Things I didn’t know #2

Perhaps my favourite tv series, maybe even the GOAT tv series: The West Wing. Lead character: Josiah Edward “Jed” Bartlet. What I didn’t know is that there was a real life Josiah Bartlett, who was one of 56 people who signed the American Declaration of Independence. I know, the spellings of the surname are different but this surely can’t have been coincidence. I think that the fact both came from New Hampshire endorses my view that Aaron Sorkin's character was based on the 18th century Governor of that state.

In my ignorance of American political history, if you'd asked me how many people signed that Declaration in 1776, I'd have guessed at somewhere between 4 and 10, knowing (guessing?) the names of perhaps a couple.

The TV show also taught me about the 25th Amendment. Bartlet (the fictional one, as you'll have observed no double t) invoked it when his daughter was kidnapped by terrorists and he decides he is too emotionally compromised to make rationally correct decisions on the situation. He steps down temporarily but there is no Vice President (next in line) at the time because he resigned after a sex scandal, so the next-next in line Speaker of the House Allen Walken, a Republican (Bartlet was a Democrat) became Acting President. Things don't go well and there is inevitable conflict between Walken and Bartlet's Cabinet, leading to them seriously consider invoking another of the 25th Amendment's clauses and deposing him. Of course, it's drama: Zoey is rescued, Jed returns, everyone breathes a sigh of relief and America's constitution is safe.

The actual 25th Amendment was ratified in 1967, four years after Kennedy's assassination meant that VP Lyndon Johnson became President, in accordance with the Constitution, but there was no Vice President for the remainder of Johnson's term.

If this all seems arcane, it was invoked by Ronald Reagan and George W Bush when they had medical procedures which involved anesthesia. 

There's something in the water in Cambridgeshire

South Cambridgeshire District Council launched a trial in January 2023, giving its staff the option of working a four day week with full pay whilst maintaining 100% productivity.

So how did that go? Brilliant, say the staff. Quelle surprise.

Of course, there have been studies. Lots of them, by universities. The council claims £400,000 p.a. savings and is proposing to make the policy permanent at a meeting this month.

You can have as many studies as you want but surely common sense suggests this is nonsense? If you can work hard for 4 days, why not work as hard on the 5th day and radically improve output? If you can get all your work done in 4 days, why not do it in 3? Or do a couple of 24 hour shifts and take the rest of the week off? What if all these employees work extra hard for 4 days a week for a couple of months then revert to their previous productivity rate, still enjoying Free Fridays and going fishing?

This is gloriously mad.

Have we been had?

I wrote recently about The Salt Path. I titled the piece A Triumph of Defiance. But it appears I should have called it A Triumph of Storytelling.

There was an article in yesterday's Observer newspaper:

https://observer.co.uk/news/national/article/the-salt-path-whats-in-the-book-and-what-the-observer-has-found

...which reported an investigation by journalist Chloe Hadjimatheou into the backstory which is the basis for the book written by "Raynor Winn" about her and her husband Moth's reasons for walking the Cornwall Coast Path - losing their home and all their money which had been invested in a friend's failed financial scheme. The Observer alleges first that the couple's real names are Sally and Tim Walker, also that Sally Walker was arrested after being accused of stealing tens of thousands of pounds from her employer, leading to complicated loan and surety dealings and eventual loss of their house. The "evidence" presented by the paper is based on testimony from a Ros Hemmings, whose husband owned the business from which Sally was alleged to have embezzled money. Today's Times, reporting the story, asserts that "the Hemmings' family solicitor recalled that Winn [Walker] was arrested and interviewed by police", so it's not just a single source.

Documents are shown which indicate they, at the time, owned a house in south west France; they were not homeless. I watched a video on the Observer's YouTube channel:

https://youtu.be/UY2ivdm9obY?si=cqtRSJ57yptF-FFa

It shows what looks like a falling down, roofless barn. There is no way in which this rundown building could be used as a home in its present state so I don't think that discredits the book's "homeless" assertion.

The report also quotes unnamed neurologists casting doubt on Moth's condition. I discard this as though it's solid evidence, since any reporter worth their salt can find medical experts to support their story, perhaps discarding the views of those that don't. The Times writes that "the couple declined to share their medical records with the Observer".

What to make of all this? Were we misled? That seems indisputable, given the false names and substantially changed backstory. I'm not sure the Observer has much else that stands up and their story has a bit of a stench of tabloid tendencies to knock down successful people (I'm assuming Winn and Moth, after three bestselling books with another to come, are now able to live comfortably; maybe even get the barn renovated). The video is titled The Salt Path lies: how a blockbuster book and film were spun from lies, deceit and desperation, which honestly sounds a bit tabloid-y.  Would the book have become a bestseller - or even got published - if they had been honest about their backstory? Could they have simply said "our story is based on fact but we have not wanted to name people whom we were connected to"? The problem is that, once even a small deceit is uncovered, it's impossible to think back on the tale of the 600 mile walk itself without thinking that maybe lots of little details have been embellished, or even invented.

I've been left with a deep sadness. I enjoyed the book, thought it was a wonderful story, but now this throws everything into doubt. And I feel hoodwinked and gullible. I usually think I have a decent bullshit detector but it failed me here so perhaps, like Ros Hemmings and her late husband, I've been taken for a ride this time.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

...chess gender issues re-surface. Sunday Times writer Dominic Lawson (2000-rated chess player, ex-president of the English Chess Federation, son of 1980s Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel and, as far as I know, no relation to any of my readers) shows he's an avid reader of my blog.

Regular readers will recall I posted about women in chess. I think Dominic clearly read it, because today he wrote about the very issues I raised: participation of women in chess, top women players not reaching men's levels, quoting Hou Yifan as exemplar but also as a sceptic of women's lack of capability to sustain the physical demands of chess, etc etc. His column's starting point was a 17yo German who recently won the national girls' under-18 tournament: Nora Heidermann was born a boy but self-identifies as a girl.

So just when I thought I'd put the male/female chess issue to bed by suggesting that women-only tournaments were holding back the development of the top women players, a new dimension raises its ugly head. Lawson takes the opposite view to mine, quoting the example of Scrabble, where 85% of recreational players are women but the upper tiers are dominated by men [so?]. The authority he quotes is Carole Hooven's T: The Story of Testosterone in which she concludes that "men are more disposed to the intense and passionate obsessiveness, shutting out all external activities and interests required to become the world's best over the 64 squares".

Or, as he quotes chess Grandmaster Hein Donner: "What is going on in their heads is narcissistic self-gratification with a minimum of objective reality, a wordless snuffling and scrabbling around in a bottomless pit". Yep, that us boys.

I'll be snuffling in my bottomless pit again tomorrow. Happy Sunday.

Things I didn't know #1

Did you know there is a World Avocado Organisation? Its Chairman responded to the All England Club's decision to replace avocados with crushed English peas on its menus: "Avocados are too often made a scapegoat in the conversation around food sustainability...the avocado has a smaller 'water footprint' than nuts, olive oil and beef". I read this while eating a breakfast of avocados on sourdough with poached eggs and chorizo. Shout out to Tesco café.

I asked ChatGPT to calculate how many avocados - i.e. Zac Bard's members - there are in the world at any given time and it came up with a "guesstimate" of 3.3 billion. That's one avocado for every 2.5 people on earth. Of course it's a floating population; the average lifespan of an avocado is probably.......enough, Nigel!

The important point is whether other fruits have similar organisations. World Tomato Organisation - Nope. World Pea Organisation - also No. You'd imagine lots of Noes. But:

International Banana Association - yes

World Apple and Pear Association - sure

International Cherry Symposium - yep

Also mangoes and blueberries.

Who knew?

Perhaps more importantly, what exactly is the sustainability issue? Should I eschew avos and switch to mushy peas? Ugh.

OBBBA

Everyone needs an acronym. It's Independence Day in the USA and President Trump will get to sign his “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBBA) today. He certainly has an eye for the spectacular and the historic. It's certainly Big, weighing in at over 1,000 pages. Beautiful? That's in the eye of the beholder. As for Bill and Act: well it can't be both. A Bill is a proposal and, when it's signed into law, it becomes an Act. It can't be both at the same time. But no-one ever accused Trump of accuracy or precision.

But is OBBBA really an acronym? I always thought acronyms have to be pronounceable as a word and that, for most of us, doesn't fit the Bill (sic). However, if it is frequently used in the written word it's possible colloquially. After all, Americans do odd things with our Big, Beautiful English Language.

One of the most effective political acronyms recently used is MAGA. It's basically the shorthand for Trump's whole election campaign; he didn't need anything else - just shout MAGA, MAGA, MAGA and wear the baseball cap and you win an election. And then continue to use it when you govern, because it defines everything you do.

We Brits are a more restrained lot but I do think our political parties could do with a bit of acronymic oomph. I asked ChatGPT for suggestions and the results were pretty variable in quality. Its most amusing was PRIDE – Protect, Reform, Invest, Defend, Empower for the Conservatives. Can you imagine Rees-Mogg going for that word? Best suggestion was REAL – Reclaim, Empower, Act, Liberate - for Reform. I can actually see Farage et al getting the faithful to shout REAL, REAL, REAL at an election rally. And it fits neatly onto a baseball cap. I asked ChatGPT to draw that for me but after a good few minutes it was clear that I'd broken it. Frozen.

Any suggestions from readers for GOAT acronyms?