Libre

Libre (pronounced lib-rah (U) or lee-bra (non-U))

(1) Of or relating to free will; independent & unconstrained (now rare).

(2) Of software with few limitations on distribution and including access source code with a right granted to modify and distribute changed versions, usually with the limitation that this must be on a free-of-charge basis.

(3) As Formula Libre (historically Formule Libre), a category of motorsport which imposes only minimal safety rules and is otherwise unregulated.

(4) In historic use, a free (ie not enslaved) black person living in a territory under the administration of the French or Spanish-colonial empires, the use most institutionalized in New Orleans.

1700s: From the French or Spanish libre (at liberty, free; clear, free, vacant; free, without obligation), from the Latin līber (free; unrestricted (and related to librum (book)), from the Old Latin loeber, from the Proto-Italic louðeros, from the primitive Indo-European hlewderos, from hlewd- (people).  Etymologists speculate the currency the word attained in the English-speaking world was initially due more to influence from Spanish than French, the word in more common use in the former.  The specific (though sometimes misleading) sense in software dates from the late twentieth century, more precise terms such as “open source”, “freeware”, “crippleware” & “freemium” actually more helpful.  Libre is a noun, verb and adjective.  Variations appear in many European languages (apart from those which directly borrowed libre) including the Alemannic German liiber, the Romanian liber and the thirteenth century Old Galician and Old Portuguese livre (in which libre co-existed).  Because of the influence of Spanish colonialism, libre appears often in Filipino dialectical use where it has tended to replace the older gratis (free).

Libre was a popular element in many in French formations encapsulating concepts, some of which were adopted in English although that tendency has now faded.  The phrases include un homme libre (literally “a free man” but used idiomatically in the sense of “an unmarried man”), la voie est libre (the way is clear), temps libre (free time), libre arbiter (free will), amour libre (free love (in the sense of the eradication of restrictive sexual mores) libre-échange (free trade), association libre (free association), à l'air libre (uncovered; in the open air (a pre-modern medical dogma which advocated not bandaging wounds), libre comme l'air (free as the air, synonymous with “free as a bird”)), nage libre (the freestyle stroke is swimming) & papier libre (a masculine noun for a piece of stationery not stamped or franked (ie without letterhead); it’s unrelated to newspapers etc distributed for free or without censorship).  There were also constructions of Spanish origin including aire libre (the outdoors, fresh air), barra libre (open bar (ie no limit), comercio libre (free trade). libre de culpa (off the hook, ie blameless”), libremente (to do something in an unrestrained manner), radical libre (free radical in the technical sense from chemistry), saque libre (the free kick in football), tiempo libre (free time), libérrimo (most free, the superlative degree of libre) & libertad (a degree of freedom; latitude, leeway).

Lindsay Lohan: making alliterative headlines in many languages.

Two constructs were adopted in English and added to the technical jargon of English.  The morphème libre in grammar indicates that which may be unattached from another morpheme (the smallest meaningful element in a text string).  Vers libre (free verse, ie in poetry, lines of varying lengths) was borrowed by English circa 1870.  Originally, the adoption reflected the technical meaning which was referenced against the French alexandrin (alexandrine), a syllabic poetic meter of twelve syllables (there were occasional deviations) with a medial caesura dividing the line into two hemistichs (half-lines), each of six syllables.  The structure, the origins of which can be traced to the twelfth century, was dominant in French poetry from the seventeen to the nineteenth centuries, encouraging a host of imitators around the continent and in the English-speaking world.  However, what were claimed to be the implications of free verse attracted the modernists who produced work which was derided by many critics (professional and otherwise) as “no verse” and thus, whatever the discernible structure, not exactly poetry and certainly not vers libre.  Free verse works which however, which tended either to ignore or parody the tradition of rhyme, did become a genre which endures to this day and among literary theorists, there’s long been the argument that in not relying on formalism (the technical constraint of rhyme) works needed to be more adventurous and imaginative, the focus on meaning rather than structure.  Divisions between the schools of poetry, although barely noticed by most of the population, continue to this day.

Formula Libre

Formula libre is the informal description of a motorsport category which, in its pure form, imposes no regulations other safety standards and to permit competition between vehicles which can be configured to widely different specifications, events are often conducted on some sort of handicap basis.  The philosophy of formula libre is the antithesis of that of motorsport’s governing body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA, the International Automobile Federation) which began in the early twentieth century with the admirable aim of encouraging competition in the quest for speed but, beginning in the 1960s, began to develop an obsession with slowing things down.  The reasons for this have been debated and, whether related or not to the change in emphasis, the FIA in recent decades has morphed into a vast bureaucracy dedicated to (1) imposing category rules which make cars as uninteresting as possible, (2) imposing conditions which require event organizers to pay for increasing numbers of FIA staff to do things at the events and (3) find reasons why fees have to be paid to the FIA.  There may be some competition but the FIA are now probably world sport's dopiest regulatory body.

Motor racing in a recognizable form began in France in the 1880s, soon evolving from races between villages into formally organized events and by early the next century, was established as a popular spectator event, run sometimes on public roads (usually but not always closed to other traffic!) and increasingly, on circuits built expressly for the purpose, these have the advantage of being fenced, thus permitting an entry fee to be charged for those wishing to watch.  The first race to be called a Grand Prix was held in France in 1906, conducted over two days on a road course in Le Mans, 65 miles (105 km) in length and the interest generated encouraged others; by the 1920s, Grand Prix were held in many countries although there was no linking championship, the rules varying from place to place, tweaked often to ensure the machines produced by local manufacturers might enjoy some advantage, a practice which long endured.

1929 Mercedes-Benz SSKL.

The FIA’s predessor, the Association Internationale des Automobile Clubs Reconnus (AIACR, the International Association of Recognized Automobile Clubs) began creating rules governing the categories in motorsport just before the outbreak of hostilities in 1914, specifying minimum & maximum weights, engine displacement and defining body types but it was in the inter-war years that the first attempts were made to impose universal rules.  The rules were created but many race organizers, seeking wider entry lists and more spectacular racing, often declined to adopt them, instead preferring the less restrictive “sports car” definition which attracted more manufacturers, including those not in a position to produce pure racing cars which conformed with the AIACR’s regulations.  Eventually, such was the resistance, the rules for Grand Prix racing were in 1928 abandoned and the era known as Formule Libre began, exemplified by the big Mercedes-Benz SSKL, the last of the road-cars used to win Grand Prix races but one which illustrated the limitations of the approach; the next generation would have to be pure race cars, a change which ushered in the age of regulation which lasts to this day.

1936 Auto-Union Type-C.  Not used on the circuits, the twin-rear tyres were fitted for hill climbs in a partially successful attempt to tame the handling quirks induced by mounting the 6.0 litre (366 cubic inch) V16 behind the driver.  Although a preview of the form open-wheel racing cars would begin to adopt in the late 1950s, the less adventurous Mercedes-Benz W125 with a front-mounted, 5.7 litre (346 cubic inch) straight-eight proved both more effective and easier to handle.  Not until the 1980s would Formula One cars match the power of the German cars of the mid-1930s.

The structures of competition also become formalized.  The number of Grand Prix had risen from five in 1927 to eighteen by 1934 and a manufacturers’ world championship had actually been awarded in 1925 although it consisted only of the Indianapolis 500, the Grand Prix of Europe, France & Italy.  Interestingly, there was no drivers’ title and in Formula One, the FIA would not award the Constructors' Championship (initially the International Cup for Formula One Manufacturers) until 1958 although there had be an award for drivers since 1950, an evolution of the 1935-1939 European Drivers’ Championship, created with the agreement of the national federations.  The memorable racing of the era was governed by rules and even then, the AIACR reacted against the increasing speeds which had been thought not possible under the 750 KG (1653 lb) maximum weight rule, creating in 1938 two classes (1) 4.5 litre (275 cubic inch) displacement un-supercharged & 3.0 litre (183 cubic inch) supercharged and (2) a 1.5 litre (92 cubic inch) supercharged voiturette class (informally known as formula two (Formula 1, 2, 3 etc would not be codified until the post-war years, the first Formula One race held in Italy in 1946).

Juan Manuel Fangio (1911-1995), BRM V16, in Formule Libre events in England, 1953: Silverstone (left) & Goodwood (right).

Development of the big aero-engines used in World War II meant there had been enormous advances in forced induction and it was clear a 4.5 litre, naturally aspirated engine would be uncompetitive against a 3.0 litre supercharged unit so the FIA (the AIACR had in 1947 been reorganized and renamed) in 1949 announced the seven round Grand Prix World Championship for Formula One drivers would in 1950 be held for 1.5 litre supercharged and 4.5 litre un-supercharged cars.  However, a decline in the number of entries meant the championship was in 1952-1953 contested by Formula 2 cars which existed in greater numbers and this resurrected interest in Formule Libre; because dramatic machinery like the 4.5 litre Ferraris and the BRM V16 no longer had a championship to contest, they were instead entered in the handful of non-championship F1 races on offer and the more numerous Formule Libre events.  During the 1950s, the Formule Libre race, often the last of the weekend, was regarded by many spectators as the highlight, the machinery almost always the fastest at the event.

The sprit of Formula Libre: Race driver Rod Coppins (1940-1983) with the open-stack exhaust system fitted to Chevrolet Corvette V8 in in the Mark II Ford Zephyr he campaigned in New Zealand's  “All-comers racing saloon cars” category.  The pipes protruding from the Zephyr’s bonnet (hood) were an efficient and weight-saving piece of engineering but were originally merely a Q&D (quick & dirty) solution, fabricated at short notice because the team didn't have time to produce a tuned-length exhaust system before an event.  It worked so well it was decided to keep the system.  Of course, wherever they could, the FIA outlawed open-stack exhausts because whenever they see something innovative, their instinct is to ban.

Corvette-powered Morrari leading Corvette-powered Zephyr, Pukekohe, New Zealand, 1967.

In the decades since, formule libre (now usually spelled formula libre) has never really gone away, (despite the best efforts of the humorless killjoys at the FIA), its spirit exemplified by the rule book for the Unlimited Division at the Pikes Peak International Hill Climb: (1) Must meet all safety specifications & (2) No other restrictions; pure formula libre therefore and there have been competitions which went close such as the Canadian-American Challenge Cup (the Can-Am) for sports cars which specified only (1) Must meet all safety specifications, (2) enclosed wheels & (3) two seats (the last clause interpreted rather generously and most uncomfortably for any passenger).  Notable also was the “Allcomer” category adopted for New Zealand’s saloon car championship in the 1960s which was for unlimited displacement touring cars and accommodated machinery as diverse as a 1956 Ford Customline powered by a Galaxie’s 427 cubic inch (7.0 litre) V8 (thus dubbed the Custaxie) and, more improbably still, the "Morarri", a hybrid concocted by placing a Morris Minor body atop a Ferrari chassis and powered by a Chevrolet V8.  Many other bastard offspring were barely less extreme.  After 1967, the Allcomer Saloons were banned and the championship was run under the FIA’s Group 5 regulations but while the category was well-supported, the cars lacked the visceral appeal of their wild predecessors so, in 1973, a locally concocted Schedule E was written which enabled the construction of things with something of the earlier flavor, proving things usually go better without the FIA.

Scuderia Ferrari driver Piero Taruffi (in overalls, right), his wife Isabella (left) and Ferrari SuperSqualo (555/1), Italian Grand Prix, Monza, September 1955.

Ferrari Tipo (type) 553 (1953) was a product of the rule book, the World Championship in 1952-1953 run under Formula Two regulations because it had become obvious there would not be a sufficient number of competitive Formula One entries and because of its then unusual bulging sides (to accommodate the twin fuel tanks), the 553 was known as the Squalo (shark),   With the new 2.5 litre (750 cm³ if supercharged) Formula One world championship for 1954, Ferrari upgraded the 553 to conform, dubbing it Tipo 555 which featured bodywork which was longer and more voluptuous, the factory deciding the lines deserved the appellation Supersqualo (super shark).  Untypically for a Ferrari, the Supersqualo was powered by an in-line, four-cylinder engine and the first built was 555/1 which appeared in four World Championship Grand Prix, it’s best finish a fourth place at Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Belgium, June 1955.

1950 Morris Minor Series 1 (MM).

First shown at the Earls Court Motor Show (one of the few highlights in gloomy, austere, post-war England) in London in 1948, the Morris Minor was a small economy car which remained in production until 1973.  The early models (later dubbed "Lo-lites") had headlights installed on either side of the grill but these were too low to meet minimums height stipulations in many US states so Minors exported to North America had lights mounted higher, something which necessitated different fenders (front wings) a design which in 1951 was standardized for all production.  Those produced after the change are known as "Hi-lites".

Morrari in the 1965 "Round the Houses" race, Matamatta, New Zealand, 1965.

Note the number plate; at the time, in New Zealand, a car comprised of (1) a 1955 Formula One Ferrari chassis and (2) a Chevrolet Corvette V8, housed within (3) a 1950 Morris Minor body with the ensemble having been assembled in someone's shed, could be registered and driven on public roads.  It was an era when racing was sometimes done on suburban streets with the nearby crowd protected by little more than bails of straw.  While we have gained much from the progress of modern society, some freedoms have also been lost.

Ferrari 555 SuperSqualo (6, which finished fourth), Mercedes-Benz W196R (12, which retired on lap 21 with an oil leek) and Maserati 250F (22, which finished seventh), Belgium Grand Prix, Circuit de Spa-Francorchamps, Belgium, June 1955.

Obsolete by 1956, the factory sold the four 555s and chassis 555/1 ended up in the Antipodes where, fitted with a 3.5-litre 4-cylinder engine from the Ferrari 860 Monza sports car, successfully it was raced in Formula Libre in both Australia and New Zealand until, in February 1963, it was damaged in a event held on the then new Pukekohe circuit.  The damage wasn’t severe and confined mostly to the bodywork and front suspension but, remarkable as it may now seem, the cost of repair would have exceeded what the Italian hot rod was then worth so it was consigned to a used-car lot in Auckland where it was cannibalized for parts, the engine, compact, light and powerful, re-purposed for used in a speed boat.  The robust chassis however had obvious appeal and it was purchased by a racing driver who added a 327 cubic inch (5.3 litre) V8 from a Chevrolet Corvette and clothed the mix with the body of a 1950 Morris Minor, a task which proved remarkably simple because there was a difference of only 25 mm (1 inch) in the respective wheelbases.  Thus began the latest (and most improbable) career of Ferrari chassis 555/1, this time in New Zealand’s “All-comers racing saloon cars” category, race organizers listing it in their race programmes variously as the “Morris-Chevrolet” or “Morris-Corvette” before universally it became known as the “Morrari”.

Ferrari 555/1 Supersqualo from the Bonhams catalogue. 

It may have been just a wreck in 1963 but in subsequent decades Ferrari’s old race cars became valuable collectables so when the choice had to be made between restoring the 1950 Morris Minor or Supersqualo 555/1, it was not a difficult decision,  During the 1970s, with the original chassis and bodywork restored, it was re-fitted with a period Ferrari 860 engine before it was restored to its original, 2.5 litre, Formula One specification.  A familiar sight for decades at vintage Ferrari and other historic events, 555/1 is one of two known survivors of its type and as well as its history in Formule Libre and as the Morrari, when campaigned by Scuderia Ferrari in 1955, it was driven by two World Champions.  Auctioned by Bonhams in their Les Grandes Marques du Monde à Paris sale on 6 February 2025, it realized €1.98 million (US$2.08 million).

The formula libre concept has clearly attracted the interest of the Fédération internationale de notation (Fina, the International Swimming Federation) which recently announced a ban on the participation of transgender women from elite female competition if they have experienced “…any part of male puberty beyond Tanner Stage 2 or before age twelve, whichever is later."  Given the controversy, the announcement was not wholly unexpected and, although it sets Fina apart from federations affiliated with the IOC (International Olympic Committee), it won't be the only body to issue the sanction and already the International Rugby League (IRL) has imposed a similar ban.  As something of a workaround designed somehow to combine inclusion and exclusion in the one policy, Fina undertook to create a working group to design an “open” category for trans women in “some events” as part of its new policy.  Formula libra for women’s swimming therefore, a category in which women, trans- or cis-gender, could compete.  Fina’s president, Dr Husain al-Musallam (b 1960) insisted “Fina will always welcome every athlete (and) the creation of an open category will mean that everybody has the opportunity to compete at an elite level. This has not been done before, so Fina will need to lead the way.”  Whether a concept used for machines will be thought appropriate to apply to people remains to be seen.

The competing arguments (fairness in competition vs DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion)) can’t easily be resolved and the use of the formula libre concept hasn’t been well received by many, some trans activists suggesting it would be labelled a “freak show”.  The idea has before been floated, some genuinely interested in the maximum performance possible by the human body suggesting it might be interesting if a competition was established for athletes using performance-enhancing drugs.  Unsurprisingly, that went nowhere but nor is the “open class” idea new, the origin of competitive athletics in the modern age actually organized as a formula libre style, open class, some track events once scheduled on the basis of distance and anyone, male or female, was able to enter.  It was later that the women’s category was created as “protected class” so they might enjoy fair competition, something Fina claim is the basis of their exclusionary rule.

Both sides are now assembling, selectively perhaps, the scientific research which supports their respective positions and perhaps the most significant announcement was from the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (Fifa, the International Federation of Association Football) which confirmed it was reviewing its gender eligibility regulations.  Fifa issued a statement indicating they were consulting with “…many stakeholders… (and) should Fifa be asked to verify the eligibility of a player before the new regulations will be in place, any such case will be dealt with on a case‑by-case basis, taking into account Fifa’s clear commitment to respect for human rights.”  Such is the international influence of Fifa that it’s likely their position may become the default template for federations everywhere not anxious to make targets of themselves.

Politburo

Politburo (pronounced pol-it-byoor-oh or poh-lit-byoor-oh)

(1) The executive committee and chief policymaking body of a Communist Party (often in lowercase).  In the English-speaking world, sometimes erroneously written as politbureau or in hyphenated form.

(2) A casual term for a senior policymaking body in a political organisation, generally consisting of members who either are appointed by the party in control of the organisation or who attain membership through their personal political affiliations (sometimes derogatory).

1917: From the Russian Политбюро́ (Politbjuró) as shortening of полити́ческое бюро́ (politícheskoe byuró) (political bureau).  As a general principle, a politburo, in general, is the chief committee of a communist party and often exercises executive authority. The German form is Politisches Büro abbreviated as Politbüro and, like the Spanish Politburó, is directly loaned from Russian.  Chinese uses a calque (政治局; Zhèngzhìjú in pinyin), from which the Vietnamese (Bộ Chính trị), and Korean (정치국, 政治局 Jeongchiguk) terms derive.

1917 and after

The first politburo was Russian, created in 1917 by the Bolsheviks, the initial membership of seven including Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Trotsky and Stalin.  Although the USSR’s Politburo was notionally the highest policy-making government authority, it was usually subservient to the office of General Secretary of the Communist Party, especially during Comrade Stalin’s (1878–1953; leader of the Soviet Union 1922-1953) time.  In an example of the re-branding which happened often in the USSR, it was known as the Presidium between 1952 and 1966.  Many communist nations adopted the model during the twentieth century but politburos exist now only in the five remaining communist countries, China, the DPRK (North Korea), Laos, Vietnam, and Cuba.  Those five long outlasted the Russian original which was dissolved in 1991 after the breakup of the Soviet Union.

Old white men: the Twenty-sixth Politburo (1981–1986) of the USSR (1981 press release).

The last four leaders of the USSR (Leonid Brezhnev (1964–1982), Yuri Andropov (1982-1984), Konstantin Chernenko (1984-1985) and Mikhail Gorbachev (1985-1991) all appear here.

Problematic

Problematic (pronounced prob-luh-mat-ik)

(1) Of the nature of a problem; doubtful; uncertain; questionable; a problem or difficulty in a particular field of study.

(2) Involving or presenting a problem that is difficult to deal with or solve.

(3) Tending or likely to elicit objections or disapproval; offensive.

(4) A generalized euphemism used to refer to unfashionable opinions or statements and deployed usually as a critique of anything thought to contribute to or reinforce systemic discrimination (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc), particularly if expressed implicitly or with some tricks of subtlety.

(5) In formal logic (of a proposition), asserting that a property may or may not hold; only affirming the possibility that a predicate be actualized (now rare).

1600-1610: From the Middle French problématique (doubtful, questionable, uncertain, unsettled), from the Late Latin problēmaticus, from the Ancient Greek προβληματικός (problēmatikós) (pertaining to a problem), from problēmatos, from πρόβλημα (próblēma) (out-jutting, barrier, problem), from προβάλλω (probállō) (I throw, place before), the construct being πρό (pró) (before) + βάλλω (bállō) (I throw, place).  The most common derived form is unproblematic and the connotations of problematic are now such that words once (depending on context) effectively synonymous such as ambiguous, dubious, moot, precarious, puzzling, questionable, tricky, uncertain, unsettled, arguable, chancy, debatable, disputable, doubtful, dubitable, enigmatic, iffy, indecisive & open no longer convey the same implications.  Problematic is a (rare) noun and (more commonly) an adjective, problematical is an adjective, problematically is an adverb.  Attempts to deploy problematic as a verb seem inevitable because the existing problematize ((1) to make something into a problem; (2) to consider something as if it were a problem & (3) (as an intransitive verb) to propose problems) is neutral and a loaded verb would be a more useful weapon.  In that sense the noun plural ploblematics, now rare (some claim obsolete) in formal logic, will likely evolve in parallel.

Michel Foucault (1926-1984).

The specific sense in formal logic, differentiating what is possible from what is necessarily true, has been used since the early seventeenth century although problematical appears in the papers of mathematicians, engineers and architects as early as the 1560s and the first entry in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) in 1609 defined problematic as “presenting a problem or difficulty”.  The related but distinct meaning "constituting, containing, or causing a difficulty" is a modern form from a modern discipline, used first by US sociologists in 1957.  From there (like paradigm, methodology etc), it was picked up elsewhere in academia (impressionistically appearing most popular in newer fields (gender studies, communications studies etc)) where it padded out the length a bit but added little to meaning.  What lent problematic the meaning shift which is now its most celebrated sense was one of the strands of post-modernism, the adoption by English-speaking academia of the theories of French structuralists like philosopher and literary critic Michel Foucault (1926-1984) who defined “problematization” as a process whereby something treated previously as uncontroversial by a dominant culture came to be understood not just as a problem but one demanding (political, social, legal, linguistic etc) change.

Foucault’s imperative thus was political but use of the word as exists in the twenty-first century has become nuanced.  The criticism is that problematic frequently is used merely a form of virtue-signaling, what used to be called the politics of warm inner glow: a perfunctory expression of disapprobation at something thought oppressive (racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia et al) disconnected from any positive action which might address the underlying problem (in the traditional sense of the word).  In the contemporary parlance, it’s thus a passive aggressive word, an almost polite euphemism handy to use when one wishes to show they understand something is racist, sexist, homophobic etc without wishing to be sufficiently confrontational to do anything about it.

Whether that’s a problem (or indeed problematic) has in itself been positioned as a problem in itself because, in the narrow technical sense, those who advocate a linguistic crackdown on anything which they construe as oppressive are themselves imposing another form of oppression.  Although modern terminology (like transphobia, ageism etc) might make this appear novel, the culture wars, political correctness or however else such things are described are not new and have probably operated since the earliest instances of differentiated expression in human culture.  There is however something new in the layers of deconstruction now attached to the process and the evolution of problematic is an interesting contribution to the discourse.

Generational shifts

Scarlett Harris on The Parent Trap.

In a phenomenon which is not so much new as newly institutionalized, things once not “problematic” are now often reclassified as “problematic” once analysed using current thinking in the various strains of critical theory.  That’s been going on for at least decades but is now much more obvious because social media platforms mean the number of those able instantly to find a potential world-wide audience has proliferated and, as the field become more congested, forms of expression have become increasingly strident as the algorithms rewarded those who generate the most controversy.  Structurally, re-classifications can gain critical mass because of a specific event but, as a general principle, the trend probably tends to be generational.  It was in 2023, 25 years (one of the convenient measures of “a generation” in thought) after the movie The Parent Trap (1998) was released that cultural critic Scarlett Harris explained why the comedy, once thought innocuous enough safely to be watched by young children, must now be listed as “deeply problematic”.  Acknowledging the “hijinks the twins get up to” has for decades kept it on the family friendly roster of networks and streaming services, Ms Harris observed “nostalgia is notoriously rose-colored” and if viewed through a “modern lens”, The Parent Trap must be judged: “deeply isturbed”.

Quoting psychiatrist Dr Sulman Aziz Mirza, Ms Harris says what makes The Parent Trap problematic is the way it “…glosses over the aspect of anger and resentment towards parents” and that does seem a reasonable point given the twins seemed both to cope with remarkable equanimity the sudden knowledge that after living for almost twelve years as “an only child”, each actually had a twin sibling.  Dr Mirza said, on the basis of his experience with young and adolescent patients, the children should be suffering from “the loss of a sibling bond.  To reconnect at that age [amplifies] the loss, especially in the developmental years.  We rely so much on our siblings.”  His point was the sense of loss would have been heightened in the case of twins because of the well-documented “twin bond” whereas in the film all this was ignored and what would usually have been at least potentially traumatic instead was deployed just “as a flimsy plot point to get this boring white couple back together” (in critical theory, a way usually is found to blame white people (preferably Christian, hetrosexual men) for something), adding that also could be “damaging to viewers with similar experiences.”

Ms Harris suggests that were The Parent Trap again to be remade today, “much more credence would be given to the psychological ramifications of the twins” and what should be explored would be issues like “family separation, incarceration, missing children and immigration”, which, she adds “disproportionately affect families of color.”  Dr Mirza did concede the parents in the film weren’t guilty of “child abuse per se” but it was an example of “shitty parenting”, parental separation being “…one of the ten adverse child experiences that can have impacts in adulthood.”  Now we know why The Parent Trap is “deeply problematic”.

Not all found the film problematic but then such judgements can be influenced by one’s personal experiences.  Berlin based cultural critic Olivia Ladanyi revealed that growing up with a stepfather, she’d often wondered about her “real dad” and it was The Parent Trap which inspired her “to seek him out”.  Six years old when the film was released, Ms Ladanyi reacted to her father having deserted the family as Dr Mirza suggested would be expected: feeling her “life felt as if it had been torn in half, right down the middle – like the photograph of their parents that Hallie and Annie piece together in the film.”  Looking often at a few photographs of him, she’d “fantasised about what it would be like to be reunited with this mythical man whom my childish imagination had turned into someone great” and although there had over the years been “strange” birthday gifts and “long, self-pitying letters”, it was when, at 15, she got a Facebook account that his messages “flooded” her inbox.  Included in the information imparted was that she’d been conceived in a dilapidated Transylvanian church and “real” father also had “four other children with three different women”.  Whether The Parent Trap had included details like that in the plot would have made Ms Harris think it more or less problematic is something to ponder.

Lindsay Lohan in The Parent Trap: Unlike in Disney movies, there are not always happy endings.

When Ms Ladanyi did meet him, although the reunion happened at Budapest Airport, it lacked the emotional impact of what happened in the film and the rest of her visit was similarly disappointing although on the drive to the city, her father did point out the jail where her great-grandfather had been imprisoned after being convicted of “malpractice as a gynaecologist”.  Again, splicing a gem like that into The Parent Trap’s screenplay would have made for a different sort of movie.  At the end of her brief trip, she was anxious to return to her family, her stepfather and two half-sisters feeing related in a way her “real” father did not.  Probably the most problematic thing about The Parent Trap is it gives youth an unrealistic expectation of life for rarely is it possible to go back and often it's a mistake to seek the opportunity to try.

Sinecure

Sinecure (pronounced sahy-ni-kyoor or sin-i-kyoor)

(1) An office or paid position requiring little or no work, often one with no formal duties (historically sometimes as sinecure post).

(2) An ecclesiastical benefice without cure of souls (a clerical appointment to which no spiritual or pastoral charge was attached (obsolete)).

(3) Figuratively, something having the appearance of functionality without being of any actual use or purpose.

1655–1665: From the Medieval Latin phrase beneficium sine cūrā (a benefice granted without cure of souls (care of parishioners), the construct being benefices + sine (without) + cūra (care).  The construct of the Latin benefium (beneficent) was bene- (well, good) +‎ -ficus (the suffix denoting making) + -ium.  The –ium suffix (used most often to form adjectives) was applied as (1) a nominal suffix (2) a substantivisation of its neuter forms and (3) as an adjectival suffix.  It was associated with the formation of abstract nouns, sometimes denoting offices and groups, a linguistic practice which has long fallen from fashion.  In the New Latin, it was the standard suffix appended when forming names for chemical elements.  The derived forms include sinecureship, sinecurism, sinecural & sinecurist; the noun plural is sinecures.

The sinecure was a creation of medieval ecclesiastical law and referred to a situation in which the rector (with an emolument) of a parish neither resided in nor undertook the liturgical and pastoral functions of a cleric in the benefice but had a vicar serving under him, endowed and charged with the cure (pastoral care) of the parishioners.  From this the secular world borrowed the word to refer to an office or appointment which yields a revenue to the incumbent, but makes little or no demand upon their time or attention.  In ecclesiastical usage a sinecure was (1) a benefice of pecuniary value, a rectory, or vicarage, in which there is neither church nor population, (2) a benefice in which the rector receives the tithes, though the cure of souls, legally and ecclesiastically, belongs to some clerk or (3) a benefice in which there are both rector and vicar, in which case the duty commonly rests with the vicar, and the rectory is called a sinecure; but no church in which there is but one incumbent is properly a sinecure.  Presumably to avoid any clerical rorting of the system, as a technical point, ecclesiastical law noted that were a church to cease to exist or a parish become destitute of parishioners, a sinecure would not be created because the incumbent remained under obligation to perform divine service if the church should be rebuilt or the parish become inhabited.

Sinecures were for centuries a feature of the operation of Church and State in England and, as a useful form of patronage (and sometimes blatant corruption), they lasted until abolished by parliament in 1840.  They’d any way by then substantially fallen into disuse, few existing after the reform acts of the 1830s although they remained a favorite of novelists who enjoyed the possibilities their absurdity offered as a literary device, Anthony Trollope (1815–1882) in Barchester Towers (1857) memorably recounting the tale of the prebendary Dr Vesey Stanhope who spent a dozen years in Italy recovering from a sore throat, his time absorbed in catching butterflies.  Although sinecures vanished from ecclesiastical law, they remained an aspect of ecclesiastical life, under-employed clerics sometimes the subject of the same acerbic comments indolent tenured professors attract in campus fiction. 

In politics, sinecures evolved along three forks.  The first was as a formal device to allow political formations to coalesce, sinecures (the most obvious of which is the seemingly mysterious “minister without portfolio”) handy appointments when the need existed to pad out a ministry to fulfil the agreements entered into to form the coalitions necessary to secure a majority.  The second use of sinecures some claim are actually a form of corruption.  There are appointments made for base political reasons such as a means of disposing of someone suddenly inconvenient or as payment for political favors; such “jobs for the boys” (a few of which are “given” to women and the gender-neutral form “jobs for mates” is now preferred) are an integral part of modern politics.  In the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW), one premier was actually compelled to resign after an enquiry found one such appointment constituted corruption (a finding later overturned but many found the somewhat expanded definition of what actually constituted corruption to be compellingly convincing).  The sinecure also has a technical use in the operation of the UK parliament.  For historical reasons, members are not allowed to resign from the House of Commons but nor are members allowed simultaneously to hold what is termed “an office of profit under the Crown” and the conflictual interaction of these two provisions provide the mechanism by which a member may depart, the hollow shell of an ancient sinecure maintained for the purpose; once a member is appointed to the sinecure, their seat in parliament is declared vacant.

John Barilaro (b 1971) member of the NSW Legislative Assembly (Monaro) 2011-2021; cabinet minister 2014-2021 and Leader of the National Party (ex-Country Party) and thus deputy premier of NSW 2016-2021).  Mr Barilaro is pictured here with his family, May 2020.

In June 2022, Dominic Perrottet (b 1982, premier of NSW (Liberal) since 2021) announced the appointment of former deputy premier John Barilaro as NSW trade commissioner to the Americas, based in the US.  Responding to criticism this was another case of "jobs for mates", Mr Perrottet said Mr Bartilaro’s background and experience made him ideal for the role and he’d been selected not by the government but by recruitment firm NGS Global which conducted a "rigorous global talent search".  He was “…by far the most outstanding candidate" Mr Perrottet added.  Mr Barilaro seemed to agree, saying he would “…continue to build on what had already been achieved”.  One achievement of note was that the position of trade commissioner (believed to include an annual salary of Aus$400,000 and an expense account of a further Aus$100,000) was created while Mr Barilaro while a member of the NSW government although he insists this was entirely an inititive of the NSW Treasury.

Whether Mr Barilaro's appointment should be thought an example of horizontal or vertical integration attracted some interest but it certainly provides inspiration for politicians pondering their retirement planning (a task some suspect constitutes the bulk of most parliamentary careers): (1) create a number of highly paid statutory appointments (ie in the gift of a minister with no need to advertise the vacancy), (2) ensure the jobs don't require any skills or qualifications, (3) make sure at least some are based in a pleasant city in a first-world country, (4) design a job description that is vague and has no measure of success or failure & (5) arrange one's own appointment to the most desirable (methods will vary according to factional arrangements, favors owed etc).  Some probably consider this a plan B retirement scheme but it can be a lower-profile alternative to plan A which is (1) do some deal by which public assets are (sold, leased or in some advantageous way) made available to a corporation, individual, national entity etc & (2) do so in secret exchange for a lucrative (and especially undemanding) sinecure after retirement from politics.           

The reaction to the premier’s statement does illustrate the way the perception of a job can be changed according to circumstances of the appointment.  A job such as a trade commissioner would nominally be regarded as a conventional public service role, had it been filled by someone with an appropriate academic background or experience in trade or foreign relations but if given to an ex-politician, it can look like a sinecure, a nice retirement package with no expectation that KPIs or any of the other fashionable metrics of performance measurement will be much analyzed, either in New York or Sydney.

Still, Mr Barilaro has shown a flair for media management which would be handy in any foray into international relations.  In October 2021 he announced his separation from his wife of 26 years and it later transpired he was in a relationship with his former media adviser, such couplings apparently a bit of a National Party thing.  A few weeks later he concluded his valedictory speech in the NSW Parliament with the words "…one piece of advice: Be kind to each other. If we have learned anything over the past two years it is to be kind to each other."

On 30 June, following interesting revelations at a parliamentary enquiry convened to examine the processes which secured his appointment, Mr Barilaro announced he would not be taking the job.  "It is clear that my taking up this role is now not tenable with the amount of media attention this appointment has gained." he said in a written statement, adding "I believe my appointment will continue to be a distraction and not allow this important role to achieve what it was designed to do, and thus my decision."  In conclusion, he stated "I stress, that I have always maintained that I followed the process and look forward to the results of the review."

To the extent possible, he followed the politician's three-step playbook of how to try to extricate one's self from a tricky situation of one's own making: (1) blame the unfair media coverage, (2) assert there's been no wrong-doing but to avoid becoming a distraction for the party (usually expressed as "the government", "the state" etc) I am (withdrawing, resigning, standing aside etc) & (3) I am looking forward to spending more time with my family.  In the circumstances, he chose not to invoke step (3), that perhaps a bit much, even for Mr Barilaro.  The parliamentary enquiry however remains afoot (as does an internal review which may have a different agenda) and its findings should make interesting reading, students of the manufacture of sausages expected to be amused, if not surprised.

Meddle

Meddle (pronounced med-l)

(1) To involve oneself in a matter without right or invitation; to interfere officiously or unwantedly.

(2) To intervene, intrude or pry.

(3) To interest or engage oneself; to have to do (with), in a good sense (obsolete).

(4) To mix something with some other substance; to commingle, combine, blend (an obsolete form used between the fourteenth & seventeenth centuries by apothecaries and others (the synonyms being bemix & bemingle)).

(5) To have sex (a fourteenth century euphemism now obsolete except as in US regional slang, south of the Mason-Dixon Line (also in the variant “ming”)).

1250–1300: From Middle English medlen (to mingle, blend, mix), from the Anglo-Norman medler, a variant of Anglo-Norman and Old North French medler, a variant of mesler & meller (source of the Modern French mêler), from the Vulgar Latin misculō & misculāre, frequentative of the Latin misceō & miscēre (to mix).  The Vulgar Latin was the source of the Provençal mesclar, the Spanish mezclar and the Italian mescolare & meschiare), ultimately from the primitive Indo-European root meik- (to mix).  The similar noun mélange (a mixture, a medley (usually in the sense of "an uncombined mingling on elements, objects, or individuals”)) dates from the 1650s, from the fifteenth century French mélange, from mêler (to mix, mingle), from the Old French mesler (to mix, meddle, mingle).  Meddle, meddlest & meddled are verbs , meddling is a noun, verb & adjective, meddlement, meddlesomeness & meddler are nouns, meddlesome is an adjective and meddlingly & meddlesomely are adverbs; the most common noun plural is meddlers.

The word began in the sense of “to mix” and was used by many in professions which dealt with the mixing of stuff (apothecaries, bakers, chefs etc) and for the late fourteenth century came to be used to mean "to busy oneself, be concerned with, engage in" which soon gained the disparaging sense of "interfere or take part in inappropriately or impertinently, be officious, make a nuisance of oneself", which was the idea of meddling too much, the surviving sense of the word.  Similarly, the noun meddler (agent noun from the verb meddle), evolved over the same time from a "practitioner" to "one who interferes with things in which they have no personal or proper concern; a nuisance".  The mid-fourteenth century noun meddling (action of blending) was a verbal noun from the verb meddle which evolved with the newer meaning "act or habit of interfering in matters not of one's proper concern"; it has been used as a present-participle adjective since the 1520s, most famously as “meddling priest”, a phrase which described the habit of Roman Catholic clergy to assume the right to intrude uninvited into affairs of state or the lives of individuals.  There appears to be no record of meddle being applied as a collective noun but “meddle of priests” is tempting (though suggestions for a clerical collective are many).  Meddle & meddled meddling are verbs, meddling is a verb & adjective, meddler is a noun and meddlingly an adverb.  Words which can to some degree be synonymous with meddle include to some degree includes hinder, impede, impose, infringe, intrude, tamper, advance, encroach, encumber, inquire, interlope, interpose, invade, kibitz, molest, obtrude, pry, snoop & trespass.

Three popes attended by a meddle of meddling priests during an ad limin.  Pope Saint John Paul II (1920–2005; pope 1978-2005) in 2004 (left), Pope Benedict XVI (b 1927; pope 2005-2013, pope emeritus since) in 2012 (centre) & Pope Francis (b 1936; pope since 2013) in 2019.  The ad limina visits (from the Latin ad limina apostolorum (to the threshold of the apostles) are obligatory pilgrimages to Rome made by all bishops, during which they pray at the tombs of Saint Peter & Saint Paul before meeting with the pope and Vatican officials.  During their ad limina, bishops present a quinquennial report of matters in their respective diocese, considered usually to represent the truth if not the whole truth.

One of the more memorable expressions of the tension between secular and ecclesiastical authority on Earth was "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" (sometimes as "meddlesome priest" or "troublesome priest"), attributed to Henry II (1133–1189; King of England 1154-1189) and held to be the phrase which inspired the murder in 1170 of Saint Thomas Becket (circa 1120–1170; Archbishop of Canterbury 1162-1170).  Henry’s rant was a reaction to being told Becket had excommunicated some bishops aligned with the king and like the legendary invective of some famous figures (Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth 1653-1658), Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) etc), are probably not a verbatim record of his words but certainly reflect his mood.  The familiar version dates from a work of history published in 1740, the influence apparently biblical, the debt owed to Romans 7:24: "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? (King James Version (KJV 1611) and the work of subsequent authors does suggest Henry’s words were from the start understood as being a complaint to his staff that none of them appeared to have the initiative needed to act against the wrongs of the archbishop.  While not literally perhaps an order to commit murder, it seems at least to have been an inducement because it prompted four knights to travel to Canterbury Cathedral where they killed the archbishop either deliberately or as a consequence of him resisting attempts to drag him off to face Henry’s wrath.  The chain of events has been used to illustrate contexts as varied as chaos theory, plausible deniability and working towards the leader.

As there are “meddling priests”, so there are “meddling moms”.

Chaos theory explores the idea that something apparently insignificant can trigger a chain reaction of events which conclude with something momentous.  The theory can be mapped onto any sequence of events, the interest being in tracking lineal paths in behavioral patterns which might appear random.  The sequence which lay between Henry’s words and the decapitation of the saintly archbishop was, by the standards of some of what’s been explored by chaos theory, simple and to some degree perhaps predictable but there was nothing wholly deterministic.  Some nefarious activity is wrongly attributed to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) but it seems that genuinely they did coin the phrase plausible deniability.  It emerged in the post Dulles (Allen Dulles, 1893–1969; US Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) 1953-1961) aftermath to the Bay of Pigs fiasco and was a collection of informal protocols whereby senior government officials (particularly the president) were “protected” from responsibility by not being informed of certain things (or at least there being no discoverable record (a la the smoking gun principle)) which could prove transmission of the information.  Henry II’s "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest?" is a variation in that it once deconstructed, it can be interpreted as a wish the archbishop should in some way be “disappeared” yet is sufficiently vague that a denial that that was the intention is plausible.

It’s related also to “working towards the Führer” an explanation English historian Sir Ian Kershaw (b 1943) most fully developed as part of his model explaining the structures and operation of the Nazi state.  For decades after the war, there were those who claimed that because, among the extraordinary volume of documents uncovered after the end of the Third Reich, nothing had ever been found which proved Hitler had ever issued the order which triggered the Holocaust, it should be assumed he knew nothing of it.  To emphasize the basis of their claims in this matter, some who wrote attempting to exonerate Hitler of his most monstrous crime styled themselves as “archivists” rather than historians, the heavy-handed hint being they were relying wholly on evidence, not speculative interpretation.  Kershaw’s arguments proved compelling and now few accept the view that the absence of anything in writing is significant and there’s no doubt Hitler either ordered or approved the Holocaust in its most fundamental aspects.

The “working towards the Führer” model did however prove useful in understanding the practical operation (rather than the theoretical structures) of the Führerprinzip (leader principle).  Throughout the many layers of the party and state which interacted to create the Third Reich, it’s clear that not only did Hitler’s words serve to inspire and justify actions of which the Führer was never aware but that much of what was done was based on what people thought he would have said had he been asked.  Hitler didn’t need to order the Holocaust because those around him worked towards what they knew (or supposed) his intent to be.