Oligarch

Oligarch (pronounced ol-i-gahrk)

(1) In political science, one of the rulers in an oligarchy (a system of government characterized by the institutional or constructive rule of a few and the literal or effective exclusion of the many); a member of an oligarchy.

(2) A very rich person involved in business in a manner which interacts intimately with the organs of government, the nature of the relationship varying between systems but usually with the implication of mutually beneficial corrupt or improper (if sometimes technically lawful) conduct.

(3) In cosmogony, a proto-planet formed during oligarchic accretion.

1600-1610: From the French oligarque & olygarche, from the Late Latin oligarcha, from the Ancient Greek ὀλιγάρχης (oligárkhēs) and related to oligarkhia (government by the few), the construct being olig- (few) (from stem of oligos (few, small, little) (a word of uncertain origin)) +‎ -arch (ruler, leader) (from arkhein (to rule)).  The noun plural was oligarchs.  In English, an earlier form of oligarchy was the circa 1500 oligracie, a borrowing from the Old French.  Oligarch & oligarchy are nouns, oligarchal, oligarchical & oligarchic are adjectives, and oligarchically is an adverb; the noun plural is oligarchs.  The playful minigarch (the offspring of an oligarch) and oligarchette (a female oligarch or an aspiring oligarch not yet rich enough to be so described are both non-standard while oligarchie & oligarchisch are sometimes used to convey a deliberate sense of the foreign.  Oligarch is now almost never used in its classical sense to refer to rulers of a political entity but instead to describe the small numbers of those who have become exceedingly rich, usually in some improper (even if technically lawful) way with the corrupt and surreptitious cooperation of those in government, the implication being they too have benefited.  Words like plutocrat, potentate and tycoonocrat are sometimes used as synonyms but don’t covey the sense of gains improperly and corruptly achieved.

Oligarchs are sometimes described in the press as "colorful characters", something a bit misleading because many seek a low profile, something often advisable in Mr Putin's Russia.  In a movie about oligarchs Netflix presumably would focus on some of the more colorful.

In modern use, an oligarch is one of the select few people who have become very rich by virtue of their close connections to rule or influence leaders in an oligarchy (a government in which power is held by a select few individuals or a small class of powerful people).  Unlike the relationship between “monarch” & “monarchy”, “oligarch” & “oligarchy” are not used in the literature of political science in quite the same way.  A monarch’s relationship to their monarchy is a thing defined by the constitutional system under which they reign and that may be absolute, despotic or theocratic but is inherently directly linked.  However, even in a political system which is blatantly and obviously an oligarchy, the members of the ruling clique are not referred to as oligarchs by virtue of their place in the administration, the more common descriptors being autocrat, despot, fascist, tyrant, dictator, totalitarian, authoritarian, kleptocrat or other terms that to varying degrees hint at unsavoriness.  Instead, the word oligarch has come to be used as a kind of encapsulated critique of corruption and economic distortion and the individual oligarch a personification of that.  The modern oligarch is one who has massively profited, usually by gaining in some corrupt way either the resources which once belonged to the state or trading rights within the state which tend towards monopolistic or oligopolistic arrangements.  Inherent in the critique is the assumption that the corrupt relationship is a symbiotic one between oligarch and those in government, the details of which can vary: oligarchs may be involved in the political process or entirely excluded but a common feature to all such arrangements is that there is a mutual enrichment at the expense of the sate (ie the citizens).  The word oligarch has thus become divorced from oligarchy and attached only to oligopoly.

The word oligopoly dates from 1887, from the Medieval Latin oligopolium, the construct being the Ancient Greek ὀλίγος (olígos) (few) + πωλεῖν (poleîn) (to sell) from the primitive Indo-European root pel (to sell) and describes a market in which an industry is dominated by a small number of large-scale sellers called oligopolists (the adjectival form oligopolistic from a surprisingly recent 1939).  Oligopolies, which inherently reduce competition and impose higher prices on consumers do not of necessity form as a result of improper or corrupt collusion and may be entirely organic, the classic example of which is two competitors in a once broad market becoming increasingly efficient, both achieving such critical mass that others are unable to compete.  At that point, there is often a tendency for the two to collude to divide the market between them, agreeing not to compete in certain fields or geographical regions, effectively creating sectoral or regional monopolies.  If competitors do emerge, the oligopolists have sufficient economic advantage to be able temporarily to reduce their selling prices to below the cost of production & distribution, forcing the completion from the market, after which the profitable price levels are re-imposed.

A classic game theory model of oligopolistic behavior.

Although not thought desirable by economists, they’ve long attracted interest interest because they create interesting market structures, especially when they interact with instruments of government designed to prevent their emergence or at least ameliorate the consequences of their operation.  The most obvious restriction governments attempt to impose is to prevent collusion between oligopolists in an attempt to deny them the opportunity to set prices of particular goods.  Even if successful, this can only ever partially be done because most prices quickly become public knowledge and with so few sellers in a market, most of which tend to operate with similar input, production & distribution costs, each oligopolist can in most cases predict the actions of the others. This has been of interest in game theory because the decisions of one player are not only in reaction to that of the others but also influences their behavior.

Dartz Prombron, produced in Latvia and manufactured to much the same standard of robustness which during Great Patriotic War (1941-1945) made the Soviet-built T-34 tank so formidable.

The Prombron is now typical of the preferred transport for an oligarch, the traditional limousine not able to be configured to offer the same level of protection against attacks with military-grade weapons.  Prombrons were originally trimmed with leather from the foreskins of whale penises but the feature was dropped after protests from the environmental lobby.  It was a rare victory for the greenies in their battles with the Kremlin, usually a most unequal contest. 

Oligarchs in the modern sense operate differently and the Russian model under Mr Putin has become the exemplar although some on a smaller scale (notably Lebanon since 1990) are probably even more extreme.  The Russian oligarchs emerged in the 1990s in the chaos which prevailed after the dissolution of the old Soviet Union.  They were men, sometime outside government but often apparatchiks within, well-skilled in the corruption and the operations of the black market which constituted an increasingly large chunk of the economy in the last decade of the USSR and these skills they parlayed into their suddenly capitalistic world.  Capitalism however depends on there being private property and because the USSR was constructed on the basis of Marxist theory which demanded it was the state which owned and controlled the means of production and distribution, there was little of that.  So there was privatization, some of it officially and much of it anything but, the classic examples being a back-channel deal between the oligarch and someone in government purporting to be vested with the authority to sell the assets of the state.  Few in government did this without a cut (often under the guise of a equity mechanism called “loans for shares”) and indeed, some apparatchiks sold the assets to themselves and those assets could be nice little earners like oil & gas concessions or producers, electricity generators, transport networks or financial institutions.  One of the reasons the assets were able to be sold at unbelievably bargain prices was a product of Soviet accounting: because the book value of assets had so little meaning in communist accounting, in many cases recorded asset values hadn’t be updated in decades and were in any case sometimes only nominal.  There were therefore sales which, prima facie, might have appeared to verge on the legitimate.

2021 Aurus Senat, now the official presidential car of the Russian state.

Few were and in any event, even if the aspiring oligarch didn’t have the cash, somewhere in government there would be found an official able to arrange the state to loan the necessary fund from the resources of the state, if need be creating (effectively printing) the money.  From that point, newly acquitted assets could be leveraged, sold to foreign investors at huge profit or even operated in the novelty of the free market, an attractive proposition for many given the asset obtained from the state might be a natural monopoly, competition therefore of no immediate concern.  Thus was modern Russian capitalism born of what were economic crimes on a scale unimaginable to the legions condemned to death or years in the Gulag under comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953).  Even before becoming prime-minister in 1999, Mr Putin was well aware of what had happened, being acquainted with some of the players in the process but shortly after assuming office, he had small a team of lawyers, accountants and economists undertake a forensic analysis to try more accurately to quantify who did what and who got how much.  Although the paperwork his investigative project produced has never been made public, it was reputed to have been reduced to a modestly-sized file but the contents were dynamic and put to good use.

In either 2003 or 2004, Mr Putin, assisted by officers of the FSB (successor to the alphabet-soup of similar agencies (Cheka, GPU, OGPU, NKGB, NKVD, SMERSH, MGB & (most famously) KGB)) experts in such things, “arranged” a series of interviews with the oligarchs whose conduct in the privatizations of 1990s had been most impressive (or egregious depending on one’s view).  Well aware of the relationship between wealth and political influence, Mr Putin’s explained that the oligarchs had to decide whether they wished to be involved in business or politics; they couldn’t do both.  Mr Putin then explained the extent of their theft from the state, how much was involved, who else facilitated and profited from the transactions and what would be the consequences for all concerned were the matters to come to trial.  Then to sweeten the deal, Mr Putin pointed out that although the oligarchs had on a grand scale stolen their wealth, because “they had stolen it fair and square”, they could keep it if they agreed to refrain from involvement in politics.  The Russian oligarchy understood his language, the lucidity of his explanation perhaps enhanced by oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky (b 1963; then listed as the richest man in Russia and in the top-twenty worldwide) being arrested on charges of fraud and tax evasion, shortly before the meetings were convened (he was convicted in 2005 and sentenced to nine years in prison and while serving his sentence was charged with and found guilty of embezzlement and money laundering.  Mr Putin later pardoned Khodorkovsky and he was released to self-imposed exile in late 2013).  Few failed to note the significance of Mr Khodorkovsky having been "meddling in politics".

Alastair Campbell (b 1957; Downing Street Director of Communications & official spokesperson (1997–2003) rear) with Vladimir Putin (b 1952; Prime-Minister of Russia 1999-2000 & 2008-2012, President of Russia 1999-2008 & since 2012, left) and Tony Blair (b 1953; UK Prime Minister 1997-2007, right).  Mr Putin in recent years has stretched plausible deniability well beyond the point at which plausibility can be said to have become implausible and the not infrequently seen: "cause of death: falling from window of high building" is known by Russians as the "oligarch elevator".  Predating even the Tsarist state, grim humor has a long tradition in Russia.     

Mr Putin being taken for a drive by George W Bush (b 1946; George XLIII, US president 2001-2009) in the Russian president's GAZ-21 Volga (left) and casting an admiring glance at his 2009 Lada Niva (right).

In a sign the oligarchs were wise to comply, it was estimated by Bill Browder (b 1964; CEO and co-founder of the once Moscow-linked Hermitage Capital Management) during his testimony to the US Senate Judiciary Committee in 2017 that the biggest single increase in Mr Putin’s personal wealth happened immediately after Mr Khodorkovsky was jailed.  Given the history, Mr Browder is perhaps not an entirely impartial viewer but the pact between the autocrat and the oligarchy has been well-understood for years but what has always attracted speculation is the possibility that attached to it was a secret protocol whereby Mr Putin received transactional fees, imposing essentially a license to operate in Russia, alleged by some to be a cut of as much as 50%, based apparently on assessed profits rather than turnover.  Even if a half-share is too high and his cut is a more traditional 10%, the amount payable over the years would have been a very big number so there’s been much speculation about Mr Putin’s money, some estimates suggesting he may have a net wealth in the US$ billions.  That would seem truly impressive, given the Kremlin each year publishes a disclosure of their head of state’s income and assets and the last return disclosed Mr Putin enjoys an annual salary of US$140,000 and owns an 800-square-foot (74 m²) apartment, his other notable assets being three cars: a 1960 (first series) GAZ-21 Volga, a 1965 (second series) GAZ-M21P Volga and a 2009 Lada Niva 4x4.  Keen on outdoor pursuits, he also owns a camping trailer.

A country cottage on the Black Sea coast alleged to be owned by Mr Putin.  The large grounds surrounding the cottage are an indication why Mr Putin needs his 2009 Lada 4x4 & camping trailer.

On the basis of that, income and net wealth seem not at all out of alignment but intriguingly, he’s been photographed with some high-end watches on his wrist, including an A. Lange & Söhne 1815 Tourbograph which sells for around US$500,000.  He is rumored to be the owner of a 190,000 square-foot (17,650 m²) mansion which sits atop a cliff overlooking the Black Sea (reputedly Russia’s largest private residence and known, in a nod to the understated manner of the rich, as “Putin’s country cottage”) which has an ice hockey rink, a casino, a nightclub with stripper poles, an extravagantly stocked wine cellar and the finest furniture in Louis XIV style, the toilet-roll holders apparently at US$1,250 apiece (although, given the scale of the place, he may have received a bulk-purchase discount).  It demands a full-time staff of forty to maintain the estate, the annual running costs estimated at US$2-3 million.  Designed by Italian architect Lanfranco Cirillo (b 1959), and officially owned (though alleged to be held under a secret trust of which Mr Putin is the sole beneficiary) by oligarch Alexander Ponomarenko (b 1964), the construction cost was estimated to be somewhere around a US$ billion which seems expensive but a yacht currently moored in Italy and alleged also to belong to Mr Putin is said to have cost not much less to launch so either or both may actually represent good value and to assure privacy, the Russian military enforces a no-fly zone around the property.  Like many well-connected chaps around the world, a few of Mr Putin’s billions figured in the release of the Panama Papers in 2016.

A GAZ-23 Volga at a Moscow car show, 2006.

Apart from the Black Sea cottage, there are unverified reports Mr Putin is the owner of 19 other houses, 58 aircraft & helicopters and 700 cars (although it’s not clear if that number includes his two Volgas and the Lada).  No verified breakdown of the 700 cars has ever been published but given Mr Putin’s obvious fondness for Volgas, it may be his collection includes the limited-production variant of the GAZ-21 Volga, 603 (as the GAZ-M23 Volga) of which were produced between 1962-1970 for the exclusive use of the KGB (Комитет государственной безопасности (Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti), the Committee for State Security) and other Soviet “special services”.  Equipped with the 5.5 litre (337 cubic inch) V8 engine from the big GAZ-13 Chaika (Gull) (1959-1981 and in the Soviet hierarchy, second only to the even bigger ZiL limousines (1936-2012)), the car was said to be a not entirely successful piece of engineering but it was certainly faster than the four-cylinder model on which it was based.  It’s never been clear just what was the top speed because the speedometer was calibrated only to 180 km/h (112 mph) but one intrepid KGB apparatchik claimed to have achieved that and reported his Volga was “still accelerating”.  Known to be nostalgic for the old ways of the KGB (with all that implies), it’s hoped Mr Putin has preserved at least one.

Restored GAZ-23 Volga.

Identified as 1962 model (still in the "transitional" bodywork used between the second and third series) the car is claimed to be a genuine, fully-restored GAZ-23 and while there were some sites which suggested it was a “Russian restromod” (ie a M-21 built to M-23 specifications), a hard-to-replicate detail like the special locking mechanism which permitted the trunk (boot) to be opened only when the passenger’s side back door was ajar (said to prevent the prevents the penetration of anyone unauthorized) does lend credence to the claims of authenticity.  Additionally, the supplied documents do support the claim and tie in with the extant license plates (5487 ЮБЯ).  This car wasn’t allocated to the KGB and the 20 years it was in government service were spent as a courier vehicle, transporting people or packages between Moscow and one of the space institutes and period photographs suggest that while white-wall tyres did exist behind the iron curtain, they were rare and not all M-23s seem to have been fitted with either the “chrome package” (the “keels” & “arrows” on the fenders) or the amber turn signals (used on export models).  While a million odd of the four-cylinder versions were produced, between 1962-1970, only 603 V8 M-23s left the factory and in the era, none were ever offered for general sale, availability restricted to the select few organs of the state deemed to require the inconspicuous hotrod.  As far is known, 19 still exist, mostly in museums or private collections although whether any remain stashed away in the Kremlin’s garages has never been disclosed which may seem strange but much in Mr Putin’s Russia remains a state secret.

The origins of the M-23 lie in a commission the KGB in 1960 issued to the Gorky Automobile Plant for the design of a vehicle able to be used for pursuits, VIP escorts and other “special missions”, the KGB doing a great many of the latter.  On the same basis “plain clothes” police in many jurisdictions use cars visually indistinguishable from those run by private citizens, the KGB specified that externally, their special model had to look exactly the same as the standard Volga GAZ-21 but be more powerful and thus faster.  In other words, KGB Volgas were to be “equal to” and yet “more equal” than the others.  In the commission, it was specified the car must be able to attain a top speed of 170 km/h (106 mph) and achieve 100 km/h (62 mph) within 16 seconds which may not now sound impressive but in the Warsaw Pact of 1960, it would have been supercar stuff.

GAZ 5.5 litre V8 in M-23.

The Chaika’s V8 was a tight fit in the smaller engine bay of the M-21 and the engineers were compelled to align it 2º off centre of the crankshaft and even after redesigning the right-side chassis member, the clearance between parts of the structure and the engine was in places just a few millimetres.  The V8 was by Western standards inefficient and generated much heat so the use of the Chaika’s large radiator was essential, meaning the frontal internal panels had to be changed, the opportunity taken also to strengthen the front cross-members, better to support the V8’s greater weight.  As was to become the practice when Detroit did such things, the suspension was upgraded using springs coiled from steel bars of increased diameter and heavy-duty shock absorbers were fitted.  Being a V8, there were of course two manifolds and thus two exhaust pipes but to disguise the identity of the thing, the two pipes terminated near the rear bumper but did not protrude into view.  As the US manufacturers also discovered, when it came to putting big, wide V8s in cars designed originally to house something more narrow, few components were as troublesome as exhaust manifolds and the performance of some muscle cars (notably the big-block (383 & 440 cubic inch (6.3 & 7.2 litre) Dodge Darts and second generation Plymouth Barracudas) was compromised by the need to use more restrictive systems.

Separated at birth: 1962 GAZ-23 (left) and 1964 Pontiac GTO (right).

Although barely mentioned by collectors, the GAZ-23 pre-dated the Pontiac Pontiac GTO (1963-1974) by more than a year though it's the GTO which usually is cited as "the first muscle car" (a concept defined as "a big engine from the full-sized line installed in the smaller intermediate platform") but the KGB's project was exactly that.  In a sense, the true MRCA (most recent common ancestor) of the muscle cars of the 1960s was probably the 1936 Buick Century, a revised version of the model 60, created by replacing the 233 cubic inch (3.8 litre) straight eight with the 320 cubic inch (5.2 litre) unit from the longer, heavier Roadmaster.  It wasn’t exactly a transplant into an “intermediate” (a concept unknown until the 1960s) but the process was not dissimilar.  Still, if one sticks to the accepted the definition, it’s the V8 GAZ-23 which came first and not the GTO but the Soviet vehicle rates not even a mention in Mike Mueller’s (b 1959) otherwise comprehensive Muscle Car Source Book (2015, Quarto Publishing Group), something which is that’s publication’s only omission of note.  Mr Mueller’s book is unusual in that it appears to contain not a single error, a rarity in a field in which misinformation is rife.  His book is data-dense and highly recommended though should Mr Mueller ever release a revised edition, hopefully the KGB’s seemingly thus far unacknowledged contribution to the muscle car ecosystem will gain a footnote.  While chief engineer of GM's (General Motors) PMD (Pontiac Motor Division), shamelessly John DeLorean (1925–2005) stole the GTO's name (Gran Turismo Omologato) from the Italians so it's at least not impossible he pinched the concept from the Soviets. 

Mr Putin agitprop.

Mr Putin has admitted: "I am the wealthiest man, not just in Europe but in the whole world: I collect emotions. I am wealthy in that the people of Russia have twice entrusted me with the leadership of a great nation such as Russia. I believe that is my greatest wealth."  In conventional (ie money) terms, quite how rich Mr Putin might be is such a swirl of estimates, rumors, supposition and doubtlessly invention (lies) that it's unlikely anyone except those disinclined to discuss the matter really know and after all, if he's rich as his detractors claim, he probably isn't exactly sure himself.  Given that, his statement seemed intended to clear up any misunderstandings.

Fumblerule

Fumblerule (pronounced fumm-bull-roule)

A rule of language or linguistic style, written in a way that violates the rule; technically a form of self-reference which relies on the inherent contradiction for the humor.

1979: A portmanteau word, the construct being fumble + rule.  In the context of fumblerule, “fumble” is used in the sense of “a blunder; awkwardly to seek”.  The mid-fifteenth century fumble (the obsolete English famble & fimble had much the same meaning) was from the Late Middle English, possibly from either the Low German fommeln or the Dutch fommelen, the alternative etymology being a Scandinavian or North Germanic source and there’s likely some relationship with the Old Norse fálma (to fumble, grope), the Swedish fumla, the Danish fumle and the German fummeln.  The history is certainly murky and the ultimate source could even be onomatopoeia (imitative of sounds associated with someone fumbling (bumble or stumble) or from the primitive Indo-European pal- (to shake, swing) from which Classical Latin gained palpo (I pat, touch softly) or (entirely speculatively) the Proto-West Germanic fōlijan (to feel).  The intransitive sense "do or seek awkwardly" was from the 1530s and the noun dates from the 1640s.

In the context of fumblerule, “rule” is used in the sense of “a regulation, law or guideline”.  The noun in the sense of “measure; measurement” dates from circa 1175, the verb first noted circa 1200 from the Middle English riwlen, reulen & rewellen from the Old French riuler, rieuler & ruler from the Late Latin rēgulāre (derivative of rēgula).  The sense of "principle or maxim governing conduct, formula to which conduct must be conformed" is from the Old French riule & the Norman reule (rule, custom, (religious) order) which, in Modern French, has been partially re-Latinized as règle.  The meaning "regulation governing play of a game” is from 1690s. The notion of a rule of law (supremacy of impartial and well-defined laws to any individual's power), as a phrase, emerged surprisingly recently, dating only from 1883.  The sense "to control, guide, direct" came from the Old French riuler (impose rule) from the Latin regulare (to control by rule, direct) from the Latin regula (rule, straight piece of wood) from the primitive Indo-European root reg- (move in a straight line) with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line," thus "to lead, rule."  The legal sense "establish by decision" is recorded from the early fifteenth century.

Fumblerule was coined by right-wing US commentator Bill Safire (1929-2009) in a November 1979 edition of his column On Language in the New York Times.  Safire extended this in the later book Fumblerules: A Lighthearted Guide to Grammar and Good Usage (1990) (ISBN 0-440-21010-0), which, in 2005, was re-printed as How Not to Write: The Essential Misrules of Grammar.  Physicist George L Trigg (1925-2014) also published a list of these rules.

Bill Safire (right) on Air Force Two with Spiro Agnew, November 1972 (US presidential election campaign).

Safire was also a White House speech writer for Richard Nixon (1913–1994; US president 1969-1974 & Spiro Agnew (1918–1996; US vice president 1969-1973).  Impressionistically, it would seem right-wingers tend to outnumber the left in the authorship of texts lamenting the decline in standards of English writing and it is one of the theatres of the culture wars.  In English, although there are the plenty of pedants and not a few of the infamous grammar Nazis still obsessing over stuff like a split infinitive, it’s not the sort of language which needs pointless “rules” to be enforced, many of which were never rules in the first place.  English spelling and grammar evolves usually according to a practical imperative: the transmission of meaning in an economical, precise and elegant way.  Criticism from the (notional) left is more political than linguistic: their objections to “correct” English is essentially that it’s just another way of maintaining white privilege and that all dialects within English are of equal cultural value and none should be regarded as “incorrect” or spoken by the “uneducated”.

Some of Bill Safire’s fumblerules

Avoid run-on sentences they are hard to read.

Don't use no double negatives.

Use the semicolon properly, always use it where it is appropriate; and never where it isn't.

Reserve the apostrophe for it's proper use and omit it when its not needed.

Do not put statements in the negative form.

Verbs has to agree with their subjects.

No sentence fragments.

Remember to never split an infinitive.

Proofread carefully to see if you any words out.

Avoid commas, that are not necessary.

If you reread your work, you will find on rereading that a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.

A writer must not shift your point of view.

Eschew dialect, irregardless.

And don't start a sentence with a conjunction.

Don't overuse exclamation marks!!!

Place pronouns as close as possible, especially in long sentences, as of 10 or more words, to their antecedents.

Writers should always hyphenate between syllables and avoid un-necessary hyph-ens.

Write all adverbial forms correct.

Don't use contractions in formal writing.

Writing carefully, dangling participles must be avoided.

It is incumbent on us to avoid archaisms.

If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.

Steer clear of incorrect forms of verbs that have snuck in the language.

Take the bull by the hand and avoid mixed metaphors.

Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.

Never, ever use repetitive redundancies.

Everyone should be careful to use a singular pronoun with singular nouns in their writing.

If I've told you once, I've told you a thousand times, resist hyperbole.

Also, avoid awkward or affected alliteration.

Don't string too many prepositional phrases together unless you are walking through the valley of the shadow of death.

Always pick on the correct idiom.

"Avoid overuse of 'quotation "marks."'"

The adverb always follows the verb.

Last but not least, avoid cliches like the plague; seek viable alternatives.

Microaggression

Microaggression (pronounced mahy-kroh-uh-gresh-uhn)

(1) A casual comment or action directed at a marginalized, minority or other non-dominant group that (often) unintentionally but unconsciously reinforces a stereotype and can be construed as offensive.

(2) The act of discriminating against a non-dominant group by means of such comments or actions.

1970: A construct of micro- + aggression coined by Chester Middlebrook Pierce (1927-2016), former Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.  Micro (small, microscopic; magnifying; one millionth) is a word-forming element from the New Latin micro- (small), from the Ancient Greek μικρός (mikrós) (small).  The origin is disputed between etymologists, the traditional view being it was derived from the primitive Indo-European (s)meyg- & (s)mēyg- (small, thin, delicate) and was cognate with the Old English smicor (beauteous, beautiful, elegant, fair, fine, tasteful), source also of the Modern English smicker and related to the German mickrig.   However, there’s a highly technical discussion within the profession, hinged around the unexplained “k” in the Greek and there’s the suggestion of a pre-Greek origin on the basis of variation between initial /m/ and /sm/, as well as the variant forms μικός (mikós) and μικκός (mikkós).  Aggression, dating from 1605–1615, is from the French aggression, from the Latin aggressionem (nominative aggressio (a going to, an attack)), a noun of action from past participle stem of aggredi (to approach; attack) the construct being ad (to) + gradi (past participle gressus (to step)) from gradus (a step).  The Classical Latin aggressiōn (stem of aggressiō), was equivalent to aggress(us) + iōn derived from aggrēdi (to attack).  The psychological sense of "hostile or destructive behavior" had its origin in early psychiatry, first noted in English in 1912 in a translation of Freud.

Chester Middlebrook Pierce (1927-2016).

Microaggression is an adaptable and possibly infinitely variable concept which probably most belongs in sociology and is typically defined as any of the small-scale verbal or physical interactions between those of different races, cultures, beliefs, or genders that are presumed to have no malicious intent but which can be interpreted as revealing and underlying (and possibly unconscious) bias.  The criteria can be both objective and subjective and it’s noted compliments or comments intended to be positive can be microaggressions.  Probably, the only "safe" identity-based categorizations are now those purely statistical: average heights by nationality and such although such is the sensitivity, the recommendation of many is now wholly to avoid anything which could be construed as a microaggression, the only exceptions being those directed at groups defined as "privileged" (white people, Christians, heterosexual males etc.  The standard psychology texts suggest the behavior manifests in three forms:

Microassault: An explicit racial derogation which can be verbal or nonverbal which can include labelling, avoidant behavior and purposeful discriminatory actions.

Microinsult: Communications that convey rudeness or insensitivity and demean a person's racial heritage or identity; subtle snubs which may be unknown to the perpetrator; hidden insulting messages to the recipient of color.

Microinvalidation: Communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person belonging to a particular group.

The concept emerged to address the underlying racism which endured even after overt, deliberate expressions of racism had become socially unacceptable.  It held that microaggressions generally happened below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture and were different from overt, deliberate acts of bigotry, such as the use of racist epithets because the people perpetrating microaggressions often intend no offense and are unaware they are causing harm.  In the abstract, this positions the dominant culture as normal and the minority one as aberrant or pathological.

Although the word’s origin is in the politics of race and ethnicity, it proved readily adaptable to other areas such as gender, sexual orientation, mental illness, disability and age.  Within the discipline, there’s a (typically) highly technical debate about the nature of microaggression and the intersectionality at the cross-cutting cleavages of non-dominant groups.  As regards the media, the discipline had a well-refined model to describe how microaggressions were either reinforced or encouraged by a news and entertainment media which reflected the hegemony of the dominant culture.  The sudden shock of the emergence of social media has changed that in both diversity of source and content and its substantially unmediated distribution.  To date, much work in exploring this area has been impressionistic and it’s not clear if the analytical metrics, where they exist, are sufficiently robust for theories in this area to be coherent.  In a sense, social media and the development of DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) are synergistic.

1958 Studebaker Scotsman advertisement.

There was in 1957 nothing unusual or offensive in Studebaker naming a car “Scotsman” and it would have been well-understood as a reference to the car’s low purchase price and (alleged) TCO (total cost of ownership).  Scotsman buyers could even forgo the extravagance of chrome bumpers by choosing the delete option of painted units; Mercedes-Benz also offered that on the taxi versions of the W115s (1968-1976). Other manufacturers used the same concept as Studebaker: Citroën ID vs DS, Cadillac Calais vs de Ville etc, some including fewer features and simpler trim, some also changing the mechanical specification but the principle was always: same size, lower price.  The name was picking up on the reputation of the Scots for frugality and it would have been thought something neutral at worst and more likely positive, thriftiness then still generally thought a virtue among Americans.  Technically, such use would now fulfil the criteria of a “microaggression” even if deployed in a way which makes clear it’s being intended in a way which is complimentary.  Scots can of course use the trope of themselves and even if used by others, as race-based microaggressions go, it’s at the lower range of offences, those applied to what are considered “white people”, rarely noticed and certainly not grounds for a cancellation.  Still, by the 2020s, it’s highly unlikely a car company would now name a car a “Scotsman” and certainly not if it was a “stripper” (ie a low-cost model with minimal standard equipment.

Car Life Magazine, May 1968.

Quite when the term vanished from commercial use can’t be certain but it would have occurred late in the twentieth century and certainly after 1968 when Car Life magazine, reviewing the new Plymouth Road Runner, called the stripped-down, low-priced muscle car: “a sort of Scotsman’s supercar”.  As well as a relic of linguistic use, Car Life’s test was interesting because unlike many of its contemporaries which often ran their tests with vehicles massaged or tweaked for ultimate performance, they used the genuine, stock standard articles.  What Car Life revealed was the Road Runner (when equipped with the standard 383 cubic inch (6.3 litre) V8)) was quicker than a typical 383 powered car using the same body (as would be expected given the lower weight and modifications to the V8 used in the Road Runner) but it was unable to match the sub-15 second quarter-mile (402 m) times reported by many.  The basic Road Runner was actually representative of the performance of most of the era’s “muscle car ecosystem” while the cars which “out of the box” were consistently able run the quarter-mile in the 14 second bracket were relatively rare.  Of course, to solve any perception of inadequacy, a buyer could tick the box for the optional 426 cubic inch (7.0) Street Hemi and while that was expensive, putting it in a Road Runner was the cheapest path to Hemi ownership.

Channeling her inner Scotsperson: Lindsay Lohan in Royal Stewart tartan, Freaky Friday (2003) costume test photo (Walt Disney Pictures).

Despite the perception of many (encouraged by the depictions in popular culture), tartan in the sense of specific color & pattern combinations attached to specific clans is something of recent origin.  Tartan (breacan (pɾʲɛxkən) in Scots Gaelic) is a patterned cloth consisting of criss-crossed, horizontal and vertical bands in multiple colours.  The word plaid is now often used interchangeably with tartan (particularly in North America and when not associated with anything Scottish (especially kilts)), but technically (and always in Scotland), a plaid is a large piece of tartan cloth, worn as a type of kilt or large shawl although it’s also used to describe a blanket.  During the disputes between England and Scotland, the wearing of tartan became a political expression and the Dress Act (1746) was part of the campaign to suppress the warrior clans north of the border; it banned tartan and other aspects of Gaelic culture. The law was repealed in 1782 and tartan was soon adopted as both the symbolic national dress of Scotland and in imagery more generally.

The Royal Stewart was the personal tartan of Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022) and although historically associated with the royal house of Stewart (or Stuart), it has become one of the most widely used in commercial fashion and in that sense is used in parallel with the clan affiliation.  Commonly worn to formal events such as weddings, ceilidhs, or Burns Night, the modern trend is to pair a kilt with a Prince Charlie or Argyll jacket, traditionalists adding a Sporran (pouch), Hose (kilt socks) & flashes, Ghillie brogues (traditional shoes) and even a Sgian dubh (a small dagger tucked in the sock) although carrying the last item may be unlawful in some jurisdictions.  Lindsay Lohan in her screen test wore the dress in something of the way in the 1970s it became part of the punk sub-culture but for more conventional types there are also scarves, ties, sashes and such.  Remarkably, in the age of identity politics and sensitivity to cultural appropriation, the etiquette guides note there is no objection to non-Scots folk wearing their tartan of choice except when an event is clan-specific in which case only those in the lineage should don the fabric.  That said, even then, the consequence of a tartan faux pas will likely be less severe than wearing a Rangers shirt in a Glasgow pub filled with Celtic’s hoops.  

Monologue & Soliloquy

Monologue (pronounced mon-uh-lawg or mon-uh—log)

(1) A form of dramatic entertainment, comedic solo, or the like by a single speaker, delivered to others.

(2) In casual use, a prolonged talk or discourse by a single speaker, especially one dominating or monopolizing a conversation; a monopolizing utterance.

Circa 1550: From the French monologue (on the model of dialogue), from the Ancient Greek, via the Byzantine Greek μονόλογος (monólogos) (speaking alone or to oneself), the construct being monos (single, alone), from the primitive Indo-European root men- (small, isolated) + logos (speech, word), from legein (to speak), from the primitive Indo-European root leg- (to collect, gather), with derivatives meaning "to speak” (as in “to pick out words”).  The travelogue (originally a talk on travel), dates from 1903, the construct a hybrid of travel + logue (abstracted from monologue) and coined by US traveler, photographer and filmmaker Burton Holmes (1870-1958), who essentially invented the multi-media documentary lecture in its modern understanding. Monologue, monologist & monology are nouns, monologuer & monologize are verbs, monologic & monological are adjectives and monologically is an adverb.  There was once as debate about whether the noun monologician existed and it seems now not, monologist used on the rare occasions such a form is needed.  The noun plural is monologues, the present participle monologuing and the simple past and past participle monologued.  The alternative spelling is monolog.

Soliloquy (pronounced suh-lil-uh-kwee)

(1) As a theatrical device, an utterance or discourse by a person who is talking to himself or herself or is disregardful of or oblivious to any others present (often used as a device in drama to disclose a character's innermost thoughts).

(2) The act of talking while or as if alone.

1595–1605: From the Late Latin sōliloquium (a talking to oneself), the construct being sōli- (from sōlus (sole)) + loqu(ī) (to speak) from primitive Indo-European root tolkw- (to speak) + -ium.  English picked up the word from the title of Saint Augustine's (354-430) somewhat unsatisfactory treatise Soliloquiorum libri duo (Two Books of Soliloquies (387-388)), Augustine said to have coined the word, by analogy with the Ancient Greek monologia.  In the technical jargon of musical criticism (used widely in many languages), a soliloquent is a soloists.  In psychiatry, there’s even a distinction between “the internal soliloquy” in which the patient imagines speaking to themselves and the “internal monologue” in which others might in the mind be summoned to listen or respond.  Soliloquy & soliloquist are nouns, soliloquise (also soliloquize) & the most pleasing soliloquiaste are verbs.  The present participle is soliloquying or soliloquing and the simple past and past participle is soliloquied; the noun plural is soliloquies.

In drama, there are three types of soliloquy: (1) the most common form is where the character speaks either to themselves or the universe, essentially thinking out loud (or in the technical language of theatre direction “talking to an empty room”.  As a dramatic device, it’s the expression of the character’s inner thoughts and the structural equivalent of first-person narration in written fiction. (2) Soliloquies are sometimes delivered to some specific but non-human; that might be a skull, a book, an animal or a corpse (the (sort-of) exception to the non-human rule), it being necessary only that what is being addressed cannot hear or respond.  (3) The third type appears to break the rules but theorists insist it remains a soliloquy.  This is the so-called “breaking the fourth wall” (ie the (imaginary) wall between the actor and audience (the other three being the backdrop and the wings)) during which the actor directly will speak to the audience.  If this is just a few words then it’s a stage whisper or an aside but if a long-form speech, then it’s a soliloquy.  Soliloquy is sometimes wrongly used where monologue is meant, even the most famous in English literature ("to be, or not to be") from Shakespeare’s Hamlet is sometimes called a monologue.  In general use, monologue is the more popular word and, of course, except on stage, soliloquies are rarely seen in public.

The Death of Juliet. Oil on canvas, 1793, by Matthew William Peters (circa 1742-1814)

Farewell!--God knows when we shall meet again.

I have a faint cold fear thrills through my veins

That almost freezes up the heat of life:

I'll call them back again to comfort me;--

Nurse!--What should she do here?

My dismal scene I needs must act alone.--

Come, vial.--

What if this mixture do not work at all?

Shall I be married, then, to-morrow morning?--

No, No!--this shall forbid it:--lie thou there.--

What if it be a poison, which the friar

Subtly hath minister'd to have me dead,

Lest in this marriage he should be dishonour'd,

Because he married me before to Romeo?

I fear it is: and yet methinks it should not,

For he hath still been tried a holy man:--

I will not entertain so bad a thought.--

How if, when I am laid into the tomb,

I wake before the time that Romeo

Come to redeem me? there's a fearful point!

Shall I not then be stifled in the vault,

To whose foul mouth no healthsome air breathes in,

And there die strangled ere my Romeo comes?

Or, if I live, is it not very like

The horrible conceit of death and night,

Together with the terror of the place,--

As in a vault, an ancient receptacle,

Where, for this many hundred years, the bones

Of all my buried ancestors are pack'd;

Where bloody Tybalt, yet but green in earth,

Lies festering in his shroud; where, as they say,

At some hours in the night spirits resort;--

Alack, alack, is it not like that I,

So early waking,--what with loathsome smells,

And shrieks like mandrakes torn out of the earth,

That living mortals, hearing them, run mad;--

O, if I wake, shall I not be distraught,

Environed with all these hideous fears?

And madly play with my forefathers' joints?

And pluck the mangled Tybalt from his shroud?

And, in this rage, with some great kinsman's bone,

As with a club, dash out my desperate brains?--

O, look! methinks I see my cousin's ghost

Seeking out Romeo, that did spit his body

Upon a rapier's point:--stay, Tybalt, stay!--

Romeo, I come! this do I drink to thee.

Romeo and Juliet (1597) Act 4, Scene 3 by William Shakespeare (circa 1564–1616).

Ouija

Ouija (pronounced wee-juh (sometimes wee-jee (US)))

(1) An instrument in the shape of a board on which is written the alphabet, the numbers 0-9 and the words "Yes", "No" & "Goodbye" (with occasional additions), the characters selected by a small, heart-shaped piece called a planchette.  Board is used during a séance to contact spirits of the dead, the characters selected by the participants collectively placing their hands on the planchette which is then guided by the spirit(s) to the appropriate letter or number.

(2) As Ouija board, a small-scale replica of an aircraft carrier's flight and hangar decks, installed in the in the flight control room and manually updated with scale models as a communications fail-safe.  Used in every US carrier since WWII (although now in the throes of being replaced by electronic versions).

1891: A trademark name granted to the Kennard Novelty Company (US), a compound of the from French oui (yes) and the German ja (yes).  Oui is from the Old French oïl, a compound of o (the affirmative particle) and il (he), akin to o-je (I), o-tu (thou), o-nos (we) and o-vos (you), all ‘yes’ constructed with pronouns.  O and òc are both from the Latin hoc (this) and may correspond to the Vulgar Latin construction hoc ille.  Ja is from the Middle High German ja, from Old High German jā (yes), from Proto-Germanic ja from the primitive Indo-European yē (already).  It was cognate with the Dutch ja, the English yea (yes) and the Latin iam (already).

Although Ouija, as a propriety brand-name, dates only from 1891, similar boards existed in China from circa 1100 BC and have long been part of occult and spiritual practice in the west, attaining great popularity in the mid-nineteenth century and again during WWI and its aftermath.

Analog Ouija Board on USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier.

Available for niche markets.

Tango

Tango (pronounced tang-goh)

(1) A syncopated ballroom dance of Latin-American origin, danced in duple time by couples, having many varied steps, figures, and poses and characterized by long gliding steps with sudden pauses

(2) A piece of music composed for or in the rhythm of this dance

(3) A word used in communications to represent the letter "T", most famously in the NATO phonetic alphabet.

(4) In military and paramilitary slang, a code for the enemy, derived from the abbreviation of target using the NATO phonetic alphabet.

(5) A dark orange color shade; deep tangerine.

1913: From the Argentine Spanish tango, originally the name of an African-South American drum dance and most likely of Niger-Congo origin and usually thought derived from the Ibibio tamgu (to dance).  The phrase “it takes two to tango” was from a 1952 popular song; tango first used as a verb in 1952.  Tango & tangoist are nouns, the verbs (used without object) are tangoed & tangoing, the noun plural being tangos.  A 1913 University of Michigan publication noted tango was pronounced either tahn-go or tan-go “depending on your social status”.

Lindsay Lohan in white Kritik sweatsuit, practicing tango moves with instructor, Pacific Palisades, 2007.  It was preparation for her role in Alfonso Arau's Dare to Love Me (2008).

Because of the paucity of documentary evidence, etymologists have long argued over the origin of tango.  Some scholars credit African culture, suggesting the word evolved from the Yoruba shangó which refers to the Nigerian God of Thunder.  This theory holds shangó was morphed through the dilution of the Nigerian language once it reached South America via slave trade.  An alternative theory is that tango is derived from the Spanish tambor (drum) which subsequently was mispronounced by inhabitants of the more impoverished areas of Buenos Aires to become first tambo then ultimately tango.  Less supported is a Portuguese connection, the theory that tango is derived from the Portuguese tanger (to play a musical instrument), a variation of which is the Portuguese tangomão, a combination of the verb tanger (to touch) and the noun mão (hand), resulting in the meaning "to play a musical instrument with one's hands.”  Despite these speculations, most prefer the Niger-Congo origin story.

It takes two.

The phrase "it takes two to tango" is used often by lawyers, moral theologians (amateur and professional), politicians and diplomats.  It applied usually as a way either of spreading blame for something or (often inaccurately) as shorthand for variations of a Tu quoque (you did it too (literally "and you also")) defense.

President Mobutu in Mercedes-Benz 600 Landaulet.

That it takes two to tango was a point made more than once by President Mobutu Sese Seko (Mobutu Sese Seko Kuku Ngbendu Wa Za Bangaa, born Joseph-Désiré Mobutu, 1930-1997; President of Zaire 1965-1997) when responding to accusations of bribe taking and corruption by African dictators in general and him in particular.  He had a point, up to a point.