Filibuster

Filibuster (pronounced fil-uh-buhs-ter (U) or fil-e-bust-ah (non-U))

(1) In US politics, the use of irregular or obstructive tactics by a member of a legislature to prevent the adoption of a measure generally favored or to attempt to force a decision against the will of the majority.

(2) An exceptionally long speech, as one lasting for a day or days, or a series of such speeches to accomplish this purpose.

(3) A member of a legislature who makes such a speech.

(4) By extension, delaying tactics generally.

(5) Historically, an irregular military adventurer, especially one who engages in an unauthorized military expedition into a foreign country to foment or support a revolution.

(6) By extension, to engage in unlawful and private military action; a mercenary soldier (obsolete).

1580–1590: From the Spanish filibustero (pirate), from the Middle French flibustier, a variant of fribustier and probably from the Dutch vrijbuiter (pirate (literally “one plundering freely”).  The construct in Dutch was vrij (free) + buit (booty) + -er (agent), hence the later English noun “freebooter”.  Etymologists note the alteration in the first syllable in French was due to the word being somewhat conflated with vlieboot (light, flat-bottomed cargo vessel with two or three masts) when it was borrowed from the Dutch.  By virtue of the Dutch colonial empire, filibuster was picked up by Indonesian and, as fèilìbǎshìtuō (費力把事拖／费力把事拖), by Chinese.  Filibuster is a noun & verb, filibusterer & filibusterism are nouns, filibusterous is an adjective, filibustering & filibustered are verbs and filibusterist is a noun & adjective; the noun plural is filibusters.

There’s some murkiness about the word’s entry into English, perhaps because the first use was among sailors at sea.  The first recorded instance seems to have been flibutor meaning “pirate” and referring to buccaneers operating in Caribbean waters (almost always French, Dutch, and English “adventurers” (ie pirates)) and that was some sort of variant (possibly an imperfect echoic) of the Dutch vrijbueter (the modern spelling vrijbuiter) (freebooter), the word used of the regions pirates and picked up in Spanish (filibustero) & French (flibustier (earlier fribustier)) forms.  If was this origin which led to the later use in English of “freebooter” to mean “a mercenary; a soldier of fortune” and later still to those irregular combatants, organized into loose (but still structured) formations in the US and travelling during the mid-nineteenth century to Central America or the Spanish West Indies, usually after being hired by a state or insurrectionist force, either to put down or conduct a revolt.

Although now most associated with US politics (notable the Senate), the use of “filibuster” to describe the parliamentary tactic appears not widely to have been used in this context until 1865 although the practice was first this described in 1861, the curious linguistic adoption is explained by the appeal of the notion of obstructionist or recalcitrant legislators acting “like pirates” on the floor of the chamber to “plunder and overthrow” the established order of authority; because of events in Central America and the Caribbean, the word (used in the paramilitary sense since 1853) was in the news  Originally, “filibuster” was used to describe the “ringleader” senator but so institutionalised did it become in Senate procedures that by the early 1890s it was understood as the actual mechanism.  As a delaying tactic, then, as now, it wasn’t exclusive to the Senate bit because of the Senate’s rules, composition and numbers, it was there it could be most effective.  As a tactical mechanism in the US Senate, filibuster continues to enjoy its historic meaning but it’s long been used in many contexts as “verbal shorthand” for “delaying tactic; obstructionism; act of procrastination” and in the US Senate, filibusters can be ended by an act of “cloture” (from the French clôture (closure) and a doublet of closure and clausure (from Late Latin clausūra, from the Classical Latin clauses) (the act of shutting up or confining; confinement).

In its pure form (under rules which permitted “unlimited debate”, subject only to a closing vote by a two-thirds majority among an assembled quorum) the filibuster existed only to 1917 when the first cloture act was passed.  Since then there have been a number of refinements, all designed to limit the extent to which the filibuster can be used to defy the will of a clear majority and in certain situations, most notably votes confirming the appointment of judges to the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) only a bare majority (ie 51 out of 100) is now required, a significant change from what prevailed for most of the republic’s existence when at least 60 votes were needed, something which meant at least some bipartisan support was usually essential.  That applied also to other presidential appointments such as federal judges and cabinet members.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

It was during the administration of George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009) that the Republican Party began exploring a way to neuter the filibuster which was slowing up (in some cases stopping) their project and what they wanted as a change to the Senate rules which would allow judicial nominees to pass with a simple majority, something obviously topical because the GOP then held 51 Senate seats.  The Republicans plotters first gave their scheme the code-name “The Hulk” but it was them majority leader Trent Lott (b 1941) who gave it the name which stuck: the “Nuclear Option”.  That had some resonance because the point about the use of nuclear weapons is that things can get out of hand and the ensuing conflict can be equally damaging to both sides, something which may explain the long historical reluctance by senators to tinker too much with the filibuster, both sides aware they may need it one day.  In one of those charming coincidences, Senator Lott was compelled to resign the majority leadership because he made a speech praising old Strom Thurmond’s (1902-2003; US senator (Republican- South Carolina) 1954-2003) segregationist policies when running as the Dixiecrat candidate in the 1948 presidential election.  It’s old Senator Thurmond who still holds the record for the Senate’s longest single-person filibuster, his mark of 24 hours: 18 minutes set in August 1957 in an attempt to prevent the passage of the Civil Rights Act (1957).  The act passed into law.  Trent Lott is a confessed Freemason.

Three wise men who, as senate majority leaders, would, from time-to-time, change their views on things: Harry Reid (left), Mitch McConnell (centre) and Trent Lott (right).

As things worked out, the Republicans increased their majority in 2004 and they were never compelled use the nuclear option but by 2013, with the Democrats now enjoying a majority, it was them being filibustered, frustrating their (many) attempts to fill judicial vacancies.  Accordingly, the Democratic majority leader, old Harry Reid (1939–2021; US senator (Democrat, Nevada) 1987-2017), pulled the trigger, changing the Senate’s rules to permit nominees for cabinet posts and federal judgeships to be with a bare majority of 51 votes, the Republican & Democratic positions on the issue now reversed from a decade earlier.  Then Republican minority leader, old Mitch McConnell (b 1942; US senator (Republican- Kentucky) since 1985) warned darkly: “You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think.”  It’s believed Harry Reid’s middle name (Mason) was a coincidence and it’s not believed he was ever a Freemason although he did as a young man convert to Mormonism.

Notably, Senator Reid must have understood Senator McConnell’s words because he didn’t aim the nuclear option at Supreme Court nominees, meaning it was still necessary to gather at least 60 votes to confirm an appointment.  However, control of the Senate shifted back to the Republicans in the 2014 mid-term elections and in one of his sneakier moves, Senator McConnell decided the house wouldn’t consider the matter of SCOTUS vacancies and delayed things in the hope it would be a Republican in the White House to make the nomination(s).  That attracted much criticism as both naked cynicism and an “unprecedented breach of political conventions” but Senator McConnell knew the rules and his faith was rewarded when Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) won.  Quickly, Senator McConnell pressed the nuclear button, saying that although he led the opposition to what Senator Reid had done in 2013, that had set a precedent and it was one the Republican majority was going to follow.  That was quite a stretch given the simple majority rule had never been applied to the SCOTUS but again, Senator McConnell knew the rules and he had Mr Trump's nominee confirmed in a 54-45 vote.

Mutation

Mutation (pronounced myoo-tey-shuhn)

(1) In biology (also as “break”), a sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.

(2) In biology, (also as “sport”), an individual, species, or the like, resulting from such a departure.

(3) The act or process of mutating; change; alteration.

(4) A resultant change or alteration, as in form or nature.

(5) In phonetics (in or of Germanic languages), the umlaut (the assimilatory process whereby a vowel is pronounced more like a following vocoid that is separated by one or more consonants).

(6) In structural linguistics (in or of Celtic languages), syntactically determined morphophonemic phenomena that affect initial sounds of words (the phonetic change in certain initial consonants caused by a preceding word).

(7) An alternative word for “mutant”

(8) In cellular biology & genetics, a change in the chromosomes or genes of a cell which, if occurring in the gametes, can affect the structure and development of all or some of any resultant off-spring; any heritable change of the base-pair sequence of genetic material.

(9) A physical characteristic of an individual resulting from this type of chromosomal change.

(10) In law, the transfer of title of an asset in a register.

(11) In ornithology, one of the collective nouns for the thrush (the more common forms being “hermitage” & “rash”)

1325–1375: From the Middle English mutacioun & mutacion (action or process of changing), from the thirteenth century Old French mutacion and directly from the Latin mūtātion- (stem of mūtātiō) (a changing, alteration, a turn for the worse), noun of action from past-participle stem of mutare (to change), from the primitive Indo-European root mei- (to change, go, move).  The construct can thus be understood as mutat(e) +ion.  Dating from 1818, the verb mutate (to change state or condition, undergo change) was a back-formation from mutation.  It was first used in genetics to mean “undergo mutation” in 1913.  The –ion suffix was from the Middle English -ioun, from the Old French -ion, from the Latin -iō (genitive -iōnis).  It was appended to a perfect passive participle to form a noun of action or process, or the result of an action or process. The use in genetics in the sense of “process whereby heritable changes in DNA arise” dates from 1894 (although the term "DNA" (deoxyribonucleic acid) wasn't used until 1938 the existence of the structure (though not its structural detail) was fist documented in 1869 after the identification of nuclein).  In linguistics, the term “i-mutation” was first used in 1874, following the earlier German form “i-umlaut”, the equivalent in English being “mutation”.  The noun mutagen (agent that causes mutation) was coined in 1946, the construct being muta(tion) + -gen.  The –gen suffix was from the French -gène, from the Ancient Greek -γενής (-genḗs).  It was appended to create a word meaning “a producer of something, or an agent in the production of something” and is familiar in the names of the chemical elements hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen.  From mutagen came the derive forms mutagenic, mutagenesis & mutagenize.  Mutation, mutationist & mutationism is a noun, mutability is a noun, mutable & mutant are nouns & adjectives, mutated & mutating are verbs & adjectives, mutational & mutationistic are adjective and mutationally is an adverb; the noun plural is mutations.  For whatever reasons, the adverb mutationistically seems not to exist.

In scientific use the standard abbreviation is mutat and forms such as nonmutation, remutation & unmutational (used both hyphenated and not) are created as required and there is even demutation (used in computer modeling).  In technical use, the number of derived forms is vast, some of which seem to enjoy some functional overlap although in fields like genetics and cellular biology, the need for distinction between fine details of process or consequence presumably is such that the proliferation may continue.  In science and linguistics, the derived forms (used both hyphenated and not) include animutation, antimutation, backmutation, e-mutation, ectomutation, endomutation, epimutation, extramutation, frameshift mutation, hard mutation, heteromutation, homomutation, hypermutation, hypomutation, i-mutation, intermutation, intramutation, intromutation, macromutation, macromutational, megamutation, mesomutation, micromutation, missense mutation, mixed mutation, multimutation, mutationless, mutation pressure, nasal mutation, neomutation, nonsense mutation, oncomutation, paramutation. Pentamutation, phosphomutation. point mutation, postmutation, premutation, radiomutation, retromutation, soft mutation, spirant mutation, stem mutation, stereomutation, ultramutation & vowel mutation.

Ginger, copper, auburn & chestnut are variations on the theme of red-headedness: Ranga Lindsay Lohan demonstrates the possibilities.

Red hair is the result of a mutation in the melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R) gene responsible for producing the MC1R protein which plays a crucial role also in determining skin-tone. When the MC1R gene is functioning normally, it helps produce eumelanin, a type of melanin that gives hair a dark color.  However, a certain mutation in the MC1R gene leads to the production of pheomelanin which results in red hair.  Individuals with two copies of the mutated MC1R gene (one from each parent) typically have red hair, fair skin, and a higher sensitivity to ultraviolet (UV) light, a genetic variation found most often in those of northern & western European descent.

A mutation is a change in the structure of the genes or chromosomes of an organism and mutations occurring in the reproductive cells (such as an egg or sperm), can be passed from one generation to the next.  It appears most mutations occur in “junk DNA” and the orthodox view is these generally have no discernible effects on the survivability of an organism.  The term junk DNA was coined to describe those portions of an organism's DNA which do not encode proteins and were thought to have no functional purpose (although historically there may have been some).  The large volume of these “non-coding regions” surprised researchers when the numbers emerged because the early theories had predicted they would comprise a much smaller percentage of the genome.  The term junk DNA was intentionally dismissive and reflected the not unreasonable assumption the apparently redundant sequences were mere evolutionary “leftovers” without an extant biological function of any significance.

However, as advances in computing power have enabled the genome further to be explored, it’s been revealed that many of these non-coding regions do fulfil some purpose including: (1) A regulatory function: (the binary regulation of gene expression, influencing when, where, and how genes are turned on or off; (2) As superstructure: (Some regions contribute to the structural integrity of chromosomes (notably telomeres and centromeres); (3) In RNA (ribonucleic acid) molecules: Some non-coding DNA is transcribed into non-coding RNA molecules (such as microRNAs and long non-coding RNAs), which are involved in various cellular processes; (4) Genomic Stability: It’s now clear there are non-coding regions which contribute to the maintenance of genomic stability and the protection of genetic information.  Despite recent advances, the term junk DNA is still in use in mapping but is certainly misleading for those not immersed in the science; other than in slang, in academic use and technical papers, “non-coding DNA” seems now the preferred term and where specific functions have become known, these regions are described thus.

There’s also now some doubt about the early assumptions that of the remaining mutations, the majority have harmful effects and only a minority operate to increase an organism's ability to survive, something of some significance because a mutation which benefits a species may evolve by means of natural selection into a trait shared by some or all members of the species.  However, there have been suggestions the orthodox view was (at least by extent) influenced by the slanting of the research effort towards diseases, syndromes and other undesirable conditions and that an “identification bias” may thus have emerged.  So the state of the science now is that there are harmful & harmless mutations but there are also mutations which may appear to have no substantive effect yet may come to be understood as significant, an idea which was explored in an attempt to understand why some people found to be inflected with a high viral-load of SARS-Cov-2 (the virus causing Covid-19) remained asymptomatic.

In genetics, a mutation is a change in the DNA sequence of an organism and it seems they can occur in any part of the DNA and can vary in size and type.  Most associated with errors during DNA replication, mutations can also be a consequence of viral infection or exposure to certain chemicals or radiation, or as a result of viral infections.  The classification of mutations has in recent years been refined to exist in three categories:

(1) By the Effect on DNA Sequence:  These are listed as Point Mutations which are changes in a single nucleotide and include (1.1) Substitutions in which one base pair is replaced by another, (1.2) Insertions which describe the addition of one or more nucleotide pairs and (1.3) Deletions, the removal of one or more nucleotide pairs.

(2) By the Effect on Protein Sequence: These are listed as: (2.1) Silent Mutations which do not change the amino acid sequence of the protein, (2.2) Missense Mutations in which there is a change one amino acid in the protein, potentially affecting its function, (2.3) Nonsense Mutations which create a premature stop codon, leading to a truncated and usually non-functional protein and (2.4) Frameshift Mutations which result from insertions or deletions that change the reading frame of the gene, often leading to a completely different and non-functional protein.

(3) By the Effect on Phenotype: These are listed as (3.1) Beneficial Mutations which provide some advantage to the organism, (3.2) Neutral Mutations which have no apparent significant effect on the organism's fitness and (3.3) Deleterious Mutations which are harmful to the organism and can cause diseases or other problems.

(4) By the Mechanism of Mutation: These are listed as (4.1) Spontaneous Mutations which occur naturally without any external influence, due often to errors in DNA replication and (4.2) Induced Mutations which result from exposure to mutagens environmental factors such as chemicals or radiation that can cause changes in DNA),

Because of the association with disease, genetic disorders and disruptions to normal biological functions, in the popular imagination mutations are thought undesirable.  They are however a crucial part of the evolutionary process and life on this planet as it now exists would not be possible without the constant process of mutation which has provided the essential genetic diversity within populations and has driven the adaptation and evolution of species.  Although it will probably never be known if life on earth started and died out before beginning the evolutionary chain which endures to this day, as far as is known, everything now alive (an empirically, that means in the entire universe) ultimately has a single common ancestor.  Mutations have played a part in the diversity which followed and of all the species which once have inhabited earth, a tiny fraction remain, the rest extinct.

Nuclear-induced mutations

Especially since the first A-Bombs were used in 1945, the idea of “mutant humans” being created by the fallout from nuclear war or power-plants suffering a meltdown have been a staple for writers of science fiction (SF) and producers of horror movies, the special-effects and CGI (computer generated graphics) crews ever imaginative in their work.  The fictional works are disturbing because radiation-induced human mutations are not common but radiation can cause changes in DNA, leading to mutations and a number of factors determine the likelihood and extent of damage.  The two significant types of radiation are: (1) ionizing radiation which includes X-rays, gamma rays, and particles such as alpha and beta particles.  Ionizing radiation has enough energy to remove tightly bound electrons from atoms, creating ions and directly can damage DNA or create reactive oxygen species that cause indirect damage.  In high doses, ionizing radiation can increase the risk of cancer and genetic mutations and (2) non-ionizing radiation which includes ultraviolet (UV) light, visible light, microwaves, and radiofrequency radiation.  Because this does not possess sufficient energy to ionize atoms or molecules, which there is a risk of damage to DNA (seen most typically in some types of skin cancer), but the risk of deep genetic mutations is much lower than that of ionizing radiation.  The factors influencing the extent of damage include the dose, duration of exposure, the cell type(s) affected, a greater or lesser genetic predisposition and age.

Peter Dutton (b 1970; leader of the opposition and leader of the Australian Liberal Party since May 2022) announces the Liberal Party's new policy advocating the construction of multiple nuclear power-plants in Australia.

The prosthetic used in the digitally-altered image (right) was a discarded proposal for the depiction of Lord Voldemort in the first film version of JK Rowling's (b 1965) series of Harry Potter children's fantasy novels; it used a Janus-like two-faced head.  It's an urban myth Mr Dutton auditioned for the part when the first film was being cast but was rejected as being "too scary".  If ever there's another film, the producers might reconsider and should his career in politics end (God forbid), he could bring to Voldemort the sense of menacing evil the character has never quite achieved.  Interestingly, despite many opportunities, Mr Dutton has never denied being a Freemason.

On paper, while not without challenges, Australia does enjoy certain advantages in making nuclear part of the energy mix: (1)  With abundant potential further to develop wind and solar generation, the nuclear plants would need only to provide the baseload power required when renewable sources were either inadequate or unavailable; (2) the country would be self-sufficient in raw uranium ore (although it has no enrichment capacity) and (3) the place is vast and geologically stable so in a rational world it would be nominated as the planet's repository of spent nuclear fuel and other waste.  The debate as it unfolds is likely to focus on other matters and nobody images any such plant can in the West be functioning in less than twenty-odd years (the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) gets things done much more quickly) so there's plenty of time to squabble and plenty of people anxious to join in this latest theatre of the culture wars.  Even National Party grandee Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; thrice (between local difficulties) deputy prime minister of Australia 2016-2022) has with alacrity become a champion of all things nuclear (electricity, submarines and probably bombs although, publicly, he seems not to have discussed the latter).  The National Party has never approved of solar panels and wind turbines because they associate them with feminism, seed-eating vegans, homosexuals and other symbols of all which is wrong with modern society.  While in his coal-black heart Mr Joyce's world view probably remains as antediluvian as ever, he can sniff the political wind in a country now beset by wildfires, floods and heatwaves and talks less of the beauty of burning fossil fuels.  Still, in the wake of Mr Dutton's announcement, conspiracy theorists have been trying to make Mr Joyce feel better, suggesting the whole thing is just a piece of subterfuge designed to put a spanner in the works of the transition to renewable energy generation, the idea being to protect the financial positions of those who make much from fossil fuels, these folks being generous donors to party funds and employers of "helpful" retired politicians in lucrative and undemanding roles.

Sycophancy

Sycophancy (pronounced sik-uh-fuhn-see)

(1) The usually self-seeking, servile flattery or fawning behavior of a sycophant.

(2) The character or conduct of a sycophant.

(3) An informer, a bearer of tales (obsolete).

1537: From the Latin sȳcophanta (informer, trickster), from the Ancient Greek sykophantia (false accusation, slander; conduct of a sȳcophanta) from συκοφάντης (sykophántēs), the construct being sûkon (fig) + phaínō (I show).  The gesture of "showing the fig" was an “obscene gesture of phallic significance”, made by sticking the thumb between two fingers, a display which vaguely resembles a fig and was symbolic of a vagina (sûkon also meant “vulva”), the gesture understood in many cultures in many places.  Technically, it was a way of expressing one’s thoughts without actually speaking an obscenity.  The politicians in Ancient Greece were said not to use this vulgar gesture but urged their followers to deploy it in the taunting of opponents, a tactic familiar to observers of modern politicians who like to delegate the dirty work to others.  It was cognate with Italian sicofante and the Spanish sicofanta and the later Greek form was sykophantia, from sykophantes.  Sycophancy, sycophantism & sycophant are nouns, sycophantize is a verb, sycophantic & sycophantish are adjectives and sycophantishly is an adverb; the noun plural is plural sycophancies (sycophants is more commonly used).

When young, Lindsay Lohan had her troubles and in a 2012 interview blamed them on loneliness, “sycophants and bad influences”, adding “be careful who you surround yourself with”.

As late as the sixteenth century, sycophancy was still used in the now long obsolete sense of “informer, talebearer, slanderer” which was from the French sycophante and directly from Latin sȳcophanta.  Such was the influence of the often fanciful notions of Medieval scholars whose writings were copied with such frequency that by virtue of sheer volume they assume authority that it wasn’t until the twentieth century the old tale that a sycophant was “one who informed the authorities against someone unlawfully exporting figs” was universally discredited.  The general sense of “a parasite; mean, servile flatterer” (especially of those in power) was in use in English by the 1570s.  The phrase “yes-man” (a man who agrees from self-interest or fear with everything put to him by a superior) was first used in 1912, a creation of American English, the male-centric wording indicative of the predominance at the time of men in corporate structures but there's no exclusivity of gender, women too can be “yes-men” although “yes-women” doesn't as easily roll from the tongue and nor does the collective “yes people”.  To even suggest someone is a “yes man” or “yes woman” may be at least a micro aggression so to avoid compounding the offence with another “yes person” is recommended.

The sexy fig.

The modern meaning is that of the "insincere flatterer", the "yes man", the motive presumed usually to be personal gain.  Historians from antiquity suggest the origin of the word lies in agricultural policy, Plutarch (46–circa 120) writing that the source was in laws forbidding the export of figs, and that those who made accusations against others of illegally exporting figs were therefore called sycophants.  Plutarch was citing "Solon's Laws" which included regulations which stipulated also: “(1) trees should not be planted within five feet of a neighbour’s property, except in the case of olives and fig-trees, which were not to be planted within nine feet (for these trees spread out their roots farther than others, and spoil the growth of any others by taking away their nourishment and by giving off hurtful juices), (2) Trenches and pits must be dug as far away from another man’s property as they were deep and (3) no hive of bees was to be placed within three hundred feet of those already established by another man.”  Because the laws permitted only the export of oil, the export of figs was forbidden and the men who informed against those who had done so were therefore called sycophants (fig-shower).

Later, Sir William Blackstone's (1723–1780) Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1770) noted there were laws making it a capital offense to break into a garden and steal figs, and that law was thought so odious that informers were given the name sycophants.   Another variant in the fig jam was that a sycophant was a shaker of trees: before the court, the sycophant's false accusations makes the accused yield up the truth; in the fig grove, sycophant's shaking forces the tree to yield up its fruit.  Certainly, the fig linkage runs strong in the language, the making of false accusations held to be such an insult to the accused it was said to be "showing the fig", an obscene gesture “of phallic significance" and that false charges were often so flimsy as to be worth “not a fig".

Modern historians enjoy the explanations but tend to be dismissive of their veracity though all seem to agree the original sense is of a word used to disparage one who, by the levelling of unjustified accusations, has perverted the legal system beyond a mere abuse of process.  Pervading all is the suggestion the term was thought always at least slightly obscene, the linkage presumably because of the symbolism of the fig in ancient Greek culture in that sense.  The attachment to legal process in Athenian culture, separate from any hint of obscenity, did grow and the net was cast wide, sycophants not only vexatious litigants but also those who issued writs merely to try to induce defendants to make a payment in exchange for dropping the case or third parties otherwise unconnected to the sometime ancient matters before the court, appearing only to seek an undeserved profit.  In time, to accuse a litigant of sycophancy became a serious thing, such was the opprobrium society had come to direct towards the conduct and there are surviving texts written by those defending themselves from the charge.  Athenian law responded, imposing fines on litigants whose matters were found vexatious or which were clearly an abuse of process and there are echoes still of these acts in modern Greek domestic law where, as in France, sycophant is used still in the original sense.    The phenomenon attracted the playwrights too, explored by Aristophanes (circa 446 BC-circa 386 BC) in his satires.

Impact Of Wealth (1563) by Philips Galle (1537–1612) & Hadrianus Junius (1511–1575).

In the English-speaking world, the meaning shift seems to have happened during the Renaissance, meanings old and new running in parallel until the sense of the "insincere flatterer" came to prevail.  It was an organic linguistic morphing, not something induce by some event or individual, the common thread probably that both behaviors were perceived parasitic and insincere. 

Notable Sycophants in History and Literature

Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) had been an early critic of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) so to redeem himself, spent the rest of his career in fawning devotion, initiating the Heil Hitler salute and insisting on the use of Der Führer (the leader, originally just a party title) as an official title. His letters and diaries are full of groveling praise and his propaganda campaigns created the modern personality cult.  In fairness to Goebbels, his work was inspired and sometimes brilliant and when the fortunes of war turned there was even the hint of criticism (his acute sense of things picking up the difference between a "leadership crisis" and a "leader crisis") but other sycophants in the Third Reich were less impressive.  While Goebbels’ work sparkled, youth leader, Baldur von Schirach (1907-1974; party functionary 1931-1945), wrote verse after verse of dreary poetry in praise of Hitler though there’s no suggestion the Führer much troubled himself to read his oeuvre.  At least Goebbels and Schirach stayed loyal to the end (though the latter would recant when on trial for his life in Nuremberg (1945-1946) and avoid the hanging he deserved.  Sycophant number one and head of the SS, Heinrich Himmler (1900-1945; head of the SS 1929-1945), called himself “the truest of the true” and Hitler agreed, often referring to the Reichführer-SS as “der treue Heinrich" (the faithful Heinrich), and, although never part of the inner circle, was much valued for his sycophancy and unconditional obedience.  Himmler though, by 1944 and perhaps earlier, worked out things weren’t going too well and eventually, in negotiating with the enemy and planning ways to ingratiate himself to General Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969; US president 1953-1961), delivered the Führer a final stab in the back and the one which seems to have hurt the Führer the most.  By then it was already too late and Hitler has long concluded none of his sycophants were worthy enough to be his successor, deciding Rudolf Hess (1894–1987; Deputy Führer 1933-1941) had gone mad and Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945) had lost the sympathy of the German people.  Both judgements were fair enough but his reason for rejecting Himmler made sense only in Hitler's bizarre world view: He thought the Reichführer-SS "unartistic".

Julia Gillard looking at Penny Wong.

Appointed to cabinet by Prime Minister Julia Gillard (b 1961; Australian prime minister 2010-2013), Australian politician Penny Wong (b 1968) Australian minister for Foreign Affairs since 2022 (and one of the Australian Senate's three "mean girls")) was never reticent in praising Gillard’s fine judgment and feminist solidarity.  That was until she finally worked out things weren’t going too well and so voted to back-stab Gillard and resuscitate the previously knifed Dr Kevin Rudd (b 1957; Australian prime-minister 2007-2010 & 2013).  Modern identity politics helpfully provides Wong with handy cover; any criticism, however justified, she can condemn as misogyny, homophobia or racism.  Centuries before, early in the reign of Caligula (Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, 12–41; Roman emperor 37-41), he fell ill, inspiring one Roman to offer to sacrifice own life if the emperor recovered. This kind, if extravagant, vow was declared publicly, in the hope his show his deep loyalty would elicit some generous award.  Caligula did recover but the sycophant’s tactic backfired; the dutiful emperor decided to accept the chap’s offer and ordered his execution.

Secretary of State Dr Henry Kissinger and President Richard Nixon, East Room, White House, 22 September 1973.  

There are many who list former US National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Dr Henry Kissinger (1923-2023; US national security advisor 1969-1975 & secretary of state 1937-1977) as among the famous sycophants, a reasonable achievement in Washington DC, a city full of the breed, but it’s probably unfair although, in his fascinating relationship with President Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974), he certainly aimed to please.  Kissinger met with Israeli prime-minister Golda Meir (1898–1978; prime-minister of Israel 1969-1974) in 1973 and she asked him to pressure Moscow to allow more Soviet Jews to emigrate to avoid persecution.  Nixon, intent on détente with the USSR, sought to avoid the request. Kissinger, himself Jewish, responded “…the emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy and if they put Jews into gas chambers in Russia, it’s not an American concern… maybe it’s a humanitarian concern”.  Not for nothing was Dr Kissinger thought dean of the school of power-realists.

Plácido Domingo (b 1941) in Giuseppe Verdi’s (1813–1901) Otello (1993), a studio recording from Paris noted for its technical perfection.  It featured Cheryl Studer (b 1955) as Desdemona and in Act IV she delivered perhaps the loveliest version of the Willow Song available on disc.

In David Copperfield (1849-1850), Charles Dickens (1812–1870) created one of literature’s most repulsive sycophants, the reptilian Uriah Heep.  Dickens, never one to understate his characters, ensures readers will revile Heep by emphasizing his physical creepiness: cadaverous and lanky, with clammy hands and sleepless eyes.  Trained in being “umble” by his father, Heep is always quick to affirm his lowly station and abase himself.  Chaplain to the Bishop of Barchester, the duplicitous Obadiah Slope in Anthony Trollope’s (1815-1882) Barchester Towers (1857), epitomizes the "lick up-kick down" sycophant,  fawning before the powerful, tyrannical towards subordinates.  For Australians, one of the real pleasures in reading Barchester Towers is imagining Bronwyn Bishop (b 1942; speaker of the Australian House of Representatives 2013-2015) when picturing the bishop’s wife (both deserving the memorable phrase "that ghastly woman").  Nobody however did it better than William Shakespeare (1564–1616) in Othello (1603).  The play is a roll-call of strategies for ingratiation, subversion, and destruction, as Iago corrupts the mind of the noble Othello. No work in English better shows the devastating personal consequences of sycophancy or so starkly renders its intricate ties to other vices for Shakespeare knew the sycophant is capable of every fraud, every hypocrisy, every deceit.

Mr Dutton in one of his happier moments.  Interestingly, despite many opportunities, Mr Dutton has never denied being a Freemason.

In politics, the word sycophantic seems surprising rare, probably because punchier forms like “arse-kisser”, “arse-licker”, “brown noser”, “suck-up”, “lap-dog”, “flunky” & “lackey” are preferred, at least behind closed doors because all these would probably be ruled “unparliamentary”.  Of course it’s behind closed doors the more amusing stuff happens, the internecine party squabbles and factional battles more intense and pursued with more passion than the often confected sturm und drang between actual opponents.  Still words like “obsequious” and “sycophantic” have the advantage they can be used on the floor or parliament and in May 2024, in the Australian House of Representatives, sycophantic made a rare appearance when Peter Dutton (b 1970; leader of the opposition and leader of the Australian Liberal Party since May 2022) spoke: “Why did this weak and incompetent prime minister [Anthony Albanese (b 1963; prime-minister of Australia since 2022)] put his close and sycophantic relationship with Jacinda Ardern ahead of the safety of Australians?”

The context of Mr Dutton’s waspish attack was the matter of Ministerial Directive 99 (MD-99) of 23 March 2023, issued by Andrew Giles (b 1973; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs since 2022), an instruction to his department which required the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT, a statutory authority soon to be replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) & Administrative Review Council (ARC)) to consider the cases of non-citizens facing deportation pursuant to section 501 (as revised in 2014) of the Migration Act (1958) by applying a number of criteria including “Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia”.  Previously, the law required mandatory visa cancellations for any non-citizens sentenced to jail for twelve months or more, or those convicted of a child sex offence.  The way MD-99 was applied by the tribunal resulted in a number of serious offenders not being deported, some of whom subsequently re-offended, one currently awaiting trial for murder.

Two Fabians: Jacinda Ardern and Anthony Albanese, press conference, Sydney, July 2022.  It has been confirmed the man taking the photograph is not Mr Dutton.

The origin of MD-99 was in a dinner in July 2022 between Mr Albanese and Jacinda Ardern (b 1980; Prime Minister of New Zealand 2017-2023).  The matter of criminals who hadn’t lived in New Zealand for decades, sometimes having left as infants, had been a matter of concern to successive New Zealand Governments but until 2023 no Australian government had been prepared to alter the policy.  However, Ms Ardern was at the time something of a political pin-up of the left and a role model to social democrats around the planet and their admiration for her progressive policies and general “wokeness” at least verged on the sycophantic.  Mr Albanese and Mr Giles are both members of the Australian Labor Party’s (ALP) Socialist Left (or Progressive Left) faction, a label which means less than once it did and shouldn’t be taken too literally but the tribal aspect of the factionalism is as strong as ever.

The idea of dozens (literally) of violent criminals being released into the community whereas prior to MD-99 they would have been deported created a furore and not even the usual suspects felt it wise to leap to a defence of the policy.  Following the manual, Mr Giles for a few toughed it out with the usual obfuscation but seldom has the tactic sounded so unconvincing.  He was defended (at least to the extent of not being sacked) by the prime minister which really he was compelled to do because it would have been his instruction to Mr Giles which resulted in MD-99.  Mr Albanese also stuck to the manual, having the department trawl the archives so he could quote instances of criminals being released into the community a decade-odd earlier when Mr Dutton was immigration minister.  Unlike the Nuremberg trial (1945-1946), there was no International Military Tribunal (IMT) to deny use of the tu quoque defense.

Andrew Giles, House of Representatives, Canberra, Australia, May 2024.

However, after a few days it became obvious deniability was never going to become plausible and the issue couldn’t be spun out of the media cycle.  Mr Albanese announced MD-99 would be dumped, replaced by the overriding direction that “…community safety must be considered the top priority in deciding whether to allow someone to remain in Australia”.  Mr Giles said the new direction would “…ensure the protection of the community outweighs any other consideration", adding this had always been the government's “highest priority”.  Neither Mr Albanese nor Mr Giles have commented on the tone of their discussions behind closed doors and it’s assumed an account is unlikely to appear in any memoir either may write.

MRDA

MRDA (pronounced emm-ahr-dee-ey)

The abbreviation of “Mandy Rice-Davies Applies”, an aphorism used in law and politics to refer to any denial which is transparently self-interested.

1963: An allusion to the statement “Well he would, wouldn't he?”, said by Welsh model Mandy Rice-Davies (1944-2004) during cross-examination in a trial at the Old Bailey (the central criminal court for England & Wales) associated with the Profumo affair.

Lord Astor, Mandy Rice-Davies and the Profumo Affair

The context of Ms Rice-Davies’s answer was the question: “Are you aware that Lord Astor denies any impropriety in his relationship with you?” and the answer “Well he would, wouldn't he?” elicited from those in the court “some amusement”.  MDRA (Mandy Rice-Davies Applies) thus became in law and politics an aphorism used as “verbal shorthand” to refer to any denial which is transparently self-interested although it doesn’t of necessity imply a denial is untrue.  In general use, the fragment from the trial is often misquoted as “Well he would say that, wouldn't he?” because that better encapsulates the meaning without being misleading.

Mandy Rice-Davies (left) and Christine Keeler (right), London, 1963.  Note the leopard-print seat covers.

The Profumo affair was one of those fits of morality which from time-to-time would afflict English society in the twentieth century and was a marvellous mix of class, sex, spying & money, all things which make a good scandal especially juicy.  John Profumo (1915-2006) was the UK’s Minister for War (the UK cabinet retained the position until 1964 although it was disestablished in the US in 1947) who, then 46, was found to be conducting an adulterous affair with 19 year old topless model Christine Keeler (1942-2017) at the same time she was also enjoying trysts with a Russian spy, attached to the Soviet embassy with the cover of naval attaché.  Although there are to this day differing interpretations of the scandal, there have never been any doubts this potential Cold-War conduit between a KGB spy and Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for War represented at least a potential conflict of interest.

Dr Evatt (left), comrade Molotov (centre) and Soviet translator Alexei Pavlov, exchanging MRDAs in Russian & English, London, 1942.

MRDAs are common in courtrooms and among politicians but some became legends.  In 1954, Dr HV Evatt (1894–1965; Australian attorney-general & foreign minister 1941-1949, and leader of opposition 1951-1960), in the midst of a particularly febrile period during the Cold War, wrote a letter to comrade Vyacheslav Molotov (1890–1986; Soviet foreign minister 1939-1949 & 1953-1956) asking if allegations of Soviet espionage in Australia were true.  Comrade Molotov of course wrote back, politely denying the USSR engaged in spying anywhere.  Assured, Evatt read the letter to the parliament and the members sat for a moment stunned until, on both sides, loudly laughing.  It was a MRDA before there were MRDAs.

The Profumo affair is noted also for being at least an influence in the end of the “age of deference” in England and while that’s often probably overstated, the immediate reaction and the aftermath proved it wasn’t only across colonial Africa that a “wind of change” was blowing.  The second Lord Astor (1907–1966) was emblematic of the upper classes of England who once would have expected deference from someone like Ms Rice-Davies, someone “not of the better classes” as his lordship might have put it.  Although what came to be known as the “swinging sixties” didn’t really begin until a couple of years after the Profumo affair when the baby-boomers began to come of age, the generational shift had by then become apparent and it was something surprisingly sudden as the interest of the young switched from pop music to politics.  As recently as the 1959 election campaign, the patrician Harold Macmillan (1894–1986; UK prime-minister 1957-1963) had told the working classes “most of you have never had it so good” and for the last time they would express their gratitude to their betters, delivering the Tories an increased majority, an impressive achievement for "the last of the old Edwardians" who, upon assuming the premiership in 1957 in the wake of the Suez debacle, had told the Queen he doubted his administration would last six weeks.

In the matter of Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited [2024] FCA 369

Mr Justice Lee.

Justice Michael Lee (b 1965) in April 2024 handed down one of the more anticipated judgments of recent years, finding Bruce Lehrmann (b 1995), on the civil law test of the balance of probabilities, had raped Brittany Higgins (b 1993) on the sofa in a ministerial suite in Parliament House while the victim was affected by strong drink.  Apart from the heightened public interest in the verdict, lawyers were watching closely to see if there would be encouragement for those defending themselves in defamation cases, something which had been lent unexpected strength by an earlier judgment; although the matter of rape was central to the facts, Lehrmann v Network Ten was a defamation case.  However, for those who appreciate judicial findings for their use of language, Justice Lee didn’t disappoint and although neither Ms Rice-Davies nor MRDA were mentioned in his text, as he assessed the conduct and evidence of Mr Lehrmann, they may have come to mind.

Janet Albrechtsen in her study.

In his opening remarks, the judge acknowledged the case had become a cause celebre for many and that it was best described as “an omnishambles”, the construct being the Latin omni(s) (all) + shambles, from the Middle English schamels (plural of schamel), from the Old English sċeamol & sċamul (bench, stool), from the Proto-West Germanic skamul & skamil (stool, bench), from the Vulgar Latin scamellum, from the Classical Latin scamillum (little bench, ridge), from scamnum (bench, ridge, breadth of a field).  In English, shambles enjoyed a number of meanings including “a scene of great disorder or ruin”, “a cluttered or disorganized mess”, “a scene of bloodshed, carnage or devastation” or (most evocatively), “a slaughterhouse”.  As one read the judgement one could see why the judge was drawn to the word although, in the quiet of his chambers, “clusterfuck” may have been in his thoughts as he pondered the best euphemism.  Helpfully, one of the Murdoch press’s legal commentators, The Australian’s Janet Albrechtsen (b 1966; by Barry Goldwater out of Ayn Rand) who had been one of the journalists most interested in the case, informed the word nerds omnishambles (1) dated from 2009 when it was coined for the BBC political satire The Thick Of It and (2) had endured well enough to be named the Oxford English Dictionary’s (OED) 2021 Word of the Year.  The judge's linguistic flourish was a hint of things to come in what was one of the more readable recent judgments.

Noting Mr Lehrmann’s original criminal trial on the rape charge had been aborted (after having already been delayed for reasons related to the defamation matter) because of jury misconduct with a subsequent retrial not pursued because of the prosecution’s concern about the fragile mental state of the complainant, the judge observed “Having escaped the lion’s den, Mr Lehrmann made the mistake of coming back for his hat.”  In other words, Mr Lehrmann who could have walked away with no findings against him, lured by the millions of dollars to be gained, rolled the legal dice and was found to have committed rape.  He is of course not the first to fall victim to suffer self-inflicted legal injury in not dissimilar circumstances; the writers (from different literary traditions) Oscar Wilde (1854–1900) and Jeffrey Archer (b 1940) both were convicted and imprisoned as a consequence of them having initiated libel actions.  Whether Mr Lehrmann will now face a retrial in the matter of rape is in the hands of the Australian Capital Territory’s (ACT) Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).  In such a case, it would be necessary to prove the event happened under the usual test in criminal law: beyond reasonable doubt.  Even if that isn’t pursued by the DPP, his time in courtrooms may not be over because it’s possible he may face action because of his conduct in this trial with the handling of certain documents and another unrelated matter is pending in Queensland.

In considering the evidence offered by Mr Lehrmann, the judge appears to have found some great moments in the history of MRDAs:

Commenting on his claim to having returned (after midnight following Friday evening’s hours of convivial drinking) to his Parliament House office to write papers about the French submarines and related government matters, he observed Mr Lehrmann “…hitherto had demonstrated no outward signs of being a workaholic.”  “To remark that Mr Lehrmann was a poor witness is an exercise in understatement.”

Regarding the claim Mr Lehrmann had made to someone to whom he’d just been introduced that he was “…waiting on a clearance to come through so that he could go and work at Asis.” (the Australian Security Intelligence Service; the external intelligence service al la the UK SIS (MI6) or the US CIA (although without the assassinations… as far as is known)), the judge observed she “…kept her well-founded incredulity to herself.”, such “Walter Mitty-like imaginings” demonstrating he “…had no compunction about departing from the truth if he thought it expedient.”

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December, 2011.

The reading of the judgement was live-streamed and the passage which got the loudest chuckle was in the discussion of Mr Lehrmann’s deciding whether he found Ms Higgins attractive.  In an interview on commercial television broadcast in 2023, he’d denied finding the young lady attractive, despite the existence of comments dating from 2019 indicating the opposite.  Pausing only briefly, Justice Lee delivered this news with an arched eyebrow:  “When confronted by this inconsistency, his attempt to explain it away by suggesting the attraction he felt for Ms Higgins was ‘just like [the attraction] I can find [in] anybody else in this [court]room, irrespective of gender’ was as disconcerting as it was unconvincing.”  The judge ordered to audience to suppress their laughter.

Even regarding submarines as a likely topic over drinks, his honour was sceptical: “With the exception of Mr Lehrmann, no one who gave evidence as to their time at The Dock could recall discussing Australia’s submarine contracts with France at either table. The lack of recollection of any discussion of this topic is intuitively unsurprising.  Declaiming on the topics of who was building submarines and where they were being built was not quite the repartee one would usually expect to hear over a convivial drink on a Friday night between 20 [something]-year-olds out for a good time – even if (with respect) one would not expect the badinage of the Algonquin Round Table.” (an early twentieth century, shifting aggregation of men & women of letters who met over lunch in New York’s Algonquin Hotel, their barbs and thoughts often appearing in their newspaper & magazine columns; they dubbed themselves “The Vicious Circle” and were a sort of Cliveden set without the politics.  Cliveden was a stately home in Buckinghamshire, the country seat of Lord Astor and the scene of many of the events central to the Profumo affair).

The judge was forensic in his deconstruction of Mt Lehrmann’s MRDA he returned to Parliament House after being out drinking with Ms Higgins and others in order to retrieve his keys: “If the reason Mr Lehrmann needed to return to Parliament House was to collect his keys, he could have texted his girlfriend to have her meet him at the door or called her.  Mr Lehrmann asks me to accept the proposition that it was ‘a process to get in’ to his shared flat and that to avoid this complication, he preferred to: (a) go out of his way to go back to work in the early hours; (b) lie to Parliament House security; (c) sign the necessary register; (d) be issued with a pass; (e) go through a metal detector; (f) be escorted by a security guard to his office; (g) obtain his keys from his office; (h) book another Uber; (i) go back through a Parliamentary exit; (j) meet the ride-share car; and then (k) ride home.”

Bruce Lehrmann leaving the court after the verdict was delivered.

In psychiatry, distinction is made between the “habitual” and “compulsive” liar and while this wasn’t something Justice Lee explored, he did in one passage sum up his assessment of the likely relationship to truth in anything Mr Lehrmann might say: “I do not think Mr Lehrmann is a compulsive liar, and some of the untruths he told during his evidence may sometimes have been due to carelessness and confusion, but I am satisfied that in important respects he told deliberate lies. I would not accept anything he said except where it amounted to an admission, accorded with the inherent probabilities, or was corroborated by a contemporaneous document or a witness whose evidence I accept.”

One fun footnote from the case was a non-substantive matter, Ms Lisa Wilkinson (b 1959), the Network 10 journalist at the centre of the defamation claim, objecting to being characterized as a “tabloid journalist”.  It transpired her employment history included stints with Dolly, the Australian Women’s Weekly and commercial television including the Beauty & the Beast show.  Unfortunately, she wasn’t asked to define what she thought “tabloid journalism” meant; perhaps Justice Lee decided he’d heard enough MRDAs that day.

On the basis that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Lehrmann did rape Ms Higgins, his claim for damages against Network Ten for defamatory material earlier broadcast was dismissed.  The judge found the material indeed had the capacity to defame but because the imputations substantially were true, their defense was sustained.  So, the only millions of dollars now to be discussed concern the legal costs: who is to pay whom, the judge asking the party’s submission be handed to the court by 22 April.  Mr Lehrmann’s legal team has not indicated if they’re contemplating an appeal.

Despite many opportunities, Peter Dutton (b 1970; leader of the opposition and leader of the Australian Liberal Party since May 2022) has never denied being a Freemason.