Misocapnic

Misocapnic (pronounced miss-oh-kap-nick or migh-soh-kap-nick)

Hating tobacco smoke (the more recent extensions in meaning including “hating those who smoke tobacco” and “hating the tobacco industry”).

1855: A linguistic mongrel, misocapnic was borrowed from Greek and combined with English elements, modelled on a Latin lexical item, the construct being miso- (a combining form of Ancient Greek μῑσέω (mīséō) (to hate) from μῖσος (mîsos) (hatred) which was used to create forms conveying the notion of a “hatred, dislike or aversion” of or to something) + the stem of the Ancient Greek καπνός (kapnós) (smoke) + ‑ic.  The -ic suffix was from the Middle English -ik, from the Old French -ique, from the Latin -icus, from the primitive Indo-European -kos & -ḱos, formed with the i-stem suffix -i- and the adjectival suffix -kos & -ḱos.  The form existed also in the Ancient Greek as -ικός (-ikós), in Sanskrit as -इक (-ika) and the Old Church Slavonic as -ъкъ (-ŭkŭ); A doublet of -y.  In European languages, adding -kos to noun stems carried the meaning "characteristic of, like, typical, pertaining to" while on adjectival stems it acted emphatically; in English it's always been used to form adjectives from nouns with the meaning “of or pertaining to”.  A precise technical use exists in physical chemistry where it's used to denote certain chemical compounds in which a specified chemical element has a higher oxidation number than in the equivalent compound whose name ends in the suffix -ous; (eg sulphuric acid (H₂SO₄) has more oxygen atoms per molecule than sulphurous acid (H₂SO₃)).  Misocapnic is an adjective and misocapnist & misocapnism are nouns; the noun plural is misocapnists.  A person who hates tobacco smoke or smoking (and often smokers) is a misocapnist and if it becomes a calling (noted in “reformed” smokers) they become practitioners of misocapnism.  Misocapnists range from the merely disapproving to the rabid activists, the comparative “more misocapnic”, the superlative “most misocapnic”.

The earliest known use of misocapnic was in the book: A Paper, Of Tobacco: Treating Of The Rise, Progress, Pleasures, And Advantages Of Smoking, With Anecdotes Of Distinguished Smokers (1839) by Joseph Fume (a pseudonym of English writer William Andrew Chatto (1799–1864) (who also published as Stephen Oliver (Junior))).  Noted by scholars as work of genuine interest and now in the public domain (still available in re-print), “Of Tobacco” explored the history, chemistry, and cultural significance of smoking discussing the ceremonial use of tobacco by Native Americans and its introduction to Europe.  It includes also the word “mundungus” (used usually to mean “offal; waste animal product; organic matter unfit for consumption”, it came also to be slang for “poor-quality tobacco with a foul, rancid, or putrid smell”) which was from the Spanish mondongo (tripe, entrails).  The earliest known use of the adjectival form misocapnic was in an 1855 pamphlet by Church of England (broad faction) priest & historian Charles Kingsley (1819–1875), a notorious controversialist.

In the West, anti-smoking measures began seriously to be imposed in the 1980s, displeasing those accustomed to enjoying cigarettes at their desk or while flying on airliners.  That was consequent upon a legal and medical saga which dates from the mid-century, the US Surgeon-General first issuing warnings in the 1960s, trigging the campaign (fought tooth and nail by the tobacco industry) which saw multi-billion dollar settlements imposed.  Opposition to smoking however wasn’t something new, one of the most celebrated of the unimpressed being noted amateur theologian James I (1566–1625) King of Scotland as James VI (1567-1625) & King of England and Ireland as James I (1603-1625) who in 1604 issued his A Counterblaste to Tobacco, one of the earliest diatribes against the habit:

“Have you not reason then to bee ashamed, and to forbeare this filthie noveltie, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossely mistaken in the right use thereof? In your abuse thereof sinning against God, harming your selves both in persons and goods, and raking also thereby the markes and notes of vanitie upon you: by the custome thereof making your selves to be wondered at by all forraine civil Nations, and by all strangers that come among you, to be scorned and contemned. A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse…”

Such was the king’s disdain for "the noxious plante" he imposed a heavy excise tax on tobacco imported from the North American colonies (an approach now favoured by Western governments as a public health measure) but within two decades-odd, politics & economics had triumphed, the population’s ever-growing demand for tobacco compelling him to instead create a royal monopoly for the crop.  Over the ensuing centuries, the plant would prove a mainstay of the economy and, via the trade routes secured by the Royal Navy, Great Britain would emerge as tobacco merchant to the world.  The combination of the royal imprimatur and his subjects’ embrace of the addictive habit lent tobacco a respectability which would extend to all classes of society, including (until well into the twentieth century), much of the medical establishment and the alleged medical efficacy had a long history, smoking a pipe at breakfast made compulsory for the schoolboys at London’s Eton College during The Great Plague of 1665, something widely advocated as a defence against “bad air”.

Mid-century cigarette advertising.  Even in the 1950s the public's suspicion that tobacco was a dangerous product was rising and the industry's advertising switched from the traditional "lifestyle" model to one which relied on endorsements by celebrities and scientists and much quoting of research and statistics, much of which would later be wholly debunked.  The tactics and techniques similar to those later adopted by the fossil fuel lobby in their long campaign to discredit the science of human-activity induced climate change. 

One attempt at social engineering began in earnest in the 1980s: Pressure was applied on film & television studios, advertisers and publishers to stop depicting smoking as "attractive, sexy and cool".  Because cigarette smoke is known to be carcinogenic and sustained use typically reduced the human lifespan by about a decade, it was an admirable part of the public health programme but the difficult thing was that images of smoking undeniably could be sexy.  Lindsay Lohan demonstrates.    

The industry learned early the value of celebrity endorsement & association, “Prince Albert” tobacco introduced by the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company in 1907 and named after the prince who would become King Edward VII (1841–1910; King of the UK & Emperor of India 1901-1910) although the myth it was named after heavy smoker Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1819-1861; consort of Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the UK 1837-1901)) persists.  Prince Albert tobacco is rated as “high quality” and Albert Speer (1905–1981; Nazi court architect 1934-1942; Nazi minister of armaments and war production 1942-1945), on 3 October 1947 (two years into the 20 year sentence he was lucky to receive for war crimes and crimes against humanity) noted with approval in his clandestine prison diary (Spandauer Tagebücher (Spandau: The Secret Diaries) (1975)): “After breakfast my first pipe.  No matter which nation is on duty we receive a tin of American Prince Albert as our weekly ration.”  High quality the Prince Albert may have been but some seven months later he observed “I nearly made myself sick to my stomach breaking in my pipe.”  Still, he kept smoking although it’s not clear if he’d quit the habit when, aged 76, he died in a London hotel room in the company of a woman some decades younger and not his wife.

Although later the industry would use their sponsorship of sport to turn the sporting organizations into “tobacco industry lobbyists”, even before the political pressures appeared, the usefulness of sport as a promotional tool was understood, the Gallaher (to become best known for the “Benson & Hedges” brand) company in 1966 gaining the “naming rights” to the annual 500 mile (805 km) endurance race for what then genuinely were “production cars”, run on the 3.9 mile (6.2 km) Mount Panorama Circuit at Bathurst in Australia.  It’s the race which in 1973 became the Bathurst 1000 (625 miles), the country that year switching to the metric system.  Gallaher took up the event sponsorship to promote their brand but the sales numbers hadn’t much improved after the well-publicized 1966 race so they decided to leverage their money, “suggesting” certain changes to the race rules.

Changing of the guard: Mini Coopers (1275 cm³), Bathurst, 1966 and Ford Falcon GTs (4482 cm³), Bathurst, 1967.

The Bathurst race then was unusual in that it was a true stand-alone event, neither part of any series nor governed by rules set by the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport (CAMS) or the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (the FIA; the International Automobile Federation (world sport’s dopiest regulatory body)) and in 1966 there was no rule requiring a minimum number of pit stops.  Taking advantage of this were the “giant-killing” 1.3 litre (78 cubic inch) Morris Mini Cooper 1275 S, able to run the 500 miles without needing tyre changes and, at most, only one stop for fuel.  Accordingly, although not the fastest machines in a straight line, the Minis filled the first nine places, the only other car in the top ten a 273 cubic inch (4.5 litre) Chrysler Valiant V8 which finished tenth, six laps down on the winner.  Timed at a then impressive 120 mph (193 km/h) down the long Conrod Straight, the Valiant posted competitive lap times but the frequent stops for tyres and fuel (more time-consuming tasks then than now) lent the Minis a significant advantage.

Clockwise from top left: The eight “Gallaher GT” Falcon GTs in corporate livery outside the corporation's Rydalmere facility in Sydney, September 1967; a packet of “Gallaher GTs 20s”; one of the surviving cars after restoration and an image from the 1967 advertising campaign (note the "driving glove" an affectation from the days of open roadsters, sweaty palms & teak-rim steering wheels).

No documents have ever been sighted which prove it was Gallaher which “suggested” mandating a minimum number of pit-stops but few have doubts and once implemented for the 1967 event, the advantage enjoyed by the small, light, economical cars was negated and not for another 20 years would a four-cylinder car win the race and the Mini remains the only front wheel drive (FWD) vehicle to enjoy a victory.  With a little nudge, the planets were thus aligned for Gallaher and their “Gallaher GT” cigarette brand.  As a promotional tie-in, eight of the new 289 cubic inch (4.7 litre) XR Ford Falcon GTs were painted silver to match the cigarette’s packaging and, adorned with corporate livery, issued to the travelling salesmen (and they were then all men) who went forth and promoted.  Other than the paint, the cars were standard except for an alarm system fitted to the boot (trunk) lid; even at 50c a packet, the Falcon could be holding over Aus$3000 in stock (as late as the early 1980s, the agents would visit places like sports grounds or shopping centres, handing out free samples of cigarettes).  So the plan was to use the Falcon GT’s victory at Bathurst to promote sales of Gallaher GT cigarettes and part of the plan worked in that the Fords finished first and second but the success didn’t rub off on the fags, the Gallaher GT quietly withdrawn in March 1968, some six months after the chequered flag had been waved at Bathurst, Gallaher leaving to others (like Benson & Hedges, Gallaher holding the UK but not Australian rights to the trademark) the task of getting Australians addicted.  Tobacco advertising finally vanished from Australian race-tracks in 1996 when the federal government imposed a ban.

Sydney Morning Herald “souvenir” front page, 14 March 1983 (left), Benson & Hedges packet with royal warrant (1877-1999, centre) and packet with “B&H coat of arms”, used after the warrant was withdrawn (right).

Gallaher took advantage of the 1983 royal tour of Australia to promote its Benson & Hedges brand, a packet embossed with the royal warrant (indicated by a coat of arms and the title “By appointment to…”) appearing on a “souvenir” front page, Sydney Morning Herald, 14 March 1983.  In 1999, the UK papers reported it was the advocacy of the most misocapnic Prince of Wales (now Charles III (b 1948; King of the United Kingdom since 2022)) which persuaded Elizabeth II (1926-2022; queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022) to withdraw the royal warrant.

Response

Response (pronounced ri-spons (U) or ree-spons (non-U))

(1) The act of responding; a reply or reaction; a reaction to a stimulus or provocation.

(2) In the card game bridge, a bid based on an evaluation of one's hand relative to the previous bid of one's partner.

(3) In liturgical use in Christianity, a word, phrase or short sentence recited or sung by the choir or congregation in reply to the priest or officiant at a church service (usually in the plural and used (loosely) also of any versicle or anthem said or sung during or after a lection).

(4) In electronics the ratio of the output to the input level, at a particular frequency, of a transmission line or electrical device.

(5) In pathology, any pattern of glandular, muscular, or electrical reactions induced by stimulation of the nervous system.

(6) In biology, any behavior of a living organism that results from an external or internal stimulus.

(7) In engineering, the reaction of a mechanical device to changes in energy input.

(8) In legal proceedings (and other forms), reply to an objection.

(9) In the calculation of online advertising performance metrics, a measure representing one click-through from an online ad to its destination URL.

1250–1300: From the Latin respōnsum (answer), noun use of the neuter past participle of respondēre (to reply, respond, answer, the construct being re- (in the sense of “again”) + spondere (to pledge), nominal use of the neuter form of respōnsus, the perfect passive participle of respondeō, the construct being from re- + spondeō (promise).  It replaced the Middle English respounse & respons, from the Middle French respons, from the Old French respons, respuns & response (which endures in Modern French as réponse), from the same Latin source.  Response, responsion, responsure & responsiveness are nouns, responsal, responsory & responsorial are nouns & adjectives, responsive is an adjective and responsively is an adverb; the noun plural is resposes.

Depending on context, a response might also be called a feedback, reply or return and in science, medicine and engineering, derived forms such as responseless, counter-response, allergic response, autonomous response, host response etc are coined as required.  In law enforcement and military use, the coinings include armed response, artillery response, naval response etc.  The adjective responsive was an early fifteenth century form meaning “making answer, responding” and was from the Old French responsif and directly from Late Latin responsivus (answering), from the Classical Latin respons-, past-participle stem of respondere.  The use in the sense of “responding readily to influence or action, able or inclined to respond” was documented first in 1762, the adverb responsively & noun responsiveness both appearing within a decade.  In Christianity, the use to mean “a part of the liturgy said or sung by the congregation in reply to the priest” dates from the 1650s.  The transferred sense (adopted in literature, poetry and psychology) of feelings or actions was part of the Romantic movement early in the nineteenth century.  One of the best known “responses” was the adjectival “Pavlovian Response” which dates from 1911 and came from the experimental work of Russian physiologist Ivan Petrovich Pavlov (1849-1936), the best known example of which was the conditioned salivary reflexes of dogs in response to the mental stimulus of the sound of a bell being associated with food.  The term “response time” seems first to have been used in the US in 1958 and was associated with the increasingly precise measurements needed as transistors replaced vacuum tubes in electronics.

Boris Yeltsin, who got a bit of fun out of life.

The phrase “diplomatic response” isn’t really part of the study of international relations.  It’s used in general discourse to describe ways of communicating that are polite, tactful and intended to ensure reasonable relationships are maintained and the self-help sections in bookshops often contain titles which include guides on the topic, their advice on the matter probably usually suggesting the salient points are (1) Politeness (using courteous language to show respect), (2) Neutrality (avoiding taking sides or making definitive statements that might be thought controversial), (3) Constructiveness (focusing on solutions and positive outcomes), (4), Empathy (acknowledging the other person's feelings or perspectives) and (5) Caution (being careful with word choice to avoid misunderstandings or offense).  In diplomacy proper, there are examples such as when Boris Yeltsin (1931–2007; President of Russia 1991-1999) announced he would decline a Japanese offer of help in dealing with a natural disaster because they might use it as leverage in territorial disputes, the Japanese Foreign Ministry responded by saying: “He must have been misquoted”.  Lindsay Lohan in 2017 followed the example when asked about comments made by Donald Trump in 2004 when he said she was: “probably deeply troubled and therefore great in bed. How come the deeply troubled women, you know, deeply, deeply troubled, they're always the best in bed?”  Her response was to say: “I wish him the best. We live in a world of societies that consistently find fault in people. I think it’s a really scary factor. Taking someone else down is never the answer, and I think we all know that.”  It’s not believed Mr Trump responded.

Responses of some who survived political assassination attempts

That photograph.

The compositional elements of the photograph destined to become one of the classics of US political history are so perfect it would have been assumed to be an AI (artificial intelligence) meme had the moment it captured not been witnessed by so many:  Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021, fist raised in defiance, his blood staining his face, being hustled to safety by his Secret Service detail after an assassin’s bullet was a fraction of an inch to the left; one zephyr during its 125 metre (410 feet) travel and Trump would likely be dead.  The image, taken by AP (Associated Press) photographer Evan Vucci (b 1977) was a an extraordinary piece of serendipity for the Trump campaign, being almost entirely of red, white & blue with the Stars & Stripes flying as a backdrop, the whole thing recalling the famous photograph by AP’s Joe Rosenthal (1911–2006) which captured US Marines planting the flag atop Mount Suribachi during the Battle of Iwo Jima.  Quite how the incident will affect the election campaign can’t be assumed but it’s unlikely to be detrimental to the Trump cause and the photograph will help, the strident defiance of the stance exactly what appeals to the base and probably attractive to not a few of the undecided, the contrast with the less dynamic Biden obviously striking.  As a response from someone who has just cheated death, his presence of mind in having the Secret Service delay his evacuation from the stage by a few seconds so he could provide AP their photo-opportunity will guarantee publicity the Republican Party couldn’t buy no matter how many millions they spent.

Senator Marco Rubio (b 1971; senator (Republican) for Florida since 2011 and the "little Marco" of Mr Trump's 2016 nomination campaign) was quick to tweet "God protected" Mr Trump which was noted by those running the betting markets for the 2024 running mate on the Republican ticket.  On his own Truth social platform, Mr Trump said much the same thing and previously, there have been those who made much of being saved from assassination by "providence" and it's not impossible Mr Trump is now persuaded it was indeed "divine intervention".  In the last decade, Mr Trump has done well by pretending to be religious to court the Christian vote: they knew he was lying and he knew that they knew he knew but such was the political symbiosis that all involved ignored the facts and focused on outcomes.  Now, he may start believing his own publicity.          

The footage was viewed world-wide within minutes and almost immdeiately questions were asked including (1) why was a line-of-shot available within 150 m (500 feet) of the target and (2) why were Secret Service agents allocated who were not even tall enough to reach his shoulder (they are as a last resort, human body armor).  The photograph was political gold for the campaign but it should never have been allowed to happen; Mr Trump should have been smothered with Secret Service bodies and immediately taken from the stage.  Some agreed the presence of the shooter was an obvious lapse but that what happened on stage followed protocol and there's never been any policy (or practice) of allocating agents on the basis of their height matching that of the protectee.    

Portrait of Theodore Roosevelt (1903) by John Singer Sargent.

In October 1912, a man shot Theodore Roosevelt (TR, 1858–1919; US president 1901-1909) while he was on the campaign trail for that year’s presidential election.  What saved Roosevelt was the bullet having to pass through a metal spectacles case and, tellingly, a folded, 50 page copy of the speech he was about to deliver on behalf of his Progressive Party.  The enraged crowd were holding and threatening to lynch the shooter but Roosevelt intervened, ensuring he was handed to the safe custody of the Wisconsin police.  Roosevelt had spent much of his life hunting big game and, on the basis he was not coughing up blood, correctly concluded that bullet was lodged in his muscle and had not punctured the lung, the relative lack of external bleeding suggesting no vital artery or vein had been severed.  His response to what would have put most men into a state of shock was to proceed to the hall and deliver his speech as planned.  Lodged too precariously to extract, the bullet remained with him until, peacefully, he died in his sleep at Oyster Bay, New York.

Men in frock coats: The “Big Four” at the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920), outside the Foreign Ministry headquarters, Quai d'Orsay, Paris.  Left to right: David Lloyd George (1863–1945; UK prime-minister 1916-1922), Vittorio Orlando (1860–1952; Italian prime minister 1917-1919), Georges Clemenceau (1841–1929; French prime minister 1906-1909 & 1917-1920) and Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924; US president 1913-1921).

Georges Clemenceau (1841–1929; Prime Minister of France 1906-1909 & 1917-1920) was a physician who turned to politics via journalism, a not unfamiliar trajectory for many; at a time of national crisis, he undertook his second term as premier, providing the country’s politics with the stiffness needed to endure what was by then World War I (1914-1918); he was nick-named le tigre (the tiger) in honor of his ferociously combative political demeanour.  In February 1919, while travelling from his apartment a meeting associated with the Paris Peace Conference (1919-1920), he was shot several times, his assailant an anarchist carpenter & joiner, Émile Cottin (1896-1937) and two decades on, another leader would learn carpenters can be assassins. Le tigre was lucky, the bullets missing his vital organs although one which passed through the ribcage ending up lodged close to his heart; too close to that vital organ to risk surgery, like Roosevelt, there it remained until his death (from unrelated causes) ten years later.  Cottin’s death sentence was later commuted to a ten year sentence and he would die in battle, serving with the anarchist Durruti Column during the early days of the Spanish Civil War.  The Tiger’s response to his survival was to observe: “We have just won the most terrible war in history, yet here is a Frenchman who misses his target six out of seven times at point-blank range.  Of course this fellow must be punished for the careless use of a dangerous weapon and for poor marksmanship. I suggest that he be locked up for eight years, with intensive training in a shooting gallery.”  In the circumstances, deploring the state of French marksmanship displayed a certain French sang froid.

Although the details of most at the time weren’t known, there were so many plots to kill Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) that books were written exploring the topic, the most comprehensive of which was Killing Hitler (b 2006) by British historian Roger Moorhouse (b 1968).  For a variety of reasons, none succeeded but the first to come close was in Munich in 1939 when a bomb (it would now be called an IED (improvised explosive device) was fabricated by German carpenter and joiner, Georg Elser (1903–1945) and secreted in a pillar directly behind where Hitler was scheduled to be standing while delivering to his old comrades one of his annual set-piece addresses.  However, on the night, because he wanted to return early to Berlin to resume planning his latest foreign policy adventure, he cut short his speech and the bomb detonated a quarter hour after he and his entourage had left; it killed eight and injured dozens.  Hitler’s response was to say his survival was “…proof to me that Providence wants me to reach my goal.”  Surprisingly, Herr Elser, apprehended almost by chance, wasn’t executed, the fate of many who had done much less, but until 1945 was a “privileged prisoner” in relatively pleasant conditions; Hitler, who for years clung to the idea the man must have had some connection with the British secret service, ordered him hanged only when it was obvious he’d be of no use as a hostage.

Hitler again thanked providence when he survived the most celebrated of the attempts, the bomb in July 1944 planted by an army colonel and timed to explode during a military conference.  Hitler on that occasion avoided death because (1) a table’s heavy socle deflected much of the blast, (2) only one of the planned two charged was primed and (3) the conference was moved from an enclosed underground bunker to a building on the surface with walls and windows which were “blown-out” in the explosion, dissipating much energy.  Those details were lost on the Führer who chose again to attribute this life being spared to “providence”.  One of those convince was the visiting Benito Mussolini (1883-1945; Duce (leader) & prime-minister of Italy 1922-1943), by then a much diminished puppet dictator of a puppet statelet sustained by the German military.  Dutifully the vassal Duce responded to Hitler: “Absolutely I agree with you, it’s a sign from providence”.  That decided, Hitler’s response to this “stab in the back” from his own army was savage, some 7000 rounded up, 5000-odd of which would be executed, the leading figures in the conspiracy dying in an especially gruesome manner, a event filmed although there are contradictory reports about whether it was something Hitler ever chose to view.  In the way of Nazi crack-downs, not all those executed were actually connected with this or any other plot, the security services using the operation as a pretext to dispose of those of one of their many lists of “undesirables”.

A prototype Humber Imperial fitted with a 273 cubic inch (4.5 litre) Chrysler LA V8.  By the mid 1960s the Humber Super Snipe (1964-1967) was essentially a mid-1950s US sedan being produced in England, a phenomenon which was emblematic of a malaise afflicting much of the UK's motor industry.  The Imperial was an up-market, better-appointed Super-Snipe and after Chrysler took a stake in the company, perhaps as many as six V8 prototypes were built but the advantages gained were few and the project never proceeded to general production.  When Chrysler in 1967 took over Rootes Group (the corporation of which Humber was a part) the Super Snipe range was discontinued, replaced in the UK market by Australian-produced Chrysler Valiants, chosen in preference to the US-built versions because they were available in right-hand drive configuration and the Commonwealth Preference scheme meant they attracted lower import tariffs.  Although only ever a niche product in the UK market and never approaching the sales volumes achieved by the big Humbers, the Valiants remained available until 1976.      

Arthur Augustus Calwell (1896-1973; Australian Labor Party (ALP) leader of the opposition 1960-1967) was a rare Australian target of an attempted political assassination.  Two years after being knighted by Paul VI (1897-1978; pope 1963-1978) (his Pontifical Equestrian Order of St. Gregory the Great (KCSG) apparent unrelated to the attempt on his life), Calwell was sitting in the front passenger seat (it’s an Australian tradition) of his official car when 19 year-old student Peter Kocan (b 1947), at point blank range, fired a shell from a sawn-off rifle, aimed directly at his target.  In 1966, the Commonwealth’s car fleet still included their last intake of British-built cars and Calwell was sitting in a Series V Humber Super Snipe (1964-1967), an outdated machine but one which was stately & roomy and thus enjoyed by politicians who found their replacement, the lower Ford Galaxie, less comfortable, especially the ingress and egress.  Fortunately for Calwell, the side glass in the old-fashioned Humber was thick and instead of penetrating the pane, it shattered, absorbing most of the bullet’s energy; it was spent by the time it had travelled those few feet, lodging harmlessly in the lapel of the target’s jacket, Mr Calwell's injuries limited to some minor cuts from the broken glass.  Kocan was found guilty of attempted murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, sent initially to Sydney's Long Bay Gaol before being transferred to Morriset Psychiatric Hospital for the criminally insane.  There he studied literature and after his release became a prize winning poet and novelist, eventually graduating from the University of Newcastle with a BA (Hons) & MA.  Calwell’s response to the man who tried to kill him was to pay a visit to the hospital and, although a great hater in the ALP tradition, he was also a good Catholic, sending a letter of forgiveness.

Arthur Calwell leaving hospital in his Humber Super Snipe, the presence in numbers of the New South Wales (NSW) Police suggesting they were going to make sure nothing more happened to him before he returned to Victoria.  The police cars are locally assembled Rambler Classics and in Australia, various AMCs were in small volumes assembled and sold under the Rambler name until 1977.

In an example of how difficult it can be for security services to monitor and intercept those who plan to kill political figures, the motive of the man who in March 1981 shot Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989) was to impress an actress with whom he’d become obsessed.  That was something even less likely to attract the attention of the authorities than the earlier case when a botched attempt had been made by a member of Charles Manson’s (1934-2017) “Family” cult to assassinate Gerald Ford (1913–2006; US president 1974-1977).  Mr Reagan’s injury was life-threatening and was saved only by surgical intervention.  When greeted by the surgeons who were to perform the operation, his response was to tell them he hoped they “…were all Republicans”.  In an example of good bedside manner they assured him he was in safe political hands although one later confessed to being a lifelong Democrat.  When his wife arrived at the hospital, he delivered the line “Honey, I forgot to duck”, borrowed from boxer Jack Dempsey (1895–1983) who said it to Mrs Dempsey on the night he'd lost a bout to Gene Tunney (1897–1978).

Leverage

Leverage (pronounced lev-rij, lev-er-ij or lee-ver-ij)

(1) The action of a lever, a rigid bar that pivots about one point and that is used to move an object at a second point by a force applied at a third.

(2) The mechanical advantage or power gained by using a lever.  A force compounded by means of a lever rotating around a pivot.

(3) The power or ability to act or to influence people, events, decisions etc, based on position, personality, reputation etc (an applied to both institutions & individuals); sway.

(4) In finance, the use of a small initial investment, credit, or borrowed funds to gain a very high return in relation to one's investment, to control a much larger investment, or to reduce one's own liability for any loss (in some places known also as “gearing” and often used to express the “debt to equity” ratio).

(5) To use (a quality or advantage) to obtain a desired effect or result:

(6) To provide with leverage.

(7) To invest or arrange (invested funds) using leverage.

(8) To exert power or influence on:

1724: The construct was lever + -age.  Lever (a rigid piece which is capable of turning about one point, or axis (the fulcrum), and in which are two or more other points where forces are applied (used for transmitting and modifying force and motion)) was from the Middle English lever, levore & levour, from the Old French leveor & leveur (a lifter, lever (also Old French and French levier)), from the Latin levātor (a lifter), from levō (to raise).  The suffix -age was from the Middle English -age, from the Old French -age, from the Latin -āticum.  Cognates include the French -age, the Italian -aggio, the Portuguese -agem, the Spanish -aje & Romanian -aj.  It was used to form nouns (1) with the sense of collection or appurtenance, (2) indicating a process, action, or a result, (3) of a state or relationship, (4) indicating a place, (5) indicating a charge, toll, or fee, (6) indicating a rate & (7) of a unit of measure.  Leverage is a noun & verb, leverage is a noun, leveraged & leveraging are verbs and leverageable is an adjective; the noun plural is leverages.

The original meaning was to describe the action of a lever, the meaning “the power or force of a lever” emerging in 1827 while the figurative sense of an “advantage for accomplishing a purpose” dates from 1858.  The use in financial matters seems first to have appeared in writing in 1933 and was a creation of US English, in use as a verb by at least 1956.  The synonyms and related terms when describing the physics of the mechanical effect include mechanical advantage, strength, multiplier effect & force multiplier; in the figurative sense the usual alternatives are clout, influence & pull.  In the world of limited liability companies, leveraged financial arrangements (such as the “leveraged buyout”) are so common that when the mechanism is not used, the adjectives non-leveraged & unleveraged often appear.  The word is so embedded in the slang of those in business where leveraged transactions are common that as a transitive verb, it’s commonly used generally to suggest “to use; to exploit; to manipulate in order to take full advantage of someone or something.  The word has also entered the language of international relations (though used more often by commentators than diplomats) to describe what is known casually as “hostage diplomacy”.  The taking of hostages for ransom or some other purpose is not new and has probably been practiced since human societies first interacted and many cases over the centuries have been documented but historically, the tactic was once blatantly admitted, the gangsterism unconcealed.  Now, states which use hostages for leverage usually gloss things with the pretence of legality, the hostage convicted of something and given a sentence disproportionately long and while none seem yet to have been sufficiently cynical to have used a charge of "unspecified offences" that may yet happen.  The leverage sought tends to be political (the release of prisoners held by the hostage’s country of origin or some other concession) and the expert practitioners are the usual suspects: the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea)), the PRC (People’s Republic of China) and the Russian Federation.

Lever porn: 1972 Mercedes-Benz Unimog w1416.  The multiple levers were required because of the many drive and gearing combinations available.  In vehicles of this type, this may be close to peak-lever because it's become common to use electronic controls for activation but the attraction of mechanical levers is their robust reliability.  For those who remember the way things used to be done, the tactility is also compelling.

The surname Lever is English and of Norman origin; it was a nickname for a fleet-footed or timid person, from the Old French levre (hare), from the Latin lepus (genitive leporis) although it’s not impossible that at least in some instances, it was a metonymic occupational name for a hunter or trapper of hares.  In some regions it may also have been a topographic name for someone who lived in a place thickly grown with rushes, the link the Old English lǣfer (rush, reed, iris).  Great & Little Lever in Greater Manchester are (collectively) named with this word and if there was a habitational origin to any names it would have come from such placed.  Although rare in Germany, where Lever exists it is a descendent of the medieval personal names Lever (a variant of Liever and Levert, a variant of Lievert.  In Slovenia, it’s an altered form of Levar.

Leverage began its life meaning “to use a lever or some similar tool to gain a mechanical advantage, typically in the context of lifting or moving heavy objects”, the idea generally thus one of “effective force multiplication”.  From here it came variously to be used figuratively, notably sine the 1930s in structured financial transactions.  Financial Leverage is the use of various financial instruments or borrowed capital to increase the potential return of an investment, the attraction the magnification of profit; the risk in increase in potential losses.  Social leverage is not new but it’s assumed a new significance in the age of social media because the proliferation of access afforded by the platforms has removed the “gatekeeper” role the legacy media once fulfilled and a presence, once established in one context can be leveraged into a position in other, lucrative fields.  Fame itself seemed to be enough: Lindsay Lohan’s forays into music and fashion might seem related to her career in film but wouldn’t appear obviously to be linked with her more recent activities promoting cryptocurrency.  That doesn’t matter because notoriety (for better or worse) is enough; her choice of a certain dress to wear to one of her many court appearances saw the garment sell-out within hours.  Nor is this multi-directional leverage a creature only of pop culture, a number of Nobel laureates wryly observing that having won the prize for their accomplishments is a certain branch of science, they end up on the “commentator lists” of media organizations and are asked for their thoughts on things hardly related to their field.

In the matter of Grand Theft Auto (GTA5): Lindsay Lohan v Take-Two Interactive Software Inc et al, New York Court of Appeals (No 24, pp1-11, 29 March 2018)

It’s of course routine for leverage to be weaponized but sometimes, there’s the suggestion the leverage of others can be appropriated and misused, the essence of many an ambush marketing campaign.  Lindsay Lohan in 2014 sued a software house, alleging one of the characters in the game Grand Theft Auto V (GTA5) was based on a likeness of her and thus an invasion of her privacy: “an attempt to leverage her public profile to boost sales of the latest instalment of the series”.  The game’s producers responded, labelling the suit a “publicity stunt” and in private discussions they may also have called it a cunning one.  It took an unremarkable four years from filing for the case to reach New York’s highest appellate court where it was dismissed, six judges of the Court of Appeals finding the “actress/singer” in GTA5 merely resembled a “generic young woman” rather than anyone specific.  Concurring with the 2016 ruling of the New York County Supreme Court which, on appeal, also found for the game’s makers, the judges, as a point of law, accepted the claim a computer game’s character “could be construed a portrait”, which “could constitute an invasion of an individual’s privacy” but, on the facts of the case, the likeness was “not sufficiently strong”.  The “… artistic renderings are an indistinct, satirical representation of the style, look and persona of a modern, beach-going young woman... that is not recognizable as the plaintiff” the judgment read.  Ms Lohan’s lawyers did not seek leave to appeal.

Blasphemy

Blasphemy (pronounced blas-fuh-mee)

(1) Impious or profane utterance or action concerning God or sacred things.

(2) An act of cursing or reviling God.

(3) In Judaism, pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (the Hebrew name of God transliterated in four letters as YHWH or JHVH and articulated as Yahweh or Jehovah) in the original (and then forbidden) manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.

(4) In theology, the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.

(5) Irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless etc.

(6) In law, also called blasphemous libel, the crime committed if a person insults, offends, or vilifies the deity, Christ, or the Christian religion (now, in many jurisdictions effectively, if not technically, almost extinct although prosecutions continue in some countries (Malaysian, Mauritania, Bangladesh, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Egypt etc).

1175-1225: From the Middle English blasfemye & blasphemie, from the early thirteenth century Old French blasfemie (blasphemy), from the Ecclesiastical Latin blasphēmia, from the Ancient Greek βλασφημία (blasphēmía) (speaking ill, impious speech, slander; profanity), from βλασφημέω (blasphēméō) (to slander).  The origin of the first element of the word is uncertain, possibly related to blaptikos (hurtful) although blax (slack (in body and mind) or stupid) is an alternative and some etymologists suggest as link with the root of the Latin malus (bad, unpleasant), from the primitive Indo-European root mel-.  Phēmē (utterance) is from the primitive Indo-European root bha- (to speak, tell, say).  The medieval Church Latin was blasphemare, which in Late Latin also meant "revile, reproach", hence the sense of blame which was picked up by both Canon and secular law.  In the Old Testament, the word actually applied to a more specific crime, against the reverence for Jehovah as ruler of the Jews, comparable to treason.  Blasphemy, blasphemer & blasphemousness are nouns, blaspheme, blasphemed & blaspheming are verbs, blasphemous is an adjective and blasphemously is an adverb; the noun plural is blasphemies.

Blasphemy and attempted blasphemy

Lindsay Lohan in Aqua drawstring silk shirt, vest & blouse with silver crown of thorns accessory (actually a necklace) by Belgian designer Ann Demeulemeester (b 1959), Purple magazine, Spring Summer 2010 edition.  In the west, if it involves Christianity, it's difficult now to be blasphemous.  There was a time, not that long ago, when the "crown of thorns" alone would have been enough to offend and if not, adopting a "crucifixion pose" would certainly have done it.  By the twenty-first century, such things attract barely a comment, even reverend and right reverend gentlemen now silent.

In Australia, although there’s been no successful prosecution for a hundred-odd years, the common law crime of blasphemy technically still exists in some Australian states and territories; abolished by statute only in Queensland, Tasmania and Western Australia (the so-called “code states” which (beginning with Queensland in 1899) adopted a codified system of criminal law) and by common law in Victoria.  Where it exists, it operates not as a general law to prevent vilifying or inciting hatred against people on the basis of their religion but is a specific, special legal layer protecting God and Christian doctrine from non-deferential commentary and Christian religious sensibilities from offence.  In Australia, the crime of blasphemy protects only Christianity; it remains lawful to blaspheme against other religions although other laws do offer some protection in some circumstances.  Blasphemy can be committed by speech, writing, art or other form of communication; the old technical distinctions do not apply.

Cardinal George Pell performing a ritual.

In 1997, while Archbishop of Melbourne, Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023) lodged a writ in the Supreme Court of Victoria seeking a an injunction preventing the National Gallery of Victoria (NGV) from displaying a work of art, the argument being the work was blasphemous.  Despite the archbishop’s efforts, the Supreme Court declined injunctive relief, the judge noting that as a point of law,  in Australia, the crime of blasphemy no longer existed.  While the ruling of the Victorian Supreme Court applies only within state boundaries, it would almost certainly be found persuasive by courts in other Australian states.  That obviously extends only to secular law and the Roman Catholic Church is not restricted from dealing with charges of blasphemy under its own rules but its sanctions are limited to stuff like denying blasphemers Holy Communion or, ultimately, excommunication.  The days are gone of blasphemers being burned at the stake after some days of enduing the most horrible tortures.

The Christian churches have, since the Enlightenment, become something of a target for those seeking some form of "shock-value" to draw attention to their product (fashion line, music video, political campaign et al) but in the West, the utility of the approach has in recent years been devalued as societies have become increasingly secular and any growth in observance has tended to be non-Christian.  Even in the US where, unlike Europe and the rest of the English-speaking world, religiosity is still demographically significant, the Supreme Court (USSC) has taken a "black-letter law" view of the First Amendment to the constitution which provides (1) that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise and (2) protects freedom of speech, the press and assembly.  This has operated to mean people generally (within the limits of other laws) have the right to practice religion, not practice it at all or say what they wish about religion (limited only by other laws such as defamation).  As a general principle, in the West, the offence of blasphemy no longer exists except perhaps as an abstraction in English constitutional law in certain matters pertaining to the office of sovereign and the Church of England but no its doubtful any modern secular court would handle such things as offences of blasphemy and given the nature of the contemporary church, probably no ecclesiastical tribunal would ant to explore the idea.  Modern Anglicans don't mind being accused of heresy but quake in fright at the idea they might be thought "non-inclusive".

Elsewhere, blasphemy seems alive and well.  It's a most sensitive issue in Pakistan which has a Muslim majority (97%) population although the blasphemy laws still in use were introduced in 1860 under the Raj, the British creating the offence to supress the religious and communal violence between the Hindus and Muslims (the areas which now constitute Pakistan and Bangladesh then part of India).  The Pakistan Penal Code was later amended by military ruler General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1924-1988; President of Pakistan 1977-1988) and disrespecting Prophet Muhammed or desecrating the Holy Quran are capital offences punishable by death.  However, although the death penalty has occasions been imposed by courts, it seems none of the sentences have been carried out (although executions have happened in what are essentially blasphemy cases but the convictions have been recorded as "terrorism), but thousands of convicted blasphemers remain in prison and there's much to suggest there are many instances of what is a form of "protective custody" sheltering people from what would likely be a deadly retribution.  There have been thousands of formal complaints over recent decades and dozens of killings, many before the cases reached court and, contrary to what seems to be the impression in the West, Christians are not the most frequent targets (although their cases do attract the most publicity), most of the accused being from the minority sects of Islam.   Judicial authorities admit the laws are widely misused as a device with which to pursue personal vendettas or exert leverage in commercial disputes but judges need to be cautious, one high court judge in 1997 murdered in his chambers after acquitting two Christians accused of blasphemy; the accused murderer was acquitted because no witness was prepared to provide evidence for the prosecution.

Modern capitalism can also be blasphemous in Pakistan.  As part of the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) "Belt & Road" project, the Chinese-funded Dasu hydropower project in north-western Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province is under construction and the senior engineer (a Chinese national) was accused of blasphemy after commenting on the “slow pace of work” during the holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims fast from dawn to sunset.  According to a police official (who agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity), “...the labourers said they were fasting but denied that work had slowed down, which led to an exchange of heated words” with the supervisor and “...later, the labourers accused the engineer of making blasphemous remarks”.  This induced a protest by some 400 members of the local population, one of who filed a written complaint.  The police later issued a statement confirming a “...Chinese national has been taken to a safe place as a precautionary measure”.  It's expected the CCP will arranged to have the engineer recalled to China and replaced with one who has undergone what would in the West be called "culturally appropriate training.

Indonesia is the world’s largest Muslim-majority nation and in 2023, a court imposed a two year sentence on a 33 year old woman who was convicted of blasphemy because she posted on TikTok a clip of the reciting a Muslim prayer before eating some crispy pork skin.  According to the Holy Quran, flesh from pigs is regarded as haram (from the Arabic: حَرَام, (ḥarām) (forbidden) and thus under Islamic law not permissible as food for Muslims.  The offence alone might have attracted some sanction but the fact it amassed literally millions of views on the social platform was regarded as exacerbatory on the basis it “spread information that was intended to incite hate or individual or group enmity based on religion”.  In additional to the custodial sentence, the court ordered her to pay a fine of 250 million rupiah (US$16,249.59).  The significance of the use of social media has been cited as one of the reasons that in recent years there has been an increase in blasphemy cases in the country, something which has impacted Indonesia’s reputation for moderation, more matters coming to the attention of those most anxious to ensure a strict interpretation of Islamic law is maintained.  In recent years notable cases have included (1) charges of both blasphemy and hate speech against the head of an Islamic boarding school which permitted men and women to pray alongside each other and women to  preach become preachers, (2) arrests after a chain of bars ran a promotion offering free beer (also haram) for patrons named Mohammed and (3) an 18-month jail sentence imposed on ethnic Chinese Buddhist woman convicted of blasphemy because it was alleged she said a nearby mosque’s loudspeakers were too loud.

There are complaints Indonesia's blasphemy laws are being co-opted to target minority groups and dissenters and that this contravenes certain international obligations in relation to respect and protection for freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief, freedom of opinion and expression but not even senior politicians are exempt: in 2017 a former governor of Jakarta (a Christian) received a two year sentence for blasphemy and even some of those who admitted the charges probably were "politically motivated", nevertheless agreed his words were "blasphemous against Islam" and the sentence should stand although, in a most unusual manoeuvre, the prosecutor's office appeal the verdict on the basis it was too severe and the one year sentence they had requested was more appropriate.  The Supreme Court rejected the appeal.

The matter of blasphemy has of late been much discussed in Sweden following some instances of Quran burning as a protest against Islam (definitely haram in this context although many imams do list "respectful, ceremonial burning" as an acceptable way of handling the destruction of severely damaged copies of the Quran).  Swedish law has neither a statute which explicitly prohibits the burning or desecration of the Quran (or any other other religious texts) or any blasphemy laws.  Given Sweden's reputation for tolerance and moderation, it surprises many that as late as the nineteenth century blasphemy was considered a serious crime in Swedish law and in some circumstances a capital offence and repeal wasn't sudden, the wording gradually relaxed in line with the country's increasing secularization and by 1970, when the last reference was removed from the books, there hadn't been a prosecution for decades and most probably assumed the laws had long ago been repealed.  For all sorts of reasons however, the Quaran burning is not thought helpful and the authorities would rather those with a axe to grind would just write letters to the editor.  The police have indicated that if necessary they'll used the nation's hate speech laws which prohibits incitement against groups of people based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity.