Unconscionable

Unconscionable (pronounced un-kno-shon-ible)

(1) Not guided by conscience; unscrupulous.

(2) Not in accordance with what is just or reasonable:

(3) Excessive; extortionate, imprudent or unreasonable

1560s: The construct was un- + conscionable.  The un- prefix was from the Middle English un-, from the Old English un-, from the Proto-West Germanic un-, from the Proto-Germanic un-, from the primitive Indo-European n̥-.  It was cognate with the Scots un- & on-, the North Frisian ün-, the Saterland Frisian uun-, the West Frisian ûn- &  on-, the Dutch on-, the Low German un- & on-, the German un-, the Danish u-, the Swedish o-, the Norwegian u- and the Icelandic ó-.  It was (distantly) related to the Latin in- and the Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), source of the English a-, the Modern Greek α- (a-) and the Sanskrit अ- (a-).  Conscionable was from the Middle English conscions (the third-person singular simple present indicative form of conscion), an obsolete variant of conscience, +‎ -able.  The suffix -able was from the Middle English -able, from the Old French -able, from the Latin -ābilis (capable or worthy of being acted upon), from the primitive Indo-European i-stem forms -dahli- or -dahlom (instrumental suffix); it was used to create adjectives.  Conscience was from the Middle English conscience, from the Old French conscience, from the Latin conscientia (knowledge within oneself), from consciens, present participle of conscire (to know, to be conscious (of wrong)), the construct being com- (together) + scire (to know).  The suffix -able was from the Middle English -able, from the Old French -able, from the Latin -ābilis (capable or worthy of being acted upon), from the primitive Indo-European i-stem forms -dahli- of -dahlom (instrumental suffix); it was used to create adjectives.  Unconscionable is an adjedtive, unconscionableness is a noun and unconscionably is an adverb; the noun plural is unconscionabilities.

Like disgruntled, unconscionable is one of those strange words in English where the derivation has flourished while the source word is effective extinct.  That said, English is defined and constructed by being used and the word conscionable (in accordance with conscience; defensible; proper) remains good English; it has merely faded from use and is described by some dictionaries as obsolete, archaic or at least, since the eighteenth century, a fossilized form of its surviving negative: unconscionable. Conscionable in the 1540s meant "having a conscience", the meaning expanding by the 1580s to refer to actions "consonant with right or duty" and by the 1640s to persons, "governed by conscience".  The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) notes both conscious & conscioned were probably popular formations from conscion, taken as a singular of conscien-ce by a misapprehension of the "s" sound as a plural inflection. The related form was (and is) conscionably.

Unconscionability in the law

Unconscionability is a legal doctrine (most often applied in contact law) which permits courts to strike-out or write-down clauses or agreements which are unduly harsh or so grossly unfair that that it would offend legal principles for them to be enforced.  When a court uses the word "unconscionable" to describe conduct, it means the conduct does not conform to the dictates of conscience as defined in law; it makes no judgment about whether they are at variance with other ethical constructs (although there will often be overlap).  In addition, when something is judged unconscionable, a court will refuse to allow the perpetrator of the conduct to benefit.  If need be, entire contracts can be set-aside or declared void, even if they are otherwise constructed wholly in conformity with the rules of contract.  A contract therefore can be found to be "legal" yet still be voided because it's held to be unconscionable in the same way a contract (for example an agreement between two parties in which one is paid to murder a third part can be held to be a "legal contract" yet be declared  "void for illegality".

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

Unconscionability is determined by examining the circumstances of the parties when the contract was made; these circumstances may include the bargaining power, age, and mental capacity of the parties and the doctrine is applied only where it would be an affront to the integrity of the judicial system to enforce a contracts.  At law, as in moral theology, the concept of unconscionability is probably absolute; something is either unconscionable or not.  However, cases are considered on their merits and the circumstances in which the unconscionable arose might color the detail of a judge’s verdict.

Portrait of King Charles II in his Garter robes (circa 1667), oil on canvas by Sir Peter Lely (1618-80).

The Most Noble Order of the Garter, an order of chivalry and the senior order of knighthood in the UK’s honors system, was founded by Edward III (1312–1377; King of England 1327-1377).  Appointments are exclusively in the gift of the sovereign and limited to two dozen living members (apart from royal appointees).  The Garter was of great significance to Charles II (1630–1685; King of Scotland 1649-1651, King of Scotland, England and Ireland 1660-1685) as it had been his father, Charles I (1600–1649; King of England, Scotland & Ireland 1625-1649) who awarded it as something symbolic of the binding tie with his favored aristocrats.  For Charles II, as the only dignity he was able to confer upon his adherents while in exile during the interregnum (1649-1660), it was a potent symbol, proof the King still retained the mystique and the power of monarchy.  Charles II suffered a sudden apoplectic fit on the morning of 2 February 1685 and his doctors expected him to have the decency to die within the hour.  Instead he lingered another four days before expiring and just before, he apologised to those around him, his last words being: “You must pardon me, gentlemen, for being a most unconscionable time a-dying.”  In this, as in many other things, he was unlike his father Charles I, who died suddenly, executed by having his head cut off.

Assimilate

Assimilate (pronounced uh-sim-uh-leyt (verb) or uh-sim-uh-lit (noun))

(1) To take in and incorporate as one's own; absorb.

(2) To bring into conformity with the customs, attitudes, etc., of a group, nation, or the like; adapt or adjust.

(3) In physiology, to convert (food) to substances suitable for incorporation into the body and its tissues; to transform food into living tissue by the process of anabolism.

(4) To cause to resemble (usually followed by to or with).

(5) To compare; liken (usually followed by to or with).

(6) In phonetics, to modify by assimilation (usually followed by “to”); to change a sound into another under the influence of one adjacent to it.

Early 1400s: From the Middle English verb assimilate (first used in early fifteenth century physiology in the sense of "absorb into and make part of the body), from the Latin assimulātus, from the Classical Latin assimulātus (likened to, made similar; imitated), past participle of assimilāre & assimulāre (to make like, copy, imitate, assume the form of; feign, pretend) and perfect passive participle of assimulō), from the assimilated construct ad (to) + simulare (make similar), from similis (like, resembling, of the same kind).  The meaning "make alike, cause to resemble" and intransitive sense "become incorporated into" date from the 1620s.   In linguistics, the technical meaning "bring into accordance or agreement in speech" was adopted in 1854 and the related forms are assimilated & assimilating.  The very common adjective unassimilated, a creation of the biological sciences also used in chemistry, was first noted in 1748.  The adjective assimilative is from the 1520s, the alternative assimilatory not formed until 1775.  The adjective assimilable was from the Latin assimilabilis, from assimilāre & assimulāre (to make like; assume the form of) and the related form is assimilability.  The noun assimilation, from the Old French assimilacion, from the Latin assimilationem (nominative assimulō) (likeness, similarity) a noun of action from the past-participle stem of assimilāre e (to make like), was an early fifteenth century creation meaning "act of assimilating" and used in the medical field in reference to the body's use of nutrition,   The meaning "process of becoming alike or identical, conversion into a similar substance" is from the 1620s. It came into figurative use from circa 1790 and became part of the jargon of psychology in 1855.  It was in the mid-late twentieth century that as "cultural assimilation" it became controversial.  Assimilate is a noun & verb, assimilation & assimilator are nouns, assimilation, assimilable, assimilatory & assimilative are adjectives, assimilationist is a noun & adjective, assimilated is a verb and assimilating is a verb & adjective; the most common noun plural is assimilations.

Assimilation in speech elements

Phonetic assimilation describes a sound-change where some phonemes (more typically consonants) shift to become more similar to other nearby sounds.  A common phonological process across languages, assimilation can occur within a word or between words.  Although often heard in normal speech, the frequency increases as delivery becomes more rapid.  Interestingly, assimilation can cause the spoken sound to differ from the accepted correct pronunciation or, to become the accepted form (usually because it makes pronunciation smoother and more "natural"), the latter often making the list of canonical or received speech.  There are various classes of the phenomenon:

Frequently, the word "handbag" is phonetically assimilated (as han-bag).  Lindsay Lohan with Gucci Mini Trapuntata Zumi Dome Bag (left) with Hermes Tote Bag (with assimilated hair color) (centre) and with Chanel Flab Bag in black (right). 

Place assimilation happens typically in rapid speech but in many cases the influence becomes the default for all but the most fastidious.  The classic example is "handbag" where the "n" sound assimilates to the place of articulation of the following "b" sound rendering it more like "m" (nasal assimilation) or the frequently heard "han-bag" (phonetic assimilation).

Progressive Assimilation describes instances when, followed by a bilabial sound A speech sound articulated with both lips, such as in "impossible" or "incredible," the "n", assimilating to the following sound.  It's sometimes cited as an "consonant harmony": is the prefix "in-" becoming assimilated to the following consonant: In "impossible", the "n" sound becomes a bilabial "m" to match the following bilabial "p" sound.  This differs from "vowel harmony" which is less common.  In vowel harmony, the vowel sound in a prefix can assimilate to the following vowel: In words such as "react" or "rearrange," the "i" sound in the prefix "re-" becomes more like the following "i"/ sound in the root.

Phonetic Assimilation: Mr Abbott (Tony Abbott (b 1957, Prime Minister of Australia 2013-2015)) phonetically assimilates as Mr Rabbit (left), Land-Rover (1950 Series I, SWB (80")) phonetically assimilates as lan-drover (centre) and Eric Abetz (b 1958, Liberal Party senator for Tasmania, Australia 1994-2022, member of the Tasmanian House of assembly since 2024) phonetically assimilates as Erica Betts (right).  In the case of Mr Abbott, phoneticians call this "linking": the final "r" sound assimilating to the following vowel sound.

Voicing assimilation is probably one of the most frequently heard (and criticized) forms of assimilation and it's associated not only with certain dialects or working class speech.  In a world like "have", the "v" sound will often assimilate to the voiceless "f" sound when followed by a voiceless sound ("I have to go" gets pronounced as "I haf to go").  Elocution teachers note that the habit is now so widespread that "haf" is the standard form among entire classes.

Among the homophones and word-plays, the comedic possibilities of phonetic assimilation was explored by the actor Ronnie Barker (1929–2005) in a sketch he wrote (under his pseudonym of Gerald Wiley) for the BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) called Four Candles (1976).

Dynasty

Dynasty (pronounced dahy-nuh-stee (US English); din-uh-stee (UK English)

(1) A sequence of rulers from the same family, stock, or group.

(2) The rule of such a sequence.

(3) A series of members of a family who are distinguished for their success in business, wealth creation etc.

(4) In sport, a team or organization which has an extended period of success or dominant performance (technically unrelated to family links or even and great continuity in personnel).

(5) As used specifically in East Asian history, the polity or historical era under the rule of a certain dynasty.

1425-1475: From the Middle English dynastia, from the Middle French dynastie, from the Late Latin dynastia, from the Ancient Greek δυναστεία (dunasteía) (power, dominion, lordship, sovereignty) from dynasthai (have power), of unknown origin.  The adjective dynastic (from 1800) is used when speaking or, relating to or pertaining to a dynasty; dynastical attested since 1730.  A dynast (hereditary ruler) is from the 1630s, from the Late Latin dynastes, from the Greek dynastes (ruler, chief, lord, master).  Synonyms include house & lineage.  Dynasty & dynast are nouns, dynastic & dynastical are adjectives and dynastically is an adverb; the noun plural is dynasties.

The word is widely used of the ruling families of nations associated with royalty (Hapsburg dynasty, Romanov dynasty, Hohenzollern dynasty) and remains the standard term in the historiography of Imperial China (Ming dynasty, Qing dynasty, Song dynasty, Tang dynasty, Yuan dynasty).  In political science it’s a popular use (verging on a slur) to describe the political arrangements concocted when a ruler attempts (sometimes with success) to pass the office (and thus their country) to a descendent (usually the eldest or most demonstrably ruthless son), examples including the Congo, Syria and Cambodia.  Sometimes, polities organized in this manner can give rise to what is known as a subdynasty (which seems never to hyphenated), an idea borrowed from European history when royal families routinely would provide offspring to serve as kings of other states, thereby creating a new dynasty; sometimes this worked well, sometimes not.

In politics, families which some characterize as appearing dynastic can be very sensitive to anything which seems even to hint at the suggestion and the Lee family in Singapore is the standard case study.  Between the rule of Lee Kuan Yew (1923–2015; prime minister of Singapore 1959-1990) and that of his son Lee Hsien Loong (b 1952; Prime Minister of Singapore since 2004) there was gap of over a dozen years (which must not be called an interregnum) and of some interest is whether a similar mechanism will be engineered to enable a third generation to assume office, the previous successor designate having been removed from the plan because of “some unsuitability”.  According to commentators, this means Mr Lee has decided to delay his retirement so a “long runway” is provided on which the next prime minister can emerge (Mr Lee presumably thinking of “runway” in the modern sense of the “catwalk” on which models strut their stuff rather than anything to do with aviation).

While Li Hongyi (b 1987; first-born child of Lee Hsien Loong), has disavowed any interest in a political career, there’s still plenty of time and if, in the fullness of time, “drafted” by the ruling PAP (the People’s Action Party which has been in power since independence in 1959), he may feel it his duty to be “be persuaded”.  Li Hongyi however may simply believe his lineage is too great a disadvantage to overcome.  Earlier, Lee Hsien Loong dismissed suggestions his stellar career (becoming at becoming at 32 the youngest brigadier-general in the history of the Singapore military and prime minister at 53) owed anything to family connections, claiming being the prime minister’s son actually hindered him because people were so anxious to avoid accusations of favoritism.  Interestingly, entertainment personality Kylie Jenner (b 1997) made much the point, claiming it was belonging to a famous family which saw her denied some modelling work.  The Lee family though do seem unusually sensitive to suggestions the scions might unduly benefit from the connection, the Financial Times in 2007 even having to apologize for having published not anything libellous (actually easily done in Singapore) but simply a list of Lee family members in high positions in the island nation.  The current derogatory slang is “nepo baby”, a clipping of nepotism baby, a term one is unlikely to read in the Singaporean press.

Kim I, II & III: The Kim Dynasty, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK, aka North Korea)

Kim I: Kim Il-sung (1912-1994; The Great Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1948-1994 (left).  Like his descendants, The Dear Leader and The Supreme Leader, The Great Leader enjoyed food.  He’s pictured here at lunch with another foodie, comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) (right).

Kim Il-sung held an array of titles during his decades as the DPRK’s dictator, the proliferation not unusual in communist nations where the ruling party’s structures are maintained alongside the formal titles of state with which a nation maintains relations with the rest of the world.  In office for a notable forty five years he was designated premier (head of government) between 1948-1972 and president 1972-1994.  He was head of the Workers' Party of Korea (WPK) between 1949- 1994, and in that role was styled as chairman 1949-1966 and general secretary after 1966.  During his forty-five year rule, there were ten US presidents, six South Korean presidents, nine British prime ministers and ten Australian prime ministers.  He tenure in office also spanned the time of the USSR from its apotheosis under Comrade Stalin to its collapse in 1991. 

Being dead however proved no obstacle to The Great Leader extending his presidency, the collective office “Eternal leaders of Juche Korea” (Chuch'ejosŏnŭi yŏngwŏnhan suryŏng) created in 2016 by the insertion of an enabling line in the preamble to the constitution.  What this amendment did was formalise the position of The Great Leader and his late son Comrade Kim Jong Il (The Dear Leader) as the “eternal leaders” of the DPRK.  Juche is the term used to describe the DPRK’s national philosophy, a synthesis of The Great Leader’s interpretation of (1) Korean tradition and (2) Marxist-Leninist theory.

Funeral of The Great Leader, 1994.

It was an interesting move.  Technically, the office of president was constitutionally established only in 1972.  Prior to that, the role of head of state had been purely ceremonial and held by respected party functionaries, all power exercised by The Great Leader in his capacity as premier and general secretary of the WPK.  So tied to the legend of The Great Leader was the office of president that upon his death in 1994, the position was left vacant, The Dear Leader not granted the title.  That nuance of succession for a while absorbed the interest of the DPRK watchers but attempts to invest the move with any significance abated as DPRK business, though in the more straitened circumstances of the post Soviet world, continued as usual.

The constitution was again revised in 1998.  Being a godless communist state, no fine theological points stood in the way of declaring The Great Leader the DPRK’s "Eternal President", the latest addition to the preamble declaring:

Under the leadership of the Workers' Party of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Korean people will hold the great leader Comrade Kim Il-sung in high esteem as the eternal President of the Republic.

The constitution in its 2012, promulgated after the death of The Dear Leader, again referred to The Great Leader as "eternal President of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea" but, in 2016, The Dear Leader, having apparently been dead for a decent duration, another amendment to the preamble changed the administrative nomenclature of executive eternity to "eternal leaders of Juche Korea", the honor now jointly held by the leaders great & dear.  It was another first for the Kims.

Kim II: Kim Jong-il (1941–2011; The Dear Leader of DPRK (North Korea), 1994-2011).  Pictured here admiring a vegetable, The Dear Leader is accompanied by a general.  DPRK generals wear big hats and always carry a notebook in case the closest Kim says something.  They write it down.

As a construct, the DPRK is best thought of a hereditary theocracy.  Although opaque, its dynamics are now better understood but when The Great Leader died in 1994, neither within the country nor beyond was it widely understood how much of the power structure he controlled had passed to The Dear Leader.  Although the economic circumstances of 1994 were hardly propitious, there seems to have been little doubt about the formal succession, The Dear Leader having been anointed for more than a decade.  The DPRK’s media operation, while not in the conventional sense having a middle class to be made “quite prepared”, had the rest of the country to work on and The Dear Leader was gradually eased into photo opportunities with The Great Leader, eventually making even solo appearances, sometimes in the role of Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army to which he’s been appointed in 1991, despite having no military experience, although, given the minimal battlefield exposure of most of the generals, this might have been less of a problem than it appears.

Perhaps now aware of his own mortality, The Great Leader spent some of the time in the years before his death clearing the decks for the succession, purging the military and civilian ranks of any difficult types who might prove obstacles to The Dear Leader’s ascent.  Some apparently died but it may have been a coincidence; constitutionally the DPRK may be a theocracy but its military and political elite are gerontocracies.  The path was smoothed and, the military command settled, in 1992, The Great Leader announced The Dear Leader was in charge of all the DPRK’s internal affairs.  Curiously, shortly after that, the media began using the honorific “Dear Father” instead of “Dear Leader” but for whatever reason, all official communications soon reverted to the original title and there’s never been any explanation.

Despite all the dynastic help, the indications are it took The Dear Leader sometime fully to assert his authority.  Seriously weird it may appear but, the WPK is just another political party and they all have factions and, in the difficult post-Soviet environment of the 1994 succession, it seems there were genuine discussions within the party about how to deal with the economic problems the DPRK faced.  It frankly didn’t go well but while The Dear Leader may not have learned much economic theory, he proved adept at consolidating his power, adopting the Songun (military first) policy of North Korea, granting the military priority in resource allocation and political influence, not out of any concern about foreign invasion but to ensure the loyalty of what was, in effect, a giant police force to protect the Kim dynasty from a revolt of the people.  Secure in office, The Dear Leader did spasmodically attempt economic reforms but the results were not impressive.

Planning the dynasty: The Dear Leader shaking hands with Japanese-born singer Ko Yong-hui (1952-2004; aka Takada Hime) circa 1972.  She became his consort and would later give birth to Kim III (later The Supreme Leader).  Within the DPRK, her name must never be spoken and she's referred to only by honorific forms, the most commonly use of which is: “The Respected Mother who is the Most Faithful and Loyal 'Subject' to the Dear Leader Comrade Supreme Commander”.

By 1997, he was sufficiently entrenched to engineer his appointment to The Great Leader’s old post as General Secretary of the WPK and a year later, a constitutional amendment declared his role as chairman of the National Defence Commission was "the highest post of the state", presumably among those still alive because the same constitutional reform abolished the office of president and proclaimed The Great Leader to be the DPRK’s "Eternal President".  The year after The Dear Leader’s death in 2011, the constitution was amended to declare him Eternal General Secretary of the WPK and Eternal Chairman of the National Defence Commission.  In 2016, after a decent period of mourning, the new title "Eternal Leaders of Juche Korea" was created and granted to both the Great Leader & Dear Leader.

US actor Elizabeth Gillies (b 1993) appeared as Fallon Carrington on in the television drama Dynasty (2017–2022), a revival of the 1980s soap opera; it was shown in the US on the CW Television Network (episodes streamed internationally on Netflix the next day).  She appeared (far left) in Ariana Grande's (b 1993) music video Thank U, Next (2019), taking the part of Lindsay Lohan in the segment which was a homage to Mean Girls (2004).  While not technically a doppelganger, the degree of resemblance was sufficient for the concept to work.

The reputation of the DPRK as a hermit state cloaked in secrecy is undeserved because there is an official biography of The Dear Leader and from his birth, he was amazing.  He was born inside a log cabin beneath Korea’s most sacred mountain and in the moment of delivery, a shooting star brought forth a spontaneous change from winter to summer and there appeared in the sky, a double rainbow.  The Dear Leader was not subject to bowel movements, never needing to defecate or urinate although it’s not known if this is a genetic characteristic of the dynasty and therefore enjoyed also by The Supreme Leader.  He had a most discriminating palette so The Dear Leader employed staff to inspect every grain of rice by hand to ensure each piece was of uniform length, plumpness, and color, The Dear Leader eating only perfectly-sized rice.  Although he only ever played one round of golf and that on the country’s notoriously difficult 7,700 yard (7040 m) course at Pyongyang, he took only 34 strokes to complete the 18 holes, a round which included five holes-in-ones.  Experienced golfers have cast doubt on the round of 34 (not commenting on the holes-in-one) but the diet of individually inspected & polished grains of rice was thought "at least plausible".  

Funeral of The Dear Leader, 2011.

The car is a 1975 or 1976 Lincoln Continental, built by Moloney Standard Coach Builders on an extended wheelbase.  Lincoln experts say it's a different car to the similar model used in The Great Leader's funeral, the dynasty said to own several and it's believed they were obtained "through sources in Japan".  Uniquely, the Kin dynasty is the only only family said also to own a brace of Mercedes-Benz 600s (M100; 1963-1981) long-roof Landaulets, only twelve of which were built.  Fittingly, the long-roof variants are known casually as the "presidentials" but the factory never officially used the designation.  

The Kims certainly build personality cults but it’s not only the North Koreans who create retrospective honours to acknowledge the uniqueness of a special individual.  George Washington (1732-1799) will forever be the first President of the United States (POTUS) so that’s fine but he retired from the army as a lieutenant general and later appointments of some to more senior ranks bothered some in the military, concerned his primacy in the hierarchy wasn’t adequately honoured.  The later appointments had been (1) Ulysses S Grant (1822–1885) created General of the Army in 1866, (2) John Pershing (1860–1948) appointed General of the Armies in 1919 and (3) nine of the World War II (1939-1945) generals and admirals who were appointed to the newly formalised five star rank as Generals of the Army and Fleet Admirals respectively.  Where Washington stood in this potpourri of stars and titles wasn’t clear until 1978 when, after years of discussions of the difficulties inherent in solving the problem, in a surprisingly simple act of internal Army administration, Washington posthumously was promoted to General of the Armies of the United States, making him eternally the US military’s most senior officer.

Kim III: Kim Jong-un (b circa 1982; The Supreme Leader (originally The Great Successor) of DPRK (North Korea) since 2011).  The Supreme Leader is pictured here with South Korean foreign minister, Chung Eui-yong (b 1946).

Inheriting the family business at a much younger age than The Dear Leader, The Supreme Leader, didn’t benefit (or suffer) from the long public gestation period his father was provided by The Great Leader.  It was in 2009, about two years before The Dear Leader’s death that the media began reporting the youngest son, was to be the DPRK’s next leader although at that stage, he was referred to as The Brilliant Comrade, the honorific The Great Successor not adopted until after The Dear Leader’s death and it was soon replaced by The Supreme Leader.  For whatever reason, and the speculation and conspiracy theories are many, Kim III more quickly assumed his panoply of offices and titles than his immediate ancestor.  

Announced on state television as The Great Successor, The Supreme Leader was appointed General Secretary of the WPK, Chairman of the Central Military Commission, and President of the State Affairs Commission, followed soon afterwards by a promotion to the army’s highest military rank, Marshal of the Korean People's Army, adding to his position as Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces (exactly the same constitutional arrangement adopted by Hitler as commander-in-chief of both OKH (Oberkommando des Heeres (High Command of the Army)) and OKW (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (High Command of the Armed Forces)).  Great minds do think alike.  Confusingly, having already morphed from The Brilliant Comrade to The Great Successor to The Supreme Leader, references also appeared calling him The Dear Respected Leader but thankfully the proliferation seems now to have stopped.  In office, he has pursued 병진 (byungjin (literally "parallel development")), a refinement of The Great Leader’s policy simultaneously to develop both the economy and the military, his particular emphasis in the latter a focus on nuclear weapons and inter-continental delivery systems.  It may be an attempt to avoid the problems inherent in the “Waffen und Butter” (guns and butter) programme pursued by the Nazi regime (despite the international perception) as late as the first three years of World War II (1939-1945).

Although Kim III is no longer referred to as The Great Successor, there have been great successes.  Despite Western propaganda, there are elections in the DPRK and when The Supreme Leader sought a seat in the Supreme People's Assembly, there was a record turnout of voters and he received 100% of the votes cast.  Although it’s hard to determine the veracity of many of the reports, it’s suggested he’s an innovator in matters of military discipline, new methods used by firing squads said to include flame throwers, and anti-aircraft cannons, both said to make quite a mess although it's difficult to know how high is the body count, some reported executed later turning up alive and well.  Worth a mention though is the assassination in 2017 of his exiled half-brother Kim Jong-nam (1971-2017), killed with the nerve agent VX while walking through Kuala Lumpur International Airport, a novel twist on the extra-judicial execution being the use of two aspiring starlets to deliver the VX; they believed they were being filmed as part of a reality TV show. Most celebrated has been the nuclear programme and the increasingly bigger and longer-range missiles paraded from time to time.  Underground nuclear tests being hard to monitor, it remains unclear whether the devices tested are the long de rigueur plutonium weapons or, for the first time since the one-off A-Bomb used in Hiroshima in 1945, made using uranium.  Most recently, state media has announced the complete success in avoiding COVID-19 with no cases reported in the republic so, on any basis of calculation, The Supreme Leader has supervised the most successful COVID-19 strategy on Earth.

The Supreme Leader has also drawn the interest of the pro ana community because of his remarkable weight loss.  Whether his motivation was (1) concerns about his health, being a bit chubby, (2) a wish to look more sexy and attractive to younger women or (3) display some solidarity with his subjects, many of whom were suffering food shortages, his weight-loss regime has been a success, experts estimating, on the basis of photographic evidence, that he has probably shed up to 25-30 kg (65-80 lb).  This is good but has created a problem for the small number of people in the entertainment business who work as as Kim Jong-il impersonators, some of who have sought guidance from the pro ana community.  For security reasons, The Supreme Leader is known also to employ body doubles and it's not known if they're currently being starved or have already been shot and replaced with thinner models.  

After the weight loss he seems in such rude good health that, still not forty, there’s no reason he may not rule perhaps even longer than his grandfather’s forty-five years.  Ever since the demise of the USSR in 1991, analysts have been predicting the imminent demise of the communist regimes in both Pyongyang and Havana but they seem to muddle through, the DPRK of late enjoying new sources of foreign exchange, branching out from industrial-scale drug production and the smuggling of oil and minerals to the new field of cybercrime; even in the niche market of fake news they're said to run a small operation.

Backdrop

Backdrop (pronounced bak-drop)

(1) In theatre, the rear curtain of a stage setting (in the UK, often known as the back-cloth.

(2) The background of an event; the setting; the background to any scene or situation.

(3) In photography etc, to provide a setting or background for shots.

(4) Figuratively, any background situation.

(5) In gymnastics, a manoeuvre in which a trampolinist jumps in the air, lands on the back with the arms and legs pointed upward, and then springs up to a standing position.

(6) In professional (choreographed entertainment) wrestling, a self explanatory set piece move.

(7) To serve as a backdrop for.

1883: From the London theatrical argot meaning “the painted cloth hung at the back of a stage as part of the scenery”, the construct being the adjective back + the noun drop.  The word was adopted in the US theatre circa 1915.  Back was from the Middle English bak, from the Old English bæc (rear part of the body), from the Proto-West Germanic bak, from the Proto-Germanic baką & bakam, possibly from the primitive Indo-European bhago- (to bend; to curve) and may be compared with the Middle Low German bak (back), from the Old Saxon bak, the West Frisian bekling (chair back), the Old High German bah, and the Swedish and Norwegian bak.  It was cognate with the German Bache (sow (adult female hog)).  Drop was from the Middle English droppe & drope (small quantity of liquid; small or least amount of something; pendant jewel; dripping of a liquid; a shower; nasal flow, catarrh; speck, spot; blemish; disease causing spots on the skin), from the Old English dropa (a drop), from the Proto-West Germanic dropō (drop (of liquid)), from the Proto-Germanic drupô (drop (of liquid)), from the primitive Indo-European drewb- (to crumble, grind).  Figuratively, backdrop is used as a reference to something happening concurrently with whatever is being discussed.  It provides a background context which can be used to explain events or situations and in many cases can be thought of as a parallel narrative such as : “The 1968 US presidential election was conducted with the war in Vietnam as the backdrop.”  The word backdroppery is an irregular formation used in criticism of “political spin”.  Backdrop is a noun & verb, backdropped, backdropt & backdropping are verbs; the noun plural is backdrops.

Stage backdrop for Mean Girls the Musical by Scott Pask Studios, August Wilson Theatre, Broadway, New York, December 2018.

The theatre began as background used live theatre, creating a three-dimensional effect which meant the audience had the impression of the stage having greater depth.  Originally, they were large pieces of material or assembled cardboard, the designs of which interacted with the stage lighting and in larger theatres, for each performance, there may have been several backdrops, each raised or lowered as demanded by scene changes.  In recent years, the development of high definition lighting projection has meant backdrops are often virtualized and the deployment of LEDs (light emitting diodes) has meant extraordinary degrees of realism are now possible.

Lindsay Lohan on the red carpet in front of media walls.

Media walls are a particular type of backdrop which are constructed usually as flat surfaces, their sole purpose almost always being the display of corporate logos.  The dimensions of media walls are dictated by the positioning of the cameras which will record images of those who appear in front of them.  In some circumstances, they can be only a few feet wide and little taller than human height but usually they’re much larger.  Like theatre or photographic backdrops, media wall designers in recent years have embraced electronics as advances have meant striking effects have become possible at a lower price point, an important consideration give that while theatre backdrops might serve for weeks, months or even years, media walls are one-off creations which tend to have a life-span of hours.  Thus, digital screens, LED panels, or projections to showcase dynamic content are now sometimes included in media walls but such designers do have to be cognizant of the purpose; media walls still usually there as a backdrop for filming or photography.

Weddings, parties etc: Static backdrops for hire.

Static backdrops are provided (and often hired) for specific events, typically domestic celebrations such as weddings and birthday parties.  They are thus optimized for photography and tend to be on the small scale which accommodates the camera lens.  They can be as simple as a curtain or a fake window (sometime even with a built-in panorama of rolling hills, oceans etc) or can be as kitsch as one’s imagination can descend to.

Pardon

Pardon (pronounced pahr-dn)

(1) A kind indulgence, as in forgiveness of an offense or discourtesy or in tolerance of a distraction or inconvenience.

(2) In law, release from the penalty of an offense; a remission of penalty, as by a governor, monarch or viceroy.

(3) Forgiveness of a serious offense or offender.

(4) In Roman Catholic canon law, a technical term for a papal indulgence (obsolete).

(5) To make a courteous allowance for or to excuse.

(6) When used with rising inflection, as an elliptical form, as when asking a speaker to repeat something not clearly heard or understood (non-U).

1250-1300: From the Middle English pardonen or pardoun (papal indulgence, forgiveness of sins or wrongdoing), from Old French pardon from pardoner (to grant; to forgive; remission, indulgence (which entered Modern French in the eleventh century as pardonner), from the Medieval Latin perdonum, from the Vulgar Latin perdōnāre (to remit, overlook (literally “to forgive”)), the construct being per- (for; through, thoroughly) + dōnāre (to give, donate) which emerged in Medieval Latin, though a translation from a Germanic source possibly a calque (if not vice-versa) of a Germanic word represented by the Frankish firgeban (to forgive, give up completely) which was akin to the Old High German fargeban & firgeban (to forgive) and the Old English forġiefan (to forgive).  The Latin per was from the primitive Indo-European root per- (forward (hence “through”)) and donare was from donum (gift), from the primitive Indo-European root donum (gift), from the root do- (to give).  The verb pardon was from pardounen, (to forgive for offense or sin).  The noun pardoner (a man licensed to sell papal pardons or indulgences) was a late fourteenth century form (it was noted earlier in the 1300s as a surname), the agent noun from the verb.  The adjective pardonable (forgivable, capable of being pardoned) was a mid-fifteenth century form from the twelfth century Old French pardonable, from pardoner.  Some sources insist pardonable was a back-formation from pardonable which is interesting.  The meaning “a passing over of an offense without punishment” was first noted around the turn of the fourteenth century (also in the strictly ecclesiastical sense) while as a “pardon for a civil or criminal offense; release from penalty or obligation”, use emerged in the late 1300s (mirroring the earlier Anglo-French).  The use in polite society to “request one be excused for some minor fault” was in use by at least the 1540s.

Pardon is one of those “cross-over words”, migrating from the technical use (an act by an official or a superior, remitting all or the remainder of the punishment that belongs to an offense (eg a sovereign or governor pardoning a convict before expiration of the sentence)) to become a synonym for “forgive” in the sense of feelings or social mores.  By convention, asking for another’s pardon re-establishes amicable relations between transgressor and the offended.  In idiomatic use, dating from the mid seventeenth century, the phrase “I beg your pardon” (the variations including “beg pardon”, “begging your pardon”, “pardon me” etc) is used (1) to apologise for something (typically a social faux pas), (2) to request clarification of something said if it is unexpected, odd or seen as rude without context and (3) to request something be repeated.  In the last case, Nancy Mitford (1904–1973) in Noblesse Oblige: An Enquiry Into the Identifiable Characteristics of the English Aristocracy (1956) insisted “pardon” was a non-U (lower & middle class) word and the “U” (upper class) form was “what?”.  The phrase “pardon my French” was an exclamation of apology for obscene language, noted since the late nineteenth century.  Pardon is a noun, verb & interjection, pardoning is a verb & noun, pardoned is a verb & adjective, pardonableness & pardoner are nouns, pardonable & pardonless are adjectives and pardonably is an adverb; the noun plural is pardons.

Pardons from the president: Without check or balance

Article Two of the United States Constitution describes the office of the President.  One of the powers granted is that he or she may grant reprieves and pardons except regarding congressional impeachment of himself or other federal officers.  A president cannot issue a pardon for future actions; he can't pardon someone in advance for something someone does next week.  The pardon power is reserved for past actions and the president can pardon an individual even if he or she has not yet been convicted or even charged.

An executive pardon can be invoked to help victims of injustice.

It's an interesting power and the only one in the US constitution not subject to "checks and balances", an inheritance of one of the entitlements enjoyed by absolute and later monarchs.  The power, in the form exercised by a US president, doesn't exist in the UK or elsewhere in the Commonwealth where, when a pardon is granted, it’s a decision of the executive (the prime-minister (or premier) & cabinet) which is done in the name of the sovereign or their representative; in other words, by the state.  It’s different from vesting the power as a personal prerogative of an individual; US presidents have granted pardons which would have no chance of success were they subject to confirmation by the Senate.

The most interesting recent speculation about the presidential pardon is whether as president can pardon themselves.  This was something Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) probably pondered with especial interest during the diggings of special counsel Robert Mueller's (b 1944; Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2001-2013) into certain matters relating to the 2016 presidential election.  Mr Trump did tweet suggesting he could pardon himself even though there's no precedent, no president has ever done so (though at least one was surely tempted) and all that is certain is that the chief magistrate has the power to grant pardons "for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment."  That means he couldn't have pardoned himself from impeachment, nor anyone facing charges under state laws, and when asked, most constitutional law experts suggested he couldn't have pardoned himself for anything else either.  However, even if a presidential self-pardon were to be held to be constitutional, politically, it would be a challenge to manage so an extra-constitutional check on the power is political; the court of public opinion as it were.

When there was mush speculation about a possible prosecution of Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) for matters associated with the Watergate scandal, the Justice Department did issue an opinion saying a president could not pardon himself because, under long-established legal principle, no person can be the judge in their own case.  So, the legal status of a self-pardon has never been tested because, at the federal level, it’s never been done and nothing is definitive until ruled upon by the US Supreme Court.  There are records of state governors self-pardoning but one instance appears to have been technical, one a clerical error and one so murky it not clear what happened.  The state of US politics is now both so poisonous and so fluid that a second term for Mr Trump is no longer unthinkable if the Democrat Party insists on nominating Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) it become more likely still.  Mr Biden may or may not be senile but he certainly seems senile.  In his first term, Mr Trump proved remarkably uninterested in pursuing any of the vendettas he'd mentioned during the 2016 campaign; when asked if he would be pursuing the threatened legal action against the Clintons, he brushed off the question with a quick "...they're good people" and moved on.  In a second term, given the events of the last few years, he may not be so indulgent towards those who have slighted or pursued him so there's the intriguing prospect of an elected president attempting to pardon himself so he can move into the Oval Office and begin his revenge.  Interestingly, constitutional experts have all said that even if a self-pardon is declared unconstitutional, there is nothing to prevent a convicted felon being elected president from his jail cell, a place which would certainly focus one's mind on revenge.           

Pardons from God (via the pope)

In late medieval Christianity, the noun pardonmonger was a derogatory term directed at those who sold papal indulgences; the noun plural pardonmongers should also be noted because there were a lot of them about.  The indulgences had become big business in the medieval church and their abuse was one of the emblematic issues which triggered the Protestant Reformation.  The system worked by permitting a (sinful) individual to purchase from the church an indulgence which would reduce the length and severity of punishment that heaven would require as payment for their transgressions.  Indulgences were in a sense transferable because one could buy one for another and according to legend, those on their death bed would implore relations to buy them one so they would avoid an eternal damnation in Hell.

Historically, the indulgence system was able to evolve because the doctrine of the medieval western Christian church (the Eastern Orthodox would follow a different path) was: (1) Folk knew that after they died they were going to be punished for the sins they accumulated in life, something ameliorated only partially by good works (pilgrimage, prayers, charitable work etc) and earthly absolution; the more sin, the greater the punishment and (2) There was the concept of purgatory, a product of the theological imagination which meant that rather than being damned to hell, the sinful soul would be sent to purgatory where they would endure whatever punishment deemed appropriate, the suffering continuing until the stain was washed from them and they could be set free.  This was obviously not an attractive prospect and seeing a way to cement in society the world-view that church, God & sin were central, popes granted bishops the authority to reduce punishments while they were still alive.  It proved a highly useful tool in making unshakable the worldview in which the church, God and sin were central.

Quite when papal indulgences were first introduced isn’t known but the system was formalized by Pope Urban II (circa 1035–1099; pope 1088-1099) during the Council of Clermont in 1095.  The protocols reflected the diligent order which characterized church bureaucracy: Were one to perform sufficient good deeds to earn a full (Plenary) indulgence from the pope or a bishop, all sins would be expunged (and thus no punishment).  Partial indulgences would erase fewer evil deeds and an intricate system of layers came to be used; essentially an algorithm with which a cleric could calculate (to the day!) how much sin a person had wiped from their record.  Indulgences rapidly developed into a significant structural aspect of church administration and during the Crusades (Urban II’s other great contribution to history), many participated on the basis that in exchange for fighting to regain the Holy Land, they would be granted an indulgence, cancelling all sin.

This system of reducing sin and punishment worked well and having people perform good deeds (whatever the motivation) presumably made for a more harmonious society.  However, in something with a modern echo, rich people began to wonder why, instead of the time consuming, boring or sometimes distasteful business of actually doing good deeds, might it not be easier just to purchase an indulgence, the church thereby able to use the funds for good deeds.  The early example of outsourcing began in the thirteenth century and proved so popular (and profitable) for both governments and the church that it became an important revenue source, the catchment soon extended to allow the rich to buy indulgences for their ancestors, relatives, and friends already dead. 

The nature of this business soon became scandalous, notably during the reign of the Medici Pope Leo X (1475–1521; pope 1513-1521) and indulgences were among the issues the monk Martin Luther (1483–1546) listed in his 95 Theses (1517), a j’accuse directed at what he believed to be an institutionalized corruption and in saying that, Luther had a point, the pope having commissioned a Dominican friar to sell indulgences for the sole purpose of the construction of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome.  Luther’s attack led to fragmentation within the church, many new sects abandoning the idea of indulgences and while the papacy banned the sale of indulgences in 1567, they didn’t entirely vanish and this wasn’t enough to prevent the subsequent schism within Western Christianity.  So, in the modern Roman Catholic Church, indulgences still exist but they no longer work in the medieval way when they could be something like a presidential pardon.  According to the Vatican: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, which the faithful Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain defined conditions through the Church’s help when, as a minister of redemption, she dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the satisfactions won by Christ and the saints”.  The salient points of the system are:

(1) A person cannot buy their way out of hell with indulgences.  Because indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that and the only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive; after death, one’s eternal fate is set.

(2) One cannot buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.  Historically, the church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed although it’s clear some were sold on that basis prior to the Protestant Reformation.  The position now is that: “An indulgence is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power.”  Theologically that may sound dubious because presumably God could grant exactly that but, as any pope will tell you, God never would.

(3) An indulgence does not “buy forgiveness” because, by definition, the issue of an indulgence presupposes forgiveness has already taken place: “An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven.”  Indulgences therefore do not forgive sins and deal only with the punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

(4) It is not true an indulgence will shorten one’s time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.  While it’s true that prior to the Reformation such calculations did appear in documents, the church maintains these were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth and the Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less any specific.

(5) Indulgences may not be purchased.  The Council of Trent (1545-1563) instituted many reforms in the practice of granting indulgences and, because of prior abuses, “...in 1567 Pope Pius V (1504–1572; pope 1566-1572) cancelled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions.”  To this day the Roman Catholic Church maintains indulgences were “never sold”, an interpretation of history still used by politicians and political parties when explain why donations (sometimes in the millions) are really “not buying anything”.