Caudillo, Duce & Führer

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Blasphemy

Blasphemy (pronounced blas-fuh-mee)

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

(2) An act of cursing or reviling God.

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

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

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

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

1175-1225: From the Middle English blasfemye & blasphemie, from the early thirteenth century Old French blasfemie (blasphemy), from the Ecclesiastical Latin blasphēmia, from the Ancient Greek βλασφημία (blasphēmía) (speaking ill, impious speech, slander; profanity), from βλασφημέω (blasphēméō) (to slander).  The origin of the first element of the word is uncertain, possibly related to blaptikos (hurtful) although blax (slack (in body and mind) or stupid) is an alternative and some etymologists suggest as link with the root of the Latin malus (bad, unpleasant), from the primitive Indo-European root mel-.  Phēmē (utterance) is from the primitive Indo-European root bha- (to speak, tell, say).  The medieval Church Latin was blasphemare, which in Late Latin also meant "revile, reproach", hence the sense of blame which was picked up by both Canon and secular law.  In the Old Testament, the word actually applied to a more specific crime, against the reverence for Jehovah as ruler of the Jews, comparable to treason.  Unfortunately, there’s no verified evidence the Islamist militant Osama bin Laden (1957–2011) ever spoke or wrote the quote attributed to him: “It was a blasphemy for men to walk on the Moon”.  Blasphemy, blasphemer & blasphemousness are nouns, blaspheme, blasphemed & blaspheming are verbs, blasphemous is an adjective and blasphemously is an adverb; the noun plural is blasphemies.

Blasphemy and attempted blasphemy

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

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

Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023) performing a ritual.  Within the Roman Curia (a place of Masonic-like plotting & intrigue and much low skulduggery), Cardinal Pell's nickname was “Pell Pot”, an allusion to Pol Pot (1925–1998, dictator of communist Cambodia 1976-1979) who announced the start of his regime was “Year Zero” and all existing culture and tradition must completely be destroyed and replaced.

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

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

Thy neighbor’s ass.

To most in the secular West, the terms “blasphemy” and “heresy” probably sound archaic although they remain fixtures in figurative use in sport, popular culture and such.  However, in the Roman Catholic Church they remain matters of significance, the latter even handled by canon law.  Although misleading, a way to illustrate the difference is to regard blasphemy as a sin against God while heresy is an offence against faith (technically against the church but according to the Holy See they’re the same thing).  Rome regards blasphemy as any speech, action, or thought which discloses one’s contempt, disrespect, or irreverence toward God, Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, the saints or anything treated as sacred.  Perhaps surprisingly (given how it’s handled in other jurisdictions), in the narrow technical sense, blasphemy is not explicitly defined in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) and instead is considered a grave sin and evidence of it can be used as evidence when considering specific offenses which are codified.  Once can commit blasphemy by cursing God, mocking sacred rites or publicly insulting the Eucharist and historically “taking the name of the Lord in vain” was the best known injunction against the habit.  In the King James Version of the Bible (KJV, 1611) it was written as: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain” and was in most translations the second of the Ten Commandments in Judaism and Christianity, handed down to man by God.  In the unforgiving Old testament (Exodus 20:7 & Deuteronomy 5:11) it’s reinforced by the injunction: “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.” and that it appears so high in the list of ten (only: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” precedes it) does suggest it may have been thought a more critical matter than someone coveting their neighbor’s ass (tenth and last).  Not being mentioned in canon law, dealing with the offence varies on a case-by-case basis and while excommunication is now rare, depending on severity or recidivism, there can be canonical penalties, especially if there’s any whiff of scandal (ie bad publicity).

Heresy is different in that it’s codified in Canon 751 of the 1983 CIC as: “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith.”  That obviously casts a wide judicial net but, since the major revision of the CIC in 1917, the most commonly cited examples have been (1) denying the divinity of Christ, (2) rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity or (3) refusing to accept papal infallibility (although of the latter there’s much de facto tolerance by virtue of papal infallibility being now something implied rather than invoked (which, in the narrow technical sense, has happened only once in the last 150-odd years)).  As students of the modern church have noted, there’s much heresy going on (indeed, for some bolshie priests it seems to be a calling) but despite Canon 1364 stating a heretic is subject to latae sententiae (automatic) excommunication (meaning they are excommunicated without and need for a formal declaration), the sanction is now rarely invoked.  These days, it seems to be excommunicated for heresy, the offense needs to be both serious and repeated.

Door not ajar: The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith where blasphemy and heresy are deracinated.

Contrasting that, the vagueness of “blasphemy” means it is available as charge for offences which don’t have to fall within defined criteria.  In other words, quite what blasphemy is can be up to the Inquisitor (the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF)) and in that sense Vatican justice can be seen as something like “the length of the chancellor’s foot” in Medieval England.  That doesn’t mean it’s quite like the apocryphal “unspecified offences” and the closest comparison is probably the CCP’s (Chinese Communist Party) 寻衅滋事 (Picking quarrels and provoking trouble) that can be used to secure a conviction when, inconveniently, no law appears to have been broken.  One heresy which can have consequences short of excommunication is a defiance of what is the core rule of the framework on which the church is built: obedience to the chain of command.  Structurally, the Roman Catholic Church operates on the Führerprinzip (leader principle) best known from the German Nazi state that was the Third Reich (1933-1945) and what that means is as the bishops must obey the pope, so priests must obey their bishop.  In practice of course there’s long been a bit of drift from this and most offences are dealt with by (1) ignoring them, (2) pretending they never happened or (3) rationalizing them as something else but if a malcontent’s conduct becomes so defiantly egregious it starts to frighten the horses, Rome will act.

Condemned blasphemer the former Father Pavone in MAGA (Make America Great Again) cap, fulfilling his broadcast media commitments, Orlando, Florida, February 2024.

Frank Pavone (b 1959 and still head of the organization Priests for Life (a US-based anti-abortion collective) despite having been laicised (defrocked) in 2022), found himself in the Inquisitor’s sights because of what was described by the Vatican as: “blasphemous communications on social media” and “persistent disobedience” of his bishop although the communiqué didn’t specify which was thought more heinous.  Ominously, a letter from the papal nuncio (the Holy See’s ambassador) to the US bishops made it clear there is no mechanism available to lodge an appeal.  Ordained in 1988, the former Father Pavone had been investigated by his then-diocese of Amarillo, Texas, for having in 2016 placed an aborted fetus on an altar and posting a video of it on two social media sites but what seems to have most disturbed Rome was him being one of those “meddling priests” who involved himself less in the spiritual and more in the earthly, posting frequently to decry crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) and extol the virtues of Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025), almost always on the basis of their respective positions on abortion.  Mr Pavone remained defiant after being defrocked, comparing his fate to that of the unborn children he vowed to continue to defend: “So in every profession, including the priesthood, if you defend the #unborn, you will be treated like them!  The only difference is that when we are “aborted”, we continue to speak, loud and clear.”  Even defrocked, he wasn’t without clerical support, one bishop calling then President Joe Biden's (b 1942; US president 2021-2025) advocacy for abortion rights “evil”, tarring Rome with the same brush: “The blasphemy is that this holy priest is canceled while an evil president promotes the denial of truth & the murder of the unborn at every turn, Vatican officials promote immorality & denial of the deposit of faith & priests promote gender confusion devastating lives...evil."  Despite explicit instructions, Mr Pavone continues to present himself as a priest.

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

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

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

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

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

Velleity

Velleity (pronounced vuh-lee-i-tee)

(1) Volition or desire in its weakest form.

(2) A mere wish, unaccompanied by an effort to obtain it.

1610-1620: From the Medieval Latin stem velleitās, from the Latin velle (wish, will), the construct being velle + ity.  (It Italian, velle is a learned borrowing from Latin velle, present active infinitive of volō (I want)).  The –ity suffix was from the French -ité, from the Middle French -ité, from the Old French –ete & -eteit (-ity), from the Latin -itātem, from -itās, from the primitive Indo-European suffix –it.  It was cognate with the Gothic –iþa (-th), the Old High German -ida (-th) and the Old English -þo, -þu & -þ (-th).  It was used to form nouns from adjectives (especially abstract nouns), thus most often associated with nouns referring to the state, property, or quality of conforming to the adjective's descriptions.  Velleity is a noun and velleitary is an adjective (velleitistic doesn't exist but probably should);the noun plural is velleities.

Velleities are volition in their weakest form; an indolent or inactive wish, in private life associated with good intensions like intending to give up smoking, something not infrequently said while lighting-up another.  It’s memorably illustrated by Saint Augustine of Hippo (354–430) who, in the second edition of his autobiographical Confessiones in which he documented his seedy life in Carthage, recalled praying to God to “give me chastity and temperance, but not yet!”  Written between 397-400, Confessiones was an autobiographical work in thirteen volumes which traces Augustine's sinful youth and his conversion to Christianity by Saint Ambrose.  A mix of emotional sharing, a deconstruction of an intellectual journey and serious theology, it’s seems now a very modern approach to text and has been influential for a thousand years.  The lesson mean modern readers seem to take from it is that velleities between sinners in their cell and God in his Heaven are matters of private morality and consequences are limited.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.

Velleities however also are uttered by those administering public policy where consequences can be severe and global.  Alain Prost (b 1955; four-time Formula One Drivers' Champion) once observed of the driving style of Ayrton Senna (1960–1994; three time Formula One World Drivers' Champion) that “Ayrton has a small problem, he thinks he can’t kill himself, because he believes in God and I think that’s pretty dangerous for other drivers.”  When prime-minister of Australia Scott Morrison (b 1968; Australian prime-minister 2018-2022), a Pentecostal Christian who certainly believes in God, actually boasted of believing in miracles although, on election night 2019 when famously he repeated statement, he was being perhaps too modest, his victory very much a personal achievement against the odds although an opposition which seemed to have misplaced the script helped.  Still, maybe God helped and Scott Morrison, being closer to the Lord than most, may have been thought a deserved recipient.

Unfortunately, a cursory reading of his government’s climate-change policy suggested he expected God to deliver another miracle; there seemed no other way to account for the gaps in his government’s policy (The Plan to Deliver Net Zero: The Australian Way), the suggestion being that some 15% of the reduction was to be achieved through technology which didn't then exist and hadn’t yet been speculated upon, even conceptually; miracles clearly might be needed.  The breakdown of the sources of abatement in the plan was:

(1) Reductions already made up to 2020:    20%.
(2) The technology investment roadmap:    40%.
(3) Global technology trends:                     15%
(4) International & domestic offsets:           10-20%.
(5) Further technology breakthroughs:        15%.

Donald Rumsfeld (1932–2021; US Secretary of Defense 1975-1977 & 2001-2006).

So, as constructed, the plan conformed to the government’s “Technology not Taxes” slogan although there was no discussion of the details relating to how much tax revenue was expected to be allocated to technology known or otherwise.  The 15% said to be solved by the invention of “further technology breakthroughs” was understood as part of the framework of knowledge made famous by the late Donald Rumsfeld who drew an often derided but actually useful framework of knowledge:

(1) Known unknowns.
(2) Known knowns.
(3) Unknown unknowns.
(4) (most intriguingly) Unknown knowns.

While the new technology could come from everywhere, the government was at least hinting miracles from (3) & (4) may be delivered.  Rumsfeld may or may not have been evil but his mind could sparkle and his marvellously reductionist principles can be helpful.  He reminded us there are only three possible answers to any question:

(1) I know and I’m going to tell you.
(2) I know and I’m not going to tell you.
(3) Don’t know.

There is a cultural reluctance to saying “don’t know” but really, sometimes it is best.  There was an argument it was wholly unreasonable to expect governments to offer a detailed plan to reach net zero carbon emissions in thirty-odd years and that for anything beyond a certain point it would be preferable to say “don’t know” because it has the priceless virtue of truth, although, as Mr Morrison (and, at least at some point in his life, Saint Augustine too) knew, if God really cared about folk telling lies, he'd have issued an eleventh commandant.

Sponge

Sponge (pronounced spuhnj)

(1) Any aquatic, chiefly marine animal of the phylum Porifera (also called poriferan), having a porous structure and usually a horny, siliceous or calcareous internal skeleton or framework, occurring in large, sessile (permanently attached to a substrate and not able independently to move) colonies.

(2) The light, yielding, porous, fibrous skeleton or framework of certain animals or colonies of this group, especially of the genera Spongia and Hippospongia, from which the living matter has been removed, characterized by readily absorbing water and becoming soft when wet while retaining toughness: used in bathing, in wiping or cleaning surfaces, etc.

(3) Any of various other similar substances (made typically from porous rubber or cellulose and similar in absorbency to this skeleton), used for washing or cleaning and suited especially to wiping flat, non-porous surfaces; bat sponge, car-wash sponge etc).

(4) Used loosely, any soft substance with a sponge-like appearance or structure.

(5) Use loosely, any object which rapidly absorbs something.

(6) As “sponge theory” (1) a term used in climate science which tracks the processes by which tropical forests "flip" from absorbing to emitting carbon dioxide and (2) one of the competing ideas in the configuration of the US nuclear arsenal which supports the retention of the triad (intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLMB) and those delivered by strategic bombers).

(7) A person who absorbs something efficiently (usually in the context of information, education or facts).

(8) A person who persistently borrows from or lives at the expense of others; a parasite (usually described as “a sponger” or one who “sponges off” and synonymous with a “leech”.

(9) In disparaging slang, a habitual drinker of alcohol who is frequently intoxicated (one who is more mildly affected said to be “spongy” (a synonym of “tipsy”).

(10) In metallurgy, a porous mass of metallic particles, as of platinum, obtained by the reduction of an oxide or purified compound at a temperature below the melting point; iron from the puddling furnace, in a pasty condition; iron ore, in masses, reduced but not melted or worked.

(11) In clinical medicine, a sterile surgical dressing of absorbent material, usually cotton gauze, for wiping or absorbing pus, blood, or other fluids during a surgical operation.

(12) In hospitals and other care institutions, as sponge bath, a method of hygiene whereby a patient is cleaned with a sponge (usually with soap & water) while in a chair or bed.

(13)In cooking (baking), dough raised with yeast before it is kneaded and formed into loaves and after it is converted into a light, spongy mass by the agency of the yeast or leaven.

(14) In cooking, a light, sweet pudding of a porous texture, made with gelatin, eggs, fruit juice or other flavoring ingredients; popular as a cake, often multi-layered with whipped cream (or similar) between.

(15) In birth control, a contraceptive made with a disposable piece of polyurethane foam permeated with a spermicide for insertion into the vagina.

(16) As “makeup sponge” or “beauty sponge”, a device for applying certain substances to the skin (most often blusher and similar products to the face).

(17) In ballistics, a mop for cleaning the bore of a cannon after a discharge, consisting of a cylinder of wood, covered with sheepskin with the wool on, or cloth with a heavy looped nap, and having a handle, or staff.

(18) In farriery, the extremity (or point) of a horseshoe, corresponding to the heel.

(19) In the slang of the nuclear industry, a worker routinely exposed to radiation.

(20) To wipe or rub with or (as with a wet sponge), to moisten or clean.

(21) To remove with a Usually moistened) sponge (usually followed by off, away, etc.).

(22) To wipe out or efface with or as with a sponge (often followed by out).

(23) To take up or absorb with or as with a sponge (often followed by up).

(24) Habitually to borrow, use, or obtain by imposing on another's good nature.

(25) In ceramics, to decorate (a ceramic object) by dabbing at it with a sponge soaked with color or any use of a sponge to render a certain texture on the sirface.

(26) To take in or soak up liquid by absorption.

(27) To gather sponges (from the beach or ocean).

(28) In marine biology (in behavioral zoology, of dolphins), the description of the use of a piece of wild sponge as a tool when foraging for food.

Pre 1000: From the Middle English noun sponge, spunge & spounge, from the Old English noun sponge & spunge (absorbent and porous part of certain aquatic organisms), from the Latin spongia & spongea (a sponge (also (the “sea animal from which a sponge comes”), from the Ancient Greek σπογγιά (spongiá), related to σπόγγος (spóngos) (sponge).  At least one etymologist called it “an old Wandewort” while another speculated it was probably a loanword from a non-Indo-European language, borrowed independently into Greek, Latin and Armenian in a form close to “sphong-”.  From the Latin came the Old Saxon spunsia, the Middle Dutch spongie, the Old French esponge, the Spanish esponja and the Italian spugna.  In English, the word has been used of the sea animals since the 1530s and of just about any sponge-like substance since the turn of the seventeenth century and the figurative use in reference to one adept at absorbing facts or learning emerged about the same time.  The sense of “one who persistently and parasitically lives on others" has been in use since at least 1838.  The sponge-cake (light, fluffy & sweet) has been documented since 1808 but similar creations had long been known.  Sponge is a noun & verb, sponged & sponging are verbs, Spongeless, spongy, sponginess, spongable, spongiform & spongelike are adjectives and spongingly is an adverb; the noun plural is sponges.

The verb emerged late in the fourteenth century as spongen (to soak up with a sponge) or (as a transitive verb) “to cleanse or wipe with a sponge”, both uses derived from the noun and presumably influenced by the Latin spongiare.  The intransitive sense “dive for sponges, gather sponges where they grow” was first documented in 1881 by observers watching harvesting in the Aegean.  The slang use meaning “deprive someone of (something) by sponging” was in use by at least the 1630s, the later intransitive sense of “live in a parasitic manner, live at the expense of others” documented in the 1670, the more poetic phrase “live upon the sponge” (live parasitically, relying on the efforts of others) dating from the 1690s; such folk described as “spongers” since the 1670s.  However, in the 1620s, the original idea was that the victim was “the sponge” because they were “being squeezed”.  The noun sponge in the general sense of “an object from which something of value may be extracted” was in use by circa 1600; the later reference to “the sponger” reversed this older sense.  In what was presumably an example of military humor, the noun sponger also had a use in the army and navy, referring to the member of a cannon’s crew who wielded the pole (with a sponge attached to one end) to clean the barrel of the weapon after discharge.  It’s not clear when it came into use but it’s documented since 1828.

The adjective spongiform (resembling a sponge, sponge-like; porous, full of holes) dates from 1774 and seems now restricted to medical science, the incurable and invariably fatal neurodegenerative disease of cattle "bovine spongiform encephalopathy" (BSE) the best known use although the public understandably prefer the more evocative "mad cow disease".  The adjective spongy (soft, elastic) came into use in the 1530s in medicine & pathology, in reference to morbid tissue (not necessarily soft and applied after the 1590s to hard material (especially bone)) seen as open or porous.  In late fourteenth century Middle English, there was spongious (sponge-like in nature), again, directly from the Latin.  In idiomatic use and dating from the 1860s, to “throw in the sponge” was to concede defeat; yield or give up the context.  The form is drawn from prize-fighting where the sponge (sitting usually in a bucket of water and used to wipe blood from the boxer’s face) is thrown into the ring by the trainer or second, indicating to the referee the fight must immediately be stopped.  The phrase later “throw in the towel” means the same thing and is of the same origin although some older style guides insist the correct use is “throw up the sponge” and “throw in the towel”.  To the beaten and bloodied boxer, it probably was an unnoticed technical distinction.

Sea sponges.

In zoology, sponges are any of the many aquatic (mostly sea-based) invertebrate animals of the phylum Porifera, characteristically having a porous skeleton, usually containing an intricate system of canals composed of fibrous material or siliceous or calcareous spicules.  Water passing through the pores is the delivery system the creatures use to gain nutrition.  Sponges are known to live at most depths of the sea, are sessile (permanently attached to a substrate; all but a handful not able independently to move (fully-grown sponges do not have moving parts, but the larvae are free-swimming)) and often form irregularly shaped colonies.  Sponges are considered now the most primitive members of the animal kingdom extant as they lack a nervous system and differentiated body tissues or organs although they have great regenerative capacities, some species able to regenerate a complete adult organism from fragments as small as a single cell.  Sponges first appeared during the early Cambrian Period over half a billion years ago and may have evolved from protozoa.

Of sponges and brushes

Dior Backstage Blender (Professional Finish Fluid Foundation Sponge).

Both makeup brushes and makeup sponges can be used to apply blush or foundation and unless there’s some strong personal preference, most women probably use both, depending on the material to be applied and the look desired.  Brushes are almost always long-bristled and soft sometimes to the point of fluffiness with a rounded shape which affords both precision and the essential ability to blend at the edges.  Brushes are popular because they offer great control over placement & blending (users debating whether a long or short handle is most beneficial in this and it may be that both work equally well if one’s technique is honed).  Brushes can be used with most varieties of formulation including powders and creams.

Lindsay Lohan in court, October 2011.

This not entirely flattering application of grey-brown shade of blusher attracted comment, the consensus being it was an attempt to create the effect of hollowed cheekbones, a look wildly popular during the 1980s-1990s and one which to which her facial structure was well-suited.  However, the apparently “heavy handed” approach instead suggesting bruising.  The “contoured blush look” is achieved with delicacy and Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881, UK prime-minister 1868 & 1874-1880) might have called this: “laying it on with a trowel”.  It’s not known if Ms Lohan used a brush or a sponge but her technique may have been closer to that of the bricklayer handling his trowel.  Makeup sponges (often called “beauty blenders” are preferred by many to brushes and are recommended by the cosmetic houses especially for when applying cream or liquid products.  They’re claimed to be easier to use than a brush and for this reason are often the choice of less experienced or occasional users and they create a natural, dewy finish, blending the product seamlessly into the skin and avoiding the more defined lines which brushes can produce.  When used with a powder blush, sponges produce an airbrushed, diffused effect and are much easier to use for those applying their own make-up in front of a mirror, a situation in which the “edging” effect inherent in brush use can be hard to detect.  For professional makeup artists, both sponges and brushes will be used when working on others, the choice dictated by the product in use and the effect desired.

Sponge theory

The awful beauty of our weapons: Test launch of Boeing LGM-30G Minuteman III ICBM.

Ever since the US military (sometimes in competition with politicians) first formulated a set of coherent policies which set out the circumstances in which nuclear weapons would be used, there have been constant revisions to the plans.  At its peak, the nuclear arsenal contained some 30,000 weapons and the target list extended to a remarkable 10,000 sites, almost all in the Soviet Union (USSR), the People’s Republic of China (PRC) the Baltic States and countries in Eastern Europe.  Even the generals admitted there was some degree of overkill in all this but rationalized the system on the basis it was the only way to guarantee a success rate close to 100%.  That certainly fitted in with the US military’s long established tradition of “overwhelming” rather than merely “solving” problems.

US nuclear weapons target map 1956 (de-classified in 2015).

Over the decades, different strategies were from time-to-time adopted as tensions rose and fell or responded to changes in circumstances such as arms control treaties and, most obviously, the end of the Cold War when the USSR was dissolved.  The processes which produced these changes were always the same: (1) inter-service squabbles between the army, navy & air force, (2) the struggle between the politicians and the top brass (many of who proved politically quite adept), (3) the influence of others inside and beyond the “nuclear establishment” including the industrial concerns which designed and manufactured the things, those in think tanks & academic institutions and (4) the (usually anti-nuclear) lobby and activist community.  Many of the discussions were quite abstract, something the generals & admirals seemed to prefer, probably because one of their quoted metrics in the early 1950s was that if in a nuclear exchange there were 50 million dead Russians and only 20 million dead Americans then the US could be said to have “won the war”.  When critics pursued this to its logical conclusion and asked if that was the result even if only one Russian and two Americans were left alive, the military tended to restrict themselves to targets, megatons and abstractions, any descent to specifics like body-counts just tiresome detail.  This meant the strategies came to be summed-up in short, punchy, indicative terms like “deterrence”, “avoidance of escalation” & “retaliation” although the depth was sufficient for even the “short” version prepared for the president’s use in the event of war to be an inch (25 mm) thick.  What was describe varied from a threat of use, a limited strike, various forms of containment (the so-called "limited nuclear war") and sometimes the doomsday option: global thermo-nuclear war.  However, during the administration of Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) there emerged a genuine linguistic novelty: “sponge theory”.

US Air Force Boeing B-52 Stratofortress (1952-, left) and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit (1989-, right).

The term “sponge theory” had been used in climate science to describe a mechanism which tracks the processes by which tropical forests "flip" from absorbing to emitting carbon dioxide (a la a sponge which absorbs water which can be expelled when squeezed) but in the matter of nuclear weapons it was something different.  At the time, the debates in the White House, the Congress and even some factions within the military were about whether what had become the traditional “triad” of nuclear weapons ((1) intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), (2) submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLMB) and (3) those delivered by strategic bombers) should be maintained.  By “maintained” that of course meant periodically refurbished & replaced.  The suggestion was that the ICBMs should be retired, the argument being they were a Cold War relic, the mere presence of which threatened peace because they encouraged a "first strike" (actually be either side).  However, the counter argument was that in a sense, the US was already running a de-facto dyad because, dating from the administration of George HW Bush (George XLI, 1924-2018; US president 1989-1993), none of the big strategic bombers had been on “runway alert” (ie able to be scrambled for a sortie within minutes) and only a tiny few were stored in hangers with their bombs loaded.  Removing the ICBMs from service, went the argument, would leave the nation dangerously reliant on the SLMBs which, in the way of such things, might at any time be rendered obsolete by advances in sensor technology and artificial intelligence (AI).  The British of course had never used ICMBs and had removed the nuclear strike capability from their bombers, thus relying on a squadron of four submarines (one of which is on patrol somewhere 24/7/365) with SLMBs but the British system was a pure "independent nuclear deterrent", what the military calls a "boutique bomb".  

Test launch of US Navy Trident-II-D5LE SLBM.

There was also the concern that land or air to submarine communications were not wholly reliable and this, added to the other arguments, won the case for the triad but just in case, the Pentagon had formulated “sponge theory”, about their catchiest phrase since “collateral damage”.  The idea of sponge theory was that were the ICBMs retired, Moscow or Beijing would have only five strategic targets in the continental US: the three bomber bases (in the flyover states of Louisiana, Missouri & North Dakota) and the two submarine ports, in Georgia on the south Atlantic coast and in Washington state in the Pacific north-west.  A successful attack on those targets could be mounted with less than a dozen (in theory half that number because of the multiple warheads) missiles which would mean the retaliatory capacity of the US would be limited to the SLMBs carried by the six submarines on patrol.  Given that, a president might be reluctant to use them because of the knowledge Moscow (and increasingly Beijing) could mount a second, much more destructive attack.  However, if the 400 ICBMs remained in service, an attack on the US with any prospect of success would demand the use of close to 1000 missiles, something to which any president would be compelled to respond and the US ICBMs would be in flight to their targets long before the incoming Soviet or Chinese missiles hit.  The function of the US ICBM sites, acting as a sponge (soaking up the targeting, squeezing the retaliation) would deter an attack.  As it was, the 400-odd Boeing LGM-30 Minuteman ICBMs remained in service in silos also in flyover states: Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming.  After over fifty years in service, the Minuteman is due for replacement in 2030 and there’s little appetite in Washington DC or in the Pentagon to discuss any change to the triad.