Pouch

Pouch (pronounced pouch)

(1) A bag, sack or similar receptacle, especially one for small articles or quantities and historically closed with a drawstring although in modern use zips and other fasteners are common.

(2) A small, purse-like container, used to carry small quantities of cash.

(3) A bag for carrying mail.

(4) In manchester, as “pillow pouch”, an alternative name for a pillowslip or pillowcase (archaic).

(5) As “diplomatic pouch”, a sealed container (anything from an envelope to a shipping container) notionally containing diplomatic correspondence that is sent free of inspection between a foreign office and its diplomatic or consular posts abroad or between such posts.

(6) As “posing pouch”, a skimpy thong (G-string) worn by male strippers, bodybuilders and such; known also as the “posing strap”; within the relevant fields, now an essential Instagram accessory.

(7) In the industrial production of food, as retort pouch, a food packaging resistant to heat sterilization in a retort, often made from a laminate of flexible plastic and metal foils.

(8) In military use, a container (historically of leather) in the form of either a bag or case), used by soldiers to carry ammunition.

(9) Something shaped like or resembling a bag or pocket.

(10) In physics, as “Faraday pouch”, a container with the properties of a Faraday cage.

(11) A pocket in a garment (originally in Scots English but lade widely used by garment manufacturers).

(12) In nautical design, a bulkhead in the hold of a vessel, to prevent bulk goods (grain, sand etc) from shifting (a specialized form of baffle).

(13) A baggy fold of flesh under the eye (more commonly as “bags under the eyes”).

(14) In zoological anatomy, a bag-like or pocket-like part; a sac or cyst, as the sac beneath the bill of pelicans, the saclike dilation of the cheeks of gophers, or the abdominal receptacle for the young of marsupials.

(15) In pathology, an internal structure with certain qualities (use restricted to those fulfilling some functional purpose): any sac or cyst (usually containing fluid), pocket, bag-like cavity or space in an organ or body part (the types including laryngeal pouch, Morison's pouch, Pavlov pouch & Rathke's pouch).

(16) In botany, a bag-like cavity, a silicle, or short pod, as of the “shepherd's purse”.

(17) In slang, a protuberant belly; a paunch (archaic and probably extinct).

(18) In slang, to pout (archaic and probably extinct).

(19) In slang, to put up with (something or someone) (archaic and probably extinct).

(20) To put into or enclose in a pouch, bag, or pocket; pocket.

(21) To transport a pouch (used especially of a diplomatic pouch).

(22) To arrange in the form of a pouch.

(23) To form a pouch or a cavity resembling a pouch.

(24) In zoology, of a fish or bird, to swallow.

1350–1400: From the Middle English pouche & poche, from the Old Northern French pouche, from the Old French poche & puche (from which French gained poche (the Anglo-Norman variant was poke which spread in Old French as “poque bag”), from the Frankish poka (pouch) (similar forms including the Middle Dutch poke, the Old English pohha & pocca (bag) and the dialectal German Pfoch).  Although documented since only the fourteenth century, parish records confirm the surnames “Pouch” & “Pouche” were in use by at least the late twelfth and because both names (like Poucher (one whose trade is the “making of pouches”)) are regarded by genealogists as “occupational”, it’s at least possible small leather bags were thus describe earlier.  In the 1300s, a pouche was “a bag worn on one's person for carrying things” and late in the century it was used especially of something used to carry money (what would later come to be called a “coin purse” or “purse”).  The use to describe the sac-like cavities in animal bodies began in the domestic science of animal husbandry from circa 1400, the idea adopted unchanged when human anatomy became documented.  The verb use began in the 1560s in the sense of “put in a pouch”, extended by the 1670s to mean “to form a pouch, swell or protrude, both directly from the noun.  The Norman feminine noun pouchette (which existed also as poutchette) was from the Old French pochete (small bag).  Surprisingly, it wasn’t picked up in English (a language which is a shameless adopter of anything useful) but does endure on the Channel Island of Jersey where it means (1) a pocket (in clothing) and (2) in ornithology the Slavonian grebe, horned grebe (Podiceps auritus).  Pouch is a noun & verb, pouchful & poucher are nouns, pounching is a verb, pouchy is an adjective and pouched is a verb & adjective; the noun plural is pouches.  The organic pocket in which a marsupial carries its young is known also as both the marsupium & brood pouch, the latter term also used of the cavity which is some creatures is where eggs develop and hatch.

Diplomatic pencil pouch.

The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (UNVCDR; United Nations (UN) Treaty Series, volume 500, p 95) was executed in Vienna on 18 April 1961, entering into force on 24 April 1964.  Although the terminology and rules governing diplomatic relations between sovereign states had evolved over thousands of years, there had been no systematic attempt at codification until the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815), held to formalize the political and dynastic arrangements for post-Napoleonic Europe.  There were also later, ad-hoc meetings which dealt essentially with administrative detail (some necessitated by improvements in communication technology) but it was the 1961 convention which built the framework which continues to underpin the diplomatic element of international relations and is little changed from its original form, making it perhaps the UN’s most successful legal instrument.  With two exceptions, all UN member states have ratified the UNVCDR; the two non-signatories are the republics of Palau and South Sudan.  It’s believed the micro-state of Palau remains outside the framework because it has been independent only since 1994 and constitutionally has an unusual “Compact of Free Association” arrangement with the US which results in it maintaining a limited international diplomatic presence.  The troubled West African state of South Sudan gained independence only in 2011 and has yet to achieve a stable state infrastructure, remaining beset by internal conflict; its immediate priorities therefore remain elsewhere. The two entities with “observer status” at the UN (the State of Palestine and the Holy See) are not parties to the UNVCDR but the Holy See gained in Vienna a diplomatic protocol which functionally is substantially the same as that of a ratification state.  Indeed, the Vatican’s diplomats are actually granted a particular distinction in that states may (at their own election), grant the papal nuncio (the equivalent rank to ambassador or high commissioner) seniority of precedence, thus making him (there’s never been a female nuncio), ex officio, Doyen du Corps Diplomatique (Dean of the Diplomatic Corps).

Lindsay Lohan in SCRAM bracelet (left), the SCRAM (centre) and Chanel's response from their Spring 2007 collection (right).

A very twenty-first century pouch: Before Lindsay Lohan began her “descent into respectability” (a quote from the equally admirable Mandy Rice-Davies (1944-2004) of MRDA fame), Lindsay Lohan inadvertently became of the internet’s early influencers when she for a time wore a court-ordered ankle monitor (often called “bracelets” which etymologically is dubious but rarely has English been noted for its purity).  At the time, many subject to such orders often concealed them under clothing but Ms Lohan made her SCRAM (Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor) a fashion statement, something that compelled the paparazzi to adjust their focal length to ensure her ankle of interest appeared in shots.  The industry responded with its usual alacrity and “ankle monitor” pouches were soon being strutted down the catwalks.

Chanel's boot-mounted ankle pouch in matching quilted black leather.

In one of several examples of this instance of Lohanic influence on design, in their Spring 2007 collection, Chanel included a range of ankle pouches.  Functional to the extent of affording the wearing a hands-free experience and storage for perhaps a lipstick, gloss and credit card (and the modern young spinster should seldom need more), the range was said quickly to "sell-out" although the concept hasn't been seen in subsequent collections so analysts of such things should make of that what they will.  Chanel offered the same idea in a boot, a design actually borrowed from the military although they tended to be more commodious and, being often used by aircrew, easily accessible while in a seated position, the sealable flap on the outer calf, close to the knee.   

The origin of the special status of diplomats dates from Antiquity when such envoys were the only conduit of communication between kings and emperors.  They thus needed to be granted safe passage and be assured of their safety in what could be hostile territory, negotiations (including threats & ultimata) often conducted between warring tribes and states and the preamble to the UNVCDR captures the spirit of these traditions:

THE STATES PARTIES TO THE PRESENT CONVENTION,

RECALLING that peoples of all nations from ancient times have recognized the status of diplomatic agents,

HAVING IN MIND the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations,

BELIEVING that an international convention on diplomatic intercourse, privileges and immunities would contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems,

REALIZING that the purpose of such privileges and immunities is not to benefit individuals but to ensure the efficient performance of the functions of diplomatic missions as representing States,

AFFIRMING that the rules of customary international law should continue to govern questions not expressly regulated by the provisions of the present Convention have agreed as follows…

US Department of State diplomatic pouch tag.

The diplomatic pouch (known also, less attractively, as the “diplomatic bag”) is granted essentially the same protection as the diplomat.  Historically, the diplomatic pouch was exactly that: a leather pouch containing an emissary’s documents, carried usually on horseback and in the modern age it may be anything from an envelope to a shipping container.  What distinguishes it from other containers is (1) clear markings asserting status and (2) usually some sort of locking mechanism (the origin of which was an envelope’s wax seal and if appropriately marked, a diplomatic pouch should be exempt from any sort of inspection by the receiving country.  Strictly speaking, the pouch should contain only official documents but there have been many cases of other stuff being “smuggled in” including gold, weapons subsequently used in murders, foreign currency, narcotics, bottles of alcohol and various illicit items including components of this and that subject to UN (or other) sanctions.  For that reason, there are limited circumstances in which a state may intersect or inspect the contents of a diplomatic pouch.  The protocols relating to the diplomatic pouch are listed in Article 27 of the UNVCDR:

(1) The receiving State shall permit and protect free communication on the part of the mission for all official purposes. In communicating with the Government and the other missions and consulates of the sending State, wherever situated, the mission may employ all appropriate means, including diplomatic couriers and messages in code or cipher. However, the mission may install and use a wireless transmitter only with the consent of the receiving State.

(2) The official correspondence of the mission shall be inviolable. Official correspondence means all correspondence relating to the mission and its functions.

(3) The diplomatic bag shall not be opened or detained.

(4) The packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use.

(5) The diplomatic courier, who shall be provided with an official document indicating his status and the number of packages constituting the diplomatic bag, shall be protected by the receiving State in the performance of his functions. He shall enjoy person inviolability and shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.

(6) The sending State or the mission may designate diplomatic couriers ad hoc. In such cases the provisions of paragraph 5 of this article shall also apply, except that the immunities therein mentioned shall cease to apply when such a courier has delivered to the consignee the diplomatic bag in his charge.

(7) A diplomatic bag may be entrusted to the captain of a commercial aircraft scheduled to land at an authorized port of entry. He shall be provided with an official document indicating the number of packages constituting the bag but he shall not be considered to be a diplomatic courier. The mission may send one of its members to take possession of the diplomatic bag directly and freely from the captain of the aircraft.

Former US Ambassador to Pretoria, Lana Marks.

Some ambassadors have been more prepared than most for handing the diplomatic bag, notably Ms Lana Marks (b 1953), the South African-born US business executive who founded her eponymous company specializing in designer handbags.  In 2018, Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) nominated Ms Marks as US ambassador to South Africa, a role in which she served between January 2020 and January 2021 when, under the convention observed by political appointees, she resigned her office.  Although Ms Marks had no background in international relations, such appointments are not unusual and certainly not exclusive to US presidents.  Indeed, although professional diplomats may undergo decades of preparation for ambassadorial roles, there are many cases where the host nation greatly has valued a political appointee because of the not unreasonable assumption they’re more likely to have the “ear of the president” than a Foggy Bottom apparatchik who would be restricted to contacting the secretary of state.  That was apparently the case when Robert Nesen (1918–2005), a Californian Cadillac dealer, was appointed US ambassador to Australia (1981-1985), by Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989), a reward (if that’s how being sent to live in Canberra can be described) for long service to the Republican Party fundraising rather than a reflection of Mr Reagan’s fondness for Cadillacs (Mr Nesen’s dealership also held other franchises) although it was Mr Reagan who arranged for Cadillac to replace Lincoln as supplier of the White House limousine fleet.  Ms Marks’ connection to the Trump administration’s conduct of foreign policy came through her membership of Mr Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club and golf resort (annual membership fee US$200,000), an institution which also produced the country’s ambassador to the Dominican Republic.  Ms Marks seems to have fitted in well at Mar-a-Lago, telling South Africa's Business Live: “It's the most exclusive part of the US, a small enclave, an island north of Miami.  One-third of the world's wealth passes through Palm Beach in season. The crème de la crème of the world lives there.”  One hopes the people of South Africa were impressed.

The Princess Diana by Lana Marks is sold out in emerald green but remains available in gold, black and chocolate brown.

Nothing

Nothing (pronounced nuhth-ing)

(1) No thing; not anything; naught.

(2) No part, share, or trace (usually followed by of).

(3) Something that is nonexistent; non-existence; nothingness.

(4) Something of no importance or significance.

(5) A trivial action, matter, circumstance, thing, or remark.

(6) A person of little or no importance; a nobody.

(7) Something that is without quantity or magnitude.

(8) A cipher or naught; the quantity or quality of zero.  The value represented by the numeral zero (and the empty set: {}).

(9) As “think nothing of it” and related forms, a procedural response to expressions of thanks.

(10) In no respect or degree; not at all.

(11) Amounting to nothing, as in offering no prospects for satisfaction, advancement, or the like.

(12) In architecture, the contents of a void.

Pre 900: From the Middle English nothyng, noon thing, non thing, na þing, nan thing & nan þing, from the Old English nāþing, nān þing & naðinc (nānthing & nathing) (nothing (literally “not any thing”), the construct being nān- (not one (source of the modern none)) + þing (thing).  The earlier Old English was nāwiht (nothing (literally “no thing”), related to the Swedish ingenting (nothing (literally “not any thing, no thing”).  The ultimate source was the primitive Indo-European ne- (not).  In slang and dialectical English there have been many non-standard forms including nuffin, nuffink, nuttin', nuthin, nuthin', nowt, nuthing & nothin'.  Slang has been productive (jack, nada, zip, zippo, zilch, squat, nix) as has vulgar slang (bugger all, jack shit, sod all, fuck all, dick).  Nothing is a noun & adverb and nothingness is a noun; the noun plural is nothings.

Lindsay Lohan wearing nothing (shoes don't count; everybody knows that).  Playboy magazine pictorial, January / February 2012.

The meaning "insignificant thing, a thing of no consequence" emerged circa 1600 (although as an adverb (not at all, in no degree), it was known in late Old English) whereas nothing in the sense of "not at all" had existed since circa 1300.  Phrases in the twentieth century were created as needed: “Nothing to it”, indicating something easily accomplished was noted from 1925 and “nothing to write home about” was really literal, recorded first and with some frequency by censors monitoring the letters written by soldiers serving at the front in Word War I (1914-1918); it appears to date from 1917, the extent of use apparently encouraged by it being a useful phrase exchanged between soldiers by word-of-mouth.  Nothing seems not to have been an adjective until 1961, an evolution of use (or a decline in standards depending on one’s view) which saw words like “rubbish” re-applied in a similar way.  A do-nothing (an idler) is from the 1570s, the noun an adoption from the from the verbal phrase and as an adjective to describe the habitually indolent, it’s noted from 1832.  The adjective good-for-nothing (a worthless person) is from 1711.  The term know-nothing (an ignoramus) is from 1827 and was later applied (though not deliberately) to the US nativist political party, active between 1853-1856, the bulk of which eventually migrated to the Republican Party.  The noun nothingness (non-existence, absence or negation of being) was first used in the 1630s but is most associated with the ideas around nihilism, the exploration of which became a mainstream part of philosophy in the nineteenth century.  Nothingness is distinct from the noun nothingarian which references "one who has no particular belief," especially in religious matters, a descriptive dating from 1789.  It's striking how often in religion, even when factions or denominations are in disputes with one another (sometime actually at war), one thing which seems to unite them is the feeling that whatever their differences, the nothingarians are the worst sinners of all.

The noun nihilist, in a religious or philosophical sense, is from the French nihiliste, from the Latin nihil (nothing at all).  Nihilism, the word first used in 1817, is “the doctrine of negation", initially in reference to religion or morals but later extended universally.  It’s from the German Nihilismus, from the Latin nihil (nothing at all) and was a coining of German philosopher Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi (1743-1819).  In philosophy, it evolved quickly into an extreme form of skepticism, the political sense of a "rejection of fundamental social and political structures", first used circa 1824 by the German journalist Joseph von Görres (1776-1848).  Most associated with a German school of philosophical thought including (rather misleadingly) GWF Hegel (1770–1831) and (most famously) Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900), the particular Russian strain was more a revolutionary political movement with something of a premium on violence (that would much influence Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924)).  Thus with an initial capital, Nihilism (Nigilizm in the Russian) as used in this context is specific to the movement of Russian revolutionary anarchism 1863-1917 and limited in that the meaning refers to the participants’ disapproval of all social, economic & political possibilities in pre-Soviet Russia; the sense they viewed “nothing” with favor.

A probably inaccurate representation of nothing.  

The idea of nothing, in a universal sense in which literally nothing (energy, matter, space or time) exists is difficult to imagine, imaginable presumably only as infinite blackness, probably because that’s the closest to a two-dimensional representation of the absence of any sense of the special, white implying the existence of light.  That nothingness is perhaps impossible to imagine or visualize doesn’t however prove it’s impossible but the mere fact matter, energy and time now exist in space does imply that because, were there ever nothing, it’s a challenge to explain how anything could have, from nothing, come into existence.  Some have mused that there are aspects of quantum theory which suggest even a state of nothingness can be inherently unstable and where there is instability there is the possibility of an event.  The argument is that under quantum theory, if long enough is allowed to pass (something which, bewilderingly, apparently can happen even if there is no time) then every possible event may happen and from this may evolve energy, matter space or time.  To speak of a time scale in all of this is irrelevant because (1) time may not exist and (2) infinity may exist but it can for administrative purposes be thought of as a very long time.  The intriguing link between time starting and energy, matter or space coming into existence as a consequence is that at that point (in time), it may be the only time “now” could exist in the absence of the past and future so everything would happen at the same time.  Clearly, the conditions operative at that point would be unusual so, anything could happen. 

That is of course wholly speculative but in recent decades, the “string theorists” have extended and refined their mathematical models to a degree which not long ago would have been thought impossible so some modelling of a unique point of “now” in nothing would be interesting and the basic framework of that would seem to demand the mathematics of a model which would describe what conditions would have to prevail in order for there truly to be nothing.  That may or may not be possible but might be an interesting basis from which to work for those trying to explain things like dark matter & dark energy, either or both of which also may or may not exist.  Working with the existing universe seems not to be helpful in developing theories about the nature of all this supposedly missing (or invisible) matter and energy whereas were one, instead of working backwards as it were, instead to start with nothing and then work out how to add what seems to be missing (while remaining still not visible), the result might be interesting.

It’s not a new discussion.  The thinkers from Antiquity were known to ponder the philosophers’ traditional concerns such as “why are we here?” and “what is the meaning of life?” but they also realized a more basic matter was “why does anything exist instead of there being nothing?” and for thousands of years this has been “explained” as the work of gods or a god but that really not a great deal of help.  In the Western tradition, this basic question seems not to have bothered angst-ridden Teutonic philosophers, the German Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) writing on the subject, as later would the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951).  Martin Heidegger (1889–1976, who was only briefly a Nazi) called it the “fundamental question of metaphysics”.  The English-speaking school, more tied to the empirical, noted the matter.

Veto

Veto (pronounced vee-toh)

(1) In constitutional law, the power or right vested in one branch of a government to cancel or postpone the decisions, enactments etc of another branch, especially the right of a president, governor, or other chief executive to reject bills passed by a legislature.

(2) The exercise of this right.

(3) In the UN Security Council, a non-concurring vote by which one of the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, UK & US) can overrule the actions or decisions of the meeting on most substantive matters.  By practice and convention, in the context of geopolitics, this is "the veto power".

(4) Emphatically to prohibit something.

1620–1630: From the Latin vetō (I forbid), the first person singular present indicative of vetāre (forbid, prohibit, oppose, hinder (perfect active vetuī, supine vetitum)) from the earlier votō & votāre, from the Proto-Italic wetā(je)-, from the primitive Indo-European weth- (to say).  In ancient Rome, the vetō was the technical term for a protest interposed by a tribune of the people against any measure of the Senate or of the magistrates.  As a verb, use dates from 1706.  Veto is a noun, verb and adjective; vetoer is a noun and in the language of the diplomatic toolbox are the (rare) related forms preveto, reveto, unveto, nonveto & vetoless.

The best known power of veto is probably that exercised by the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).  The UNSC is an organ of the UN which uniquely possesses the authority to issue resolutions binding upon member states and its powers include creating peacekeeping missions, imposing international sanctions and authorizing military action.  The UNSC has a standing membership of fifteen, five of which (China, France, Russia, the UK and the USA) hold permanent seats, the remaining ten elected by the general assembly on a regional basis for two year terms.  The permanent five can veto any substantive resolution including the admission of new UN member states or nominations for UN Secretary-General (the UN’s CEO).

The term “united nations” was used as early as 1943, essentially as a synonym for the anti-Axis allies and was later adopted as the name for the international organization which replaced the League of Nations which had in the 1930s proved ineffectual in its attempts to maintain peace.  When the UN was created, its structural arrangements were designed to try to avoid the problems which beset the League of Nations which, under its covenant, could reach decisions only by unanimous vote and this rule applied both to the League's council (which the specific responsibility of maintaining peace) and to the all-member assembly.  In effect, each member state of the League had the power of the veto, and, except for procedural matters and a few specified topics, a single "nay" killed any resolution.  Learning from this mistake, the founders of the UN decided all its organs and subsidiary bodies should make decisions by some type of majority vote (although when dealing with particularly contentious matters things have sometimes awaited a resolution until a consensus emerges).

The creators of the United Nations Charter always conceived that three victorious “great powers” of the Second World War ((1) the UK, (2) US & (3) USSR), because of their roles in the establishment of the UN, would continue to play important roles in the maintenance of international peace and security and thus would have permanent seats on the Security Council with the power to veto resolutions.  To this arrangement was added (4) France (at the insistence of Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) who wished to re-build the power of France as a counterweight to Germany and (5) China, included because Franklin Roosevelt (1882-1940 US president 1933-1945) was perceptive in predicting the country’s importance in the years to come.

This veto is a power however only in the negative.  Not one of the permanent members nor even all five voting in (an admittedly improbable) block can impose their will in the absence of an overall majority vote of the Security Council.  Nor is an affirmative vote from one or all of the permanent five necessary: If a permanent member does not agree with a resolution but does not wish to cast a veto, it may choose to abstain, thus allowing the resolution to be adopted if it obtains the required majority among the fifteen.

The Vatican, the CCP and the bishops

A well-known and economically significant niche in modern Chinese manufacturing is fakes.  Most obvious are fake Rolexes, fake Range Rovers et al but Peking for decades produced fake bishops.  After the Holy See and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sundered diplomatic relations in 1951, papal appointments to Chinese bishoprics were not recognized by Peking which appointed their own.  In retaliation, popes excommunicated the fakes who in turn ignored him, the amusing clerical stand-off lasting until January 2018 when negotiations appeared to produce a face-saving (sort-of) concordat.  As a prelude, Rome retired or re-deployed a number of their bishops in order to make way for new (once-fake) bishops, nominated by the CCP and, in a telling gesture, Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) re-admitted to "full ecclesial communion" seven living Chinese bishops who were ordained before the deal without Vatican approval, and had thus incurred latae sententiae (the act of automatic excommunication).

On 22 September 2018, a provisional agreement was signed.  It (1) cleared the Chinese decks of any bishops (fake or real) not acceptable to either side, (2) granted the CCP the right to nominate bishops (the list created with the help of a CCP-run group called the "Patriotic Catholic Association”) and (3) granted the pope a right of veto.  Although not mentioned by either side, the most important understanding between the parties seemed to be the hints the CCP sent through diplomatic channels that the pope would find their lists of nominees “helpful”.  If so, it deserved to be a secret protocol to the pact but however the sausages were made, it was a diplomatic triumph for Beijing.  Although Rome at the time noted it was a “provisional agreement”, many observed that unless things proved most unsatisfactory, it was doubtful the Holy See would be anxious again to draw attention to the matter; whatever the political or theological implications, to acquiesce to the pope as cipher would diminish the church’s mystique.

Things may be worse even than the cynics had predicted.  In late 2020 the two-year deal handling the appointment of Chinese bishops was extended after an exchange of notes verbales (in diplomatic language, something more formal than an aide-mémoire and less formal than a note, drafted in the third person and never signed), both sides apparently wishing to continue the pact, albeit still (technically) on a temporary basis.  The uneasy entente seems however not to have lasted, Beijing in 2021, through bureaucratic process, acting as if it had never existed by issuing Order No. 15 (new administrative rules for religious affairs) which included an article on establishing a process for the selection of Catholic bishops in China after 1 May 2021.  The new edict makes no mention of any papal role in the process and certainly not a right to approve or veto episcopal appointments in China, the very thing which was celebrated in Rome as the substantive concession gained from the CCP.

Still, Beijing’s new rules have the benefit of clarity and if Pope Francis was under any illusions about the nature or the CCP, he can now enjoy certainty for the remainder of his pontificate.  Order No. 15 requires clergy of the so-called Chinese Patriotic Catholic Church (CPCC) to “adhere to the principle of independent and self-administered religion in China” and actively support “the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party” and “the socialist system,” as well as to “practice the core values of socialism.”  They must also promote “social harmony” which is usually interpreted as conformity of thought with those of the CCP (although in recent years that has come increasingly to be identified with the thoughts of Xi Jinping (b 1953; paramount leader of China since 2012) which is historically interesting).  Essentially, the CPCC is to be an arm of the authoritarian CCP regime and formalizing this is the requirement for bishops and priests to be licensed for ministry, much the same process as being allowed to practice as a driving instructor or electrician.

All this is presumably a disappointment to the pope though it’s unlikely to be a surprise to his critics, some of whom, when the agreement was announced in 2018 and upon renewal in 2020, predicted it would be honored by Beijing only while it proved useful for them to weaken the “underground” church and allow the CCP to assert institutional control over the CPCC.  At the time of the renewal, the Vatican issued a statement saying the agreement was “essential to guarantee the ordinary life of the Church in China.”  The CCP doubtlessly agreed with that which is why they have broken the agreement, and, if asked, they would presumably point out that, legally, it really didn’t exist.

Beware of imitations.  Joseph Guo Jincai (b 1968) was in 2010 ordained Bishop of Chengde (Hebei) today without the approval of the pope.  He is a member of the China Committee on Religion and Peace and was appointed a deputy to the thirteenth National People's Congress.  Because of the circumstances of his ordination as a bishop, he was excommunicated latae sententiae but later had the consolation of being elected vice-president of Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association.  In September 2018, Pope Francis lifted the excommunication of Joseph Guo Jincai and other six bishops previously appointed by the Chinese government without pontifical mandate.

Politically, one has to admire the CCP’s tactics.  The CCP pursued the 2018 deal only to exterminate the underground Catholic Church which, although for decades doughty in their resistance to persecution by the CCP (including pogroms during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976)), were compelled to transfer their allegiance to the CPCC once it received the pope’s imprimatur.  After the agreement, Chinese authorities rounded up underground Catholic clergy, warning that they would defy the pope if they continued baptizing, ordaining new clergy and praying in unregistered churches; most of those persuaded became part of the CPCC and those unconvinced resigned their ministries and returned to private life.  According to insiders, a rump underground movement still exists but it seems the CCP now regard the remnant as a terrorist organization and are pursuing them accordingly.

Beaufort

Beaufort (pronounced boh-fert) (U) or boh-fort (non-U))

(1) A standardized measure of wind speed.

(2) An Anglo-French Family name (of late, re-purposed as a forename).

(3) A World War II era torpedo bomber built by the Bristol company.

1805: The Beaufort wind force scale was devised by Anglo-Irish Royal Navy hydrographer Sir Francis Beaufort (1774–1857).  The pronunciation boh-fert is the accepted correct use for the scale, family name and most other purposes but in the US, where it’s used as a locality name, south of the Mason-Dixon Line, the common form is sometimes byoo-fert.  The family name Beaufort exists in both French and English (and was of Norman and French Huguenot origin), a habitational name from (Le) Beaufort, the name of several places in various parts of France notably in Nord Somme and Pas-de-Calais, the construct being the Old French beau (beautiful) + fort (literally “strong” but used also of forts & fortified castles).  In France, hereditary surnames were adopted according to fairly consistent rules and during the late medieval period, names that derived from localities became increasingly widespread.  In the late twentieth century, Beaufort came to be used when naming a child, one attraction being the possibility of nicknames like Bee, Beau & Fort.

Variations in the coats of arms of the Dukes of Beaufort.

One of the concepts which permits the modern, trans-nationally connected world economy to function as efficiently as it does is standardization.  Modern implementations include things like shipping containers which, with standardized features such as size, mounting & lifting points and methods of construction mean goods can be transported internationally with the assurance all ships, as well as road & rail transport can handle the thing in the same manner.  Additionally, it makes more efficient the construction for facilities like sea-ports and rail-heads because they’re essentially the same, anywhere in the world.  That’s an example of change which could implemented because it could be phased in over decades as ships were replaced & railway rolling-stock upgraded while existing port infrastructure could be modified although, as the container ships increased in size, the trend increasingly was for fewer and larger ports.  Road transport was less affected, the prime-movers unchanged and a substantial part of the trailer fleet easily modified and trucks never increased in size to the extent engineering made possible because local authorities imposed restrictions in deference to roads which were built to withstand only certain weight-loadings.

Some things however are difficult to standardize, however desirable a change might be.  The fact that there’s so much diversity in whether road vehicles drive on the left or right of the road is due to many factors, some of which date from antiquity, reflected even today in the need for many manufacturers to maintain separate production lines to accommodate the need to built vehicles with steering wheels on either side.  That of course sounds silly it’s how historical inertia operates, local practices becoming set traditions hundreds or even thousands of years ago.  Other traditions came more recently.  Long before they brought cars and trucks, the European colonial powers also often built the first major networks of roads and they imposed the rules with which they were familiar, the British keeping their horses to the left, the French to the right.  Italian colonialists in Libya and Ethiopia would have had a choice because it wasn’t until after World War II (1939-1945) that Italy finally standardized, ending the era of localities setting their own rules.  Some countries have made the swap (mostly from left to right) but it’s difficult (apparently a decade-long increase in the accident rate is factored in by the planners) and in some cases it proved impossible.  When India conducted a post-Raj trial they found the drivers of cars & trucks adapted well but the beasts which pulled the carts then a significant proportion of traffic volumes just couldn’t be persuaded to change.

Domestic electricity is another patchwork.  Most of the planet is supplied with 220-240 volt feeds (there was once the odd outlier with 250v and while their light globes burned brighter, they didn’t last as long) while other run at 110-120v.  Electricity networks of course started locally and just spread so the reason for the differences are understandable and the costs & disruption which would be caused by converting one to another means it’ll probably never happen anywhere although there is a move, undertaken in many (220-240) jurisdictions to standardize on 230v.  What is a bit of a nuisance though is the proliferation of connection types in the 220-240v world, forcing travellers either to travel with the relevant adaptor or rely on being able to buy one when they arrive.  For those who go many places, there are some thoughtfully designed, multi-prong adaptors, the most intriguing of which use slides so the correct metal can be chosen to extend.  Again, because the installed base of wall-plugs decades ago reached the point where a change-over would be prohibitively expensive, it something the world is stuck with.

Standardized wind: The Beaufort wind force scale.

The Beaufort wind force scale was devised because the British Admiralty was accumulating much data about prevailing weather conditions at spots around the planet where the Royal Navy sailed and it was noticed there was some variation in way different observers would describe the wind conditions.  In the age of sail, wind strength frequency and direction was critical to commerce and warfare and indeed survival so the navy needed to information to be as accurate an consistent as possible but in the pre-electronic age the data came from human observation, even mechanical devices not usually in use.  What Captain Beaufort noticed was that a sailor brought up in a blustery place like the Scottish highlands was apt to understate the strength of winds while those from calmer places were more impressed by even a moderate breeze.  Accordingly, he developed a scale which was refined until formally adopted by the Admiralty after he’d been appointed Hydrographer of the Navy.  The initial draft reflected the functional purpose, the lowest rating describing the sort of gentle zephyr which was just enough to enable a captain to manoeuvre while the highest was of the gale-force winds which would shred the sails.  As sails gave way to steam, the scale was further refined by referencing the effect of wind upon the sea rather than sails and it was adopted also by those working in shore-based meteorological stations.  In recent years, categories up to 17 have been added to describe the phenomena described variously as hurricanes, typhoons & cyclones.

Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) in a breeze estimated at 4-5 on the Beaufort wind force scale (left).  There is product which substantially can withstand winds of such force but they do produce an unnatural look.  Lindsay Lohan (right) illustrates the "wind-blown" look which is popular in fashion photography although it's not always done with wind machines (big fans), strategically-placed tape and cardboard often used to get the effect.  This one would be around 6 on the scale. 

Although remembered for the scale which bears his name, Beaufort also made a great contribution to the Admiralty’s charts, quite a task given that the only way to determine depth was laboriously to take soundings which were then mapped onto charts compiled from observations of the shoreline and astronomical observations determining longitude and latitude.  Sir Francis retired from the Navy as a Rear Admiral after also developing the Beaufort Cipher for coded communication which he used for some of his private correspondence and he had a sister name Frances which must have sometimes been confusing but after his death when his letters were decoded, the scandalous nature of his relationship with his sister Henrietta (1778-1865) was revealed.  In 1819, Henrietta published Dialogues on Botany for the Use of Young Persons, an introductory text for young readers interested in plant biology.

Bristol Beaufort of RAF 217 Squadron out of Malta, 1942.

The Bristol Beaufort was a twin-engined, four-seat torpedo and general reconnaissance bomber which entered service late in 1939, allocated initially to Royal Air Force (RAF) Costal Command to replace the Blackburn Botha which had proved unsatisfactory although the original specification had suggested it would be used as a torpedo bomber in the Far East.  Developed from the smaller, lighter and less powerful Blenheim the Beaufort was a solid rather than an outstanding performer and but it served as the RAF’s primary torpedo bomber until 1943 and was also deployed as a ground bomber to plug the UK’s technology gap until newer, more capable designs entered production.  More successful was the use in the Pacific theatre, some 700 Beauforts produced in Australian factories which proved adaptable in sea and land operations, some even converted as high-speed, light transport freighters.  The Beaufort’s greatest legacy however was when its wings, tail and rear fuselage were combined with more powerful engines and a revised forward section to produce the two seat Beaufighter, one of the war’s outstanding heavy strike-fighters.  Heavily armed with various combinations of cannons, machine guns and later rockets, it was one of the most effective anti-shipping weapons; offering reliability, high speed and the relative quiet of its sleeve valve radial engines, it proved lethal against U-boats (the German submarines).  Robust and easy to maintain even in adverse environments, in a variety of roles, examples remained in RAF service until 1960.

Cipher

Cipher (pronounced sahy-fer)

(1) Zero (archaic).

(2) Any of the Arabic numerals or figures (historic use only).

(3) To use figures or numerals arithmetically (historic use only).

(4) To write in or as in cipher.

(5) To calculate numerically; figure (historic use only).

(6) To convert into cipher.

(7) A numeric character (historic use only).

(8) Any text character (historic use only).

(9) A combination or interweaving of letters, as the initials of a name; a device; a monogram.

(10) A method of transforming a text in order to conceal its meaning.

(11) In cryptography, a system using an algorithm that converts letters or sequences of bits into cipher-text.

(12) A grouping of three digits in a number, especially when delimited by commas or periods.

(13) In music, a fault in an organ valve which causes a pipe to sound continuously without the key having been pressed.

(14) In music, slang for a hip-hop jam session (although some etymologists thing this is wholly unrelated to cipher’s accepted lineage.

(15) The path (usually vaguely circular) shared cannabis takes through a group.

(16) Someone or something of no importance.

(17) As cipher.exe, an external filter command in some versions of Microsoft operating systems, used to encrypt and decrypt data on drives using HPFS (High-Performance File System & NTFS (New Technology File System).

Late 1300s: From the Middle English siphre & cifre, from the Old French cyfre & cyffre (nought, zero) (which endures in Modern French as chiffre) from the Medieval Latin cifra & ciphra, (like the Spanish and Italian cifra), ultimately from the Arabic صِفْر‎ (ṣifr) (zero, empty), from صَفَرَ‎ (ṣafara) (to be empty), a loan-translation of the Sanskrit śūnyā-s (empty) The alternative spelling is cypher.  The word came to Europe in the twelfth century with the arrival of Arabic numerals.  Meaning first "zero", by the fifteenth century it had come to mean "any numeral" and then, following the use in French & Italian, "secret way of writing; coded message", a sense which in English emerged by the 1520s, the origin of the shift being the early diplomatic codes, often creations which substituted numbers for letters.  The meaning "the key to a cipher or secret writing" was by 1885 short for “cipher key”, a phrase in use since 1835.  Drawing from the sense of “zero”, the figurative sense of "something or someone of no value, consequence, or power" dates from the 1570s.

The verb in the sense of “doing arithmetic" (with Arabic numerals) emerged in the 1520s and was derived from the noun while the transitive sense (reckon in figures, cast up) was first noted in 1860 and the specific sense of a cipher code being something which might be associated with the occult characters was first attested in 1563.  The verb decipher (an obviously essential companion to cipher) in the 1520s had a now obsolete meaning in mathematics (find out, discover) but by the 1540s it meant "interpret” in the sense of rendering a coded message (a cipher) back into the language or origin by use of a cipher-key.  It may, at least in part, be a loan-translation from the French déchiffrer.  From circa 1600, it moved beyond the literal to the transferred sense of "discover or explain the meaning of what is difficult to understand", the sense of "succeed in reading what is written in obscure or partially obliterated characters" used by 1710.  Cipher is a noun & verb; ciphering is a noun; the noun plural is ciphers.

German Enigma M4 encryption machine.  Introduced for commercial purposes in 1923, it was used by the German Navy from 1926, all branches of the service adopting it by 1935.  Built initially with three rotors, a fourth was added in 1941.

Although used by the Wehrmacht (the German armed forces) throughout the war, work by Polish mathematicians, aided by French intelligence, had enabled Polish cryptographers to break the codes and thus read German military traffic between 1932-1938, at which point additional layers of complexity were added.  In 1939, as war approached, the Poles passed their work to the allies where the code-breaking continued, culminating in the “Ultra” decrypts which would be of such value during the war.

The text "Lindsay Lohan" encrypted using different ciphers:

Standard Vigenère cipher: Nzlslig Nffpg
Beaufort cipher: Rjlmbik Rdrpg
Variant Beaufort cipher: Jrpozsq Jxjlu
Trithemius cipher: Ljpgwfe Swqky

In the decryption process, the British made some of the first use at scale of electronic computers and so secret was the project regarded that the protocols of the existing highest level of secrecy in the machinery of government, “Most Secret”, was thought inadequate and “Ultra Secret” was thus created with a tiny distribution list.  Also deployed was the coat-and-dagger trick of the misleading code-name Boniface, used in a way to convey the impression the British had a master spy they called “Boniface” controlling a network of spies throughout the political, military and industrial structures of the Reich.  The ruse proved successful, the OKM (Oberkommando der Marine; the German naval high command) never taking seriously the suggestion their codes had been broken, instead repeatedly combing their organisation for spies.  The existence of the British code-breaking project and the volume and importance of the Ultra decrypts to the war effort wasn’t widely known until an (at times misleading) account was published  in 1974 in The Ultra Secret by a former RAF (Royal Air Force) officer, FW Winterbotham (1897-1990).  Although criticised in detail, what was revealed did compel a re-evaluation of some of the conclusions drawn by historians about political and military matters during the war.