Draft

Draft (pronounced drahft)

(1) An initial drawing, sketch, or design.

(2) A first or preliminary form of any writing, subject to revision.

(3) The act of drawing; delineation.

(4) A current of air in any enclosed space, especially in a room, chimney, stove or through a door or window frame; a current of air moving in an upward or downward direction.

(5) A device for regulating the current of air in a stove, fireplace etc.

(6) The act of drawing or pulling loads; something that is drawn or pulled; a haul; an animal or team of animals used to pull a load.

(7) The force required to pull a load; in rail transport, the pulling force (tension) on couplers and draft gear during a slack stretched condition.

(8) The taking of supplies, forces, money etc, from a given source.

(9) A selection or drawing of persons, by lot or otherwise, from a subset of the population; levy; conscription or the persons so selected; in professional sport, the selecting or drawing of new players from a choice group of amateur players by professional teams, especially a system of selecting new players so that each team in a professional league receives some of the most promising players.

(10) In military use, a selection of persons already in military service to be sent from one post or organization to another; detachment.

(11) A written order drawn by one person upon another; a writing directing the payment of money on account of the drawer; bill of exchange; A drain or demand made on anything.

(12) As draft beer, a type drawn from a keg or barrel rather than glass or can.

(13) Something that is taken in by drinking or inhaling; a drink; dose.

(14) A quantity of fish caught; the catch or haul (archaic).

(15) In admiralty use, the depth to which a vessel is immersed when bearing a given load.

(16) In Metallurgy, the slight taper given to a pattern so that it may be drawn from the sand without injury to the mold; also called leave.

(17) In steel fabrication, the change in sectional area of a piece of work caused by a rolling or drawing operation.

(18) In stone masonry, a line or border chiseled at the edge of a stone, to serve as a guide in leveling the surfaces.

(19) In the production of textiles, the degree of attenuation produced in fibers during yarn processing, expressed either by the ratio of the weight of raw to the weight of processed fiber, or by the ratio between the varying surface speeds of the rollers on the carding machine.

(20) An allowance granted to a buyer for waste of goods sold by weight.

(21) Ad drafting, in cycling & motorsport, to drive or ride close behind another car so as to benefit from the reduction in air pressure created behind the car or bike ahead; also called slipstreaming.

(22) In hydrology, the divergent duct leading from a water turbine to its tailrace.

(23) To separate a group of livestock from the rest of the herd (Australia & NZ).

(24) In apothecarial use, a measured portion of a liquid or aerosol medication; a dose.

(25)In politics, a system of forcing or convincing (at least nominally unwilling) people to take an elected position.

(26) A checker: a game piece used in the game of draughts.

(27) In medicine, a mild vesicatory (UK, obsolete).

(28) An outhouse: an outbuilding used as a lavatory (obsolete).

(29) In pre-modern military use, a sudden attack upon an enemy (obsolete).

Circa 1500: A spelling variant of the Middle English draught, from Old English dræht, related to dragan (to draw, drag), from Proto-Germanic drahtuz, noun form of draganą.  Root in English is draw, from the Middle English drawen, draȝen, dragen, from Old English dragan (to draw, drag, pull”), from Proto-Germanic draganą, from the primitive dreǵ (to draw, pull).  It was cognate with the West Frisian drage, the Dutch dragen, the German tragen (to carry), the Danish drage, the Albanian dredh (to turn, spin), the Old Armenian դառնամ (daṙnam) (to turn) and the Sanskrit ध्रजस् (dhrájas) (gliding course or motion).  Draught is a variant spelling of draft and is normally pronounced the same way (draft or drahft or with a vowel somewhere between “a” and “ah”). The pronunciation drawt is sometimes heard for draught, perhaps because “aught” is frequently pronounced awt elsewhere, as in caught and taught.

Caught in the draft:  A Lindsay Lohan wardrobe malfunction, MTV Movie Awards, 2008.

The emergence of draft circa 1500 reflected a change in pronunciation although both it and draught are now pronounced the same.  The meanings "rough copy of a writing" and “something drawn" is attested from the fourteenth century; that of "preliminary sketch from which a final copy is made" is from the 1520s; that of "flow of a current of air" was first noted circa 1770.  The descriptor of a type of beer is from the 1830s, in reference to the method of "drawing" it from the cask.  As applied to a bank draft, later extended to bills of exchange, meaning emerged in 1745. The meaning "a drawing off a group for special duty" is from 1703 and applies especially to military service; the verb in this sense first recorded 1714.  Related forms are the adjectives draftable, undraftable, undrafted & antidraft, the nouns drafter & redraft (also a verb) and the verb redraft.

Except in the US and places which have adopted US English, draft and draught seem now to be alternative spellings and while the old distinctions of use remain technically correct, modern practice appears to be to use them interchangeably.  Draft almost universal in American English and draught persists elsewhere for purposes where the historical association is most strong (draught horse, draught beer etc).  Draftee (person conscripted for military purposes) dates from 1864 in US English, the adjectival homophone drafty (exposed to drafts of air) is from the 1580s, draftiness a few years later.  Updraft (US) and updraught (rising air current) is from 1909, one of a rush of words created or adapted from others to serve the new field of aviation.  Draftsman (one who draws or prepares plans, sketches, or designs) is from the 1660s, a variant of the earlier draughtsman.  In finance, overdraft (action of overdrawing an account) dates from 1841 and by 1891 the meaning had extended to "amount by which a draft exceeds the sum against which it is drawn".  Unrelated was the use by 1884 of overdraft to describe “a draft of air passing over, but not through, the ignited fuel”, a use applied to ovens & furnaces.

Draught (act of pulling or drawing; quantity of liquid that one drinks at a time), the source of all this dates from circa 1200, from the Old English dreaht & dræht and related to dragan (to draw, drag).  The oldest recorded sense besides that of "pulling" is of "drinking", one suggestion being the idea of "so much as is drawn down the throat at once", a similar relationship drag has to the act of inhaling from a cigarette.  Draught is attested from circa 1300 as having some connection with "that which is drawn or written" although it seems clear the original meaning referred to writing in general, not “first draft” as is now understood.  In the UK, more than anywhere else, draught retains the functions (horses, beer etc) that did not branch off with draft.

Catching the draft, the Mercedes-Benz of Valtteri Bottas & Lewis Hamilton, Italian Grand Prix qualifying, Monza, September 2020.

In motorsport, drafting (also called slipstreaming) is a driving technique which exploits being in the slipstream of the vehicle to reduce the drag suffered by one’s own vehicle.  As a general principle, the higher the speeds involved, the lower the average energy expenditure required to maintain a certain speed.  Because it can have the effect also of reducing the turbulence between the vehicles, it can also offer a slight advantage to the lead vehicle.  The advantage gained in reducing the energy expenditure manifests as reduced fuel consumption which can be a strategic advantage but the most dramatic effect of “catching the draft” is the so-called “slingshot effect” whereby a vehicle coming out of the slipstream can use the conserved power to pass the vehicle it’s been deliberately following.

Six-Pack: Three drafters and three draftees drafting, Daytona 500, Daytona Beach, Florida, 2011.

The technique began to be well-understood in the 1960s but wasn’t without risk.  A vehicle of one shape could produce a different slipstream than another and at high-speed, slight differences can have a pronounced effect, the results for the trailing car unpredictable.  Additionally, sitting in the draft, enjoying the lower wind-resistance, although it allowed a higher speed to be attained, also meant a reduction in down-force and consequent instability.  The advantages and dangers are best illustrated on the faster oval speedways used by NASCAR.  On the straights, two or more vehicles will race faster when aligned front-to-rear than a single car, the low-pressure wake behind the leading car reducing the aerodynamic resistance on the front of the trailing car allowing the second car to pull closer.  As the second car nears the first it pushes high-pressure air forward so less fast-moving air hits the lead car's spoiler.  The result is less drag for both cars, allowing faster speeds.  On curves however, the load on one side of the car is higher, this accentuated by changes caused by the draft: the leading car has normal front downforce but less rear downforce.  The trailing car has less front downforce but normal rear downforce.  In a group of three or more, the vehicles with drafting partners both ahead and behind will lose downforce front and rear.

Firecracker 400, Daytona Beach, Florida, 1974.

In NASCAR’s 1974 Firecracker 400, the lead changed forty-five times, a record which would stand until 2010 and it’s remembered also for one of the sport’s most audacious uses of drafting.  As he was about to start the final lap, David Pearson (1973 Mercury #21) feigned engine troubles by slowing and dropping low on the track, forcing the slipstreaming Richard Petty (1974 Dodge #43) to swerve into the lead.  Person then was able to sit in Petty’s slipstream, drafting past on the final corner to win the race.  Petty’s reaction, recorded in the press box after the race, was so memorable it was transcribed and published in next morning’s Orlando Sentinel.

Protocol

Protocol (pronounced proh-tuh-kawl, proh-tuh-kol or proh-tuh-kohl)

(1) In government (applied especially to the diplomatic service), the customs and regulations dealing with diplomatic formality, precedence, and etiquette.

(2) By extension, an accepted code of conduct; acceptable behavior in a given situation or group.

(3) In diplomacy or other intra- & inter-governmental relations, an original draft, minute, or record from which a document, especially a treaty, is prepared.

(4) An agreement between states (or other national or international entities) or a supplementary international agreement (some notably being secret).

(5) An annex to a treaty containing technical data, definitions etc.

(6) In clinical medicine, the plan of a patient's treatment regimen (which can be a generalized document).

(7) In academic research (especially in medical trials including living subjects), the details, standards & safeguards etc.

(8) In computing, a set of rules governing the format in which data must exist to communicate between devices.

(9) In philosophy, a statement reporting an observation or experience in the most fundamental terms (ie without any commentary or other interpretative layers (and sometimes taken as the basis of empirical verification, as of scientific laws).  It’s known also as the protocol statement, protocol sentence & protocol proposition

(10) To draft, submit for consideration or issue a protocol; to make a protocol of; to make or write protocols; to issue protocols (actual use now probably extinct although such forms do still exist in some diplomatic manuals).

(11) In the Roman Catholic Church, (1) the introduction of a liturgical preface, immediately following the Sursum corda (lift up your hearts) dialogue & (2) an official list (technical details or consequential documents) which, since the late nineteenth century have sometimes been appended (at the beginning or end) to documents such as charters and papal bulls.

1535–1545: From the earlier protocoll, from the Middle French protocolle & protocole (document, record), from the Medieval Latin prōtocollum, from the Byzantine Greek πρωτόκολλον (prōtókollon) (the first kóllēma (a leaf or tag) glued to a rolled papyrus manuscript, listing the contents), the construct being πρῶτος (prôtos) (first) + κόλλα (kólla) (glue).  A kóllēma was “something bound or glued together”.  Proto- was a learned borrowing from the Ancient Greek πρωτο- (prōto-) from πρῶτος (prôtos) (first), superlative of πρό (pró) (before).  In the mid-fifteenth century the spelling prothogol had been used (meaning literally “prologue”) and by the 1540s prothogall (draft of a document, minutes of a transaction or negotiation, original of any writing”, again from the thirteenth century French prothocole (which in Modern French persists as protocole) was in use.  Protocol is a noun & verb, protocolar is a noun, protocoled & protocolled are verbs and protocolary & protocolic are adjectives; the noun plural is protocols.

The plural form was kollēmata (sheets of papyrus glued together to form a roll) and on the basis of those extant or referenced elsewhere, each was typically between 16-24 sheets which, when un-rolled, extended to between 18-30 feet (5.5-9 m).  It’s not clear when use began but the earliest documented evidence of use is from the early medieval period.  A tube-like prōtókollon (usually of a rougher form of parchment but some seem to have been made from tree bark) protected a rolled-up scroll and the original was similar to what in modern publishing came to be called the colophon (containing variously copyright details, a mark of authentication, the date of publication, the font and typesetting data and the name of the author) although the usual function was to list a summary of the contents, any errata or the purpose of the work.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (with preface and explanatory notes), The Patriotic Publishing Co., Chicago, 1934.  Ludwig Rosenberger Library of Judaica.

All such things were of course those which comprised the framework of government & diplomacy and, by the mid-nineteenth century, French bureaucrats had formalized the protocol as (1) “an official record of a transaction & a diplomatic document” (especially an agreement between states to achieve certain things by peaceful means) and (2) “official norms of behavior or etiquette to be maintained between states and their ministers”.  The later sense was understood in English by at least 1896 and by 1952 it was in common use to describe “civilized behavior” in society generally, becoming a popular word in the etiquette guides which proliferated (along with the middle class) in the post-war years.  Long in thrall to all things French, the use relating to matters etiquette was late in the nineteenth century picked up by Russian diplomats and from the Tsar’s court it entered various state apparatuses (of which the Tsar had many), the foreign ministry creating protokóls for everything from the thickness of the carpet allowed in offices according to the rank of the occupant to the form of words to be used when declaring war.  The police used protokól as a heading of “official police records of a case, interview or incident” although the use in Russia will forever be associated with the infamous forgery Протоколы сионских мудрецов (Protokoly sionskikh mudretsov) (The Protocols of the (Learned) Elders of Zion (1903)), an anti-Semitic tract published in English under the title The Jewish Peril (1920).  Although debunked as a forgery as early as 1921, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion enjoyed a remarkable life in the twentieth century, accepted as authentic even by some otherwise respectable professors and it remains widely available.  It purports to be the minutes of a secret meeting held by Jewish leaders (known as the Elders of Zion), who met allegedly to conspire to control the world, manipulate governments, and establish a global Jewish domination.  There have been a number of theories about the origin of the protocols and its spread has been compared to the conspiracy theories published by QAnon on 4Chan and other places in that such things rely less on the authenticity of their content than the accessibility to an audience which, even in embryonic form, already maintains those views.

In computing, the terms "protocol" and "parameter" are (casually) sometimes used interchangeably and while it is true protocols contain many parameters, correctly, the two words refer to different concepts.  A protocol is a set of rules and conventions, the best known of which are those which govern the communication between devices in a network; it defines the format, timing, sequencing, and error control of the data packets which are the messages exchanged between these entities.  The significance of protocols is that they ensure diverse devices and systems can interact effectively, removing the need for the hardware to be substantially similar and in that they can be compared with operating systems which sit atop sometimes very different hardware.  The best known network protocols include HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) and SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) although two of the oldest (RS-232, RS-422 & RS-485) serial communications protocols are still in use in the odd niche. By contrast, a parameter is a variable, a value passed to a function, procedure, or command in order to customize its behavior or provide input for its execution.  Parameters are helpful because they allow software to be flexible and adaptable by accepting different inputs without demanding changes to the code.  Parameters may be compared to the range of adjustments offered by the driver’s seat in a car.  Were no adjustments available, manufacturers would have to produce different models for people of different heights.

Lindsay Lohan released NFTs based on Trons’s TRC-721 protocol (functionally similar to Ethereum’s ERC-721).

The recent collapse in the non fungible token (NFT) market surprised few of the analysts who had predicted a bubble market based on selling something “non-fungible” which merely referenced something inherently fungible and infinitely duplicable wouldn’t long last and would be among the first victims of any instability in the wider economy.  Analysts always enjoy being able to say “I told you so”.  Still, the NFTs themselves (in the sense of the object on a blockchain) have a robustness which offers much promise as a kind of macro-title document and, if regulators can agree, the concept may have a future in fields like land title or ownership certificates for traded, high-value collectables.  The infrastructure is certainly beyond the embryonic because a number of blockchains have added support for NFTs since Ethereum created its ERC-721 standard.  ERC-721 is an “inheritable” protocol which means developers can create contracts by copying from a reference implementation, a contract able to be tracked to the owner of a unique identifier and it includes a mechanism by which ownership can be transferred.  Ethereum also developed the ERC-1155 protocol which (a little misleadingly), they described as offering a “semi-fungibility” whereby a token represents a class of interchangeable assets.  Ethereum did however demonstrate the inherent flexibility of the NFT approach even if they did little to improve the transactional speed although, if the protocols have a future in low-volume, high-value items such as land or collectable physical objects, that really matters little.  There were though other approaches and the Tron Network released their NFT model using Proof-of-Stake (PoS) which differs from Ethereum’s Proof-of-Work (PoW) based blockchain.  PoS & Tron’s TRC-721 protocol, cheaper and faster to use, attracted Lindsay Lohan when she released some “collectables” as NFTs.

Coterminous

Coterminous (pronounced koh-tur-muh-nuhs)

(1) In geography, having the same border or covering the same area; bordering; contiguous; having matching boundaries; or, adjoining and sharing a boundary.

(2) Being the same in extent; coextensive in range, scope, time etc.

(3) Of objects or abstractions, meeting end to end or at the ends.

(4) By extension, anything having the same scope, range of meaning, or extent in time. 

(5) In the law of real property, linked or related property leases which expire together.

1790–1800: A re-formation of the earlier conterminous, from the Latin conterminus, the construct being con- (with) + terminus (border, end).  The con- prefix was from the Middle English con-, from the Latin con-, from the preposition cum (with), from the Old Latin com, from the Proto-Italic kom, from the primitive Indo- European ḱóm (next to, at, with, along).  It was cognate with the Proto-Germanic ga- (co-), the Proto-Slavic sъ(n) (with) and the Proto-Germanic hansō.  It was used with certain words to add a notion similar to those conveyed by with, together, or joint or with certain words to intensify their meaning.  Terminus was from the primitive Indo-European térmn̥ (boundary) of uncertain origin but perhaps from terh- (pass through).  It was cognate with the Ancient Greek τέρμα (térma) (a goal) and τέρμων (térmōn) (a border) and although contested, some etymologists suggest a relationship with the Sanskrit तरति (tar-) (to overcome), the Classical Latin trāns (through, across, over) and even possibly intrō (I enter, I go into).  Most dictionaries insist that despite having been in use since the 1630s, the hyphenated co-terminous is a malformation but, coterminous being a rare word, it’s not often disputes arise.  Purists who prefer always to stick to the classics reject both as needless formations and prefer the original Latin: conterminous.  Coterminous, coterminated & coterminal are adjectives, conterminousness is a noun, coterminal is a noun & adjective, coterminate & coterminating are verbs and coterminously & coterminally are adverbs; the noun plural is coterminals.

417 & 419 Venice Way, Venice Beach, Los Angeles, California where, during 2011, Lindsay Lohan lived (in 419 (right)).  This style of construction is sometimes called a “pigeon pair” but these two are only "semi-mirrored" because there are detail differences in the architecture.  Next door (417) lived Ms Lohan's former special friend Samantha Ronson.  Each four bedroom (3½ bathrooms) house included a floating stairway leading to a mezzanine which the property’s agent described as “ideal for a studio or office”.

In the law of real property, the term "coterminous" is used of a lease (or leases) which cover two properties with separate titles where the lease (or leases) expire simultaneously.  Whether the properties are geographically coterminous (or have any contiguous boundaries) is not relevant, indeed the two (or more) can be separated by great distances, the conterminousness of the relationship a product of the active lease(s), not the physical geography.  The land on which stands 417 & 419 Venice Way could be titled as a single entity and thus the two houses would sit on the one coterminous space or (as is more common), the land can have two separate titles and the two would sit contiguously.  At law, a coterminous lease of the houses could accommodate either arrangement and either 417 or 419 could also be part of a coterminous lease with one or more properties in another part of the state.        

The advantage of being original

The constitutions of some nations were written in the blood shed in war, revolutions or long struggles between sovereign and subjects so their foundation documents, their basic law, often contain stirring words, preambles especially sometimes even with literary merit.  The Constitution of Australia is not one of those documents.  While there were arguments during the eight-odd years it took for the six self-governing British colonies to agree on a draft, the matters in dispute mostly were procedural and mercantile rather than the rights of man and the pursuit of happiness.  Things were hammered-out in committees and smoke-filled rooms (the phrase then used literally), there were no mobs taking to the street or storming a parliament; apparently not even an effigy was burned.  The document which emerged has proved durable and adaptable but not a great read, befitting a nation which gained its independence (if originally incomplete until 1986) not through battle but bureaucracy.  The draft reached London in 1900 and was soon passed by the imperial parliament as the Constitution of Australia Act which effectively created the country, its executive, legislature and judiciary, empowering a parliament to meet.  Thus assembled, the Parliament of Australia passed the Constitution of Australia Act, becoming effective on 1 January 1901, the first day of the new century.

So Australia was born not on streets running with rivers of blood but by a grant of freedom from a colonial oppressor which had learned the lessons of 1776.  The constitution passed has since been little modified (a process technically simple but politically challenging) has accommodated some changes better to suit a place where things do change.  It tends to be forgotten that, even in 1901, anything like what’s now thought to be genuine democracy was rare anywhere and, where it existed to the extent it did, it was a recent and sometimes fragile thing.  The Australian constitution did however create a framework for one structural aspect of democracy now thought fundamental: the equality of the value of the individual citizen’s vote although, on that framework hung an imperfect skin and it wouldn't be for decades that something close to "one vote-one value" was achieved. 

That didn't however apply to the Australian Senate (the upper house) and that was one of the prices to pay for nationhood; the smaller states would never have agreed to federate had they not been afforded equality of representation in what they seemed genuinely to believe would be the place where their interests would be protected.  That illusion didn’t long last but the distortions, now actually worse, remain.  Regarding the lower house, Chapter I, Part III, Section 24 of the constitution provides (1) it shall have twice the number of members of the upper house and (2) the number of members in each of the six states shall be in proportion to the state’s population.  That, even today, is about as equitable as is possible but a further clause provided that (3) none of the original states can have fewer than five members, regardless of the math imposed by (1) & (2).

By the early twenty-first century, that meant in New South Wales, there was one senator for every 680,000-odd souls whereas one represented every 45,000 Tasmanians, a impressive imbalance around 85:15; in the lower house it was a much more democratic 62:38.  Better still, if ever Tasmanians feel somehow unrepresented, there’s also a state parliament with an upper and lower house and a generous layer of local government.  These distortions do happen in other countries (notably the United States Senate) but among those with some claim to free and fair electoral systems, the Tasmanian example is probably extreme.  In Australia, it pays to be an original state.

Electoral divisions, Tasmania, Australia.

In the state parliament, a feature of Tasmania’s mysterious Hare-Clark electoral system for the House of Assembly (state lower house) is its five electoral divisions are coterminous with the five House of Representatives (Commonwealth lower house) divisions (Bass, Braddon, Clark, Franklin and Lyons).  Although it may sound a rare example of bureaucratic efficiency, it’s dictated more by the practicalities of the multi-member Hare-Clark system in which each seat returns the same number of MHAs (Member of the House of Assembly although the modern practice is for them to be styled “MP” (Member of Parliament)); the number of seats in the legislative assembly is thus always divisible by five.  The House of Assembly first sat in 1856 when the bicameral parliament was established with the proclamation of responsible government and the Hare-Clark system was the co-creation of Thomas Hare (1806-1891), an English lawyer with an interest in political reform & Andrew Inglis Clark (1848–1907), an engineer & lawyer who served as attorney-general in Tasmania between 1887-1892 & 1894-1897.  Hare's original design dated from 1856 and was one of many systems of proportional representation explored during the nineteenth century and it was modified by Clark, becoming law in 1896 and has been used state-wide since 1909.

Eric Abetz MP (Liberal Party, Franklin), official ministerial photograph, Office of the Cabinet, Tasmania, Australia.

When other systems were in use, the number of seats varied several times between 32-38 but, after the Commonwealth's divisional boundaries were co-opted, the number of seats for decades remained relatively stable: set at 35 in 1900, 30 in 1906, & 35 in 1959.  In a rare moment of rationality, this was in 1998 reduced to 25 but in an unfortunate "triumph of politics" moment, this was restored to 35 for the 2024 general election.  So, the place is back to having too many politicians but however unpleasing the surplus, it may be thought a small price to pay for the return of Eric Abetz (b 1958) to politics.  Upon his election to the House of Assembly in 2024, Mr Abetz was immediately elevated to cabinet as Minister for Business, Industry and Resources, Minister for Transport & Leader of the House.  Having previously served as a senator (Liberal Party) for Tasmania between 1994-2022, it’s a remarkable resuscitation of a political career which had seemed terminal.  Having Eric Abetz back to represent the views of the eighteenth century has been welcomed by all political junkies.

Scum

Scum (pronounced skuhm)

(1) A film or layer of foul or extraneous matter that forms on the surface of a liquid as a result of natural processes such as the greenish film of algae and similar vegetation on the surface of a stagnant pond.

(2) A layer of impure matter that forms on the surface of a liquid as the result of boiling or fermentation.

(3) As disparaging slang, a person though low, worthless, or evil (often as “scumbag” or “scumbucket”.

(4) Such persons collectively (often as “scum of the earth”).

(5) An alternative name for scoria, the slag or dross that remains after the smelting of metal from an ore.

1200–1250: From the Middle English scume, derived from the Middle Dutch schūme (foam, froth) cognate with German schaum, ultimately of Germanic origin, drawn from the Old High German scūm and Old French escume.  In Old Norse word was skum, thought derived from the primitive root (s)keu (to cover, conceal).  By the early fourteen century, the word scummer (shallow ladle for removing scum) had emerged in Middle Dutch, a borrowing from the Proto-Germanic skuma, the sense deteriorated from "thin layer atop liquid" to "film of dirt," then just "dirt" and from this use is derived the modern skim.  The meaning "lowest class of humanity" is from the 1580s; the familiar phrase “scum of the earth” from 1712.  In modern use, the English is scum, the French écume, the Spanish escuma, the Italian schiuma and the Dutch schuim.  Scum is a noun & verb, scumbag, scumbaggery, scumbagginess & scumbucket are nouns, and scumlike, scummy & scumbaggy are adjectives; the noun plural is scums.

Rendezvous: New Zealand-born cartoonist David Low's (1891-1963) famous take on the 1939 German-Soviet Nonaggression Pact.

The document usually is called the Nazi-Soviet Pact or Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact because it was signed by comrade Vyacheslav Molotov (1890–1986; Soviet foreign minister 1939-1949 & 1953-1956) and Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Nazi foreign minister 1938-1945).  To illustrate the pact's cynical nature, Low depicted Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945, left) exchanging artificial pleasantries with comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953, right) both knowing it was only a matter of time before their nations would be at war.  Although Low at the time couldn't have known it, comrade Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) was not unaware of public opinion and when presented with the pact's draft text, decided the rather flowery preamble extoling German-Soviet friendship was just too absurd, telling the visiting delegation that "...after years of pouring buckets of shit over each-other...", it'd be more convincing were the document to be as formal as possible.  Sensational as news of the pact was in 1939, what became more notorious still was the appended "secret protocol" which defined the line of delineation by which Poland would be "carved-up" between Germany and the USSR after the German invasion.  Because of geography and demographic reality, the line on the map was remarkably close to the Curzon Line, first proposed in 1919 by Lord Curzon (1859–1925; Viceroy of India 1899-1905 & UK Foreign Secretary 1919-1924) as the border between Soviet Russia and a reconstituted Poland.

Cautiously, comrade Stalin waited a couple of weeks to ensure the German victory was secure before sending the Red Army over the border, an act the Poles would remember as "a stab in the back".  The defense counsel at the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) obtained a copy of the secret protocol and attempted to have it introduced as evidence but the judges denied the motion, the compromise being it could be referred to but the contents could not be discussed.  The irony of two Soviet judges dealing with the charges of a conspiracy to wage aggressive war (Count 1) and waging aggressive war (Count 2) when knowledge of the secret protocol (a conspiracy to invade Poland) was afoot attracted much comment.  One unmoved by the perception of cynicism was comrade Stalin for whom all politics was realpolitik.  At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, during the difficult negotiations over Polish borders, Molotov habitually would refer to “the Curzon Line” and the UK foreign secretary, Anthony Eden (1897–1977; thrice UK foreign secretary & prime minister 1955-1957), in a not untypically bitchy barb, observed the more common practice was to call it “the Molotov-Ribbentrop line”.  “Call it whatever you like” replied Stalin, “we still think it's fair and just”.  Rarely did comrade Stalin much care to conceal the nature of the regime he crafted in his own image.      

 

The Society for Cutting Up Men: The S.C.U.M. Manifesto

S.C.U.M. Manifesto (post shooting, 1968 paperback Edition).

Although celebrated in popular culture as the summer of love, not everyone shared the hippie vibe in 1967.  The S.C.U.M. Manifesto was a radical feminist position paper by Valerie Solanas (1936-1988), self-published in 1967 with a commercial print-run a year later.  Although lacking robust theoretical underpinnings and criticized widely within the movement, it remains both feminism’s purest and most uncompromising work and an enduring landmark in the history of anarchist publishing.  In the abstract, S.C.U.M. suggested little more than the parlous state of the word being the fault of men, it was the task of women to repair the damage and this could be undertaken only if men were exterminated from planet Earth.  The internal logic was perfect.

As well as the Society for Cutting Up Men, Acronym Finder’s list of the use of SCUM as an acronym includes (1) Subculture Urban Marketing, (2) Santa Clara United Methodist, (3) Sensitive Caring Urban Male (though being one of those wouldn’t save them and they’re as likely (after ordering their Venti Iced Caramel Macchiato with almond milk and an extra shot of espresso) as a (4) Self-Centered Urban Male to get Solanas’ “six-inch blade” between the ribs), (5) Southern California Unified Malacologists (malacology is the study of molluscs), (6) South Coast United Motorcyclist and (7) Socialist Cover-Up Media (how Fox News and those in the MAGA (Make America Great Again) cult think of the “fake news media).

The use of Scum as an acronym for Society for Cutting Up Men existed in printed form from 1967 (though not in the manifesto’s text) although Solanas later denied the connection, adding that S.C.U.M. never existed as an organization and was just “…a literary device”.  The latter does appear true, S.C.U.M. never having a structure or membership, operating more as Solanas’ catchy marketing label for her views; dubbing it a literary device might seem pretentious but, given her world-view, descending to the mercantile would have felt grubby.  That said, when selling the original manifesto, women were charged US$1, men US$2.  While perhaps not as elegant an opening passage as a Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) might have penned, Solanas’ words were certainly succinct.  "Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and eliminate the male sex.”  Ominously, “If S.C.U.M. ever strikes” she added, “it will be in the dark with a six-inch blade.”  No ambiguity there, men would know what to expect.

On set, 1967, Andy Warhol (1928-1987) & Nico (1938-1988).

Author and work were still little-known outside anarchist circles when, on 3 June 1968, Solanas attempted to murder pop-artist Andy Warhol, firing three shots, one finding the target.  The year 1968 was in the US a time of violence and tumult but amid it all, the celebrity connection and the bizarre circumstances ensured this one crime would attract widespread coverage.  Valerie Solanas with her two guns had entered Mr Warhol’s sixth-floor office at 33 Union Square West convinced he was intent on stealing the manuscript of the play Up Your Ass she’d repeatedly tried to persuade him to produce.  Warhol and his staff had reviewed the work and decided it simply wasn’t very good (Warhol giving the the back-handed compliment of it being "well-typed") but because he’d “misplaced” the manuscript (it was later discovered in a trunk) Solanas concluded that was just a trick and he was going to steal what she thought of as her brilliant play, claiming it as her own.  Although she’d for some time hovered around the fringes of the Warhol “Factory”, she seems not to have had much success as an advocate.  Her S.C.U.M. Manifesto envisioned a world without men which was at the time heady stuff with a certain mid-1960s appeal but Warhol also declined her offer to become a member of the Scum’s “Men’s Auxiliary” (a group for men sufficiently sympathetic to Scum’s aims to begin “working diligently to eliminate themselves.”)  As offers go, it really wasn't compelling.

New York Daily News, 4 June 1968.

Not best pleased by the headline, “Actress Shoots Andy Warhol”, Solanas demanded a retraction claiming that she was "a writer, not an actress."  The paper had based the headline on her appearance in Warhol's films I, a Man (1967) and Bike Boy (1967).  Warhol later admitted he'd cast her in I, a Man (for which she received a US$25 fee) in the hope she'd stop nagging him about the play she'd written.  She never complained about anything else the press wrote about her but apparently the label "actress" was beyond the pale.

Solanas’ state of mind about the fate of her intellectual property can be explained by it being no secret Warhol was inclined to “use” (the words “borrow”, “appropriate” “steal” also often used but “sample” was not yet a thing) and rebrand it all as “his art”.  For weeks leading up to the attempt on his life, repeatedly she’d called his office with first requests and then demands about her manuscript, culminating with threats at which point Warhol stopped taking her calls; the next call she made was in person and she shot him and an art gallery owner with who he was discussing an exhibition (he (as collateral damage) received minor injuries); Warhol was declared dead but paramedics arrived to stabilize him.  Calmly, Solanas left the building and several hours later, approached a policeman in Times Square, handed over her two guns and told him: “He had too much control over my life.”  Unsurprisingly, a judge ordered a psychiatric evaluation and she received a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia but despite this, she was found competent to stand trial and pleaded guilty to “reckless assault with intent to harm”; sentenced to three years incarceration (including time served) in the Matteawan Hospital for the Criminally Insane (1892-1977); she was released late in 1971.  Solanas never renounced the S.C.U.M. manifesto nor lost faith in its capacity to change the world but her her mental health continued to decline and reports indicate she became increasingly paranoid and unstable. She spent her last years in a single-occupancy welfare hotel in San Francisco, where, alone, she died in 1988, the official cause of death listed as "pneumonia".  

  

A (fake) montage of Lindsay Lohan as Andy Warhol (1928–1987) might have rendered.  Ms Lohan was not yet 12 months old when Warhol died (the start of her modeling career still two years off) but had he lived another two decades he'd almost certainly have painted her.

Ms Solanas' infamy lasted beyond fifteen minutes and one unintended consequence of her act was the S.C.U.M. Manifesto finally finding a commercial publisher, thus becoming what is publishing is known as succès de scandale (a work which owes its success or very existence to some notoriety or scandalous element).  In certain feminist and anarchist circles she remains a cult figure although, it takes some intellectual gymnastics to trace a lineal path from her manifesto to the work of even the more radical of the later-wave feminists such as Andrea Dworkin (1946-2005), Susan Brownmiller (b 1935) or Catharine MacKinnon (b 1946).  Solanas to this day still is usually described as a “feminist” or “radical feminist” but, given the implication of the manifesto, it would seem more accurate to label her a misandrist (one who exhibits a hatred of or a prejudice against men), a world view which attracts many because, to be fair, there are any number of reasons to hate men.  Although one suspects among women the "all men are bastards" school of thought is ancient, the noun "misandry" was a late nineteenth century formation, the construct being mis- (in the sense of “hatred”) +‎ -andry (men), by analogy with the more commonly used misogyny (hatred of or a prejudice against women); the inspiration was the Ancient Greek μισανδρία (misandría), the construct being μισέω (miséō) (hate) + ἀνήρ (anḗr) (man).

Cause and effect: The (attempted) murder weapon (Beretta M1935 automatic in .32ACP, left) and Warhol's post-operative torso (right).

Warhol required surgery to his spleen, stomach, liver, esophagus and lungs; the damage he suffered to a range of internal organs not uncommon among those shot at close range; the bullet ricocheted off a rib, accounting for the lateral trajectory.  Although the Beretta M1935 automatic (in .32ACP) she used is not regarded as a “big calibre” (the .32 listed by most as a “small bore”), a single shot from one, especially at close-range, can be lethal and an wound from even a smaller load (like the .22 she was also carrying) can be fatal.  In the context of handguns, a “big calibre” load usually is defined as one with a diameter of .40 inches (10mm) or larger and of those there are many including .44, .45 & .50 although “magnum” versions of smaller bore ammunition (.22, .357 etc) can match many larger loads in “stopping power”.  Interviewed later, Warhol reflected: “Before I was shot [June, 1968], I always thought that I was more half-there than all-there - I always suspected that I was watching TV instead of living life. People sometimes say that the way things happen in the movies is unreal, but actually it’s the way things happen to you in life that’s unreal. The movies make emotions look so strong and real, whereas when things really do happen to you, it’s like watching television - you don’t feel anything. Right when I was being shot and ever since, I knew that I was watching television. The channels switch, but it’s all television.”

Gun (1982), synthetic polymer paint and silkscreen ink on canvas by Andy Warhol.

Artistically, the shooting had consequences.  Warhol became more guarded, abandoning projects like filmmaking which required so much contact with people and stopping the production of controversial art which might attract more murderous types and focusing on business, in 1969 founding what in 1969 became Interview magazine.  Although there had in his previous output been evidence of an interest in death and violence, after the shooting, often he would visited the theme of death, painting a series of skulls and one of guns, a weapon with which he now had an intensely personal connection.  He was certainly not unaware what happened that day in June 1968 was a turning point in his life, some twenty years later noting in his diary: “I said that I wasn’t creative since I was shot, because after that I stopped seeing creepy people.”