Badminton

Badminton (pronounced bad-min-tn)

(1) A racquet sport played on a rectangular (at competitive level, always indoor) two players or two pairs of players equipped with light rackets used to volley a shuttlecock over the high net dividing the court in half.

(2) A drink made with a mix of claret, soda water and sugar (also as badminton cup).

(3) A small village and civil parish in the south-west English county of Gloucestershire (initial upper case).

(4) A community in the Glyncoed area, Blaenau Gwent county borough, Wales, UK.

(4) Among the young of Hong Kong, a euphemism for sexual congress.

1873-1874: The game was named after Badminton House, the country seat of the dukes of Beaufort in Gloucestershire (now associated with the annual Badminton horse trials).  The derived terms include badminton court, badminton racquet and badminton ball.  The locality name was from the Old English Badimyncgtun (estate of (a man called) Baduhelm), which deconstructs as the personal name Bad (possibly also found in the Frankish Badon) + helm (from the Old English helma (helm, tiller)+ -ing (from the Middle English -ing, from the Old English –ing & -ung (in the sense of the modern -ing, as a suffix forming nouns from verbs), from the Proto-West Germanic –ingu & -ungu, from the Proto-Germanic –ingō & -ungō. It was cognate with the Saterland Frisian -enge, the West Frisian –ing, the Dutch –ing, The Low German –ing & -ink, the German –ung, the Swedish -ing and the Icelandic –ing; All the cognate forms were used for the same purpose as the English -ing)).+ -tun (used here to refer to “a place”).  Among players in England, the sport is sometimes referred to with the slang “badders”.  Badminton & badmintonist are nouns; the noun plural is plural badmintons.

Badminton racquets (racket in US use) use the same design as tennis racquets but are of lighter construction and not as tightly strung.

Games using shuttlecocks (the designs having variations but all using deliberately “anti-aerodynamic” properties to dissipate the energy carried in flight) are known to have been played for at least centuries across Eurasia, the attractions including the game not putting a premium on physicality (women at comparatively little disadvantage because the effect of fluid dynamics on the shuttlecock negated much of the power of inherently stronger men) and there being no need for a truly flat, prepared surface.  The recognizably modern game of badminton evolved in the early-mid nineteenth century and was something of a cult under the Raj, played by expatriate British officers of the Indian Army, both the polo crown and those unable to afford the upkeep of ponies.  It was a variant of the earlier games “shuttlecock” and “battledore” (battledore an older term for “racquet”).  The history of the sport’s early days is murky and it’s not clear if the first games in England really were played at Badminton House, the Duke of Beaufort’s country estate in 1873-1874 but it seems it was from then the game spread.  The apparently inexplicable “badminton ball” (the game played with a shuttlecock) is accounted for by the fame once being played using a soft, woolen ball and called “ball badminton”.

Among the first players at Badminton House were soldiers returning from their service under the Raj and just as they took English habits and practices to India (for good and bad), upon returning they brought much from the Orient, including their sport.  Under the Raj, it had been played outdoors and when it was wet or windy, the woollen ball was often used but the principle was essentially the same as the modern game except nets weren’t always used and there was sometimes no concept of a defined “court”, the parameters established by the players’ reach and capacity to return the shot from wherever the ball or shuttlecock was placed; what was constant was that if the shot hit the opponent’s ground, the point was won.

Standard dimensions of shuttlecocks used in officially sanctioned competitions.

Under the Raj, the game was known also as Poona or Poonah, named after the garrison town of Poona (named thus in 1857 and changed to Pune in 1978 as part of the process which restored the historic names of Chenni (Madras until 1996), Mumbai (Bombay until 1996) etc).  It was in Poona where some of the most devoted players were stationed and there were several layers of competition taken as seriously as polo tournaments; when these offers returned to England, badminton clubs were soon established (mostly in the south).  The so called “Pune Rules” (of which there were variations reflecting the regimental origins of the clubs) were maintained until 1887 when the recently confederated Badminton Association of England (BAE) codified a standard set which differ little from those of the modern game.  The All England Open Badminton Championships for gentlemen's doubles, ladies' doubles, and mixed doubles were first played in 1899 while singles competitions debuted in 1900 and an England–Ireland championship match was held in 1904.  It first appeared in the Olympic Games as an “exhibition sport” at Munich (1972) and has been in the regular programme since Seoul (1988), the medal table dominated overwhelmingly by the PRC (People’s Republic of China); only players from the PRC and Indonesia have every won Olympic gold.

Like many aspects of the English language, euphemisms evolve or appear under all sorts of influences.  Some come from popular culture (wardrobe malfunction) and some are an attempt deliberately to deceive (misspoke) while others are a “curated creation” although not all succeed; Gretchen in Mean Girls (2004) never quite managed to make “fetch” happen.  Sometime, they can appear as that bugbear of governments: the “unintended consequence”.  In August 2024, the Hong Kong Education Bureau published a 70-page sex education document which, inter-alia, advised teen-aged Hong Kongers to delay romantic relationships and “set limits on intimacy with the opposite gender” (intra-gender intimacy wasn’t mentioned, presumably not because it’s regarded as desirable but because the bureau though it unmentionable).  Helpfully, the document included worksheets (with tick-boxes) for adolescents and guidance for the teachers helping to educate them on coping with sexual fantasies and the consequences of “acting on impulses”.  Easily the most imaginative tactic the bureau advocated as part of its “abstinence strategy” was that young folk should repress their teen-age sexual urges with “a game of badminton”, a suggestion which drew criticism from experts and lawmakers and derision from the public.  Nobody suggested playing badminton was a bad idea but the consensus was that advocating it as an alternative behaviour for two horny teen-agers was “overly simplistic and unrealistic”, the most common critique being the bureau was “out of touch”, a phrase not infrequently directed towards the Hong Kong government generally.

Some also questioned whether a 70 page booklet was the ideal information delivery platform for the TLDR (too long, didn’t read) generation, brought up on TikTok’s short, digestible chunks.  Still, there was certainly much information and helpful tips including a compulsory form for couples in a “love relationship” which contained a list of the parameters they could use to “set limits to their intimacy” and informed them these matters involved four key subjects: (1) the relationship between love and sex, (2) the importance of boundaries, (3) how to cope with sexual fantasies and impulses and (4) the horrible consequences and were one to act upon these impulses.  The conclusion was strong” “Lovers who are unable to cope with the consequences of premarital sex, such as unwed marital pregnancy, legal consequences and emotional distress, should firmly refuse to have sex before marriage.”  Sex can of course be transactional and even contractual and in that spirit students were urged to “fill in and sign a commitment form to set limits on intimacy” and to help with what young folk could find a difficult clause to draft, the bureau suggested: “It is normal for people to have sexual fantasies and desires, but we must recognise that we are the masters of our desires and should think twice before acting, and control our desires instead of being controlled by them.”  Signing that would presumably “kill the moment” and the bureau assured its readers this would control their sexual impulses in certain ways so they could promise to develop “self-discipline, self-control, and resistance to pornography”.

Nor were external influences neglected, the bureau counselling adolescents that a way to suppress their “natural sexual impulses” was to avoid media and publications which “that might arouse them”, recommending instead they “exercise and indulge in distractions” which will help divert their attention away from “undesirable activities”.  As everyone knows, badminton is both good exercise and a desirable activity.  Not only the sometimes decadent media was seen as a threat; there was also the matter of one’s peers and one scenario the bureau described was coming upon “a young couple in a park” exchanging caresses, the correct reaction to which was to avoid temptation by “leaving the scene immediately” or instead “enjoying the sight of flowers and trees in the park”.  Of greater relevance perhaps was the way to handle the situation were a young man to find himself alone with his girlfriend while “studying at home”: “Leave the scene immediately; go out to play badminton together in a sports hall.”  There was also sartorial advice for your scholars, the students to dress appropriately and avoid wearing “sexy clothing” that could lead to “visual stimulation.”  Any ayatollah would agree with that, wondering only why it took the Hong Kong government so long to point it out.  Whether the new guidelines will be result in behavioral changes remains to be seen but the document certainly stimulated responses from the meme-makers, one claiming the advocacy for badminton as a contraceptive proved just how out of touch was the Hong Kong government because it “obviously hasn’t caught up with the popularity of pickleball.”  However, the most obvious cultural contribution was linguistic, phrases like: “want to try out my badminton racquet?” and “let’s play badminton” suggested as the latest euphemism for acts of illicit sex.

“Fetch” never quite happened: Regina George (Rachel McAdams (b 1978)) shuts down Gretchen Wieners (Lacey Chabert (b 1982)), Mean Girls (2004).  Thanks to the government of Hong Kong, “Badminton” may yet happen.

In fairness to the Hong Kong government, it’s not unique in its ineptitude in talking to the young about sex.  Their messaging was however at least clear and unambiguous unlike that in the Australian government’s infamous “milkshake” advertising campaign in 2021.  That was about the matter of “consent to have sex”, a matter of some significance given the frequency of it being the central contested issue in many rape cases so it was an important thing to discuss but unfortunately, all that was agreed was it was embarrassingly dumbed-down and a puerile attempt at humor.  Within days the milkshake video was withdrawn from the Aus$3.7 million campaign.  About the same time the mystifying milkshake video was making children laugh, Mick Fuller (b 1968; commissioner of the New South Wales (NSW) Police Force 2017-2022) proved one didn’t have to be a boomer to be out of touch with the early twenty-first century.  Mr Fuller, noting no doubt the fondness the young folk showed towards their smartphones, suggested an app would be answer, as it seems to be to just about every other problem (“there’s an app for that”).  Deconstructed, that would seem to require both parties logging into the app (hopefully having it already installed) and in some way authorizing sexual activity with the other.  For security reasons, 2FA (two-factor authentication) would obviously be a necessity so it would be doable, only delaying rather than killing the moment.  Still, it didn’t sound like something which would soar to the top of App Store charts and while Mr Fuller argued such a tool could be used “to keep matters out of the justice system”, he did concede it might be a “ “terrible” suggestion and “the worst idea I have all year.”.

The Badminton Cup cocktail

Ingredients

Strips of peel from a ½ cucumber
¼ cup plus 2 tablespoons of superfine sugar
Pinch of freshly grated nutmeg
One 750-ml bottle dry red wine (ideally a Bordeaux (Claret))
16 ounces chilled soda water
Ice, preferably 1 large block

Instructions

(1) In a small punch bowl, combine the cucumber peel, sugar and nutmeg.
(2) Add wine, stirring until the sugar dissolves.
(3) Refrigerate until chilled (will typically take some two hours).
(4) Stir in the soda water, add ice and serve.

The Badminton Beltie Cocktail

The Badminton cup is a classic summer cocktail designed to refresh on a hot day.  However, English summers, though now noticeably hotter than in decades past, can be unpredictable and there will be cold days.  In such weather, the Badminton beltie is a better choice than a badminton cup, the sour fruitiness of the raspberry whisky said to combine with the sweet smoothness of the spiced rum to create a “belter of a drink”.  It was created during the unseasonably cold and wet week of the 2023 Badminton Horse Trials.

Ingredients

2 measures spiced rum liqueur (20%)
2 measures raspberry whisky liqueur (18%)
Crushed Ice

Instructions

(1) Half fill a rocks or tumbler glass with crushed ice
(2) Add measures of spiced rum liqueur & raspberry whisky liqueur.
(3) Gently muddle the mix.
(4) Garnish with two slices of fresh lime.

President

President (pronounced prez-i-duhnt or preza-dint (plus many regional variations)

(1) The title of the highest executive officer of most modern republics.

(2) An official appointed or elected to preside over an organized body of persons.

(3) The chief executive (and sometimes operating) officer of a college, university, society, corporation etc.  Many corporate presidents function as something like a “char(man) of the board” rather than a CEO or COO.

(4) A person who presides.

(5) An alternative form of “precedent” (long obsolete).

1325–1375: From the Middle English, from the Old French president, from Late Latin praesidēns (presiding over; president of; leader) (accusative praesidentem) from the Classical Latin praesident (stem of praesidēns), the noun use of the present participle of praesidēre (to preside over, sit in front of).  The Latin word was the substantivized present active participle of the verb praesideō (preside over) while the construct of the verb was prae (before) + sedeō (sit).  The verb’s original sense was “to sit before” (ie presiding at a meeting) from which was derived the generalized secondary meaning “to command, to govern”, praesidēns thus meaning variously “the one who presides at a meeting”, “governor or a region”, “commander of a force” etc.  In English the construct is thus understood as preside + -ent.  Preside was from the Old French presider, from Latin praesidēre, the construct being pre- (before) + sedere (to sit).  It displaced the Old English foresittan which may have been a calque of the Latin.  The –ent suffix was from the Middle English –ent (which existed, inter alia, also as –ant & -aunt.  It was from the Old French -ent and its source, the Latin -ēns (the accusative singular was -entem), suffix of present participles of verbs in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th conjugations.  The word is used with an upper case if applied honorifically (President of Italy; President Nixon etc) but not otherwise but this is of the more widely ignored rules in English.  Modifiers (minister-president, municipal president, president-elect et al) are created as required.  The spelling præsident is archaic.  President & presidency are nouns, verb & adjective, presidentship & presidenthood are nouns, presidenting & presidented are verbs, presidential is an adjective and presiˈdentially is an adverb; the noun plural is presidents.  The feminine form presidentess dates from at least 1763 and is probably obsolete unless used in humor but that may risk one’s cancellation.

US politics in the last decade has had moments of strangeness so some things which once seemed unthinkable are now merely improbable.

In the US, “president” was used in the original documents of the constitution (1787), picking up the earlier colonial use as “officer in charge of the Continental Congress” and it had also been used in several of the colonies and that in the sense of “chosen head of a meeting or group of persons”.  During and immediately after the Revolution, the tile was adopted by the chief magistrates of several states but before long all instead settled on “governor”, emulating the colonial designation.  In the US, the most common slang shortening of president is “pres”, dating from 1892 although dictionaries note the earlier existence of “prex” which was student slang for the president of a university or college.  First recorded in 1828, as a Latin verb, it meant “a request, entreaty”.  The handy initialization POTUS (President of the United States) dates from 1879 when it was created as part of the “Phillips Code” a system devised by US journalist, telegrapher & inventor Walter Polk Phillips (1846–1920) to speed up the transmission of messages across wire services and reduce their cost (the services charging per letter).  Among those in the code was SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) and later (long after the original rationale had been overtaken by technology) journalists and others started using VPOTUS (Vice-President of the United States), FLOTUS (First Lady of the United States) and NPOTUS (next President of the United States) the latter once applied to both Al Gore (b 1948; VPOTUS 1993-2001 & in 2000 the NPOTUS)) and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013 & in 2016 the NPOTUS).  Word nerds, pondering nomination of the latest NPOTUS (Kamala Harris (b 1964; VPOTUS since 2021) as the likely Democrat nominee are wondering what will emerge to describe her husband should she become CMOTUS (Chief Magistrate of the United States), the options presumably FGOTUS (First Gentlemen of the United States) or FHOTUS (First Husband of the United States).  Presumably FMOTUS (First Man of the United States) won’t be used.

A full bucket of veep.

In the US during the nineteenth century there was a joke about two brothers: "One ran off to sea and the other became vice-president; neither were ever heard of again."  That was of course an exaggeration but it reflected the general view of the office which has very few formal duties and can only ever be as powerful or influential as a president allows although the incumbent is "a heartbeat from the presidency".  John Nance Garner III (1868–1967, vice president of the US 1933-1941), a reasonable judge of these things, once told Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969) being VPOTUS was "not worth a bucket of warm piss" (which is polite company usually is sanitized as "warm spit").  For US vice-presidents, the slang veep (based on the phonetic V-P (pronounced vee-pee) is more commonly used.  Veep dates from 1949 and may have been influenced by the Jeep, the four wheel drive (4WD) light utility vehicle which had become famous for its service in World War II (1939-1945) with a number of allied militaries (the name said to be derived from an early army prefix GP (general purpose light vehicle)).  It was introduced to US English by Alben Barkley (1877-1956; VPOTUS 1949-1953), reputedly because his young grandchildren found “vice-president” difficult to pronounce.  In the press, the form became more popular when the 71-year-old VPOTUS took a wife more than thirty years younger; journalists decided she should be the veepess (pronounced vee-pee-ess).  Time magazine entered into the spirit of things, declaring the president should be Peep, the Secretary of State Steep, and the Secretary of Labor Sleep.  In the US, a number of VPOTUSs have become POTUS and some have worked out well although of late the record has not been encouraging, the presidencies of Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; VPOTUS 1961-1963, POTUS 1963-1968), Richard Nixon (1913-1994; VPOTUS 1953-1961, POTUS 1969-1974) and Joe Biden (b 1942; VPOTUS 2008-2017, POTUS 2021-2025 (God willing)) 1963-1968 all ending badly, in despair, disgrace and decrepitude respectively.

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Hosseini Khamenei (b 1939; supreme leader of of the Islamic Republic of Iran since 1989) hands Masoud Pezeshkian (b 1954, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran since 2024) the presidential seals of Office, Tehran, 28 July 2024.

Even in political science it’s not uncommon to see comparisons between “presidential system” and “parliamentary system” and while that verbal shorthand is well understood within the profession, it’s more accurate to speak of “presidential systems” because the constitutional arrangements vary so much.  Essentially, there are (1) “ceremonial presidencies” in which a president serves as head of state and may nominally be the head of the military but all executive functions are handled by a chancellor, premier or prime-minister (or equivalent office) and (2) “executive presidencies” where the roles of head of state & head of government are combined.  However, those structural models are theoretical and around the world there are many nuances, both on paper and in practice.  While there are many similarities and overlaps in presidential systems, probably relatively few are identical in the constitutional sense.  Sometimes too, the constitutional arrangements are less important than the practice.  In the old Soviet Union, the office of president was sometimes filled by a relatively minor figure, despite it being, on paper, a position of great authority, something replicated in the Islamic Republic of Iran where ultimate authority sits in the hand of the Supreme Leader (both of whom have been ayatollahs).  Many systems include something of a hybrid aspect.  In France, the president appoints a prime-minister and ministers who may come from the National Assembly (the legislature) but, upon appointment, they leave the chamber.  A US president appoints their cabinet from anywhere eligible candidates can be found but creates no prime-minister.  In the “ceremonial presidencies” there is also a spectrum of authority and the extent of that can be influenced more by the personality and ambition of a president than the defined powers.  One president of Ireland described the significance of the office as one of “moral authority” rather than legal power.

Some presidents who like being president.

(Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999).

Mr Putin was prime minister from 1999 to 2000, president from 2000 to 2008, and again prime minister from 2008 to 2012 before returning to the presidency.  The unusual career trajectory was a consequence of the Russian constitution forbidding the one person from serving as president for more than two consecutive terms.   Russia has an executive presidency, Mr Putin liked the job and his solution to (effectively) keeping it was to have Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev (b 1965; president of Russia 2008-2012 & prime minister of Russia 2012-2020) “warm the chair” while Mr Putin re-assumed the premiership.  Generously, one could style this arrangement a duumvirate but political scientists could, whatever the constitutional niceties, discern no apparent difference in the governance of Russia regardless of the plaque on Mr Putin’s door.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (b 1954; prime-minister or president of the Republic of Türkiye since 2003), pictured here meeting Lindsay Lohan, Presidential Palace, Ankara, Türkiye, 27 January 2017.  Palace sources say the president regards this meeting as the highlight of his time in office.

Mr Erdoğan has been president since 2014 having previously served as prime minister between 2003–2014.  As prime-minister under Turkey’s constitution with a non-executive president, he was head of government.  After becoming president, he expressed his disapproval for the system and his preference for Turkey’s adoption of an executive presidency.  On 15 July 2016, a coup d'état was staged by the military and, as coups d'état go (of which Türkiye has had a few), it was a placid and unambitious affair and the suspicion was expressed it was an event staged by the government itself although there’s little evidence to support this.  Mr Erdoğan blamed an exiled cleric, his former ally Fethullah Gülen (b 1941), for the coup attempt and promptly declared a state of emergency.  It was scheduled to last three months but the parliament extended its duration to cover a purge of critical journalists, political opponents, various malcontents and those in the military not overtly supportive of Türkiye.  In April 2017 Mr Erdoğan staged a national referendum (which the people duly approved), transforming the Republic of Türkiye into an executive presidency, the changes becoming effective after the presidential and parliamentary elections of June 2018.

Reichspräsident (Reich President) Paul von von Hindenburg (right) accepts the appointment of Adolf Hitler (left) as Reichskanzler (Reich Chancellor), Berlin, Germany, 21 March 1933 (Potsdam Day).  Standing behind Hitler is Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945).

Of course, if one has effectively “captured” the state, one can just decide to become president.  When in 1934 Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) was informed Generalfeldmarschall Paul von Hindenburg (1847–1934; Reichspräsident (1925-1934) of the German Weimar Republic 1918-1933) was dying, unilaterally he had replaced the constitutional procedures covering such an eventuality, the “Law Concerning the Head of State of the German Reich” (issued as a cabinet decree) stipulating that upon the president’s death the office of Reichspräsident would be abolished and its powers merged with those of the chancellor under the title of Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and Chancellor of the Reich).  Thus, the leadership of the party, government and state (and thus the military) were merged and placed exclusively in Hitler’s hands, a situation which prevailed until his death when the office of Reichspräsident was re-created (by a legal device no more complex than a brief document Hitler called his “political testament”) as an entity separate from the chancellorship.  Interestingly though, in a manner typical of the way things were done in the Third Reich, although in 1934 there ceased to be a Reichspräsident, maintained as administrative structures were (1) the Chancellery, (2) the Presidential Chancellery and (3) what became ultimately the Party Chancellery.

Mercedes-Benz 600 Landaulets a 1966 short roof (left) and 1970 long roof ("presidential", right),  

Between 1963-1981, Mercedes-Benz built 2190 600s (W100), 428 of which were the long wheelbase (LWB) Pullman versions, 59 were configured as Landaulets with a folding roof over the passenger compartment.  Built in both six and four-door versions, the Landaulets were available with either a short or long fabric roof, the latter known informally as the "presidential" although the factory never used the designation.  Twelve of the presidentials were built, a brace of which were bought by Kim Il-sung (Kim I, 1912–1994; Great Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1948-1994) and subsequently inherited (along with the rest of North Korea) by Kim Jong-il (Kim II, 1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1994-2011) and Kim Jong-un (Kim III, b 1982; Supreme Leader of DPRK (North Korea) since 2011).

The 1970 Landaulet pictured was purchased by the Romanian government and used by comrade president Nicolae Ceaușescu (1918–1989; general secretary of the Romanian Communist Party 1965-1989) until he and his wife were executed (by AK47) after a “people's tribunal” held a brief trial, the swiftness of which was aided by the court-appointed defense counsel who declared them both guilty of the genocide of which, among other crimes, they were charged.  Considering the fate of other fallen dictators, their end was less gruesome than might have been expected.  Comrade Josip Broz Tito (1892–1980; prime-minister or president of Yugoslavia 1944-1980) had a similar car (among other 600s) but he died undisturbed in his bed.  The blue SWB (short wheelbase) car to the rear is one of the few SWB models fitted with a divider between the front & rear compartments including hand-crafted timber writing tables and a refrigerated bar in the centre console.  It was delivered in 1977 to the Iranian diplomatic service and maintained for Mohammed Reza Pahlavi (1919–1980; the last Shah of Iran 1941-1979).

Crooked Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) chatting with crooked Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969).  His credibility destroyed by the Watergate scandal, Nixon is the only US president to resign from office.

The term Watergate has come to encompass an array of clandestine and often illegal activities undertaken by members of the Nixon administration but the name is derived from a break-in into Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) offices at the Watergate complex in Washington, DC on 17 June 1972.  A series of revelations made it clear the White House was involved in attempts cover up Nixon’s knowledge of this and other illegal activities.  He continued to insist he had no prior knowledge of the burglary, did not break any laws, and did not learn of the cover-up until early 1973.  Also revealed was the existence of previously secret audio tapes, recorded in the White House by Nixon himself.  The legal battle over the tapes continued through early 1974, and in April Nixon announced the release of 1,200 pages of transcripts of White House conversations between him and his aides. The House Judiciary Committee opened impeachment hearings and these culminated in votes for impeachment.  By July, the US Supreme Court had ruled unanimously that the full tapes, not just selected transcripts, must be released.  One of the tapes, recorded soon after the break-in, demonstrated that Nixon had been told of the White House connection to the Watergate burglaries soon after they took place, and had approved plans to thwart the investigation.   It became known as the "Smoking Gun Tape".  With the loss of political support and the near-certainty that he would be impeached and removed, was “tapped on the shoulder” by a group of Republicans from both houses of Congress, lead by crazy old Barry Goldwater (1909–1998).  Nixon resigned the presidency on 8 August 1974.

Mr Nixon assured the country he was "not a crook" although in that he was speaking of matters unrelated to the Watergate scandal.

One thing even his most committed enemies (and there were many) conceded of Nixon was his extraordinary tenacity and Nixon fought hard to remain president and the most dramatically Shakespearian act came in what came to be called the Saturday Night Massacre, the term coined to describe the events of 20 October 1973 when Nixon ordered the sacking of independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox (1912-2004), then investigating the Watergate scandal.  In addition to Cox, that evening saw also the departure of Attorney General Elliot Richardson (1920-1999) and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus (1932-2019).  Richardson had appointed Cox in May, fulfilling an undertaking to the House Judiciary Committee that a special prosecutor would investigate the events surrounding the break-in of the DNC’s offices at the Watergate Hotel.  The appointment was made under the ex-officio authority of the attorney general who could remove the special prosecutor only for extraordinary and reprehensible conduct.  Cox soon issued a demand that Nixon hand over copies of taped conversations recorded in the Oval Office; the president refused to comply and by Friday, a stalemate existed between White House and Department of Justice and all Washington assumed there would be a break in the legal maneuvering while the town closed-down for the weekend.

Before the massacre.  Attorney-General Elliot Richardson, President Richard Nixon and FBI Director-Designate Clarence Kelly (1911-1997), The White House, 1973.

However, on Saturday, Nixon ordered Richardson to fire Cox.  Richardson refused and resigned in protest. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox.  Ruckelshaus also refused and resigned.  Nixon then ordered Solicitor General Robert Bork (1927-2012), as acting head of the Justice Department, to fire Cox; while both Richardson and Ruckelshaus had given personal assurances to congressional committees they would not interfere, Bork had not.  Brought to the White House in a black Cadillac limousine and sworn in as acting attorney-general, Bork wrote the letter firing Cox; thus ended the Saturday Night Massacre.  Perhaps the most memorable coda to the affair was Richardson’s memorable post-resignation address to staff at the Department of Justice, delivered the Monday morning following the “massacre”.  Richardson had often been spoken of as a potential Republican nominee for the presidency and some nineteen years later, he would tell the Washington Post: “If I had any demagogic impulse... there was a crowd... but I deliberately throttled back.” His former employees responded with “an enthusiastic and sustained ovation.”  Within a week of the Saturday Night Massacre, resolutions of impeachment against the president were introduced in Congress although the House Judiciary Committee did not approve its first article of impeachment until 27 July the following year when it charged Nixon with obstruction of justice.  Mr Nixon resigned less than two weeks later, on 8 August 1974, leaving the White House the next day.

Lyndon Johnson (left) & Sam Rayburn (1882-1961, right), Washington DC, 1954.

Nixon’s predecessor also liked being president and few have assumed the office in circumstances more politically propitious, even if it was something made possible by the assassination of John Kennedy (JFK, 1917–1963; US president 1961-1963).  Johnson had for over two decades worked to achieve control of the Senate and at the peak of the success of the Johnson-Rayburn congressional era the Democrats held majorities of 64-36 in the Senate and 263-174 in the House of Representatives.  In the 1964 presidential election (facing Barry Goldwater), Johnson won a crushing victory, securing over 60% of the popular vote and taking every state except Goldwater’s home state of Arizona and a handful south of the Mason-Dixon Line.  Relatively uninterested in foreign policy, Johnson had a domestic agenda more ambitious than anything seen since the US Civil War (1861-1865) a century before and what he achieved was far-reaching and widely appreciated for its implications only decades after his death but it was the US involvement in the war in Vietnam which consumed his presidency, compelling him dramatically to announce in April 1968 “…I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president.”  As a message, it was strikingly similar to that in July 2024 delivered by Joe Biden (b 1942; US president 2021-2025), something nobody seemed to think a mere coincidence.  Also compelling are similarities between the two, both spending a political lifetime plotting and scheming to become president, having no success until curious circumstances delivered them the prize with which genuinely they achieved much but were forced to watch their dream of re-election slip from their grasp.

Nicolás Maduro (b 1962; President of Venezuela since 2013, left) and Hugo Chávez (1954-2013; President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 1999-2013 (except during a few local difficulties in 2002, right)).

Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) of course liked being president and the events of 6 January (the so-called "capitol riot") are regarded by many (though clearly not a majority of US Supreme Court judges) as an attempted (if amateurish) insurrection, something Mr Trump denies encouraging.  To the south, in Venezuela, Mr Maduro also really likes being president and is from the comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) school of democracy: “It matters not who votes, what matters is who counts the votes”.  Accordingly, in July 2024 there was some scepticism when the National Electoral Council (the NEC, controlled by Mr Maduro’s political party) announced the president had won the 2024 presidential election with 51.2% of the vote, despite the country being in a sustained economic crisis during which it had suffered a rate of hyper-inflation at its peak so high the economists stopped calculation once it hit a million percent and seen more emigration than any country in South or Central America not actually in a state of declared war.  For a country which possesses the world’s largest known reserves of crude oil, the economic collapse has been a remarkable achievement.  Mr Maduro came to office after the death of Hugo Chávez, a genuinely charismatic figure who took advantage of a sustained high oil price to fund social programmes which benefited the poor (of which his country had a scandalous number) who, unsurprisingly voted for him; Mr Chávez won his elections fair and square.  The decrease in oil revenue triggered a chain of events which meant Mr Maduro hasn’t enjoyed the same advantages and some claim his victories in the 2013 & 2018 elections were anything but fair & square although the numbers were so murky it was hard to be definitive.  Details of the 2024 results however are not so much murky as missing and although the NEC provided aggregate numbers (in summary form), only some 30% of the “tally sheets” (with the booth voting details) were published.  Interestingly, the (admittedly historically unreliable) public opinion polls suggested Mr Maduro might secure 30-35% of the vote and the conspiracy theorists (on this occasion probably on sound ground) are suggesting the tally sheets made public might have been selected with “some care”.

In the way these things are done, the regime is sustained by being able to count on the reliability of the security forces and the conventional wisdom in political science is this can be maintained as long as (1) the members continued to be paid and (2) the percentage of the population prepared to take to the streets in violent revolt doesn’t reach and remain at a sustained critical mass (between 3-9% depending on the mechanics of the country).  So the streets are being watched with great interest but already Mr Maduro has received congratulations from the leaders of Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (the DPRK; North Korea), Bolivia, Cuba, Honduras, and Nicaragua and Russia so there’s that.  Mr Maduro runs the country on a basis not dissimilar to being the coordinator of a number of "crime families" and on 2 August the US State Department announced they were recognizing the leader of the opposition as the "legitimate winner" of the election and thus president of the Bolivarian Republic; gestures like this have previously been extended but the regime's grip on power was strong enough to resist.  The opposition numbers are now greater and generous will be the resources devoted to ensuring a critical mass of protesters isn't achieved and Caracas doesn't see its own "capital riot".  For as long as the security forces remain willing and able to retain control of the streets and ensure the population isn't deprived of food for three days (another trigger point for revolution established by political scientists), Mr Maduro should be able to keep the job he so obviously enjoys. 

1955 Studebaker President Speedster.  As well as the styling motifs, there was a sense of exuberance in the two (and sometimes three) tone color schemes the US industry offered in the 1950s.  

Studebaker used the President name (they also offered a "Dictator" until events in Europe made that a harder sell) for their most expensive models, the first three generations a range of sedans, coupes and roadsters produced between 1926-1942.  The name was revived in 1955 and used until 1958, the range this time encompassing two and four-door sedans & station wagons and two-door coupes and hardtops.  The last of the Packards (the much derided, so-called "Packardbakers" which had a brief, unsuccessful run between 1957-1958) was based on the Studebaker President Speedster, the most admired of the range.

Inculcate

Inculcate (pronounced in-kuhl-keyt)

(1) To implant ideas, opinions or concepts in others, usually by forceful or insistent repetition or admonition; persistently to teach.

(2) To cause or influence others to accept an idea or feeling; to induce understanding or a particular sentiment in a person or persons.

1540s: From the Latin inculcātus past participle of inculcāre (to trample, impress, stuff in, force upon) and perfect passive participle of inculcō (impress upon, force upon).  The construct of inculcāre was in- + calcāre (to trample), from calcō (to tread upon), from calx (heel).  The Latin prefix in- was from the Proto-Italic en-, from the primitive Indo-European n̥- (not), the zero-grade form of the negative particle ne (not) and was akin to ne-, nē & nī.  In Modern English it is from the Middle English in-, from Old English in- (in, into), from the Proto-Germanic in, from the primitive Indo-European en.  The meanings in English upon adoption in the mid-sixteenth century (act of impressing upon the mind by repeated admonitions; forcible or persistent teaching) are agreed but some etymologists note the source of the noun inculcation might have been different, coming directly from the Late Latin inculcationem (nominative inculcatio), the noun of action from past-participle stem of inculcāre.  Inculcate is a verb, inculcation & inculcator are nouns, inculcates, inculcating, & inculcated are verbs and inculcative & inculcatory are adjectives; the most common noun plural is inculcations.

Inculcation and inculcators

The word inculcate sits on the spectrum of descriptors of the process by which an individual or institution can attempt impose a doctrine, belief or construct of reality on others, the range extending from suggestion & persuasion to instill, ingrain, propaganda, inculcation & brainwashing.  It thus belongs in the class called loaded words (those which, usually for historic or associative reasons, have come to possess implications “loading” the meaning beyond the technical definition.  For most purposes, those who wish to apply the process of inculcation for some purpose usually cloak their intent with other words; "inspire" often appears in vapid corporate mission-statements but is tainted by its association with advertising and a better choice is the less obviously manipulative "instil".

Professor Noam Chomsky.

The classic examples of inculcation are the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century which existed as political entities during the brief few decades when states could (1) control the mass distribution of ideas and information while (2) simultaneously restricting and dissemination of alternatives.  Such states still exist but technological changes have rendered their attempts less effective.  Political and linguistic theorists have developed constructs describing the way by which, even in nominally non-totalitarian states, corporate and political interests can inculcate collective values and opinions.  One celebrated discussion of the process is in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988) by Noam Chomsky (b 1928; Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona & Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)) and US economist Edward S Herman (1925-2017).

The phrase "the manufacture of consent" had appeared in the book Public Opinion, published in 1922 by US journalist Walter Lippmann (1889–1974), a work which explored the interaction between the mass of the public and the techniques of inculcation used by government (and others) to shape collective opinion and expectation.  Public Opinion remains text useful for its analysis and the structural models presented although now few would (at least publicly) agree with his elitist solutions to the problems identified.  Like Chomsky & Herman’s Manufacturing Consent, it is a helpful reminder that inculcation is a set of techniques not restricted to the totalitarian regimes with which it tends most to be associated.  The message may differ but a hegemony will always attempt to ensure the world view essential to their survival is the one which prevails, the notion of “consent” so important because as British colonial official Thomas Pownall (1722-1805; Governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay 1757-1760) repeatedly warned his uncomprehending government during the rumblings which would lead to the American Declaration of Independence: “You may exert power over, but you can never govern an unwilling people.”.  That is something understood, whether by a president in the Oval Office, an ayatollah in his chamber or the führer in his bunker although some accept that if they can’t be governed, they can be suppressed and, as long as the resource allocation remains possible, that can for decades work.

Inculcation begins at school.

The best documented case study in inculcation on a population-wide scale remains that undertaken by the Nazi State (1933-1945) in Germany and many memoirs of era record the way Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) would acknowledge what he’d learned of this from the Roman Catholic Church, even at times admitting it was inevitable the two-thousand year old institution (and their many schools) would still be flourishing in Germany long after he had departed the Earth.  He also understood how critical it was the process began young because it was in school he had been inculcated with the framework on which later he would build his awful intellectual structures.  Social Historian Richard Grunberger (1924-2005) in A Social History of the Third Reich (1971) reported that although Hitler had scant regard for most of his school teachers, he had high regard for his history master, Leopold Pötsch (or Poetsch) (1853–1942), a rabid German Nationalist (like many who lived in Upper Austria).  From Dr Poetsch the future Führer imbibed the heady cocktail of a romanticized tale of Germany from Charlemagne (748–814; (retrospectively) the first Holy Roman Emperor 800-814) to Otto von Bismarck (1815-1989; Chancellor of the German Empire 1871-1890).

In Mein Kampf (My Struggle, 1925), Hitler would write that his favorite teacher: “...used our budding nationalistic fanaticism as a means of educating us, frequently appealing to our sense of national honor. By this alone he was able to discipline us little ruffians more easily than would have been possible by any other means. This teacher made history my favorite subject. And indeed, though he had no such intention, it was then that I became a little revolutionary. For who could have studied German history under such a teacher without becoming an enemy of the state which, through its ruling house, exerted so disastrous an influence on the destinies of the nation? And who could retain his loyalty to a dynasty which in past and present betrayed the needs of the German people again and again for shameless private advantage?”  Upon assuming power in 1933, Hitler almost immediately deployed the education system for the purpose of inculcating the youth with Nazi ideology, the institution ideal for the purpose because it was hierarchical and didactic.  Education in “racial awareness” (the core Nazi tenant) was based on the notion of “racial duty to the national community”, that there were “worthy & unworthy" races” and while it’s misleading to suggest there’s a lineal (and certainly not a planned) path to the Holocaust, the connection must be noted.  If the entire Nazi project of inculcation can be reduced to just two themes, it’s (1) the sense of race struggle and (2) the readiness for the coming war.

Ayatollah

Ayatollah (pronounced ah-yuh-toh-luh)

In Shiʿite Islam, a high title in the religious hierarchy achieved by scholars who have demonstrated advanced knowledge of Islamic law and religion.

1300s: A Persian word from the Arabic āyat (sign, testimony, miracle, verses of the Qurʿān) and allāh (God).  The Arabic ayatu-llah is literally "miraculous sign of God", the word Ayatollah (āyatullāh) best translated as “sign of God” although there are variations.  Word originates from passage 51:20–21 in the Qurʿān which the Shi'a, unlike the Sunni, interpret to mean human beings can be regarded as “signs” or “evidence” of God.  It’s most familiar now from the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Persian آیت‌الل romanized as āyatollāh where it’s an honorific title for high-ranking Twelver Shia clergy in Iran (and now also Iraq) that came into widespread use in the mid-late twentieth century.  There are variants: āyatallāh fī al-anām (آية الله في الأنعام), literally “Sign of God among mankind”, āyatallāh fī al-ʿālamayn (آية الله في العالمَین‎), literally “Sign of God in the two worlds”, fī al-ʿālamīn (في العالمین‎), literally “in the worlds” and āyatallāh fī al-warā (آية الل في الوراء), literally “Sign of God among mortals”.

Ayatollah (āyatullāh) is an honorific title in the clerical hierarchy in Twelver Imamite Shiism, bestowed by popular usage on those who have demonstrated outstanding scholarship both in Islamic jurisprudence and the holy Qur’ān.  Although the title had existed since medieval times, until well into the twentieth century, use was restricted to senior clerics (mujtahids) of Persian origin.  An imitation of the title ẓill Allāh (shadow of God) was traditionally applied to Persian Islamic rulers, which was confirmed by the use of āyat Allāh zādah (son of ayatollah), a counterpart of shāh zādah (son of the shah).  The first reputed bearer, Ibn al-Muṭahhar al-Ḥillī (d 1374), was styled Ayatollah in the twelfth century but it remained rare and didn’t come into general use until the late Qājār period (1796-1925) when, in 1922, Abd al-Karīm Ḥāʿirī-Yazdī founded the new theological centre of Qom.

Besides being a fully qualified mujtahid, the scholarship and theological authority of an aspiring ayatollah must be acknowledged by both his peers and followers.  In the period between the end of the Ottoman Empire in 1922 and the 1979 Iranian revolution, the title ayatollah became (although rare until the 1940s) clerically more ubiquitous, extended even (against their own traditions) to Sunnī religious dignitaries although, in Iran, the Sunni community does not use the title and it remains rare outside of Iran although in Iraq, is remains available to clerics of Iranian origin.  After the 1979 Iranian revolution, there were significant changes.  The title became more exclusive and a seven tier hierarchy was codified, including the role of nāyib-i imām (lieutenant of the imam), reflecting the assumption of both temporal and spiritual power by Ayatollah Khomeini who anyway removed any suggestion of collective theocratic rule with his adoption of the title imām, something historically unusual in Twelver Shīʿī.  Until then, the concept of niyābat (general vicegerency of the Hidden Imam) was purely theoretical.

Thoughts of Ayatollahs

"An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1900-1989; Supreme Leader, Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979-1989).

"The Victorian government must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Victoria. There is no humor in Victoria. There is no fun in Victoria. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious."

Grand Ayatollah Daniel Andrews (b 1972), premier of the Australian state of Victoria since 2014.

The title Grand Ayatollah (Ayatollah al-Uzma) (Great Sign of God) is sometimes misunderstood and in none of the strains of Islam does a defined hierarchical clerical structure exist in the manner of the classical theocratic model employed in the Roman Catholic Church.  Being a Grand Ayatollah is not necessarily an indication of a place of high authority in any administrative structure.  Grand Ayatollah was a (historically rarely granted) honor and one afforded to an Ayatollah whose contribution to learning and knowledge of the holy Koran is such they are considered Marja'-e-Taqlid, (Grand Ayatollah now the usual form).  Although, practices have varied, for the title to be conferred, an Ayatollah would have been expected to have produced a substantial body of Islamic scholarship but analysts have concluded the favored works have tended to be those reflecting Koranic orthodoxy and of practical application rather than abstract explorations of the esoteric.  Again, because it’s not a centralized system, the number of active Grand Ayatollahs in Iran isn’t clear but they’re said to number in the dozens.

As a formal prelude to achieving the status, a treatise (risalah-yi'amaliyyah) (practical law treatise) is usually published, almost always a work which draws on and reinforces earlier traditions rather than anything new or controversial.  In this it’s more like the modern Western PhD dissertation, many of which appear not a genuinely new contribution to much.  The convention however works in conjunction with the political structures of state which in 1979 were absorbed by the revolution.  Upon assuming office as Supreme Leader in 1989, Ali Khamenei (b 1939) was granted the title Ayatollah although there appears to be no great history of Koranic scholarship and certainly not the customary risalah-yi'amaliyyah.  In recent years, there seems also to have been a bit of a nudge by the state-controlled media which sometimes refer to him as Grand Ayatollah or even Imam.  Foreign monitoring agencies however have reported the Iranian people seem unresponsive to the prodding and use of “Imam” seems still a historic reference only to the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

There has been a bit clerical inflation since the death of the Imam.  Although there exists in Shia Islam no codified hierarchical structure of ecclesiastical offices, observers have identified shifting conventions which move with the political climate of the day.  Possession of the more exalted titles used to depend on popular assent, granted only to the most prominent religious figures and those who were of necessity a Mujtahid, an important pre-condition being a demonstrable superiority in learning (aʿlamīyat) and authority (riyāsat) the latter definitely demanding popular support.  Not unrelated too, as structuralists like to point out, it helped if one was good at raising religious taxes (Khums).  Plus ça change...

Some presumably un-intended mission-creep resulted from the Imam’s educational reforms intended to secure the primacy to Koranic teaching.  The restructuring of the Shia seminaries created four layers of structured scholarship, those clerics attaining the highest qualification styled as Dars-e-Kharej (beyond the text) and thus assuming the title of Ayatollah.  Being an Islamic state, bureaucratic progression in the state bureaucracy was assisted by the qualification and the numbers graduating increased, the dynamic driven also by (1) a worsening economy which made state-sector employment increasingly attractive and (2) the unlimited ability of the seminaries to offer course to fee-paying students.  By 2017, it was estimated over three thousand clerics in Iran were calling themselves Ayatollah.

To mark “Mean Girls Day” on 3 October 2019, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) took to X (the app then known as Twitter) and trolled Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah (b 1960) and then Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani (1957-2020), photoshopping the trio into a well-known scene from the film, labeling the image “There’s no one meaner than the mean girls of the Middle East” and advising the twitterati: “Don’t sit with them”.  It wasn’t the first time the Jewish state had deployed the movie against the ayatollahs: In 2018, in response to Ayatollah Khamenei calling the Jewish state a “cancerous tumor” which “must be eradicated,” the Israeli embassy in Washington posted a Mean Girls GIF asking “Why are you so obsessed with me?”  On both occasions, the ayatollahs ignored the IDF's provocations.