Defiant

Defiant (pronounced dih-fahy-uhnt)

Characterized by defiance or a willingness to defy; boldly resistant or challenging.

1830s: From the French défiant, from the Old French, present participle of the verb défier (to challenge, defy, provoke), the construct thus def(y) + “i” + -ant.  Defy dates from the mid thirteenth century and was from the Middle English defien, from the Old French desfier, from the Vulgar Latin disfidare (renounce one's faith), the construct being dis- (away) + fidus (faithful).  The construct in French was thus des- (in the sense of negation) + fier (to trust), (from the Vulgar Latin fīdāre, from the Classical Latin fīdere (fidelity),  In the fourteenth century, the meaning shifted from “be disloyal” to “challenge”.  The suffix –ant was from the Middle English –ant & -aunt, partly from the Old French -ant, from Latin -āns; and partly (in adjectival derivations) a continuation of the use of the Middle English -ant, a variant of -and, -end, from the Old English -ende ( the present participle ending).  Extensively used in the sciences (especially medicine and pathology), the agent noun was derived from verb.  It was used to create adjectives (1) corresponding to a noun in -ance, having the sense of "exhibiting (the condition or process described by the noun)" and (2) derived from a verb, having the senses of: (2a) "doing (the verbal action)", and/or (2b) "prone/tending to do (the verbal action)".  In English, many of the words to which –ant was appended were not coined in English but borrowed from the Old French, Middle French or Modern French.  The negative adjectival forms are non-defiant & undefiant although there is a kind of middle ground described by quasi-defiant, semi-defiant & half-defiant, the latter three sometimes used in military conflicts where, for whatever reason, it’s been necessary (or at least desirable) for a force to offer a “token resistance” prior to an inevitable defeat.  The adjective over-defiant refers to a resistance or recalcitrance, the extent or duration of which is not justified by the circumstances; in such cases the comparative is “more defiant” and the superlative “most defiant”.  Defiant is a noun & adjective, defiantness is a noun and defiantly is an adverb; the noun plural is defiants.

Defiance in politics: use with caution

The commonly used synonyms include rebellious, direful, truculent, insolent, rebellious, recalcitrant, refractory, contumacious & insubordinate but in diplomacy, such words must be chosen with care because what is one context may be a compliment, in another it may be a slight.  This was in 1993 discovered by Paul Keating (b 1944; Prime Minister of Australia 1991-1996) who labelled Dr Mahathir bin Mohamad (b 1925; prime minister of Malaysia 1981-2003 & 2018-2020) one of the “recalcitrant” when the latter declined to attend a summit meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC).  For historic reasons, Dr Mahathir was sensitive to the memories of the imperialist oppressors telling colonized people what to do and interpreted Mr Keating’s phrase as a suggestion he should be more obedient (the most commonly used antonym of defiant, the others including obedient & submissive).  Things could quickly have been resolved (Dr Mahathir of the “forgive but not forget” school of IR (international relations)) but, unfortunately, Mr Keating was brought up in the gut-wrenching “never apologize” tradition of the right-wing of the New South Wales (NSW) Labor Party so what could have been handled as a clumsy linguistic gaffe was allowed to drag on.

Circa 1933 Chinese propaganda poster featuring a portrait of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (Chiang Chung-cheng).  Set in an oval frame below flags alongside stylized Chinese lettering, the generalissimo is depicted wearing his ceremonial full-dress uniform with decorations.

The admission an opponent is being “defiant” must also sometimes be left unsaid.  Ever since Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (1887-1975; leader of the Republic of China (mainland) 1928-1949 & the renegade province of Taiwan 1949-1975) in 1949 fled mainland China, settling on and assuming control of the island of Taiwan, the status of the place has been contested, most dramatically in the incidents which flare up occasionally in the in the straits between the island and the mainland, remembered as the First (1954–1955), Second (1958) and Third (1995-1996) Taiwan Strait Crises which, although sometimes in retrospect treated as sabre rattling or what Hun Sen (b 1952; prime minister (in one form or another) 1985-2023) might have called “the boys letting off steam”, were at the time serious incidents, each with the potential to escalate into something worse.  Strategically, the first two crises were interesting studies in Cold War politics, the two sides at one stage exchanging information about when and where their shelling would be aimed, permitting troops to be withdrawn from the relevant areas on the day.  Better to facilitate administrative arrangements, each side’s shelling took place on alternate days, satisfying honor on both sides.  The other landmark incident was China’s seat at the United Nations (UN), held by the Republic of China (ROC) (Taiwan) between 1945-1971 and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) (the mainland) since.

Jiefang Taiwan, xiaomie Jiangzei canyu (Liberate Taiwan, and wipe out the remnants of the bandit Chiang) by Yang Keyang (楊可楊) and Zhao Yannian (趙延年). 

A 1954 PRC propaganda poster printed as part of anti-Taiwan campaign during first Taiwan Strait Crisis (1954-1955), Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek depicted as a scarecrow erected on Taiwan by the US government and military. Note the color of the generalissimo’s cracked and disfigured head (tied to a pole) and the similarity to the color of the American also shown.  The artists have included some of the accoutrements often associated with Chiang’s uniforms: white gloves, boots and a ceremonial sword.  The relationship between Chiang and the leaders of PRC who defeated his army, Chairman Mao (Mao Zedong. 1893–1976; paramount leader of PRC 1949-1976) and Zhou Enlai (1898–1976; PRC premier 1949-1976) was interesting.  Even after decades of defiance in his renegade province, Mao and Zhou still referred to him, apparently genuinely, as “our friend”, an expression which surprised both Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) and Henry Kissinger (b 1923; US national security advisor 1969-1973 & secretary of state 1973-1977) who met the chairman and premier during their historic mission to Peking in 1972.

A toast: Comrade Chairman Mao Zedong (left) and  Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (right), celebrating the Japanese surrender, Chongqing, China, September 1945.  After this visit, they would never meet again.

Most people, apparently even within the PRC, casually refer to the place as “Taiwan” but state and non-governmental entities, anxious not to upset Beijing, use a variety of terms including “Chinese Taipei” (the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA, the International Federation of Association Football) & its continental confederations (AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, OFC and UEFA)), “Taiwan District” (the World Bank) and “Taiwan Province of China” (the International Monetary Fund (IMF)).  Taiwan’s government uses an almost declarative “Republic of China” which is the name adopted for China after the fall of the Qing dynasty and used between 1912-1949 and even “Chinese Taipai” isn’t without controversy, “Taipei” being the Taiwanese spelling whereas Beijing prefers “Taibei,” the spelling used in the mainland’s Pinyin system.  There have been variations on those themes and there’s also the mysterious “Formosa”, use of which persisted in the English-speaking world well into the twentieth century, despite the Republic of Formosa existing on the island of Taiwan for only a few months in 1895.  The origin of the name Formosa lies in the island in 1542 being named Ilha Formosa (beautiful island) by Portuguese sailors who had noticed it didn’t appear on their charts.  From there, most admiralties in Europe and the English-speaking world updated their charts, use of Formosa not fading until the 1970s.

All that history is well-known, if sometimes subject to differing interpretations but some mystery surrounds the term “renegade province”, used in recent years with such frequency that a general perception seems to have formed that it’s Beijing’s official (or at least preferred) description of the recalcitrant island.  That it’s certainly not but in both the popular-press and specialist journals, the phrase “renegade province” is habitually used to describe Beijing’s views of Taiwan.  Given that Beijing actually calls Taiwan the “Taiwan Province” (sometimes styled as “Taiwan District” but there seems no substantive difference in meaning) and has explicitly maintained it reserves the right to reclaim the territory (by use of military invasion if need be), it’s certainly not unreasonable to assume that does reflect the politburo's view but within the PRC, “renegade province” is so rare (in Chinese or English) as to be effectively non-existent, the reason said to be that rather than a renegade, the island is thought of as a province pretending to be independent; delusional rather than defiant.  Researchers have looked into the matter when the phrase “renegade province” was first used in English when describing Taiwan.  There may be older or more obscure material which isn’t indexed or hasn’t been digitized but of that which can be searched, the first reference appears to be in a US literary journal from 1973 (which, it later transpired, received secret funding from the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)).  It took a while to catch on but, appearing first in the New York Times in 1982, became a favorite during the administration of Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989) and has been part of the standard language of commentary since.  Diplomats, aware of Beijing's views on the matter, tend to avoid the phrase, maintaining the “delusional rather than defiant” line.

Picture of defiance: Official State Portrait of Vladimir Putin (2002), oil on canvas by Igor Babailov (b 1965).

The idea of a territory being a “renegade province” can be of great political, psychological (and ultimately military) significance.  The core justification used by Mr Putin (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999) when explaining why his “special military operation” against Ukraine in 2022 was not an “invasion” or “war of aggression” (he probably concedes it may be a “state of armed conflict”) was that he denied Ukraine was a sovereign, independent state and that Volodymyr Zelenskyy (b 1978, president of Ukraine since 2019) was not a legitimate president.  In other words, Ukraine is merely a region of the modern Russia in something of the way it was once one of the 15 constituent SSRs (Soviet Socialist Republic) of the Soviet Union.  Although the Kremlin doesn’t use the phrase, in Mr Putin’s world view, Ukraine is a renegade province and he likely believes that applies also to the Baltic States (Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia) and possibly other former SSRs.  Lake many, the CCP is watching events in Ukraine with great interest and, as recent “exercises” seem to suggest the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) have sufficiently honed their techniques to execute either a blockade (which would be an “act of war”) or a “quarantine” (which would not), the attention of Western analysts is now focused on the hardly secret training being undertaken to perfect what’s needed for the triphibious operations demanded by a full-scale invasion.  The US think-tanks which think much about this possibility have suggested “some time” in 2027 as the likely point at which the military high command would assure the CCP’s central committee such a thing is possible.  What will happen will then depend upon (1) the state of things in the PRC and (2) the CCP’s assessment of how the long-term “strategic ambiguity” of Washington would manifest were an attempt made to finish the “unfinished business” of 1949.

Lindsay Lohan, who has lived a life of defiance.

The objectification of women’s body parts has of course been a theme in Western culture since at least Antiquity but rarely can as much attention been devoted to a single fingernail as the one photographed on Lindsay Lohan’s hand in July 2010 (during her “troubled starlet” phase).  The text printed on the fingernail was sufficiently explicit not to need a academic deconstruction of its alleged meaning, given image was taken when she sitting in court listening to a judge sentence her for one of her many transgressions; the consensus was the text was there to send a “defiant message” the internet’s collective conclusion (which wasn’t restricted to entertainment and celebrity sites) presumably reinforced by the nail being on the middle finger.  Ms Lohan admitted to fining this perplexing, tweeting on X (then known as Twitter) it was merely a manicure and had “…nothing to do w/court, it's an airbrush design from a stencil.”  So, rather than digital defiance, it was fashion.  Attributing a motif of defiance to Ms Lohan wasn’t unusual during “troubled starlet” phase, one site assessing a chronological montage of her famous mug shots before concluding with each successive shot, “Lindsay's face becomes more defiant — a young woman hardening herself against a world that had turned her into a punch-line”.

The Bolton-Paul Defiant (1939-1943)

The Parthian shot was a military tactic, used by mounted cavalry and made famous by the Parthians, an ancient people of the Persian lands (the modern-day Islamic Republic of Iran since 1979).  While in real or feigned retreat on horseback, the Parthian archers would, in full gallop, turn their bodies backward to shoot at the pursuing enemy.  This demanded both fine equestrian skills (a soldier’ hands occupied by his bows & arrows) and great confidence in one's mount, something gained only by time spent between man & beast.  To make the achievement more admirable still, the Parthians used neither stirrups nor spurs, relying solely on pressure from their legs to guide and control their galloping mounts and, with varying degrees of success, the tactic was adopted by many mounted military formations of the era including the Scythians, Huns, Turks, Magyars, and Mongols.  The Parthian Empire existed between 247 BC–224 AD.  The Royal Air Force (RAF) tried a variation of the Parthian shot with Bolton-Paul Defiant, a single-engined fighter and Battle of Britain contemporary of the better remembered Spitfire and Hurricane.  Uniquely, the Defiant had no forward-firing armaments, all its firepower being concentrated in four .303 machine guns in a turret behind the pilot.  The theory behind the design dates from the 1930s when the latest multi-engined monoplane bombers were much faster than contemporary single-engined biplane fighters then in service. The RAF considered its new generation of heavily-armed bombers would be able to penetrate enemy airspace and defend themselves without a fighter escort and this of course implied enemy bombers would similarly be able to penetrate British airspace with some degree of impunity.

Bolton-Paul Defiant.

By 1935, the concept of a turret-armed fighter emerged.  The RAF anticipated having to defend the British Isles against massed formations of unescorted enemy bombers and, in theory, turret-armed fighters would be able approach formations from below or from the side and coordinate their fire.  In design terms, it was a return to what often was done early in the World War I (1914-1918), though that had been technologically deterministic, it being then quite an engineering challenge to produce reliable and safe (in the sense of not damaging the craft's own propeller) forward-firing guns.  Deployed not as intended, but as a fighter used against escorted bombers, the Defiant enjoyed considerable early success, essentially because at attack-range, it appeared to be a Hurricane and the German fighter pilots were of course tempted attack from above and behind, the classic hunter's tactic.  They were course met by the the Defiant's formidable battery.  However, the Luftwaffe learned quickly, unlike the RAF which for too long persisted with their pre-war formations which were neat and precise but also excellent targets.  Soon the vulnerability of the Defiant resulted in losses so heavy its deployment was unsustainable and it was withdrawn from front-line combat.  It did though subsequently proved a useful stop-gap as a night-fighter and provided the RAF with an effective means of combating night bombing until aircraft designed for the purpose entered service.

The Trump class "battleships"

In a surprise announcement, the Pentagon announced the impending construction of a “new battleship class” the first of the line (USS Defiant) to be the US Navy’s “largest surface combatant built since World War II [1939-1945]”.  The initial plans call for a pair to be launched with a long-term goal of as many as two dozen with construction to begin in 2030.  Intriguingly, Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) revealed that while the Department of Defense’s (it’s also now the Department of War) naval architects would “lead the design”, he personally would be involved “…because I’m a very aesthetic person.”  That may sound a strange imperative when designing something as starkly functional as a warship but in navies everywhere there’s a long tradition of “the beautiful ship” and the design language still in use, although much modified, is recognizably what it was more than a century earlier.  The Secretary of the Navy certainly stayed on-message, announcing the USS Defiant would be “…the largest, deadliest and most versatile and best-looking warship anywhere on the world’s oceans”, adding that components for the project would “be made in every state.”  It won't however be the widest because quirk of ship design in the US Navy is that warships tend to be limited to a beam (width) of around 33 metres (108 feet) because that’s the limit for vessels able to pass through the Panama Canal.

Depiction of Trump class USS Defiant issued by the US Navy, December, 2025.

By comparison with the existing surface fleet the 35,000 ton Defiant will be impressively large although, by historic standards, the largest (non-carrier) surface combatants now in service are of modest dimensions and displacement.  The largest now afloat are the 15,000-ton Zumwalt class destroyers (which really seem to be cruisers) while the 10,000 ton Ticonderoga class cruisers (which really are destroyers) are more numerous.  So, even the Defiant will seem small compared with the twentieth century Dreadnoughts (which became a generic term for “biggest battleship”), the US Iowa class displacing 60,000 ton at their heaviest while the Japanese Yamato-class weighted-in at 72,000.  Even those behemoths would have been dwarfed by the most ambitious of the H-Class ships in Plan-Z which were on German drawing boards early in World War II.  Before reality bit hard, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) left physics to the engineers and wasn't too bothered by economics.  After being disappointed the proposed successors to the Bismarck-class ships would have the bore of their eight cannons (the main armament) increased only from 380 mm (15 inch) to 405 (16), he ordered OKM (Oberkommando der Marine; the Naval High Command) to design bigger ships.  

That directive emerged as the ambitious Plan Z which would have demanded so much steel, essentially nothing else in the Reich could have been built.  Although not one vessel in Plan Z ever left the slipway (the facilities even to lay down the keels non-existent), such a fleet would have been impressive, the largest (the H-44) fitted with eight 508 mm (20 inch) cannons.  Even more to the Führer’s liking was the concept of the H-45, equipped with eight 800 mm (31.5 inch) Gustav siege guns.  However, although with guns, cars, tanks, buildings and much else, Hitler found it hard to resist gigantism, the bitter experience of war at sea convinced him the battleship was not only obsolete but had become an expensive strategic liability.  After the Bismarck was lost in May 1941, Hitler made his change of view clear to Großadmiral Erich Raeder (1876–1960; head of the German Navy 1928-1943), paraphrased by historians usually as: “I was always a supporter of the big ships but they've had their day, the risk of attack by air is too great.”  That ended the prospect of any more being built but further failures darkened even more the Führer’s view and in 1943 he demanded the Navy scrap the entire surface fleet, devote all construction resources to Unterseeboots (literally “under-sea boat” ie submarine and referred to usually as “U-boat) and re-allocate the crews to ground warfare or the U-boats.  On that, Raeder’s successor persuaded him to relent because merely by inertly existing, the big ships did have a strategic effect of forcing the Royal Navy to keep on stand-by a battle-fleet which could otherwise usefully be deployed.  The decision during the 1930s to build the big ships certainly had a profound effect on the path of the war.  Had U-boat construction been afforded a priority in 1937-1939, the Kriegsmarine (German Navy) could have entered World War II with the ability permanently to have 100 U-boats engaged in high-seas raiding rather than barely the dozen initially possible and the early course of the war might radically have been different.  In was another indication of the way German policy had been directed by the assumption a war with the UK could be avoided or at least long-delayed.  Germany indeed entered the war without a single aircraft carrier (the only one laid down never completed), such was the confidence the need to confront the Royal Navy either would never happen or was years away.

The US Navy in 1940 began construction of six Iowa class battleships but only four were ever launched because it had become clear the age of the aircraft carrier and submarine had arrived and the last battleship launched was the Royal Navy’s HMS Vanguard which entered service in 1946.  Although the admirals remained fond of the fine cut of her silhouette on the horizon, to the Treasury (an institution in the austere, post-war years rapidly asserting its authority over the Admiralty) the thing was a white elephant, something acknowledged even by the romantic, battleship-loving Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) who, when in November, 1953 planning a trip to Bermuda for a summit meeting with Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969; US POTUS 1953-1961), opted to fly because “it costs Stg£30,000 if we go by Vanguard, and only £3,000 by air.”  In 1959, Vanguard was sold for scrap and broken up the next year while the last of the Iowa class ships were decommissioned in 1992 after having spent many years of their life in a non-active reserve.  Defiant is of course a most Churchillian word and after World War I, he was asked by a French municipality to devise the wording for its war memorial.  He proposed:

IN WAR: RESOLUTION

IN DEFEAT: DEFIANCE

IN VICTORY: MAGNANIMITY

IN PEACE: GOODWILL

At the time, old Georges Clemenceau (1841–1929; French prime minister 1906-1909 & 1917-1920) wasn’t feeling much magnanimity towards the Germans (he called them: le boche) and nor was he much in the mood to extend any goodwill so Churchill’s suggestion was rejected.  

Depiction of Trump class USS Defiant issued by the US Navy, December, 2025.

The conventional wisdom therefore was the days of the big warships were done and the Soviet Navy’s curious decision in the 1980s to lay down five (four of which were launched) Kirov class battlecruisers seemed to confirm the view.  Although the Kremlin called the ships тяжёлый атомный ракетный крейсер (heavy nuclear-powered guided missile cruisers), admiralties in the West, still nostalgic lot, choose to revive the old name “battlecruiser”.  The battlecruiser (essentially a battleship with less armor) was a brainchild of the naval theorists of the early twentieth century but while the concept was sound (and in practice may have proved so if the theory had been followed at sea) but in service was a disappointment and none were commissioned after 1920 until the Soviets revived the idea.  As recently as 2018, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) sources were sceptical any of the Russian ships would ever return to service but in 2025 the Admiral Nakhimov (ex-Kalinin) emerged from a long and expensive re-fit & modernization to serve as the world’s biggest warship.  Although fast and heavily armed, concern remains about her vulnerability to missiles and torpedoes.

Depiction of Trump class USS Defiant issued by the US Navy, December, 2025.

The US Navy seems confident about the protection afforded by the Trump class’s systems, claiming “the battleship [the Pentagon’s term] will be capable of operating independently, as part of a Carrier Strike Group, or commanding its own Surface Action Group depending on the mission and threat environment.”  In other words, unlike an aircraft carrier, the security of the vessel does not depend on a flotilla of destroyers and other smaller escort vessels.  The first of the Trump class is projected to cost between US$10-15 billion although, on the basis of experience, few will be surprised if this number “blows out”.  The Trump class will be the flagships for the Navy’s “Golden Fleet” initiative (an old naval term dating from days of the Spanish colonial Empire and nothing to do with Mr Trump’s fondness for the metal).  In an age in which small, cheap, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles, usually referred to as drones) have revolutionized warfare (on land and at sea), the return of the big ships is as interesting as it was unexpected and analysts are already writing their assessments of the prospects of success.

Although the concept wasn’t new, it was late in the nineteenth century naval architects began to apply the word “class” systematically to group ships of the same design, the pioneers the Royal Navy but other powers soon adopted the practice.  It had long been the practice for warships to be constructed on the basis of substantially replicating existing designs and some truly were “identical” to the extent a series would now be called a “class” but before the terminology became (more or less) standardized, warships usually were described by their “Rate” or “Type” (first-rate ship of the line, corvette, frigate etc) but, in the usual military way, there was also much informal slang including phrases such as “the Majestic battleships” or “ships of the Iron Duke type”.  The crystallization of the “class” concept was really a result of technological determinism as the methods developed in factories which emerged during the industrial revolution spread to ship-building; steam power, hulls of iron & steel and the associated complex machinery made design & construction increasingly expensive, thus the need to amortize investment and reduce build times by ordering ships in batches with near-identical specifications.

Navies in the era were also becoming more bureaucratic (a process which never stopped and some believe is accelerating still) and Admiralties became much taken with precise accounting and doctrinal categorisation.  The pragmatic admirals however saw no need to reinvent the wheel, “class” already well-established in engineering and taxonomy, the choice thus an obvious administrative convenience.  The “new” nomenclature wasn’t heralded as a major change or innovations, the term just beginning to appear in the 1870s in Admiralty documents, construction programmes and parliamentary papers in which vessels were listed in groups including Devastation class ironclad turret ships (laid down 1869), Colossus class battleships (laid down 1879) and Admiral class battleships (1880s).  In recent history tests, warships prior to this era sometimes are referred to as “Ship-of-the-line class”, “Three decker class” etc but this use is retrospective.  The French Navy adopted the convention almost simultaneously (with the local spelling classe) with Imperial Germany’s Kaiserliche Marine (Imperial Navy) following in the 1890s with Klasse.  The US Navy was comparatively late to formalise the use and although “class” in this context does appear in documents in the 1890s, the standardization wasn’t complete until about 1912.

As a naming convention (“King George V class”, “Iowa class” etc), the rule is the name chosen is either (1) the first ship laid down, or (2) the lead ship commissioned.  According to Admiralty historians, this wasn’t something determined by a committee or the whim of an admiral (both long naval traditions) but was just so obviously practical.  It certainly wasn’t an original idea because the term “class” was by the late nineteenth century well established in industrial production, civil engineering, and military administration; if anything the tradition-bound admirals were late-adopters, sticking to their old classificatory habit long after it had outlived its usefulness.  With ships becoming bigger and more complex, what was needed was a system (which encompassed not only the ships but also components such as guns, torpedoes, engines etc) which grouped objects according to their defined technical specification rather than their vague “type” (which by then had become most elastic) or individual instances; naval architecture had entered the “age of interchangability”.

A docked Boomin' Beaver.

It’s good the US Navy is gaining (appropriately large) “Trump Class” warships (which the president doubtless will call “battleships” although they’re more in the “battlecruiser” tradition).  Within the fleet however there are on the register many smaller vessels and the most compact is the 19BB (Barrier Boat), a specialized class of miniature tugboat used deploy and maintain port security booms surrounding Navy ships and installations in port.  Over the last quarter century there have been a dozen-odd commissioned of which ten remain in active service.  Unlike many of the Pentagon’s good (and expensive) ideas, the Barrier Boats were a re-purposing of an existing design, their original purpose being in the logging industry where they were used to manoeuvre logs floating along inland waterways.  In that role the loggers dubbed them “log broncs” because the stubby little craft would “rear up like a rodeo bronco” when spun around by 180^o.  Sailors of course have their own slang and they (apparently affectionately) call the 19BBs the “Boomin’ Beaver”, the origin of that being uncertain but it may verge on the vulgar.  It’s not known if President Trump is aware of the useful little BB19s but if brought to his attention, he may be tempted to order two of them re-named “USS Joe Biden” and “USS Crooked Hillary” although, unlike those reprobates, the Boomin’ Beavers have done much good work for the nation.

The Arc de Triomphe, Paris (left), Donald Trump with model of his proposed arch, the White House, October, 2025 (centre) and a model of the arch, photographed on the president's Oval Office desk (right).  Details about the arch remain sketchy but it's assumed (1) it will be "big" and (2) there will be some gold, somewhere.

As well as big ships (and the big Donald J Trump Ballroom already under construction where the White House’s East Wing once stood), Mr Trump is also promising a “big arch”.  A part of the president’s MDCBA (Make D.C. Beautiful Again) project, the structure (nicknamed the “Triumphal Arch” and in the style of the Arc de Triomphe which stands in the centre of the Place Charles de Gaulle (formerly the Place de l’Étoile), the western terminus of the avenue des Champs-Élysées) is scheduled to be completed in time to celebrate the nation’s 250^th anniversary on 4 July 2026.  Presumably, on that day, it will be revealed the official name is something like the “Donald J Trump Sestercentennial Arch” which will appear on the structure in large gold letters.  The arch is said to be “privately funded”, using money left over from what was donated to build the ballroom, a financing mechanism which has attracted some comment from those concerned about the “buying of influence”.

Adolf Hitler's (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) sketch of an arch (1926, left) and Hitler, Albert Speer (1905–1981; Nazi court architect 1934-1942; Nazi minister of armaments and war production 1942-1945) and others examining Speer's model of the arch, presented 20 April, 1939 upon the occasion of the Führer’s 50^th birthday (right; note the pattern in carpet).  As usual, the Führer reviewed the display of gifts, surveying the statutes, paintings and porcelain (both good and kitsch) with interest or amusement but the one to which he kept returning was the four-metre model of the arch and that evening, several times he would return “with visible emotion” to examine the details.

A model of Germania.  To give some indication of the scale, within the dome of the huge meeting hall (at top of image), St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome would have fitted several times over; its diameter of the dome would have been 250 metres (825 feet).

Commissioned to honor those who fought and died for France during the French Revolutionary (1792-1802) and Napoleonic Wars (1803-1815), construction of the Arc de Triomphe (officially the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile) absorbed 30-odd years between 1806-1836, as a piece of representational architecture the structure is thought perfectly proportioned for assessment by the human eye and perhaps for this reason it has been admired by many.  As early as 1926, Adolf Hitler sketched his vision of a grand arch for Berlin, while bitter experience taught him the big warships were a bad idea because of their vulnerability to air attack, he never lost his enthusiasm for megalomania in architecture and in Albert Speer he found the ideal architect.  Noting the dimensions in Hitler’s sketch, Speer responded with something in the spirit of their blueprint for Germania.  Hitler’s planned the rebuilding of Berlin to be complete by 1950, less than ten years after the expected victory in a war which would have made him the master of Europe from the French border to the Ural mountains (things didn’t work out well for him).  While the 50 metre (163 feet) tall Arc de Triomphe presented a monumental appearance and provided a majestic terminus for the Champs Elysees, Speer’s arch stood 117 meters (384 feet) in height but even though obviously substantial, it would have been entirely in scale with the rest of Germania, the whole place built in a way to inspire awe simply by virtue of sheer size.

Vorticism

Vorticism (pronounced vawr-tuh-siz-uhm)

A short-lived movement in the British avant-garde, nurtured by Wyndham Lewis, which climaxed in a London exhibition in 1915 before being absorbed.

1914: The construct was vortic + -ism.  The Latin vortic was the stem of vortex, (genitive vorticis), an archaic from of vertex (an eddy of water, wind, or flame; whirlpool; whirlwind whirl, top, crown, peak, summit), from vertō (to turn around, turn about) from vertere (to turn), from the primitive Indo-European wer (to turn; bend).  The –ism suffix is from the Ancient Greek ισμός (ismós) & -isma noun suffixes, often directly, sometimes through the Latin –ismus & isma (from where English picked up ize) and sometimes through the French –isme or the German –ismus, all ultimately from the Ancient Greek (where it tended more specifically to express a finished act or thing done).  It appeared in loanwords from Greek, where it was used to form abstract nouns of action, state, condition or doctrine from verbs and on this model, was used as a productive suffix in the formation of nouns denoting action or practice, state or condition, principles, doctrines, a usage or characteristic, devotion or adherence (criticism; barbarism; Darwinism; despotism; plagiarism; realism; witticism etc).  Vorticism is a noun, vorticist is a noun & adjective and vorticistic is an adjective; the noun plural was vorticists,  The forms vorticistically & vortical seem never to have come into use.

Hieratic head of Ezra Pound (1914), by Henri Gaudier-Brzeska (1891-1915).

The name Vorticism was said to have been coined in 1914 by the poet Ezra Pound (1885–1972) years before fascism and madness possessed his soul.  Pound had already used the word "vortex" to describe the effect modernist poetry was having on intellectual thought in Europe and he used the word not in the somewhat vague sense it often assumed when used figuratively to suggest swirling turbulence but rather as a mathematician or meteorologist might: an energy which gathers from the surrounding chaos what’s around, imparts to it a geometrical form which, intensifying as it goes, arrives at a single point.  Pound’s coining of the name is generally accepted but some historians claim the name was chosen by the Italian futurist Umberto Boccioni (1882-1916) who claimed all creative art could emanate only from a vortex of emotions.

Blast Magazine, July 1915.

Vorticism flourished only briefly between 1912-1915 as an overly aggressive reaction to what was held to be an excessive attachment to and veneration for delicacy and beauty in art and literature, preferring to celebrate the tools of modernity, the violence and energy of machines.  In painting and sculpture the angles were sharp and the lines bold, colors displayed in juxtaposition to emphasize the starkness of their difference and there was a reverence for geometric form and repetition.  The movement in 1914 published its own magazine: Blast: the Review of the Great English Vortex which was more manifesto than critique, a London-based attempt to gather together the artists and writers of the avant‐garde in one coherent movement.  It wanted the shock of the new.

Composition (1913), by Wyndham Lewis (1882-1957).

The idea was an art which reflected the strains of the vortices of a modern life in what was increasingly a machine age.  Thus, although it remains a footnote in the history of modern art, the label Vorticism refers to a political and sociological point rather than a distinct style such as contemporaries like Cubism or Futurism.  The timing was of course unfortunate and the outbreak of World War I (1914-1918) robbed Vorticism of much of its initial energy; the exhibition eventually staged in London’s Doré Gallery in 1915 remained a one-off and, like much of the pre-1914 world, Vorticism didn’t survive the World War.

Dance Hall Scene (circa 1913), by CRW Nevinson (1889-1946).

Being unappreciated at the time, most of the paintings of the vorticists were lost but retrospectives have been assembled from what remains and the still extant photographic record and there’s now a better understanding of the legacy and the influence on art deco, dada, surrealism, pop art, indeed, just about any abstract form.  Graphic art too benefited from the techniques, the sense of line and color identifiable in agitprop, twentieth century advertising and, most practically, the “dazzle” camouflage used by admiralties in both world wars as a form of disguise for ships.

Juan Garrido, a graphic designer based in Caracas, Venezuela, created the display typeface Vorticism in 2013.  Reflecting the cultural and linguistic influences, while there are a number of typefaces called futurism (or some variation) and some based on the word "vortex", Mr Garrido's "Vorticism" is uniquely named.

Lindsay Lohan in the Vorticism typeface.

Ezra Pound (1919), by Wyndham Lewis.

Even in 1912, Vorticism’s use of bold, abstract, and geometric forms (often depicting movement and mechanical apparatuses) wasn’t new but the movement had an energy which attracted those wanting to create imagery which marked a dramatic break from the representational forms which then were still dominant early in the ear which would come to be known as the dawn of modernity.  In that sense, Vorticism is understood as one of a number of movements embracing a new aesthetic reflecting the dynamism and energy of the modern world.  That as a distinct entity Vorticism didn’t endure was in a way an indication of success rather than failure because its motifs and techniques were co-opted to serve as foundational aspects of many movements in modern art, the abstract and geometric forms underpinning Futurism and Constructivism as well as becoming a staple of commercial graphic art and advertising.  Perhaps the most obvious influence was the artistic legitimization of the integration of text into images, a practice borrowed from commerce and a notable signature of Dada and Surrealism.  The use of text as a visual element challenged traditional boundaries between different art forms, a tension which enabled Pop art to create was in some ways a novel ecosystem.  However, those same motifs have been used also as something illustrative of the destructive tendencies of the speed and spread of mechanical and industrial reality which the vorticists championed and Precisionism & Bauhaus celebrated, at least in a sanitized and idealized way which hid the essential ugliness below.

Spade & Splayd

Spade (pronounced speyd)

(1) A garden or farming tool for digging, having an iron blade adapted for pressing into the ground with the foot and a long handle commonly with a grip or crosspiece at the top, and with the blade usually narrower and flatter than that of a shovel.

(2) Some implement, piece, or part resembling this.

(3) A heavy metallic projection on the bottom of a gun trail, designed to dig into the earth to restrict backward movement of the carriage during recoil.

(4) To dig, cut, or remove with a spade.

(5) In four-suit card-games, a black figure shaped like an inverted heart and with a short stem at the cusp opposite the point; a card of the suit bearing such figures.

(6) In slang, a disparaging and offensive term for a person with black skin (based on the spade in packs of cards) (obsolete).

(7) In nautical use, a type of oar blade that is comparatively broad and short (as opposed to a spoon).

(8) A cutting tool for stripping the blubber from a whale or skin from a carcass.

(9) As “in spades”, a term synonymous with the idiomatic “laying it on with a trowel” to indicate something done to excess or in an emphatic way.

(10) As “to call a spade a spade”, to be candid; to speak plainly without resort to euphemisms.

(11) As “to do the spadework” to be thorough in preparation.

(12) A hart or stag three years old (rare).

(13) A castrated man or animal (archaic).

Pre-900: From the Middle English noun spade, from the Old English spada, spade & spadu.  It was cognate with the the Proto-Germanic spadǭ, spadô & spadō, the Dutch spade, the Old Frisian spada, the Old Saxon spado, the Old High German spato, the German Spaten, the Old Norse spathi (spade), the Hunsrik Spaad and the Ancient Greek spáthē (blade; broad, flat piece of wood).  The ultimate source was the primitive Indo-European spe-dh-, from which the Ancient Greek gained σπάθη (spáthē) (blade), Hittite išpatar (spear), Persian سپار‎ (sopār) (plow), Northern Luri ئەسپار‎ (aspār) (diging) and Central Kurdish ئەسپەر‎ (esper) & ئەسپەرە‎ (espere) (cross-piece on shaft of spade to take pressure of foot).  More recent descendants include the Scottish Gaelic spaid and the Fiji Hindi sipi.  Spade & spading are nouns & verbs, spader & spadeful are nouns, spaded is a verb and spadable & spadelike are adjectives; the noun plural is spades.

Pentagon-authorized playing cards, 2003.

The use on playing cards dates from 1590–1600, from the Italian, plural of spada the meaning of which was originally “sword”, from the Latin spatha, from the Greek spáthē.  Historically, the ace of spades was the highest card in the deck and, dating from the reign of James I (James Stuart, 1566–1625; James VI of Scotland 1567-1925 &  James I of England and Ireland 1603-1625), the law required the ace of spades to bear the insignia of the printing house.  This was to ensure the stamp duty was paid and the method to certify its payment on playing cards was a physical stamp on the highest card of the deck.  Beginning in the seventeenth century, card manufacturers started putting their identification marks on the ace of spades and it was soon an industry tradition, maintained even when the tax was no longer payable, the intricate designs now serving to protect them from illegal copying.  The ace of spades has a (somewhat dubiously gained) reputation as the death card but its become part of the folk lore attached to various organized crime operations and has been used by some militaries in psychological warfare, the US army ordering bulk supplies of ace of spades cards to scatter around although the belief the Viet Cong soldiers feared the card appears to have been untrue.

Lindsay Lohan's Royal Routine in spades in The Parent Trap (1998).

The Pentagon however still liked the imagery.  In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, thousands of packs of cards were issued, all decorated with pictures of the Iraqi regime's most wanted figures.  The dubious honor of being the ace of spades was of course granted to President Saddam Hussein (1937–2006; president of Iraq 1979-2003) but, unfortunately, the regime's final official spokesman, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf (b 1940), despite his memorable war-time press conferences (as a result of which he was dubbed "Comical Ali" (a dark allusion to Ali Hassan al-Majid al-Tikriti (1941-2010, an Iraqi military officer who became notorious for his use of chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians) or "Baghdad Bob" by the press corps) which made him the country's second best known figure, didn't rate a card.  The Pentagon deemed him not worth even a two of clubs, an act of some ingratitude in the circumstances.

Dating from the 1520s, the spatula, now familiar as a kitchen tool used to scrape the contents of bowls, was derived from the early fifteenth century medical instrument, from the Latin spatula (broad piece), diminutive of spatha (broad, flat tool or weapon) from the Ancient Greek spathe (broad flat blade (used by weavers); the erroneous form spattular appeared circa 1600.

Mid-twentieth century silver-plated cake server by Viners of Sheffield (left) & early twentieth century Danish silver-plated cake spades (right).

The cake spade was a curious alternative to the cake (or pie) server, the latter a utensil styled to conform to the size and shape of the typical domestic slice of cake or pie.  Where the cake spade differed was in the use of a regular or irregular trapezoid shape which, although it would make it difficult to maneuver something cut in the traditional, elongated triangle used with circular cakes or pies, offered advantages in stability for anything served is a squarer form including desirable stuff like lasagna: horses for courses.

Drain spade with comfort step and D-grip with fibreglass handle; available at Walmart.

Although a proliferation of modern hybrid designs for home gardeners has a little blurred the distinction, traditionally, a spade differs from a two-handed shovel mostly in the form and thickness of the blade.  The phase “to call a spade a spade" (using blunt language, call things by right names and avoid euphemisms) dates from the 1540s and was a translation of a Greek proverb (which was known to the Greek satirist and rhetorician Lucian of Samosata (Λουκιανός ό Σαμοσατεύς; circa 125-Circa 185) ten skaphen skaphen legein (to call a bowl a bowl) but Dutch Catholic theologian Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (Erasmus of Rotterdam; 1466–1536) mis-translated, confusing the Greek skaphe (trough, bowl) for a derivative of the stem of skaptein (to dig) and the mistake has forever stuck, possibly because, at least in English, it better conveys the meaning.

Laying it on with a trowel

The trowel used by Queen Victoria when laying the foundation stone of the new buildings at the Victoria and Albert Museum, 17 May 1899, an act she managed to perform without leaving the comfort of her carriage.  A trowel is a kind of small hand-held spade, used in gardening and to apply the mortar in brick-laying.  The ornamental trowel was rendered in silver and enamel by the silversmith Nelson Dawson (1859-1941) and his wife Edith (1862-1928).

The phrase “in spades” (a suggestion of abundance) appeared first as recently as 1929 in a short story by US journalist and author Damon Runyon (1880-1946), a reference to the desirably of having many of the suit in bridge, spades the highest-ranking suit.  A similar phrase is that reported by the poet Matthew Arnold (1822-1888) and attributed to Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881; UK prime- minister 1868 & 1874-1880) who, when discussing the techniques he adopted during his audiences with Queen Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the UK 1837-1901), advised “everyone likes flattery and when you come to royalty, you should lay it on with a trowel”.

Although Disraeli joined the Church of England at the age of twelve, he was born Jewish and one who clearly understood the value of laying flattery on “with a trowel” was Benjamin Netanyahu (b 1949; Israeli prime minister 1996-1999, 2009-2021 and since 2022) who, while doubtless noting the “No Kings” protest movement in the US, decided that for these purposes Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025) should be treated like royalty.  Shortly after it was in June 2025 announced the US military had (with the now famous “bunker-buster” bombs) attacked Iranian nuclear processing facilities which the ayatollahs had concealed deep inside a convenient mountain, Mr Netanyahu appeared at the lectern, metaphorical trowel in hand:

Benjamin Netanyahu (left) & Donald Trump (right).

“Congratulations President Trump, your bold decision to target Iran's nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history.  Israel has done truly amazing things. But in tonight's action against Iran's nuclear facilities, America has been truly unsurpassed.  It has done what no other country on earth could do. History will record that President Trump acted to deny the world's most dangerous regime, the world's most dangerous weapons.  His leadership today has created a pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace.  President Trump and I often say 'peace through strength'.  First comes strength, then comes peace.  And tonight President Trump and the United States acted with a lot of strength.  President Trump, I thank you.  The people of Israel thank you.  The forces of civilization thank you.  God bless America.  God bless Israel and may God bless our unshakeable alliance, our unbreakable faith.”

Disraeli himself can scarcely ever have been as effusive in his praise of his Queen (although on occasion he was known to go on bended knee to kiss the hand) and were Mr Netanyahu able to grant Mr Trump an imperial title (as Disraeli in 1876 conferred on Victoria by making her “Empress of India”), surely he would.  In paying due tribute, the Israeli prime minister set the mark but in a post-operation press briefing conducted with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (US Air Force (USAF) General Dan Caine (b 1968)) Pete Hegseth (b 1980; US secretary of defense since 2025) rose to the occasion:

Donald Trump (left) & Pete Hegseth (right).

“For the entirety of his time in office, President Trump has consistently stated, for over 10 years, that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon, full stop.  Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his commitment to peace through strength, Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.  Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran's nuclear program, and none could, until President Trump.  The operation President Trump planned was bold and it was brilliant, showing the world that American deterrence is back.  When this President speaks, the world should listen and the U.S. Military, we can back it up.  The most powerful military the world has ever known.  No other country on planet Earth could have conducted the operation that the chairman is going to outline this morning.  Not even close.  Just like Soleimani found out in the first term Iran found out when POTUS says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation otherwise that nuclear program, that nuclear capability, will not exist.  He meant it.  This is not the previous administration.  President Trump said, no nukes. He seeks peace, and Iran should take that path.  He sent out a Truth last night, saying this: any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight, signed the President of the United States, Donald J Trump.  Iran would be smart to heed those words. He said it before, and he means it.  I want to give congratulations to our commander in chief. It was an honor to watch him lead last night and throughout and to our great American warriors on this successful operation. God bless our troops. God bless America, and we give glory to God for his providence and continue to ask for his protection.”

Donald Trump (left) and Mark Rutte.

Not wanting the White House to think NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) couldn’t handle a trowel as well as Tel Aviv and the Pentagon, Mark Rutte (b 1967; prime minister of the Netherlands 2010-2024, secretary general of NATO since 2024) took the opportunity presented by Mr Trump’s impending arrival at the 2025 NATO Summit Defence Industry Forum to send the president a message congratulating him on the apparent success of the USAF’s strikes on Iran:

“Mr President, dear Donald, congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, that was truly extraordinary, and something no one else dared to do. It makes us all safer.  You are flying into another big success in The Hague this evening.  It was not easy but we’ve got them all signed onto 5 percent!  Donald, you have driven us to a really, really important moment for America and Europe, and the world.  You will achieve something NO American president in decades could get done.  Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win.  Safe travels and see you at His Majesty’s dinner!”

Mike Huckabee (left) and Donald Trump (right).

One who had his own way of sending the message was Mike Huckabee (b 1955; Baptist preacher, Republican governor of Arkansas 1996-2007, US ambassador to Israel since 2025) who earlier had told Mr Trump that while doubtlessly he was hearing advice from many sources telling him what to do about Iran: “There is only one voice that matters, HIS voice.  I believe you will hear from heaven and that voice is far more important than mine or ANYONE else’s.”  The president clearly liked the thought of God as his advisor and re-posted the message on his Truth Social platform.  Despite his critics alleging he thinks himself above God, it’s probably more accurate to suggest Mr Trump regards Him as an equal.

Mr Netanyahu (left) & Mr Trump (right), the Knesset, Jerusalem, 13 October, 2025.

In his speech on 13 October 2525 welcoming Mr Trump, visiting to make a speech to the Knesset (parliament of Israel), Mr Netanyahu stopped short of acknowledging his guest as a living god but that may only be because his cabinet is packed with amateur scholars of the Torah and he may have anticipated theological objections although, beyond Judaism, there are precedents, the Emperors of Japan before the unpleasantness of 1945 being venerated as 現人神 (arahitogami; manifest kami; incarnation of a deity) and because of the wording the Imperial Palace’s courtiers concocted in the statement purporting to proclaim him as mere “human flesh & blood”, there are still factions which claim divinity was never renounced although there’s little to suggest modern Japanese citizens much dwell on this.  There was also Haile Selassie I (1892-1975; Emperor of Ethiopia 1930-1974), regarded by the Rastafari as their (and possibly everyone’s, opinions differ) Messiah.  Rastafari is an Abrahamic religion which in the 1930s emerged in Jamaica but it’s misleading to speak of it as simply a faith because it’s more a social movement and world view; in that sense it’s more like Islam though without the codified rules and an even looser structure of authority.  The matter came to international attention when in April 1966 the emperor visited Jamaica, a event celebrated as the most important Rastafari’s most holy day and called “Grounation Day” because, when walking between his aircraft and Vanden Plas Princess limousine, he declined to walk upon the red carpet laid according to diplomatic protocol because he wished his feet to “touch the ground”.  Intriguingly, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (with roots from the early days of Christianity) has never suggested the Rastafari renounce their belief in Haile Selassie's divine status.

Mr & Mrs Netanyahu.

So, although Mr Netanyahu stopped short of putting Mr Trump at least on the right-hand of God, he didn’t stop that far short and set a new mark in what is now something of an international diplomatic competition to see who can most flatter the POTUS.  Whether anyone will dare to try to top what was said in the Knesset remains to be seen but so adeptly did Mr Netanyahu wield the Disraelian trowel that it’ll demand quite a performance.  The event in Jerusalem was to mark return of the remaining hostages seized by the Hamas during the terrorist attack of 7 October 2023 so the occasion was understandably emotional and the prime-minister, as well as reiterating his country’s nomination of Mr Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize (which, in fairness, he deserves more than Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) who in 2009 received his for “not being George W Bush” (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009), indicated the president had been nominated to become the first non-Israeli recipient of the Israel Prize (Israel's highest award).  The malicious suggestion on Twitter that one of Mr Trump’s aides asked if was possible for him “to take the prize in cash instead” was wholly fake news but in the spirit of the moment, Mr Trump did later suggest Isaac Herzog (b 1960; president of Israel since 2021) should issue a pardon to Mr Netanyahu (and presumably his (third) wife Sara (b 1958)) to resolve the tiresome corruption charges both face.  Footage of the remarkable speech is available on-line as is a transcript but some fragments capture the moment:

“My friends, this is only a partial list.  But it's enough to affirm what I've said time and again, Donald Trump is the greatest friend that the state of Israel has ever had in the White House.  No American president has ever done more for Israel.  And as I said in Washington, none are even close.  It's really not a match. 

Israel, a man named Donald J. Trump was elected president of the United States. And, ladies and gentlemen, overnight, overnight everything changed. Everything.  And I want to thank our negotiating team. I believe that the close cooperation between the two of us, between our two nations, combining Israel's military pressure and President Trump's unmatched global leadership.  I have to tell you, I've seen a lot of American presidents. I've seen them all in the time that I've been here.  And I've been here quite a lot of time.  I've never seen anyone move the world so quickly, so decisively, so resolutely as our friend, President Donald J Trump.

Mr. President, thank you for all you have done for us.  I have submitted your nomination to be the first non-Israeli recipient of the Israel Prize, Israel's highest award.  As to that other prize, just a question of time.  You'll get it.  But I want you to get the Israel Prize, our highest award, to our greatest friend.  When others were weak, you were strong. When others were fearful, you were bold. When others abandoned us, you stood by our side.  On behalf of the government and people of Israel, I thank you for your extraordinary friendship.  Thank you for helping bring our hostages home.  Thank you for supporting Israel's march to victory.  Thank you for paving a path to peace.

Mr. President, my friend Donald, welcome to Israel.  Welcome to Jerusalem. Welcome on this very special day.  Allowed us to live and brought us to this day.  May God bless you and your family, Mr. President.  May God bless America.  May God bless Israel.  And may God bless the covenant between our two promised lands.”

Splayd (pronounced splade)

An eating utensil combining the functions of spoon, knife and fork.

1943: A constructed brand name which was not a conventionally blended word but one with a pronunciation intended to remind the speaker of the devices functional elements (spoon & blade) with the hint of "splay" (to slant, slope or spread outwards) to allude to the shape of the tines.  While the shape of the splayd was at the time unusual, the idea of utensils which combined the knife, fork & spoon had been around for generations and during World War II (1939-1945), allied soldiers enviously would admire the "light-weight and brilliantly simple" one issued to the German army.  Splayd is a noun; the noun plural is splayds.

The splayd was created by William McArthur of Sydney, Australia, with production licensed to several manufacturers, the best known of which was Viners of Sheffield.  Although several variations of the spork (a utensil combining the functionality of spoon and fork) already existed, the splayd’s innovation was the refinement of two outer fork tines, each having a hard, flat edge, suitable for cutting through soft food and they tended to have a geometric rather than a rounded bowl (usually with two longitudinal folds in the metal).  Mrs McArthur used and sold splayds in her Martha Washington Café in Sydney's Martin Place between 1943-1967 and in 1960 sold the manufacturing rights to the Stokes company which instituted some minor changes to the design, making them more easily mass-produced.

Set of six splayds plated in 24 carat gold; most splayds were rendered in 18-8 stainless steel although, especially in England, silver plate items appeared in smaller volumes.

Among some of the middle class seeking to add a layer of something to their dinner parties, splades were often seen and during their heyday in the 1950s & 1960s.  They were also a popular wedding gift and one unintended benefit was their usefulness in aged care and medical rehabilitation facilities, their use recommended for those with feeding difficulties following or during treatment of the arm.  A range was manufactured with the Selectagrip system which featured customizable handles to assist people who had difficulties gripping or manipulating standard utensils.