Lunch

Lunch (pronounced luhnch)

(1) A light midday meal between breakfast and dinner; luncheon.

(2) Any light meal or snack.

(3) To eat lunch.

(4) In slang, as “out to lunch”, dim, vague, uselessly ineffectual.

(5) In slang as “lunchy”, old-fashioned; passé; out of style (obsolete).

(6) In slang as “eating their lunch”, outwitting an opponent.

(7) In Caribbean slang (among older folk), mid afternoon tea.

(8) In first-class cricket, the break in play between the first and second sessions (confusingly for those new to cricket, although the first session is often called the "pre-lunch session", the second is known as the "lunch session" and not the "post lunch session").

(9) In Minnesota, USA, any small meal, especially one eaten at a social gathering.

1580:  It’s never been clear which came first: lunch or luncheon.  Origin of both is thought to lie in a dissimilated variant of nuncheon, the Middle English nonechenche (noon ling meal and drink), equivalent to none (noon) + schench (from the Old English scenc or scencan (to pour out, give drink)), cognate with the Dutch and German schenken.  Apparent unrelated, Old English had nonmete (afternoon meal, literally "noon-meat").  Nonechenche was possibly altered by the northern English dialect lunch (hunk of bread or cheese) from 1590 which may be from lump or the Spanish lonja (slice, literally “loin”).  Because dinner in the sense of the biggest or main meal of the day) could be eaten either at around noon, in the evening or at night, there was a need for a meal to fill the gap between breakfast and dinner.  Lunch is a noun & verb, luncher is a noun, lunching is a noun & verb and lunched is a verb; the noun plural is lunches.

A montage of a languid Lindsay Lohan lingering over lunch.

The idea of lunch as it’s now understood took a long time to evolve, to “take a lunch” in 1786 is recorded as eating a chunk of something (perhaps evolved from lump), carved sufficiently large to constitute a filling meal and as late as 1817, the US Webster’s Dictionary offered as the only definition of lunch "a large piece of food", a meaning long obsolete and in the 1820s, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) thought it either “a vulgarism or a fashionable affectation".   Nevertheless, lunch’s intrusion into the language in the nineteenth century does suggest some sort of social change was afoot, either in the type, style or timing of meals or at least the words used to describe them.  Lunch-money was attested from 1868; lunch-time from 1821; lunch hour from 1840 and the lunch-break from 1960.  The slang phrase out to lunch in the sense of “a bit vague, dim, clueless (but some way short of actually insane) was first recorded in recorded 1955, the notion of being "not there" and instead at lunch.  The luncheon voucher was a public health measure, introduced in 1946 by the UK’s post-war Labour government (1945-1951).  It was literally a paper voucher which represented the mechanism by which the government would subsidize midday meals taken in private restaurants by employees in workplaces where there was no staff canteen.  Luncheon vouchers were an attempt to improve the national diet by encouraging the consumption of healthy, nutritious food at a time when so many basic items were still subject to the rationing imposed during wartime (indeed, some foodstuffs were subject to rationing only after the conflict ceased).  In an example of bureaucratic inertia, the scheme existed to an extent until 2013 by which time the effects of inflation had made the by then trivial subsidy inconsequential.

Receptacles in which to store one’s lunch for transport have a history.  The lunch-box is documented from 1864, the lunch-pail from 1891.  Those were descriptive nouns whereas lunch-bucket emerged in the 1990s as an adjective indicating working-class men or values, bucket presumably the best word because it was universally understood in the English-speaking world to an extent pail was not.  Lunch-bag seems never to have become a common form despite being widely used but in the 1970s, the verb brown-bag (and the related brown-bagging) referring to bringing lunch or liquor in a brown paper bag.  A long-time staple of a lunch-pail’s contents, lunch-meat (a processed form of meat-based protein produced in a size which, when sliced, was aligned with the slices of standard loaves of bread and thus convenient for making sandwiches) was first documented in 1931.  The lunch-counter (a long, elevated table or bench where customers eat standing or sitting on high stools) is an 1854 invention of US English.

The possible future of lunch: Grilled jellyfish.  Although many fish species are in decline, jellyfish numbers are growing.  The part eaten for lunch is called the umbrella. 

The portmanteau word brunch dates from circa 1890, a British student slang merging of breakfast and lunch, according to the magazine Punch (1 August 1896).  It appeared in 1895 in the defunct Hunter's Weekly, but two years earlier, at the University of Oxford, the students had drawn what must at the time have seemed an important distinction: The combination-meal, when nearer the usual breakfast hour, is "brunch" and, when nearer luncheon, is "blunch".  That’s a linguistic curiosity in that the brunch survived while blunch did not yet the modern understanding of a brunch appears to be something taken closer to the time of lunch than breakfast.  It may be that brunch was just the more pleasingly attractive word, blunch not so well rolling off the tongue.  Several spellings of luncheon were noted in the decades after the 1640s, the now standardised form not widespread until 1706.  Of uncertain origin, in the 1580s was used to describe something like the northern English dialectal lunch (hunk of bread or cheese), though influenced by the Spanish lonja (a slice, literally "loin"), blended with or influenced by nuncheon, from the mid-fourteenth century Middle English nonechenche, (light mid-day meal), from none (noon) + schench (drink), from the Old English scenc, from scencan (pour out).

The possible future of lunch: Fishcakes.  Fishcakes are a way by-products of the industrial processing of seafood can be sold as a protein source (ie make use of what would be otherwise used for agricultural feed, the pet-food business or end up a waste product.

The etymology of all these words is tangled and there are reasons to suspect the similar forms arose independently in different place rather than as forks of anything vaguely lineal, the OED discounting the notion of lunching, which dates from the 1650s, being derived from the verb lunch because that wasn’t to be attested for another century, the OED suggesting there may be some connection (by analogy) with words like truncheon etc to simulate a French origin which is speculative but such things are not unknown in ever class-conscious England.  Whatever the origin, it does seem to have been used to describe an early afternoon meal eaten by those who take dinner at noon.

Embellish

Embellish (pronounced m-bell-lysh)

(1) To decorate, garnish, bedeck or embroider an object.

(2) To beautify by ornamentation; to adorn.

(3) To enhance a statement or narrative with fictitious additions.

1300–1350: From the Middle English embelisshen from the Anglo-French, from the Middle French embeliss- (stem of embelir), the construct being em- (The form taken by en- before the labial consonants “b” & “p”, as it assimilates place of articulation).  The en- prefix was from the Middle English en- & in-.  In the Old French it existed as en- & an-, from the Latin in- (in, into); it was also from an alteration of in-, from the Middle English in-, from the Old English in- (in, into), from the Proto-Germanic in (in).  Both the Latin and Germanic forms were from the primitive Indo-European en (in, into) and the frequency of use in the Old French is because of the confluence with the Frankish an- intensive prefix, related to the Old English on-.) + bel-, from the Latin bellus (pretty) + -ish.  The –ish suffix was from the Middle English –ish & -isch, from the Old English –isċ, from the Proto-West Germanic -isk, from the Proto-Germanic –iskaz, from the primitive Indo-European -iskos.  It was cognate with the Dutch -s; the German -isch (from which Dutch gained -isch), the Norwegian, Danish, and Swedish -isk & -sk, the Lithuanian –iškas, the Russian -ский (-skij) and the Ancient Greek diminutive suffix -ίσκος (-ískos); a doublet of -esque and -ski.  There exists a welter of synonyms and companion phrases such as decorate, grace, prettify, bedeck, dress up, exaggerate, gild, overstate, festoon, embroider, adorn, spiff up, trim, magnify, deck, color, enrich, elaborate, ornament, beautify, enhance, array & garnish.  Embellish is a verb, embellishing is a noun & verb, embellished is a verb & adjective and embellisher & embellishment are nouns; the noun plural is embellishments.

The meaning "dress up (a narration) with fictitious matter" was first noted in the mid-fifteenth century and was an acknowledgement of a long (if sometimes hardly noble) literary tradition.  It was exemplified by the publication in 1785 by German author Rudolf Erich Raspe (1736-1794) of Baron Munchausen's Narrative of his Marvellous Travels and Campaigns in Russia, a collection of extraordinary stories, based (loosely) on the tales told by the real-life Baron Hieronymus Karl Friedrich, Freiherr von Münchhausen (1720-1797).  The real baron was prone to quite some exaggeration in the tales of his travels but never went as far as Herr Raspe had his fictional baron flying to the moon.  The technique of enhancing a statement or narrative with fictitious additions (ie lies) was later perfected by the author and one-time Tory politician Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare (b 1940) and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947).

Lindsay Lohan in bikini embellished with faux (synthetic) fur, photo-shoot for the fifth anniversary of ODDA magazine, April 2017.

In the matter of Stormy Daniels and Donald Trump

Various matters relating to a payment allegedly made by (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) to adult film star (and director in the same genre) Stormy Daniels (Stephanie Gregory Clifford; b 1979) are currently before a New York criminal court.  When a member of Mr Trump’s legal team suggested she may have a  “propensity to embellish” when giving evidence, counsel was using the word “embellish” in the crooked Hillary sense of “lie”.  Lawyers have many ways to suggest those being cross-examined are lying and embellish is one of the more euphemistic though not as inventive as “economical with the truth”.  That one will forever be associated with former UK cabinet secretary Sir Robert Armstrong (1927-2020; later Baron Armstrong of Ilminster) who, under cross-examination in the “Spycatcher” trial (1986), when referring to a letter, answered: “It contains a misleading impression, not a lie. It was being economical with the truth.”  Whether the old Etonian was aware of much post-Classical writing isn’t known (at Christ Church, Oxford he read the “Greats” (the history and philosophy of Ancient Greece & Rome)) but he may have been acquainted with Mark Twain’s (1835-1910) Following the Equator (1897) in which appeared: “Truth is the most valuable thing we have.  Let us economize it.” or the earlier thoughts of the Anglo-Irish Whig politician Edmund Burke (1729-1797) who in his Two Letters on the Proposals for Peace with the Regicide Directory (1796) noted: “Falsehood and delusion are allowed in no case whatsoever: But, as in the exercise of all the virtues, there is an economy of truth.”  Just as likely however is that Sir Robert had been corrupted by his long service in HMG (Her Majesty’s Government) and was thinking of: “The truth is so precious, it deserves an escort of lies.”, a phrase often attributed (as are many) to Sir Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955), but there’s some evidence to suggest he may have picked it up from comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) and even if it wasn’t something the old seminarian coined, it was the mantra by which he lived so he deserves some credit.  Sir Robert’s phrase entered the annals of legal folklore and was good enough to have been lifted from a script from the BBC satire Yes Minister.

Courtroom sketch of defendant, judge, prosecutor & witness by Jane Rosenberg (b 1949), Manhattan Criminal Court, New York, 7 May 2024.

The work of courtroom sketch artists became a feature of the trial process in many Western courts during the years when photography was banned and Ms Rosenberg has since 1980 become of of the most highly regarded practitioners.  Of her art, she was quoted, in a statement she stressed was non-political and not a comment on the legal merit of his case, that Mr Trump was “fun to draw”.  Something of the character of law will be lost if the courtroom sketch artist is replaced by an artificial intelligence (AI) bot.

The exchange on 7 May wasn’t the first time “propensity” and “embellish” had been entered into the trial transcript.   On 23 April, the court heard about former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker’s (b 1951) “secret arrangement” negotiated in 2015 with Mr Trump and his then attorney (and “fixer”) Michael Cohen (b 1966), the terms of which included the publication (1) promoting Mr Trump’s presidential ambition and (2) publicizing Mr Cohen’s “research” relating to Mr Trump’s opponents: “He would send me information [about the others seeking the Republican nomination for the 2016 presidential election] and that was the basis for our story, and we would embellish (in the National Enquirer tradition "embellish" is a spectrum word ranging in meaning from "exaggerate" to "untrue").” Mr Pecker testified, adding the arrangement was kept secret from all but a handful of his senior executives: “I told them [the National Enquirer’s East and West Coast bureau chiefs] we were going to try and help the campaign, and to do that we would keep it as quiet as possible.”  National Enquirer has bureaux; who knew?

Stormy Daniels.

The day before, Mr Trump’s team pursued a line of questioning designed to cast doubt on Mr Cohen’s credibility, suggesting that for him Mr Trump has become “an obsession” and that he wishes to see him incarcerated and has “a propensity to lie.”  “He has a goal, an obsession, with getting Trump.  I submit to you he cannot be trusted.  His entire financial livelihood depends on President Trump’s destruction… You cannot make a serious decision about President Trump by relying on the words of Michael Cohen.” Counsel argued.  Mr Cohen had certainly left no doubt the case was on his mind, the previous night posting on-line that he’d experienced some “…mental excitement about this trial...” and the testimony he would deliver.

The highlight thus far however came when the state called to the stand Ms Daniels where in greater detail than expected she described the encounter with Mr Trump which led to the hush-money scheme.  The word the press seemed to settle on for their reports was “salacious” but the two things which most struck legal analysts was (1) the unusually wide interpretative latitude the judge appeared to allow himself when deciding the nature of the many details Ms Daniels should be allowed to introduce and (2) the curious reticence of defence counsel in objecting to the course things were taking.  Both of these aspects may be considered if the case goes on appeal when often a ruling is made on what evidence is relevant and what is so prejudicial that under the evidentiary rule it shouldn’t have been admitted and heard by the jury.

Stormy expression: Donald Trump at the defense table, Manhattan Criminal Court, New York, 7 May 2024.

Over lunch, Mr Trump’s team must have discussed these matters because they moved a motion requesting the judge declare a mistrial on the grounds Ms Daniels’ testimony contained prejudicial and irrelevant comments which: “…aside from pure embarrassment…,” these details did nothing but “…inflame the jury.”  The judge did acknowledge Ms Daniels was a difficult witness to control and agreed: “...it would have been better if some of these things had been left unsaid.” but denied the motion, saying defense counsel should have raised more objections during the testimony and that cross-examination would permit them to redress things, adding that at one point he had intervened to limit her statements simply because the defence had not.  The defense did actually raise a number of objections, a slew of which the judge upheld, after which he cautioned the witness: “Just listen to the question, and answer the question.”  Some may have recalled the infamous cross-examination of Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) by Justice Robert Jackson (1892–1954; US Supreme Court Justice 1941-1954; Chief US Prosecutor at the Nuremberg (IMT) trials of Nazi war criminals 1945-1946) at the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) when the judges of the IMT (International Military Tribunal) declined to “control the witness”, leaving Justice Jackson increasingly exasperated by Göring’s long answers which the prosecutor though mostly irrelevant but which were of great interest to at least some of the judges and permitted under the terms of the court’s charter.  Of course, the IMT wasn’t limited by New York’s rules on admissibility of evidence.

Stormy Daniels (2019) by Robert Crumb.  Robert Crumb (b 1943) is an US cartoonist, associated since the 1960s with the counter-culture and some strains of libertarianism; he was one of the most identifiable figures of the quasi-underground (in the Western rather than the Warsaw Pact sense) comix movement.

However, in one exchange during defense cross examination, there was no question of any propensity to embellish, counsel asking: “Am I correct in that you hate President Trump?” to which Ms Daniels replied: “Yes.”  No ambiguity there and although not discussed in court, her attitude may not wholly be unrelated to Mr Trump’s rather ungracious description of her as “horse face”.  Really, President Trump should be more respectful towards a three-time winner of F.A.M.E.'s (Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment) much coveted annual "Favorite Breasts" award.

Donald Trump leaving Manhattan Criminal Court, New York, 7 May 2024.

Speaking briefly to reporters after leaving the court, Mr Trump said: “This was a very big day, a very revealing day, as you see, their case is totally falling apart, they have nothing on the books and records and even something that should bear very little relationship to the case, it's just a disaster for the DA.”

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.

Corona

Corona (pronounced kuh-roh-nuh)

(1) A white or colored circle or set of concentric circles of light seen around a luminous body.

(2) In meteorology, such a circle or set of circles having a small radius and ranging in color from blue inside to red outside, attributable to the diffraction caused by thin clouds, mist, or sometimes dust (distinguished from halo).

(3) In solar astronomy, a faintly luminous envelope outside of the sun's chromosphere, the inner part consisting of highly ionized elements; also called aureola & aureole.

(4) A long, straight, un-tapered cigar, rounded at the closed end.

(5) In botany, a crown-like appendage, especially one on the inner side of a corolla, as in the narcissus.

(6) In anatomy, the upper portion or crown of a part, as of the head.

(7) In architecture, the projecting, slab-like member of a classical cornice supported by the bed molding or by modillions, dentils, etc., and supporting the cymatium.

(8) The tonsure of a monk or other cleric.

(9) In ecclesiastical dress, a gold-colored stripe around the lower edge of a clerical headdress, as of a miter.

(10) A chandelier of wrought metal, having the form of one or more concentric hoops.

(11) In zoology, the head or upper surface of an animal, such as the body of an echinoid or the disc and arms of a crinoid.

(12) As Coronaviruses, a group of viruses which infect mammals and birds.  In humans, they cause usually mild (including 229E, the common cold) respiratory infections but forms such as SARS, MERS the famous COVID-19 can be lethal.

1555–1565: From the Latin corōna (garland, crown) from the Ancient Greek κορώνη (korṓnē or korōnis (crown, any curved object)), akin to korōnís (wreath; curved, beaked) & kórax (crow; raven); related was the Latin curvus (curved).  A doublet of crown, the plural forms are coronas & coronae.

COVID-19 and Coca-Cola

COVID-19 (an abbreviation of coronavirus disease 2019) was the name of the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2.  The name was adopted in February 2020, chosen by the World Health Organization (WHO) in partnership with the Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses; until then, variously it had been called 2019-nCoV, Novel coronavirus or Wuhan coronavirus.  SARS-CoV-2 is related to MERS-CoV (which causes Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)) and SARS-CoV (which causes severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)).

The Sun and its corona (left) and a depiction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus (bottom).

The class to which these viruses belong is called corona because, when viewed under an electron microscope, there’s a resemblance to the crown-like corona (the halo or ring of fire) around the Sun, seem when viewed through an appropriate telescope or other device.  The corona around the sun has long been known but viruses have been seen only since the development of the electron microscope because human viruses are very small, typically 100 nanometers (1 metre = 1,000 mm = 1,000,000 micrometres = 1,000,000,000 nanometres).  In the evolutionary timeline of life on earth, it's believed bacteria emerged quite some time before viruses.  Bacteria appear to have been one of the earliest forms of life and, because no evidence of life has yet been detected anywhere else in the universe, they're perhaps among the oldest anywhere.  Single-celled organisms with a relatively simple structure and capable of independent reproduction, bacteria are thought to have appeared some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (the Earth dating back 4.5 billion) and the evidence suggests the viruses emerged 2-3 billions years ago.  Unlike bacteria, viruses are not considered living organisms in the traditional sense because they cannot carry out metabolic processes or reproduce on their own; instead, they are genetic material (DNA or RNA) enclosed in a protein coat.

As far as is known, all life forms now extant (and all extinct forms known) are descended ultimately from the one initial instance; life started once which means humans are related to cats, dogs, trees & bananas as well as to bacteria & viruses.  That makes people, bacteria and just about everything else vulnerable to infection by one virus or another, the consequences ranging from nothing to death but the behavior can also be used to advantage and a certain class of virus, the bacteriophage, after a long period of neglect during the antibiotic era, is attracting new interest.

Some viruses can be helpful: A depiction of bacteriophages phaging.

Not all viruses are bad like SARS-CoV-2.  A bacteriophage, known almost always as a phage, is a virus which infects and replicates within bacteria.  Phages are composites of proteins that surround a DNA or RNA genome and may encode any number of genes from a handful to many hundreds.  Phages replicate within the bacterium following the injection of their genome into the target cytoplasm.  Phages exist naturally in the environment and are among the most common and diverse entities on earth.  Serious research began in several parts of Europe during the late nineteenth century and have been used for almost a century as anti-bacterial agents the former USSR and Central Europe.  In the West, phage therapy (using specific viruses to fight difficult bacterial infections) has been of interest for some time, attention heightened as the problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (superbugs in the popular imagination) began to grow in severity (the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) attributes one death every 15 minutes in the US to superbugs).  Since the discovery of penicillin, antibiotics have been used as a reliable cure for those suffering from once lethal bacterial infections but, over decades, a handful (compared with the trillions and trillions killed) of bacteria have proved resistant to antibiotics and as these survivors multiply, new infections emerge.  Historically this had prompted the development of revised or new antibiotics but the biological arms race has reached the point where some infections caused by called antibiotic resistant bacteria cannot be treated and for many other serious infections, the number of potent “last resort” antibiotics is dwindling.

Hence the interest in phages, a type of “friendly virus” which can be weaponized to fight even the most virulent and persistent bacterial infections.  Phages work as well as they do because viruses like the tiresome SARS-Cov-2 that makes humans sick, phages can infect only bacteria and are selective about which they target, a vital aspect of their role in medicine because human survival depends on the billions of bacteria in our bodies.  These phages are far from rare, existing in the natural environment almost everywhere on the planet and scientists conducting research find dirty waterways or damp, aerated, warm, decaying soil (both areas where high bacterial growth might be expected) are good places to collect samples.  The advantages phages offer are well known but there are also drawbacks and indeed some of the features of phages manifest as both.  For example, the great specificity of phages helpful in that they can be administered safely with the knowledge that no other organisms will be harmed but this can be a practical disadvantage in clinical medicine when it’s not known exactly which bacteria need to be targeted, which is why broad-spectrum antibiotics proved so effective at scale.  Being wholly natural, the shelf-life of phages is highly variable and there’s little experience in their administration beyond some communities in Eastern Europe where they’ve been part of medical practice for over a century.  Additionally, bacteria can develop resistance even to phages and one practical impediment to deployment not well recognized until recent years is that compared to chemical molecules, phages are quite big and there are sites in the human body which will be inaccessible.

Electron micrograph of a Coronaviruses in colorized and in grey-scale.

The images captured from electron microscopes are always in black-and-white but are often artificially colored in the post-production process for better visualization and to assist with analysis.  Because of the resolution limit of the optical microscope, even at the highest magnification, viruses couldn’t be seen because their size meant they lay beyond the spectrum of visible light, the range of resolution being limited by the wavelength of the visible light that illuminates the specimen.  It was the resolution of the electron microscope, developed in the early 1930s, and able to offer an illumination with a wavelength much smaller than visible light which first made viruses visible.  An electron has the properties both of a particle and a wave so an electron’s wavelength is determined by its energy (or speed).  If an electron is accelerated to a speed of a million meters per second (circa 2.2 million mph (3.5 million km/h)) the physical wavelength is around one-tenth of a nanometer or about the size of an atom.  This permits an electron microscope to probe the structure of atoms in a crystal and thus see viruses.

Lindsay Lohan taking a 330ml lunch.

In February 2021, at a time when the official number of people with COVID-19 was around 107 million, mathematicians calculated all the COVID-19 causing SARS-COV-2 virus then circulating the planet easily would fit in a single (330ml) Coca-Cola can.  Using a model based on the viral load per currently infected victim (which varies during the duration of the infection), it was estimated there were at the time around two-hundred quadrillion (200 million billion or 2x10¹⁷). SARS-CoV-2 virus particles in the world.  Using that number, knowing the size of the virus, it was possible to calculate the total volume and even after accounting for the distinctive projecting spike proteins meaning the spherical particles will leave gaps when stacked together, the total is still less than the internal volume of the 330 millilitre can.

Two-hundred quadrillion is a really big number, there are said to be about that many grains of sand on the planet, but Sars-CoV-2 particles are really small, around a hundred nanometres (one nanometre is a billionth of a meter) so the radius of Sars-CoV-2 is roughly a thousand times thinner than a human hair.  The mathematicians multiplied the numbers, worked out the wastage of space caused by the troublesome spikes accounted for about a quarter of the total volume and concluded that in February 2021, the volume of SARS-CoV-2 in the world was 160 millilitres.  By mid-2021, cases had almost doubled so by then, either the can would be full or, given the margin of error associated with such calculations, a second can might be required.  The caveat to all this is that the math is based on the official number of infected people and nobody knows what the real is although all agree it will be higher but by what factor is guesswork, reliable data just not available to build a model.  Guesses have been proffered ranged from double to twenty times higher.  Depending on which of those is closest, a six-pack or a carton of cans might be filled.

Rare collector’s item: Lindsay Lohan MH Corona Extra tobacco card #480: US$5.00 on eBay.  Unrelated to this card is the specification of the corona cigars, straight-shaped cigars with rounded tops (the end taken to the lips) and defined by length: a corona about 5½ inches (140 mm) long; a petit corona (or corona chica) about 5 inches (125 mm) long, a tres petit corona about 4½ inches (115 mm) long & a half corona about 3¾ (95 mm) inches long.

The Toyota (Corona) 1600GT

1958 Toyota Corona "Van".

It was the Toyota Corona (1957-2001) which not only established the company in the vital US market but lent respectability to the very idea of the “Japanese car”, that term in the early 1960s not the by-word for quality and reliability it would in subsequent decades become.  Noting the success of the small (by US standards) Volkswagen Beetle and other imports, the company shipped a small number of Coronas to the US in the late 1950s but they were unsuitable for the environment (as indeed were a number of the diminutive European models which lacked the ruggedness of the VW) and interest was minimal, the Corona withdrawn from sale in 1960 although unsold models lingered on the lots for another year.

1966 "shovel-nose" Toyota Corona.

It was the third generation Corona, launched in September 1964 in an array of body styles, which was the Toyota passenger car to achieve international success, including in the US.  It was a thoroughly conventional design (ie mechanically a scaled down US sedan) with a body which was modern, inoffensive and practical although some thought the reverse-slanted nose strange.  It came to be nick-named the “shovel-nose” and proved ahead of its time, adopted in 1972 by Lancia for the Beta and in 1976 it appeared on Ford’s Escort RS2000 before variations of the shape eventually became the default for manufacturers seeking to eke out as much aerodynamic efficiency as possible.

The "shovel-nose" caught on: 1972 Lancia Beta (left) & 1976 Ford Escort RS2000 (right).  

The export range appeared in volume but the most desirable models were reserved for the JDM (Japanese domestic market), a long-standing, industry-wide practice which has had the effect of creating a minor export business for those who can satisfy the demand in markets like Australia, New Zealand & North America for the high-performance versions which have something of a cult-following.  The 1967 1600GT (or GT-5 for those with the optional five-speed gearbox) coupé (for this JDM “halo” model the Corona badge wasn’t used) was modest compared with some of the wild machinery which would appear in subsequent decades but by the standards of its time, there was some genuine sophistication.  The body was the standard two-door hardtop but the centrepiece was a double overhead camshaft (DOHC) cylinder head atop the 1600 cm³ four cylinder engine, the head designed by Yamaha which had also developed the one used on the straight-six in the exotic Toyota 2000 GT sports car made famous by the appearance of a custom built roadster version in the James Bond film You Only Live Twice (1967).

1967 Toyota 2000GT roadster.  Two 2000GT coupés were converted into roadsters for You Only Live Twice (one used for filming, the other a "back-up"), the work undertaken by Toyota’s special Toyopet Service Centre in Tsunashima.  The wire wheels were exclusive to the roadsters (15×5 inch magnesium wheels were used on the coupés) and the pair were very much movie props, neither vehicle fitted with side windows or a soft-top.  The "back-up car" is now on display in the Toyota Automobile Museum.

Known internally as the 9R, the 1600GT engine took a traditionally English approach to increasing power: twin carburetors, big valves and a high-compression ratio, the combination yielding a then impressive 110 horsepower at 6200rpm, the latter number something to note given the crankshaft was supported by only three main bearings.  Still, being a Toyota engine, reliability was solid and no history of bottom-end failure emerged; whether the unusual firing order (1243) had anything to do with this seems not to be discussed anywhere.  To cope with the new-found power, the Corona’s suspension was strengthened with re-calibrated springs and dampers along with two torque rods to locate the back axle.  That improved things but the Japanese manufacturers, although matching the Europeans in power, still had some way to go in achieving their dynamics; the 1600 GT was no cut-price Alfa Romeo.  It was though very well equipped, another lesson Toyota and other Japanese factories would (painfully) teach the West.  Always a low volume model, production of 1600 GTs totalled 2222, the last built late in 1968.

1967 Toyota 1600GT.  They were available also in red and white.

1974 Toyota Corona advertising.

The 1600GT's cult following notwithstanding, it really wasn't representative of the Coronas which went around the world and for decades provided owners and fleets with reliable, if uninspiring transport (very much the Camry of their time).  That made them memorable for many who may have enjoyed the charms of British, French or Italian machinery but found the quirks, oil-leaks, fragility or apparently insoluble issues electrical issues (often described as "gremlins") made ownership tiresome.  Toyota were aware of the advantage their approach (which put a premium on basic engineering and quality control over the finer points of handling and high-speed braking) and their advertising for the Corona in the 1970s said explicitly: "When your heart says Europe but your head says Japan".  People increasingly followed their heads and by 1989 Toyota released the Lexus, proving they were as good at building a Mercedes-Benz as they were at building Toyotas.  It took many attempts for Mercedes-Benz to become (almost) as good at building Toyotas.