendation of the Cabinet, following formal legal advice submitted by the Attorney General (the Government's in-house lawyer). We now know that Lord Goldsmith changed his mind on the issue, and went against the views of other Government lawyers, notably those in the Foreign Office. Lord Bingham has now made it clear in public, that if his court had been asked to rule on the point, then he at least would have said no.
The Iraq Inquiry, having taken a time-out during the election campaign, is now back in business. One of its peculiarities, given the seriousness of the issues involved, is that none of its five members is a lawyer. One can't help feeling that if Lord Bingham had been appointed to the inquiry team, then Lord Goldsmith - and even Tony Blair - would have had a much more uncomfortable ride in giving evidence than they did. If the committee members haven't yet read the Rule of Law, then the secretariat should quickly make it required reading.
Walter Blotscher
Monday, 28 June 2010
WEARING WELL
Over the weekend my wife and I went to a "100 years" birthday party, the Danish name given to an event where a couple both turn 50.
I wore the same suit that I got married in. A fawn, lightweight tropical number that I had made in Thailand when I was on a business trip there in 1991. Ideal for what was a pretty hot day.
As James Michelsberg would appreciate, good tailoring lasts.
Walter Blotscher
Over the weekend my wife and I went to a "100 years" birthday party, the Danish name given to an event where a couple both turn 50.
I wore the same suit that I got married in. A fawn, lightweight tropical number that I had made in Thailand when I was on a business trip there in 1991. Ideal for what was a pretty hot day.
As James Michelsberg would appreciate, good tailoring lasts.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday, 27 June 2010
ENGLAND v. GERMANY
Ugh! What more can one say about England's dismal performance in their 4-1 defeat today by Germany in the last 16 of the World Cup? In my piece on Theo Walcott (11/6/10) I said that I doubted that England would make the quarter finals; they proved me right in decisive fashion.
My son brought home the Daily Express from England on Friday. It had a double page feature with 17 xenophobic reasons why "we're the best". They included Cheryl Cole, Margaret Thatcher, fish and chips, and the bulldog. Playing good football was - surprise, surprise - not on the list.
Oh well, at least Wimbledon still has a week to go ...
Walter Blotscher
Ugh! What more can one say about England's dismal performance in their 4-1 defeat today by Germany in the last 16 of the World Cup? In my piece on Theo Walcott (11/6/10) I said that I doubted that England would make the quarter finals; they proved me right in decisive fashion.
My son brought home the Daily Express from England on Friday. It had a double page feature with 17 xenophobic reasons why "we're the best". They included Cheryl Cole, Margaret Thatcher, fish and chips, and the bulldog. Playing good football was - surprise, surprise - not on the list.
Oh well, at least Wimbledon still has a week to go ...
Walter Blotscher
Friday, 25 June 2010
THE MICHELSBERG TAILORING BLOG
The eagle-eyed amongst you will have noted that one of the blogs that I follow is the Michelsberg Tailoring Blog. The curious will even have had a look at it.
I have never met James Michelsberg. I came across him some years ago, since I am part of a business network and we had a mutual contact. I gave him a couple of suggestions for his business and made a mental note that the next time I ever buy a hand-made suit, then it would be from him.
In 2007, he sent me an E-Mail telling me that he was setting up a blog on his website. Not knowing at that time what a blog was, really, I did nothing. Three years later, in January this year, I set up my own blog. A month or so after that, I was idly culling my E-Mail inbox when I came across his earlier E-Mail. By now a fully paid-up member of the blogosphere, I decided to have a look.
And got hooked. I love his blog. It's an insight to a niche world of which I have absolutely no knowledge or experience. I learn words I have never heard of before, see pictures of production processes I can't describe and finished products that I can't afford to buy, and get a feel for what it must be like to work in that milieu.
Yes, it is nerdy and geeky, and more than a little offbeat. But what shines through the words is his absolute love and passion for the subject; he is a true bespoke tailoring nut. And that's infectious.
I just wish he wrote more often than once or twice a month.
Walter Blotscher
The eagle-eyed amongst you will have noted that one of the blogs that I follow is the Michelsberg Tailoring Blog. The curious will even have had a look at it.
I have never met James Michelsberg. I came across him some years ago, since I am part of a business network and we had a mutual contact. I gave him a couple of suggestions for his business and made a mental note that the next time I ever buy a hand-made suit, then it would be from him.
In 2007, he sent me an E-Mail telling me that he was setting up a blog on his website. Not knowing at that time what a blog was, really, I did nothing. Three years later, in January this year, I set up my own blog. A month or so after that, I was idly culling my E-Mail inbox when I came across his earlier E-Mail. By now a fully paid-up member of the blogosphere, I decided to have a look.
And got hooked. I love his blog. It's an insight to a niche world of which I have absolutely no knowledge or experience. I learn words I have never heard of before, see pictures of production processes I can't describe and finished products that I can't afford to buy, and get a feel for what it must be like to work in that milieu.
Yes, it is nerdy and geeky, and more than a little offbeat. But what shines through the words is his absolute love and passion for the subject; he is a true bespoke tailoring nut. And that's infectious.
I just wish he wrote more often than once or twice a month.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday, 24 June 2010
THE PRESIDENT AND THE GENERAL
Was it really such a good idea for President Obama to sack General Stanley McChrystal, the architect and implementer of the U.S.A.'s (and NATO's) plan to pacify Afghanistan? I am not sure that it was. True, it was unfortunate - to put it mildly - that the general and his subordinate officers said a whole lot of disparaging things about the President (and other senior politicians), while an embedded journalist from Rolling Stone magazine was in hearing. But underlings are always saying disparaging things about their superiors, whether it be in a company, another organisation, the Army, a family, or even the country. Having millions of people not only think that you are a complete jerk, but saying and writing it every day under the protection of the Constitution, goes with occupation of the Oval Office.
I accept that in America the position is complicated by the fact that the Head of the Executive Branch - unusually amongst democracies - is also formally Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. This can create problems in time of war, since, with notable exceptions such as Eisenhower and Grant, Presidents tend not to have much, or even any, military experience. Soldiers, more than anyone, are supposed to be loyal to the chain of command. That must be tough if you think that the politicians don't know much, and are far away from getting hurt.
General McChrystal is by all accounts a first rate soldier. So is his replacement, General David Petraeus, the man who led the coalition forces in Iraq, was the architect of the "surge" there, and ended up as General McChrystal's immediate superior. As such, he will obviously know all about the military plans for the country. But he won't have - or, at least, not for some time - General McChrystal's political contacts and personal relations in Afghanistan, built up over the past year while in post. He may also have to deal with possible personnel difficulties, if subordinates think that General McChrystal has got a raw deal.
To my mind, the whole episode smacks of President Obama's trying to show, a little bit too hard, that he is in charge. He has got problems at the moment; an oil well in Louisiana remains uncapped, Afghanistan is not going well, and his approval ratings are sliding. However, it is not a general's criticism that is losing him approval, but what Harold MacMillan, a former British Prime Minister, is supposed to have said, namely "events, dear boy, events". For my part, I would have hauled General McChrystal over the coals, and told the world's press, with the general standing beside him, "I kicked his ass, told him not to speak to journalists, and ordered him to get on with prosecuting the war". Sometimes, less can be more.
Walter Blotscher
Was it really such a good idea for President Obama to sack General Stanley McChrystal, the architect and implementer of the U.S.A.'s (and NATO's) plan to pacify Afghanistan? I am not sure that it was. True, it was unfortunate - to put it mildly - that the general and his subordinate officers said a whole lot of disparaging things about the President (and other senior politicians), while an embedded journalist from Rolling Stone magazine was in hearing. But underlings are always saying disparaging things about their superiors, whether it be in a company, another organisation, the Army, a family, or even the country. Having millions of people not only think that you are a complete jerk, but saying and writing it every day under the protection of the Constitution, goes with occupation of the Oval Office.
I accept that in America the position is complicated by the fact that the Head of the Executive Branch - unusually amongst democracies - is also formally Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. This can create problems in time of war, since, with notable exceptions such as Eisenhower and Grant, Presidents tend not to have much, or even any, military experience. Soldiers, more than anyone, are supposed to be loyal to the chain of command. That must be tough if you think that the politicians don't know much, and are far away from getting hurt.
General McChrystal is by all accounts a first rate soldier. So is his replacement, General David Petraeus, the man who led the coalition forces in Iraq, was the architect of the "surge" there, and ended up as General McChrystal's immediate superior. As such, he will obviously know all about the military plans for the country. But he won't have - or, at least, not for some time - General McChrystal's political contacts and personal relations in Afghanistan, built up over the past year while in post. He may also have to deal with possible personnel difficulties, if subordinates think that General McChrystal has got a raw deal.
To my mind, the whole episode smacks of President Obama's trying to show, a little bit too hard, that he is in charge. He has got problems at the moment; an oil well in Louisiana remains uncapped, Afghanistan is not going well, and his approval ratings are sliding. However, it is not a general's criticism that is losing him approval, but what Harold MacMillan, a former British Prime Minister, is supposed to have said, namely "events, dear boy, events". For my part, I would have hauled General McChrystal over the coals, and told the world's press, with the general standing beside him, "I kicked his ass, told him not to speak to journalists, and ordered him to get on with prosecuting the war". Sometimes, less can be more.
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday, 23 June 2010
CATHERINE THE GREAT
Born in May 1729 in a merchant's house in Stettin (then German but now Polish), Sophie Auguste Friderike of Anhalt-Zerbst was the eldest daughter of the Prince of an insignificant cadet branch of the German House of Anstalt, who was forced to take service as a general in the service of the King of Prussia in order to make ends meet. By dint of a pushy mother, an advantageous marriage to the heir to the Russian Empire, his subsequent accession and murder, and - not least - her own indomitable force of character, she ended her days in November 1796 as Yekaterina Alekseyevna, the most serene and all-powerful Princess and lady, Catherine II, Empress and Autocrat of all the Russias. History knows her more simply as Catherine the Great.
The 18th century was a good age for female Russian rulers. Between the death of Peter the Great in 1725 and the murder of Catherine's own son Paul in 1801, there were no less than four Empresses; Peter's widow Catherine (1725-7), his niece Anna (1730-40), his daughter Elizabeth (1741-61), and the wife of his grandson, Catherine the Great (1762-96), all of whom died peacefully on the throne. The only times that men got a look in were in 1727-30, 1740-41, 1761-62 and 1796-1801, and their respective fates were death from smallpox, incarceration followed by murder, murder and murder. Not until the accession of Catherine's grandson Alexander I in 1801 did the Romanov dynasty acquire a stable succession in the male line. Yet despite that, Russia's already vast size continued to grow steadily during the century, with the acquisition of the Crimea and northern Black Sea coast, what is now Eastern Finland, Estonia and Latvia, and the greater part of Poland, which was casually partitioned between Russia, Prussia and Austria in three bites, in 1772, 1793 and 1795.
Legend has it that Catherine was a nymphomaniac. Although the wilder rumours that she gradually worked her way through her own personal Guards regiment, and even a horse, can be discounted, it is certainly true that she had lovers even in the early days of her marriage to the future Peter III, by all accounts a very unattractive man. Even after he had been conveniently bumped off and she was crowned Empress at the age of 33, she continued to have an active, if not voracious, sex life, taking a series of "favourites", ever more younger than her, until the end (her last, Platon Zubov, was 22 when she was 60). When these relationships ended, as they invariably did, she treated the men kindly, generously even. Though never at the expense of realpolitik. Count Stanislaw Poniatowski was one of her earliest lovers, whom she helped to get elected as the last King of Poland in 1764 with the aid of Russian troops. But that did not stop her dismembering his kingdom thirty years later (though she allowed him to live in exile in St. Petersburg and gave him a pension).
Although Catherine had to convert to Orthodoxy on her marriage and was assiduous in promoting Russian interests, she remained throughout her life a product of the German enlightenment, dedicated to order and rationality. Her natural language was French, then the lingua franca of European diplomacy, she was a correspondent of Voltaire and Diderot (and eventually purchased the latter's library), she was influenced by the political philosophy of Montesquieu, which she tried to incorporate in her great project to codify Russian law, and her court buildings and ritual borrowed heavily from those of France and the larger German states. She even believed in freeing the serfs; though that didn't happen in Russia until the 1860's.
That it didn't is testimony to the difficulties she faced. Despite an iron will, and the advantages of autocracy, ruling the vastness of Russia was like dealing with a huge, soggy pudding. A large proportion of the nobility were still illiterate, 200 years after a revolution in education amongst the elite in (say) England. The country could mobilise immense resources, not least in terms of manpower, that would ultimately frustrate the likes of Napoleon and Hitler. But the "old ways" ran so deep in the population that attempts to yank them from on high into a new age were always doomed to ultimate failure. Although true of Catherine, it applied equally to other energetic Russian rulers from Peter the Great through Alexander II (the emancipator of the serfs, assassinated for his pains) to Lenin, Stalin and Gorbachev.
This has lessons for modern Russia, in my view. Look at Catherine's title; Empress and Autocrat of all the Russias. Most nation states have ultimately developed through their people's willingness to view themselves as part of a nation. That process has taken place at different times in different places; early in countries such as England and Denmark, much later in countries such as Italy and Germany. In some countries (Belgium, for instance, or Spain) the process is incomplete and may ultimately fail. I have never been to Russia, but I suspect that the nation-building process has never happened there, the country has always been an empire rather than a nation state. If true, then we should deal with the current Russian leadership on that basis, and stop believing that Russia is like other European countries, just bigger.
Walter Blotscher
Born in May 1729 in a merchant's house in Stettin (then German but now Polish), Sophie Auguste Friderike of Anhalt-Zerbst was the eldest daughter of the Prince of an insignificant cadet branch of the German House of Anstalt, who was forced to take service as a general in the service of the King of Prussia in order to make ends meet. By dint of a pushy mother, an advantageous marriage to the heir to the Russian Empire, his subsequent accession and murder, and - not least - her own indomitable force of character, she ended her days in November 1796 as Yekaterina Alekseyevna, the most serene and all-powerful Princess and lady, Catherine II, Empress and Autocrat of all the Russias. History knows her more simply as Catherine the Great.
The 18th century was a good age for female Russian rulers. Between the death of Peter the Great in 1725 and the murder of Catherine's own son Paul in 1801, there were no less than four Empresses; Peter's widow Catherine (1725-7), his niece Anna (1730-40), his daughter Elizabeth (1741-61), and the wife of his grandson, Catherine the Great (1762-96), all of whom died peacefully on the throne. The only times that men got a look in were in 1727-30, 1740-41, 1761-62 and 1796-1801, and their respective fates were death from smallpox, incarceration followed by murder, murder and murder. Not until the accession of Catherine's grandson Alexander I in 1801 did the Romanov dynasty acquire a stable succession in the male line. Yet despite that, Russia's already vast size continued to grow steadily during the century, with the acquisition of the Crimea and northern Black Sea coast, what is now Eastern Finland, Estonia and Latvia, and the greater part of Poland, which was casually partitioned between Russia, Prussia and Austria in three bites, in 1772, 1793 and 1795.
Legend has it that Catherine was a nymphomaniac. Although the wilder rumours that she gradually worked her way through her own personal Guards regiment, and even a horse, can be discounted, it is certainly true that she had lovers even in the early days of her marriage to the future Peter III, by all accounts a very unattractive man. Even after he had been conveniently bumped off and she was crowned Empress at the age of 33, she continued to have an active, if not voracious, sex life, taking a series of "favourites", ever more younger than her, until the end (her last, Platon Zubov, was 22 when she was 60). When these relationships ended, as they invariably did, she treated the men kindly, generously even. Though never at the expense of realpolitik. Count Stanislaw Poniatowski was one of her earliest lovers, whom she helped to get elected as the last King of Poland in 1764 with the aid of Russian troops. But that did not stop her dismembering his kingdom thirty years later (though she allowed him to live in exile in St. Petersburg and gave him a pension).
Although Catherine had to convert to Orthodoxy on her marriage and was assiduous in promoting Russian interests, she remained throughout her life a product of the German enlightenment, dedicated to order and rationality. Her natural language was French, then the lingua franca of European diplomacy, she was a correspondent of Voltaire and Diderot (and eventually purchased the latter's library), she was influenced by the political philosophy of Montesquieu, which she tried to incorporate in her great project to codify Russian law, and her court buildings and ritual borrowed heavily from those of France and the larger German states. She even believed in freeing the serfs; though that didn't happen in Russia until the 1860's.
That it didn't is testimony to the difficulties she faced. Despite an iron will, and the advantages of autocracy, ruling the vastness of Russia was like dealing with a huge, soggy pudding. A large proportion of the nobility were still illiterate, 200 years after a revolution in education amongst the elite in (say) England. The country could mobilise immense resources, not least in terms of manpower, that would ultimately frustrate the likes of Napoleon and Hitler. But the "old ways" ran so deep in the population that attempts to yank them from on high into a new age were always doomed to ultimate failure. Although true of Catherine, it applied equally to other energetic Russian rulers from Peter the Great through Alexander II (the emancipator of the serfs, assassinated for his pains) to Lenin, Stalin and Gorbachev.
This has lessons for modern Russia, in my view. Look at Catherine's title; Empress and Autocrat of all the Russias. Most nation states have ultimately developed through their people's willingness to view themselves as part of a nation. That process has taken place at different times in different places; early in countries such as England and Denmark, much later in countries such as Italy and Germany. In some countries (Belgium, for instance, or Spain) the process is incomplete and may ultimately fail. I have never been to Russia, but I suspect that the nation-building process has never happened there, the country has always been an empire rather than a nation state. If true, then we should deal with the current Russian leadership on that basis, and stop believing that Russia is like other European countries, just bigger.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
