Monday, 30 June 2025

Headlines and captions

Sub editors are the newspaper equivalents of set piece coaches. They operate largely in the background but occasionally come up with an absolute gem. Like today in the Times where a photo was captioned "Flora Phillips became a butcher because she loves animals". What? In the article Flora says "I tried liver for the first time and it was a straight shot in the veins...I couldn't believe it was possible to see and eat an organ of an animal....It blew my mind". So basically she loves dead, eviscerated animals. I'd advise her cat to keep her distance.

On the same page we get "Bunfight over street artist's burger mural next to McDonald's". Now the Times comes nowhere near the tabloid press in witty headlines but at least this is a decent try. Maybe 4/10.

On page 7 we have the news that the 13 times winner of the Times Crossword Championship has won the first ever World Cryptic Crossword Championships. You'd have thought this eminently worthy of a cryptic headline but the sub-editor had already butchered their way to the end of the day and all we get is "Cryptic fans square off for first world title". Now it's possible this is a monumental anagram but I couldn't see that; you'd have thought some kind of crypticism would have occurred to them.

I don't know how much newspapers use AI for headline writing but I asked ChatGPT for some help.

“Across the World and Down to the Wire: Global Minds Battle for Crossword Crown” is not particularly good and wouldn't fit the page so I asked for more tabloidy. "Clue-mageddon!" is more front page Daily Star; "Across! Down! Out Cold!" perhaps would suit The Sun. Still unsatisfactory. So I asked for an anagram of the Times' headline "Cryptic fans square off for first world title" and was given "Two old rivals sport cut-throat, fierce snuff cry" which is awesome, although inaccurate so I asked it to try again and finally it came up with "Crossword fight: top clan fuels first title fury"

I was not convinced this was a perfect anagram so I asked ChatGPT to check and it said:

Nope — “Crossword fight: top clan fuels first title fury” is not a perfect anagram of “Cryptic fans square off for first world title.” It’s a near miss — stylish, thematic, but technically not a valid anagram.

I was still not convinced so I actually got out pencil and paper. And it's right, it's not an anagram. So why give it to me? It blathered on about needing brute force software so, in the interests of not crashing the national grid, I gave up. But at least I tried, which I suspect is more than last night's sub-editor who obviously went home.



Friday, 27 June 2025

The Defense

A few days ago, I think in the recent Sunday Times Culture section, I discovered author John Banville nominating his favourite book by an underrated author to be The Defense by Vladimir Nabokov. He of Lolita fame (infamy?). It explores the life of a shambling, chaotic chess grandmaster and the parallels between chess and his life. I thought I would read it and, despite my O Level in Russian, to do so in the English translation.

The first interesting thing is that there is five page Foreword written by Nabokov himself (he collaborated in the translation) which amounts to a review of the book. An odd way to begin. Which means I don't have to work too hard to do this. He writes "Rereading this novel today..." as though he'd forgotten it. It was one of his earliest and remained untranslated - for reasons he berates certain American publishers disparagingly - from publication in 1930 until 1964. "I would like to spare the time and effort of hack reviewers...." - Ouch! - "and, generally persons who move their lips when reading and cannot be expected to tackle a dialogueless novel..." I'm determined to disprove his uncharitable assertions.

Obviously my current passion for chess drew me to the book - why else would I read an early novel by an underrated author? - and the Russian title of this novel is apparently The Luzhin Defense. The history of chess is littered with eponymous openings "invented" or inspired by famous players such as the Ruy López (16th century Spanish priest), the Evans Gambit (Captain William Davies Evans) and the Alekhine's Defence (Alexander Alekhine, 4th World Champion). Luzhin is our protagonist. By the way, neither Nabokov nor Michael Scammell the translator is an American so I'm not sure why the title has an American spelling.

A brief description of the novel is that it's a love story of a boy/man rescued from youthful awkwardness by, and later mentally destroyed by, chess. And an unnamed slightly rebellious young woman who sees in this strange, socially inept and self-absorbed man strengths that no-one else (particularly her parents) can. Why does the author not name some of the key characters? I guess because he wants to de-personalise them, their qualities being more important than their names.

Luzhin was a loner as a child, disparaged by his classmates. A chance encounter with a visitor to his father's house leads to his being taught chess by his aunt. At least for a while until she has to move away as a result of becoming rather too close to Luzhin's father. He skips school and gradually develops his skills under the tutelage of a mysterious tutor Valentinov, and becomes a Grandmaster, perambulating through Europe playing (and generally winning) chess tournaments. During one such he meets our heroine who, for reasons which we are encouraged to deduce for ourselves, is attracted to him. There are hints:

"..even in this indifference, in his clumsy words and in the cumbrous stirrings of his soul, that seemed to be drowsily turning over and falling asleep again, she fancied she saw something pathetic, a charm that was difficult to define but one that she had felt in him from the first day of their acquaintance."

"She wanted to make his acquaintance, talk Russian - so attractive did he seem to her with his uncouthness, his gloominess and his low turndown collar which for some reason made him look like a musician - and she was pleased that he did not take any notice of her and seek an excuse to talk to her..."

The peak of Luzhin's chess career looms with a match against Italian Grandmaster Turati, which seems to be a kind of playoff with the winner destined to play for the world championship. Luzhin will be playing with the black pieces and spends days, maybe weeks, preparing a surprise defence against Turati's favourite opening. Come the day Turati has his own surprise and all Luzhin's preparation is for nothing. The game progresses with Luzhin's position getting worse and his mental state worse still. Eventually the game is suspended when Luzhin collapses and is hospitalised in a sanatorium. A doctor advises that chess is a reason for his breakdown and his fiancée sets about removing all reminders from his life.

He recovers, becomes calm and happy and they marry. He has no job, no money and no purpose in life, however and it seems inevitable that his thoughts return to chess. He finds a pocket chess game in his dishevelled old jacket with a hole in the pocket and he begins to think about that suspended Turati game. Nabokov plots life events as though they are chess moves; Luzhin is now totally immersed in the game, something he has to keep from his wife and everyone else. Nothing matters except to finish the game with a win. Sadly, it's all too much and he comes to a tragic end.

Nabokov was apparently a competent chess player but wasn't interested in playing competitively, preferring to create chess problems: the kind where you get given a position in a game and have to solve the question "how does white checkmate in two moves?". So you could argue that this book creates a lifesize chess puzzle universe. I enjoyed it very much; the almost-stream-of-consciousness writing, the chess references of course, the evocation of post-war Central Europe with its Russian émigrés, Luzhin's inner struggles and his character. I don't know whether those who know little or no chess would enjoy it as much but it's definitely more than a chess novel.

Nabokov in the Foreword: "My story was difficult to compose, but I greatly enjoyed taking advantage of this or that image and scene to introduce a fatal pattern into Luzhin's life and to endow the description of a garden, a journey, a sequence of humdrum events, with the semblance of a game of skill and, especially in the final chapters, with that of a regular chess attack demolishing the innermost elements of the poor fellow's sanity." You nailed it, Vladimir!

...the exquisite, moist melancholy peculiar to recollections of love, a thousand games that he had played in the past. He did not know which of them to choose so as to drink, sobbing, his fill of it: everything enticed and caressed his fancy, and he flew from one game to another, instantly running over this or that heart-rending combination. There were combinations, pure and harmonious, where thought ascended marble stairs to victory; there were tender stirrings in one corner of the board, and a passionate explosion, and the fanfare of the Queen going to its sacrificial doom...Everything was wonderful, all the shades of love, all the convolutions and mysterious path it had chosen. And this love was fatal.

The key was found. The aim of the attack was plain. By an implacable repetition of moves it was leading once more to that same passion which would destroy the dream of life. Devastation, horror, madness.

Thursday, 26 June 2025

Article 5

President Trump said yesterday that the key component of the NATO treaty - Article 5 - "depends on your definition...there's numerous definitions of Article 5, right?"

This of course is heresy to Western politicians and media, who have always assumed that the definition is clear that "an attack on one of us will be met by all the rest coming to our defence militarily". I recently listened to a podcast produced by Deborah Haynes for Sky News called The Wargame. There are five episodes and the scenario of an attack by Russia on the UK is acted out by a number of recently active politicians - Ben Wallace as Prime Minister, Jack Straw as Foreign Secretary, Amber Rudd as Home Secretary, Jim Murphy as Chancellor and others - and military experts. They meet in one room and a group representing Russia in other. Action takes place in real time.

The scenario starts with an attack on the Murmansk naval base in Northern Russia, probably by Chechen rebels but perhaps even by the Russians themselves. Russia of course accuses the Brits of doing it and threatens reprisals. And so on. Once Russian ships fire missiles at us, we naturally assume article 5 will be evoked and the Americans, French, Germans will weigh in with their planes, ships and special forces. But no. The American President calls on both sides to stop their "aggressive" actions. Eventually the Norwegians and Poles offer some kind of air support. And that's it.

I'm not going to bore you with anything more about the podcast except to say that it has (political?) agendas which become apparent:

  • The UK's military is woefully weak
  • Article 5 isn't worth the paper it's written on
To be fair, Haynes says right from the start that the situation has a 1% chance of actually happening. So we can take it with a pinch of salt, or we can consider the "truth" it exposes.

Let's have a look at the actual text of Article 5:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

So it's "each of them...will assist...by taking...such action as it deems necessary". Not a very solid commitment. I suppose it comes down to trust. In previous US presidential incarnations there was an implicit confidence in Europe's reliance on the Americans to come to our rescue. I'm not sure there's any such confidence in the future after Trump's two terms are over; even a Democrat president might well think differently about Europe than we might imagine.

Then there's "in Europe or North America". So Iran's attack on a US base in Qatar doesn't count, nor would an attack on our aircraft carrier if it's in the Pacific, off the coast of Taiwan.

It makes you wonder whether Trump is right; it's all in the interpretation.

Wednesday, 25 June 2025

Shut up or suck up

How to deal with the 47th President of the United States? It's a problem national leaders have grappled with for six months now. It's gone from fawning (Starmer, Alexander Stubb) through mature assertion (Macron, Carney) to bemusement (Ramaphosa, "death, death, death") and belligerence (Zelensky, "you're gambling with World War III...it's going to be great television"). It doesn't appear to make any difference. Starmer's cringeworthy production of a letter from the King out of his pocket like a magician got us a tariff reduction to 10%. Here's how the others did:

Finland: 10% (no letter, no king)
France: 10% (no letter, definitely no king)
Canada: 25% (no letter, same king, no state visit)
South Africa: 35% (poor Cyril)
Ukraine: 10% (no letter, no punishment)

Today we saw the übermensch of cringe, Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte laying down the red carpet and prostrating (castrating?) himself on it in front of President God with this extraordinarily obsequious message:

Mr President, dear Donald,

Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no-one else dared to do. It makes us all safer.

You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening. It was not easy but we've got them all signed onto 5 percent!

Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world. You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.

Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.

Safe travels and see you at His Majesty's dinner!

- Mark Rutte

Ugh. Pass me the sick bucket. He gets paid €317,000 a year tax free for this bag of wind.

Hippocrates close your ears

"Do no harm" is not actually part of the 5th century BCE oath attributed to Hippocrates, which included things like swearing by (not at) the gods, living a virtuous life and avoiding surgery (because that's for surgeons). Modern day doctors, in their graduation ceremonies, probably feel that they don't fancy at least two of these so they typically (it varies by institution) swear to uphold codes of some fairly obvious ethics, including something like the aforesaid aphorism. It's reasonable for us as citizens to expect our medics to practise their trade in an ethical way.

The British Medical Association, which represents "junior doctors" (who apparently now want to be called resident doctors, who cares), called a series of strikes in 2023/24 covering 44 days of action - or perhaps we should say inaction - after having claims for a 35% pay rise rejected by the then Conservative government, which instead offered them 6% plus a lump sum, followed by increased offers, all of which were rejected by the docs. In September last year they finally settled with the Labour government for 22.3%, some backdated, some for the following year. The BBC reported that "more than 1.2 million appointments and treatments had to be cancelled because of the strikes".

Now they're back. It's reported in today's Times that Dr. Ross Nieuwouldt, the co-chair of the resident doctors' committee of the BMA said "the vast majority are excited to to go again" as the union prepares a new wave of strikes  in support of a 29% pay rise.

Now I'm not commenting on the legitimacy of these on the face of it ludicrous pay claims (how's that for not commenting?). What irks me is the morality of key public servants withdrawing their services. As a teacher, I never joined a union. My principle was that I didn't want other people speaking for me and that I personally would never have gone on strike and - as I saw it - deprived my students of my pearls of wisdom. That would have been immoral. Basically I'm not a joining person - I don't even belong to my residents' association; I only joined Cornwall Croquet Club because it was a closed shop - no pay, no play. Fair enough.

I am instinctively supportive of the concept of trades unions and I'd have to concede that over the years I benefited from pay rises negotiated by the teachers' unions with the governments of the day. I just don't want to join your club.

But teachers striking? Not for me. Junior doctors getting "excited" over forthcoming withdrawal of labour? No, do your jobs; serve the public. Do no harm.

Sunday, 22 June 2025

Supermajorities

23. That's the size of the majority as the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (also known as the "Assisted Dying Bill") passed its Third Reading in the House of Commons. Voted For: 314, Against:291, Didn't Vote: probably around 37 once you exclude the Speaker and the 7 Sinn Fein members.

I do wonder whether such a narrow victory (less than 4%) is sufficient to endorse a highly contentious change to life in the UK. I always thought that the Brexit referendum, as a constitutional issue, should have required some kind of supermajority in order to pass. Typically in constitutional matters of all kinds - the constitution of your local tennis club, for example - something like a two-thirds majority is required to succeed. It's a protection against short term changes in people's opinions, unexpected consequences and even voter persuasion/manipulation. The Assisted Dying Bill is not a constitutional issue, it doesn't change the way our country is run but it fundamentally affects an aspect of our way of life, of our culture, maybe our understanding of our humanity. Most of all, once the change is made it's extremely difficult to reverse even if the consequences prove to be perverse (as some would say of Brexit).

I have always been ambivalent about this Bill, mostly because I cannot separate my own feelings on it (which I genuinely can't anticipate) from the "greater good" arguments which seem to emphasise the benefits for perhaps small numbers of people. It's the thought that I simply don't know how this will work in practice that would have me vote against it were I an MP. That isn't to say I'm against all change; I'm happy to see fundamental (in the sense that it is almost certainly irreversible) change if there is a huge proportion of informed opinion (and therefore, in Parliament, votes) in favour.

Most of what our elected representatives vote on is transactional: increase this tax now, we can change it later if fiscal circumstances change or a new government is voted in. A majority of 1 is OK. But generational change is different and in my opinion requires much greater support. Not 100%, that's not realistic and open to manipulation but some kind of supermajority that guarantees near-permanent approval, near-certainty that this is the right thing to do and future generations of MPs will almost certainly not seek to revoke it.

There are different kinds of supermajority definitions including combinations of minimum turnout, overall majorities of those eligible to vote (this Bill would have required 326 to pass on that measure), two-thirds or three-quarter majorities. In a UK-wide referendum, for example, it would be reasonable to require the majority consent of each of the four nations for fundamental change. Ask the SNP! I don't think our politicians give sufficient consideration to the mechanics of our (unwritten) constitution. It feel like "winging it" is a British tradition that we cherish.

I just don't think 23 is enough to wing it.