US poll

Never aspire

"Admiration for craft and skill is, I now understand, at the root of the generous but stubborn nature of King Charles II. He took my father into his service because he recognised in him the dedicated, skilled and single-minded craftsman. Such people delight him because they inhabit an orderely, meticulously defined world and never aspire to cross over into any other. The haberdasher, my father, never for one moment becoming, say, a gardener, a gun-smith or a money-lender. He laid out a precise territory with his skill and kept within it. And King Charles, while trying one pair of my father's exquisitely moulded kid gloves, revealed to him that this was how he hoped the English people would behave during his reign, 'each,' he said, 'in his appointed station, profession, calling or trade. And contented in them, so there is no jostling and bobbing about and no one getting above himself. In this way we shall have peace, and I will be able to rule.'

"I don't know how my father answered him, but I do know that it was on this occasion that the King promised, 'at some future time, when you are bringing me gloves', to show my father the collection of clocks and watches he kept in his private Study."

***

"... like Justice Hogg, I did not wish to be lost in the white wastes and so decided instead to note down all that I knew about the Poor, which, alas, did not seem a great deal. I took up a quill and wrote as follows:

"1. They are numerous.

"2. They appear more numerous in the capital, where they throng the wharves and lie down to sleep on the steps of alehouses.

"3. They are much prone to sickness, as witnessed by me during my brief time at St Thomas's hospital.

"4. Madness appears present in the eyes of many of them and I suspect that Pearce's Bedlam is choking with them.

"5. They are regarded by the likes of Winchelsea as a race apart, a quite other species of man. It is, however, from the bodies of Paupers that anatomists draw their knowledge and it is nowhere suggested that the liver, say, of a Peer will be any different in shape, function, composition or texture than that of any Hovel-dweller (unless the organ of the Peer be enlarged by the quantity of claret that has passed through it).

"6. Jesus was most fond of them.

"7. There is an interesting dichotomy between His belief in their nobility and the Nobility's belief in their inherent wickedness. (And this is a supposedly pious country.)

"8. I have not, in all my thirty-seven years, given a great deal of thought to them - until this day, the thirteenth of January 1665.

"9. How does the King regard them? In his credo that all should be content with their lot and not get above themselves, what does he say of the Pauper?

"10. I have heard that in Bidnold there is a tongueless man, sound of limb but speechless, who begs alms from all who pass him. Is this man Impotent or Idle? Has he a Licence? If he has no Licence, what am I to do with him?

"I paused. I could see now from my albeit puny notes that the whole question of the Poor was a mighty complex one - one to which I had never expected to address myself. I put down my pen with a sigh."

Rose Tremain, Restoration, chapters 1 and 9

Architects on or off the hook?

The Architectural Journal, rather distortingly, headlines "Critic blames 60s Brutalism for Boston marathon bombings".

If ones looks at the actual article on James Russell's blog one finds the refelctions are more tentative, reasonable and sensitive than the AJ headline leads one to think.

The journal, however, springs to the defence of its constituency with an editorial that turns Russell's tentative musing, why did the Tsarnaevs become alienated in Boston, explicitly back on him: "Why did James Russell suggest Brutalist architecture caused the Boston Marathon bombings?" The deputy editor provides no answer to his own question, but accuses Russell of being "crass" and "going over the edge", even though the picture the AJ chooses to illustrate its own article looks far more alienating then those Russell uses and the editorial fails to engage with Russell's particular criticism, but simply suggests "he can start by letting Rudolph off the hook".

There is an interesting question, is bad photography to blame for modern architecture preservation battles?, which could be usefully expanded into a consideration of the role that photographs (good and bad), drawings, models, computer visualisations play in the perception of buildings both built and unbuilt (and even of furniture for that matter) - perception in the minds of architects or designers, critics, public, clients, planners. However, the question I am suggesting here is what are the consequences of bad debate, or a failure to engage properly in debate.

The journal concedes that "there are questions architecture critics can ask". It might be better if they were asked by architects themselves, but they turn out to be of a distinctly "get on with the job", unquestioning sort:

"Will lockdowns influence new urban design? What is the value of a public realm that can be so speedily militarised?"

The editorial goes on to ask, but not even begin to answer (though it is posed in a strangely particular context), a larger question: "When freedom of movement is so heavily restricted, what does it mean to be a citizen today?"

What does it mean to be a citizen today very much depends upon whom one is asking. Nation states attach much significance to citizenship and its forms when they are granting it, but if the new citizen gets into the wrong circumstances and is not of the general socio-cultural type as the majority population of the state, their formal protections may count for little, on either side of the Atlantic.

Paul Rudolph in a bad photograph

No steamroller in Washington

That show of weakness doomed the effort to close Guantánamo, the same administration official said. “Lyndon Johnson would have steamrolled the guy,” he said. “That’s not what happened. It’s like a boxing match where a cut opens over a guy’s eye.”

***

Could he order the targeted killing of an American citizen, in a country with which the United States was not at war, in secret and without the benefit of a trial?
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel prepared a lengthy memo justifying that extraordinary step, asserting that while the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process applied, it could be satisfied by internal deliberations in the executive branch.
Mr. Obama gave his approval, and Mr. Awlaki was killed in September 2011, along with a fellow propagandist, Samir Khan, an American citizen who was not on the target list but was traveling with him.

***

Mr. Blair, the former director of national intelligence, said the strike campaign was dangerously seductive. “It is the politically advantageous thing to do — low cost, no U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness,” he said. “It plays well domestically, and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.”

St George's Day

St George of England slays the evil dragon Google, referred to in some texts as Schmidt, whilst the dwarves Brin and Page look on in amazement and the maiden, unidentified, trembles in fear and trepidation

Gadgets

John Pawson and "When Objects Work [They Cost a Lot of Money]" may think a steak knife is a gadget (or, more likely, an edifice) but, if so, they have some serious competition on their hands.

The great British public knows a gadget when it sees one and sales of Teasmaids, Hostess Trollies, Breville toasted sandwich makers and Sodastreams (another great British invention, in this case by Guy Gilbey of the gin) are reported to be booming, in most cases doubling in the past year.

John Lewis sees it as fuelled by nostalgia; the House of Fraser (a cut above) identifies it as retro chic and describes the Kenwood stand mixer as "iconic". That's British too, or was, designed by Ken Wood a little before 1950 and made by his company, but it is now Italian owned and the products are made in China.

An icon of our times

I doubt whether John Pawson is worried.

Robust

It would appear that it takes three years for a basic spread sheet error to be discovered that undermines the fundamental conclusion of an economics paper that has been highly influential in shaping the austerity policies of western governments.

The interval is necessary to enable belief in the argument to solidify to the point where it is independent of evidence so that, in the words of our Chancellor, it "remains robust".