Notorious

Notorious (pronounced noh-tawr-ee-uhs, noh-tohr-ee-uhs or nuh-tohr-ee-uhs)

(1) Something publicly or widely known.

(2) Something publicly or widely known and regarded with disfavor.

1548: From the Medieval Latin nōtōrius (well known, public), from the Classical Latin nōtus (known), past participle of nōscere (come to know), perfect passive participle of nōscō (get to know), from the primitive Indo-European root gno- (to know).  In Late Latin, there was nōtōria (a notice, news, intelligence) and nōtōrium (indictment, a (criminal) charge), the construct being nō(scere) (to get to know) + -tōrius (the adjectival suffix).  Middle English gained notoire from mid-fourteenth century Anglo-French, from the Old French in the sense of "well-known".  The now predominant negative connotation (noted for some bad practice or quality, notable in a bad sense, widely but discreditably known) arose in the seventeenth century, the suggesting being the meaning shift was influenced by the long pattern of use of the adjective’s frequent association with derogatory nouns.  Notorious is an adjective, notoriety & notoriousness are nouns and notoriously an adverb.  The handy derivation is notoriety.

During the sixteenth and seventeen centuries, the adjective notorious, except for academia and the practice of law, became almost wholly associated with derogatory nouns (bad, dishonest, untruthful etc) and the general perception thus arouse it was something of a synonym for infamous, a word which retained the dichotomy with famous.  Among lawyers and others in technical fields where the notorious preserved its original meaning, common use persisted well into the twentieth century and endures, if more rarely, still, the suspicion being it’s sometimes deployed in a courtroom as a flashy display of erudition, what Sir Ernest Gowers (1880–1966) in his 1965 revision of Fowler's Modern English Usage (1926), called “a pride of knowledge”.

Mandy Rice-Davis and Christine Keeler, 1963.

The murkiness in which notorious has swum means it’s better entirely to avoid what is now probably an archaic meaning, however pleasing it can be as literary device.  In the modern sense of the word, Christine Keeler (1942-2017) and Mandy Rice-Davis (1944-2014) became notorious because of their involvement in the Profumo affair of the early 1960s.  The infamy the notoriety brought them didn’t last because, for many reasons, the affair’s subsequent trial soon became itself notorious for injustice and official misconduct, Ms Keeler and Ms Rice-Davis becoming instead celebrities (in the very modern sense of that word).  They died famous rather than infamous and remembered more fondly than many of those who emerged less scared from the now notorious trial.  So context and the character of individuals can confuse things.  To say it’s notorious (in the old sense) crooked Hillary Clinton was born in 1947 is technically a neutral statement of fact but that date became well-known only because she “misspoke” in claiming her parents named her after Sir Edmund Hillary (1919–2008), the first man to ascend Mount Everest.  Sir Edmund conquered the mountain in 1953, years after her birth and her claim universally was derided as an untruth; when challenged, she blamed her mother.  Linguistically unambiguous is to use the word in both senses: crooked Hillary Clinton is notoriously untruthful.

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.  Language and the meaning(s) words convey can vary according to the context in which they're used; "notorious" now has a common meaning but in courtrooms it retains also its technical, neutral sense.  All would agree Lindsay Lohan in her youth achieved a degree of notoriety but its only harsher critics who label her notorious.

Errant & Arrant

Errant (pronounced er-uhnt)

(1) Deviating from the regular or proper course; erring; straying outside established limits (often used in sport as “errant shot”, “errant punch” etc).

(2) Prone to error; misbehaved; moving in an aimless or lightly changing manner (often used in a non-human context: breezes, water-flows et al).

(3) Journeying or traveling, as a medieval knight in quest of adventure; roving adventurously (archaic, although it may in this sense still be a literary device).

(4) Utter, complete (obsolete, the meaning now served by “arrant”).

1300–1350: From the Middle English erraunt (traveling, roving), from the Anglo-Norman erraunt, from the Middle French, from the Old French errant, present participle of errer & edrer (to travel or wander), from the unattested Vulgar Latin iterāre (to journey) (and influenced by the Classical Latin errāre (to err)), from the Late Latin itinerārī, a derivative of iter (stem itiner-) (journey) and source of the modern English itinerary), from the root of ire (to go), from the primitive Indo-European root ei- (to go).  Understandably, in the Medieval era, the word was often confused with the Middle French errant (present participle of errer (to err)) so the use in old translations need to be read with care and the Old French errant in its two senses (1) the present participle of errer (to travel or wander) & (2) past participle of errer were often confused even before entering English.  In any event, much of the latter sense went with arrant (which was once a doublet of errant).  All the muddle is attributable to the link between the Old French errant with the Latin errāns, errāntem & errāre (to err) and the present participle of errer (to wander), which was from the Classical Latin iterō (I travel; I voyage) rather than errō, which is the ancestor of the etymology of error (to err; to make an error).  The comparative is more errant and the superlative most errant and the synonyms (depending on context) include aberrant, erratic, offending, stray, unorthodox, wayward, deviating, devious, drifting, errable, fallible, heretic, meandering, misbehaving, mischievous, miscreant, naughty, rambling, ranging & roaming.  The obsolete alternative spelling was erraunt.  Errant is a noun & adjective (often postpositive) and errantly is an adverb; the noun plural is errants.

Arrant (pronounced ar-uhnt)

(1) Downright; thorough-going; flagrant, utter, unmitigated; notorious (the latter in the non-derogatory sense).

(2) Wandering; errant (obsolete).

1350–1400: From the Middle English, a variant of errant (wandering, vagabond), the sense developed from its frequent use in phrases like “arrant thief” which became synonymous with “notorious thief”.  Etymologists tracking the late fourteenth century shift note that as a variant of errant, it was first merely derogatory in the sense of “a wandering vagrant” and remembered as an intensifier due to its use as an epithet because of poetic phrases such as “arrant thieves and arrant knaves” (ie “wandering bandits”).  In the 1500s the word gradually shed its opprobrious force and acquiring the meaning “thorough-going, downright and notorious (the latter in the non-derogatory sense)”.  In a limited number of specific uses, arrant can still convey a negative sense such as “arrant nonsense!” (utterly untrue) and the meaning is preserved when Shakespeare’s “arrant knaves” (from the nunnery scene in Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1) is invoked.  Remarkably, there are still dictionaries which list arrant simply as an alternative form of errant, despite in practice use having separated centuries earlier and some style guides suggest arrant should be avoided because (1) some may confuse it with errant and (2) it’s an adjective which seems used mostly in clichés.  The obsolete alternative spelling was arraunt, the obsolete comparative was arranter and the obsolete superlative, arrantest.  Arrant is an adjective and arrantly an adverb.

Errant driving: The aftermath of three Lindsay Lohan car crashes although the Maserati Quattroporte (right; borrowed from her father) suffered little more than a nudge and it's said her assistant was at the wheel at the time.

Hybristophilia

Hybristophilia (Pronounced hi-bris-a-fil-ee-uh)

An attraction to an individual who has committed a crime.

1986: The construct was the Ancient Greek ὑβρίζειν (hubrízein) (to commit an outrage against someone), +‎ -philia.  The -philia suffix was from the Ancient Greek φιλία (philía) (fraternal) love).  It was used to form nouns conveying a liking or love for something and in clinical use was applied often to an abnormal or obsessive interest, especially if it came to interfere with other aspects of life (the general term is paraphilia).  The companion suffix is the antonym -phobia. The related forms are the prefixes phil- & philo- and the suffixes -philiac, -philic, -phile & -phily.  One who exhibits hybristophilia is a hybristophile.  Hybristophilia & hybristophile are nouns; the noun plural is hybristophiles.

Brought to you by Cosmo which interviewed Dr Money for the December 1990 edition.

Although never explicitly mentioned in the American Psychiatric Association's (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the phenomenon has long been noted and in popular culture is better known as “Bonnie & Clyde syndrome”.  In the mental health community, hybristophilia is (now sometimes) regarded as a paraphilia (a class of mental disorder characterized by a preference for or obsession with unusual (some still treated as “abnormal”) sexual practices) and the word “hybristophila” was in 1986 introduced by Johns Hopkins University professor Dr John Money (1921–2006), a New Zealand-born psychologist and sexologist with an untypical background whose work on human sexuality and gender remains controversial.  Dr Money’s had an academic interest in those who exhibited a sexual attraction towards individuals who committed serious crimes.

In the literature, it’s clear most hybristophiles are female, something not unexpected given the extent to which crime is a male-dominated business; most of the academic work in the field seems to have focused on women who have developed strong affectionate or romantic feelings towards individuals incarcerated for serious crimes and it’s been studied both in psychiatry and criminology.  Over the decades, the understanding of hybristophilia has evolved and there’s now a greater appreciation of the nuances which can extend to the political and although the original definition was restricted to sexual attraction (conventionally defined), aspects such as “thrill-seeking”, “sympathy”, “celebrity status hunting” (including deals for interviews and such) and a desire to “nurture or reform” have all been identified as factors which may influence the behaviour while some sources claim an alleged increased frequency of instances may be related to the rise in volume of “true crime” material on the internet and streaming services.  Of interest too is the role of the media in “romanticising” criminals and the rise (indeed the standardization) of the methods used by on-line dating apps: the response generated by the publication of a “hot” police mug-shot, the behaviour is not greatly different from “swiping right” on Tinder.

There has been criticism of the profession’s approach to hybristophilia, usually on the grounds of the definition being too broad and prone to the generation of ambiguities, some arguing the term may pathologize normal variations of human attraction, while others question the empirical evidence supporting its classification as a paraphilia.  Of course, the editors of the DSM have never listed it as a paraphilia and it is others who have made the link which at least implies a degree of disapprobation, the phenomenon perceived seemingly as a form of self-harm from which women need to be protected, an attitude with something of a history in psychiatry and medicine generally.  The matter of hybristophilia is emblematic of the general problem of the DSM’s category of paraphilic disorders being thought of as a sort of dumping ground for sexual behaviour thought unusual and when the fifth edition (DSM-5) was published in 2013, the editors acknowledged this by differentiating between (1) atypical human sexual behavior and (2) behavior either causing mental distress to a patient or which makes the them a threat to the psychological or physical well-being of others.  Although it’s clear legal implications played a part in the editorial committee’s discussions about revising diagnostic criteria, the goal really was to update the disorders in the category in a way which would reflect the outcomes for patients and those with whom they interacted rather than abstractions about the behaviour itself.

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

What emerged was a change in the defined characteristics of paraphilic disorders, a recognition most people with atypical (as opposed to “abnormal”) sexual interests do not have a mental disorder requiring treatment.  After the DSM-5, to be diagnosed with a paraphilic disorder, a patient must either (1) feel personal distress about their interest (not merely a distress resulting from society’s disapproval) or (2) have a sexual desire or behavior that involves another person’s psychological distress, injury, or death or (3) have a desire to indulge in sexual behaviors involving unwilling persons or persons unable to give legal, informed consent.  There was also a process of re-naming conditions to delineate between an atypical sexual interest and a defined disorder, a process which essentially differentiated between the behavior and the disorder stemming from that behaviour; the APA was giving its imprimatur for folk to engage in consensual atypical sexual behavior without inappropriately being labeled with a mental disorder. With this revision, the DSM-5 distinguished between atypical sexual interests and mental disorders involving these desires or behaviors.  That hybristophilia is not specifically mentioned in any edition of the DSM is thus not an omission as such and the DSM-5 did include the diagnostic category called “Other Specified Paraphilic Disorders” (OSPD) which was created to encompass atypical sexual interests causing significant distress or impairment but not fulfilling the criteria for any of the listed specific paraphilic disorders.  In other words, OSPD was there as a kind of clearing house for clinicians who identified a problem and that might include a hybristophile if the behaviour is causing personal distress or impairment (or consequent problems for others with whom they have some relationship).

Baldur von Schirach in the dock, where he told some lies and some partial truths, Palace of Justice, Nuremberg, May, 1946.

Baldur von Schirach (1907-1974; head of the Hitlerjugend (Hitler Youth) 1931-1940 & Gauleiter (district party leader) and Reichsstatthalter (Governor) of Vienna 1940-1945) would in 1946 have been hanged had some of the material relating to his time as governor of Vienna been brought before the court at the first Nuremberg Trial (1945-1946) but he instead received a 20 year sentence for which he should have been more grateful than ever he was.  In 1965, he was found to be suffering a detached retina and, after some objections from the Soviets, he was sent to the British military hospital in Berlin for surgery.  While under guard in his room on the second floor, the guards noticed movement in the tree next to the window and upon investigation, found a woman climbing the trunk.  She said he name was Karin Stein and told her interrogators she’d had always been “desperately in love” with their prisoner and had for years been sending him letters, cards and flowers (none of which he’d ever been allowed to receive).  She was escorted from the hospital and released but later returned, disguised as a nurse and managed to reach the door to his room before being stopped.  This hybristophile was a good stalker and turned up outside Spandau Prison when, at the stroke of midnight, he was released on 1 October 1966.  She would haunt him for some years.

“Sexy Sadie” mug shot, 1969.

Other notorious criminals who have married while serving long sentences include (1) Charles Manson (1934-2017) who at the age of 80 married the 26 year old who administered his social media sites; (2) Masson family member Susan “Sexy Sadie” Atkins (1948–2009) who in 1981 married someone who had convinced her was a multi-millionaire (she had the marriage annulled when she learned he was poor and had 35 prior marriages) before in 1987 marrying a law student to whom she remained married until her death; (3) Manson family member Charles Denton "Tex" Watson (b 1945) who, after becoming a born again Christian in 1975, married an admirer in 1979 and became an ordained minister, going on to father four children before the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation banned conjugal visits for those serving life sentences (the couple divorced in 2003); (4) In custody, confessed serial killer, rapist and necrophile, Ted Bundy (1946-1989) married a twice-divorced mother of two who'd dated him before his arrest and in 1982 she gave birth to a daughter in 1982, naming Bundy as the father; (5) Serial killer Richard Ramirez (1960–2013, dubbed “The Night Stalker” by the press) received his death sentence for, inter alia, 13 murders, five attempted murders and 11 sexual assaults. Seven years into his time on death row, he married a freelance magazine editor who had been in correspondence with him for some years, telling CNN in 1997: “He's kind, he's funny, he's charming, I just believe in him completely.  In my opinion, there was far more evidence to convict O.J. Simpson, and we all know how that turned out."  (6) Both the  Menendez brothers (Lyle (b 1968) & Erik (born 1970), the pair now back in the news) attracted hybristophiles.  Lyle married twice, firstly to a former model (who divorced him after she found out he was writing to another woman) and subsequently to a magazine editor who has since become an attorney although tabloid revelations that about Lyle leading a “double life” in prison as a gay man can’t have made for marital bliss.  Erik married just the once and the couple are still together; (7) There is also apparently (although undocumented) the condition “hybristophile rebound”: serial killer, kidnapper, and rapist Kenneth Bianchi (b 1951) married a woman with whom he’d been corresponding; earlier she had tried woo Ted Bundy before focusing her sights on Bianchi.

Brian Thompson (1974–2024; chief executive officer (CEO) of UnitedHealthcare 2021-2024, left) and Free Luigi hoodie from Chill Guy (right).

Hybristophilia need not of necessity be a matter of sexual attraction although it’s those cases which attract the most publicity.  Somewhat different is the widespread acclaim expressed towards Luigi Mangione (b 1998) who stands accused of the execution-style murder of Brian Thompson.  Mr Thompson was CEO of a health insurance company which had become notorious for its practices of “deny, delay & defend” (there are alliterative variations to that string) to avoid paying out against claims and the popularity of Mr Mangione is more a case of becoming a “folk hero” with his alleged victim being emblematic of corporate greed and the misuse of power in the US.  Still, it’s inevitable Mr Mangione will attract proposals of marriage; even among those not drawn to his single-handed attack on the excesses of capitalism, some will have noted his good-looking mug shot.  Not even 24 hours passed between the news of Mr Mangione’s arrest and the appearance on-line of “Free Luigi” merchandise.

Mr Ghosn (left) and Mr Putin (Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin; b 1952; president or prime minister of Russia since 1999, right), the Kremlin, Moscow, 2006.

Another who became an instant folk hero (among certain groups) was the Brazilian born Carlos Ghosn (b 1954) of Lebanese descent.  While in Japan serving as CEO of Nissan and chairman of Mitsubishi Motors, Mr Ghosn was arrested on suspicion of financial misconduct at Nissan involving millions of dollars and, possibly noting the 99% conviction rate of the famously efficient Japanese criminal justice system, while under house arrest awaiting trial, he arranged to have himself enclosed in a large freight box which was flown out of the country on a private jet.  Upon landing at Lebanon’s Beirut–Rafic Hariri International Airport, the fugitive was greeted by cheering crowds, a reaction which played into the prejudices many hold about the Lebanese national character.  There is no extradition treaty between Japan and Lebanon.

Summit

Summit (pronounced suhm-it)

(1) Highest point or part, as of a hill, a line of travel, or any object; top; apex; peak, pinnacle; acme, zenith, culmination.

(2) One’s highest point of attainment or aspiration.

(3) A meeting of heads of government.

(4) In mountaineering, any point higher than surrounding points (distinguished by topographic prominence as subsummits (low prominence) or independent summits (high prominence)).

(5) In mountaineering to ascend to the peak.

1425–1475: From the Late Middle English somete, borrowed from the Middle French and drawn from the Old French sommette, diminutive of som (highest part, top of a hill).  Ultimate source was the Latin summum, the noun use of neuter of summus (highest) + -ete or -et as the suffix and it’s from here English ultimately picked-up super.  Summit is a noun & verb; subsummit & summiteers are nouns, summital & summitless are adjectives and summited & summiting are verbs; the noun plural is summits.  The nouns minisummit & presummit are creations of twentieth century diplomacy and have (not always happily) been applied adjectivally.

Summits (meetings between those in charge of tribes, groups, nations etc to discuss issues) predate civilization but the adoption of the word for this purpose is recent.  Usually summits are public but some have been secret and in the age of modern communications, they’re not the novelty once they were.  Some are famous, such as Henry IV’s (1050–1106; Holy Roman Emperor 1084-1105) Walk to Canossa in 1077 to beg the forgiveness of Pope Saint Gregory VII (circa 1015–1085; pope 1073-1085) and seek absolution of his excommunication.  Others were cynical; the notorious 1938 Munich Conference was attended by the heads of government of France, Germany, Italy and the UK.  The meaning "meeting of heads of government" is from Winston Churchill's (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) 1950 metaphor of "…a parley at the summit" and was first widely used in 1955 when the phrase “Geneva Summit” appeared on press releases, menus and the final communiqué.  The classic summits were probably the great set-piece events conducted during World War II (1939-1945) and subsequently those of the high Cold War but there have since been many summits (notably the G5, G7, G8, G20 et al) but the term has somewhat become devalued because it’s not uncommon for events not involving heads of government so to be described.  While treasurer, Paul Keating (b 1944; Prime Minister of Australia 1991-1996) once suggested “a summit” which didn’t include the prime-minister; Bob Hawke (1929–2019; Prime Minister of Australia 1983-1991) soon corrected his error.

Great power summits have over the years excited more expectations than ever they have delivered.  Noted summiteer Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) was aware of this but in his prolific post-presidential career as an author altered his rationalizations depending on the point he wished to make.  While he could write that he was "...well aware that our highly successful summit meeting in 1972 might spawn euphoric expectations among the American people... [and that] I knew knew I stood politically to benefit from such euphoria, I tried to damp it down and keep our successes in perspective", he admitted elsewhere that "...creation of a willowy euphoria is one of the dangers of summitry".  Warming to the idea of a confession (not a feeling which often overcame him), he added of the public atmosphere in 1972 that "... I must assume a substantial part of the responsibility for this.  It was election year and I wanted the political credit."  The contradictions are just part of what makes Nixon the most interesting president of the modern era.          

Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton on the infamous front page in Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, 29 November 2006.  The car was a Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren (C199; 2003-2010).

In mountaineering, a summit is any point higher than surrounding points (distinguished by topographic prominence as subsummits (low prominence) or independent summits (high prominence)) and those who attempts to summit a peak are summiteers.  Thus when summiteers Sir Edmund Hillary (1919-2008) and Sherpa Tenzing Norgay (1914-1986) in 1953 summited the summit of Mount Everest, they became the first people ever to stand on the highest point on Earth.  That achievement provided a fun footnote in the long list of crooked Hillary Clinton’s (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) lies (which she calls “misspeaking”), one of which was “My mother named me after Sir Edmund Hillary”.  The claim was based on her finding his climbing of Mount Everest so inspiring, thus explaining the double-l spelling of her name but the assent of the summit came a half decade after her birth.  The story was later “clarified” when a Clinton spokeswoman said she was not named after the famous mountaineer but the account “...was a sweet family story her mother shared to inspire greatness in her daughter, to great results I might add.”  Despite this, it remains unclear if crooked Hillary lied about her own name or was accusing her mother of lying.  Still, given everything else, “…at this point, what difference does it make?”

Reprobate

Reprobate (pronounced rep-ruh-beyt)

(1) A depraved, unprincipled, or wicked person; degenerate; morally bankrupt.

(2) In Christianity (from Calvinism), a person rejected by God and beyond hope of salvation and damned to eternal punishment in hell, forever hearing only their own screams of agony, smelling only their own decaying flesh and knowing only the gnashing of their decaying teeth.

(3) Rejected; cast off as worthless (archaic).

1400-1450: From the late Middle English reprobaten (condemn, disapprove vehemently; rejected as worthless) from the Latin reprobātus (disapproved, rejected, condemned), past participle of reprobāre (to reprove or hold in disfavour).  The construct was re- (back, again (here indicating probably "opposite of, reversal of previous condition")) + probare (prove to be worthy).  Used often in the form reprobacioun (rejection), the usual spelling in Church Latin was reprobationem (nominative reprobation (rejection, reprobation), the noun of action from the past-participle stem of reprobāre.  A doublet of reprove.

Notorious dispensationalist and reprobate, crooked Hillary Clinton in pantsuit.

The earliest use in English was as a verb meaning "to disapprove”; the specific religious meanings were adopted in the mid-fifteenth century, the general sense of an unprincipled person emerging decades later.  The sense of "reject, put away, set aside" dates from circa 1600 and the meaning "abandoned in character, morally depraved, unprincipled" is attested from the 1650s.  The specifically religious idea of "one rejected by God, person given over to sin, from the adjectival sense was from the 1540s whereas the generalized "abandoned or unprincipled person" was noted from the 1590s.  The use in theology was more specialised still.  The meaning "the state of being consigned to eternal punishment" was used since the 1530s and from the 1580s, this extended to any "condemnation as worthless or spurious" the more broad sense of "condemnation, censure, act of vehemently disapproving" used since 1727.  Other nouns once used in English include reprobacy (1590s), reprobance (c. 1600), reprobature (1680s, legal); never common, most are now archaic except a technical, historic terms.  Although the word has many synonyms (tramp, scoundrel, wastrel, miscreant, wretch, rascal, cad, rogue, outcast, pariah, wicked, sinful, evil, corrupt) it has always attracted authors who enjoy detailing the reprobacy of the habitually reprobative.

You are a heartless reprobate, sir; a heartless, thankless, good-for-nothing reprobate.  I have done with you.  You are my son; that I cannot help - but you shall have no more part or parcel in me as my child, nor I in you as your father.

Anthony Trollope (1815-1882), Barchester Towers (1857)

The fate of all reprobates.  The Harrowing of Hell (c 1499), by Hieronymus Bosch (1450–1516)

Christians are much concerned with the fate of reprobates, all of whom should be condemned.  Israel Folau (b 1989), a Tongan-born Australian football player (of the country’s three oval-ball codes) however attracted some condemnation himself when he posted on Instagram: “Warning – Drunks, Homosexuals, Adulterers, Liars, Fornicators, Thieves, Atheists, Idolaters. HELL AWAITS YOU. REPENT! ONLY JESUS SAVES”.  There were many who rose to defend the homosexuals but all seemed oblivious to the feelings of the others on his list, the chattering classes content to let drunks, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolaters rot in Hell.  Noted drinker and adulterer Barnaby Joyce (b 1967; thrice (between local difficulties) deputy prime minister of Australia 2016-2022) must have felt put-upon. 

Some have been more expansive on the matter of reprobates than Mr Folau, Loren Rosson on his Busybody page detailing in three tiers, the worst of the sins committed by man, according to Pastor Steven Anderson (b 1981), preacher & founder of the New Independent Fundamentalist Baptist movement and pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church, Tempe, Arizona.  Anderson first came to national attention in August 2009 after preaching a sermon in which he prayed for the visitation of the Angel of Death to Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017).  In what he may suspect is a a conspiracy between the Freemasons and the Jews, Anderson has been denied entry to South Africa, Botswana, Jamaica, Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the Republic of Ireland, Australia and New Zealand.

Tier 1: The irrevocably damned. Those beyond redemption, God having rejected them eternally.

(1) Homosexuals/pedophiles.  Note the absent ampersand; in Anderson’s view the two are inseparable, it being impossible to be one without being the other; they are the worst of the worst.  Anderson believes sodomites are not only sinners, but actual reprobates, based on the Book of Romans, God having tired of them, he turned them into sodomising perverts:  “God gave them up to vile affections” (Romans 1:26); “God gave them over to a reprobate mind” (Romans 1:28); “God gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts” (Romans1:24).  This, Anderson argues, is the explanation for homosexuality and surprisingly he’s in agreement with the gay view that “God made me like this” though not “born like this” faction, God making them that way only when they rejected the truth and the light; God “discarding them by turning them into homos.”  As reprobates, sodomites, unlike most sinners (those in tiers 2 and 3), cannot possibly be saved, nor should anyone want to try saving them: “He that is filthy, let him be filthy still” (Revelation 22:11).  The internal logic is perfect, God turned them into sodomites because of their God-hating hearts and it’s all their fault.

(2) Bible translators and scholars.  Anderson condemns these folk as irredeemable reprobates because of the Revelation 22:19, which damns all who tamper with the Word of God, ie altering the original text of the King James Bible (KJV 1611).

Tier 2: Especially wicked sinners:  These offenders are at least capable of being saved, if they accept Christ the Lord as their savior.

(3) Physicians who perform abortions, pro-choice crusaders; women who obtain abortions.  Anderson’s view is that all those involved in the abortion industry, the medical staff, the proponents and the women who procure the operation are simply those who murder the most innocent and vulnerable; they are reprobates. 

(4) Zionists.  Israel is the most ungodly nation on the planet according to Anderson and he calls the formation of the state of Israel in 1948 a diabolical fraud.  The Jews are not God’s chosen people and have not been so for two millennia, replacement theology a basic premise of the New Testament: “If the kingdom of God is taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof, you’ve been replaced! You were the people of God, you were that holy nation of the Old Testament, but now you have been replaced. And today, the physical nation of Israel has been replaced by believers, by a holy nation made up of all believers in Christ, whether they be Jew or Gentile, no matter what the nationality.” According to Anderson, Zionism is more anti-Christ than any other of the major world religions.

(5) Modalists.  Anderson hates and despises modalists more even that the atheists who deny the very holiness of Christ.  Modalism is a heresy that denies the trinity and maintains God is only one person or entity (there are factions) who has three modes (or faces, or masks) which do not exist simultaneously, and that He changes modes by assuming whatever mode circumstances demand.  Thus to modalists, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all the same person or entity, there not being the three in one but just one who shifts modalities as required.  This is of course heresy because Christianity teaches the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct. There is of course but one God but within God there are three entities which Christians call trinity.

(6) Atheists & evolutionists.  It’s not entirely clear if Anderson regards these two as interchangeable but it’s probably a tiresome technical point, both equally at risk of becoming reprobates who, if they persist in their rejection, God will turn into sodomites.

(7) Litterbugs.  Anderson might find some sympathy for this category.  Anderson hates those who drop litter whether on city streets or in the wilderness and can quote scripture to prove God too disapproves.

(8). Men who piss sitting down.  Anderson identifies this sin as one especially prevalent among Germans and other secular Europeans but any man who allows himself to be pussy-whipped into effeminate behavior in the loo is suspect.  Although among the less well-known passages in the Bible (KJV; 1611), “him that pisseth against the wall” (1 Samuel 25:22; 1 Samuel 25:34; 1 Kings 14:10; 1 Kings 16:11; 1 Kings 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8), it's known to Anderson who cites as a symbol of proper manliness.  However, the original translators may have been a little more nuanced, scholarship suggesting it’s best understood as “able-bodied men”.  Anderson condemns preachers, presidents & potentates who “pee sitting down” and demands leadership of the country be restored to those “who want stand up and piss against the wall like a real man.”  Anderson assures his congregation he’s a "stand and piss man".  For men wishing to score points with God and obtain redemption, this is one of the sins most easily forever renounced.  However, don’t lie, for God knows how you pee.

(9) Physicians and technicians who perform in vitro fertilization; women who undergo the treatment.  Anderson explains those who conceive using IVF instead of waiting naturally to fall pregnant are stealing babies from God, a concept he expresses more graphically in sermons as “ripping babies from the hands of God”.

(10) Male gynecologists.  Anderson says men who do this are disgusting perverts; their medical qualifications are irrelevant

Tier 3:  Sinful Christians. Those who preach or espouse these views could either be false Christians, or simply misguided believers in Christ who need to be educated.

(11) Pre-tribbers.  Anderson is actually on sound historical and theological ground here.  The idea that Christians will, on the day of the rapture, be taken bodily up to heaven before the apocalyptic tribulation is a wholly un–biblical notion unknown before the mid-nineteenth century and barely known before being spread in pop-culture.  It seems to have begun as a way of marketing Christianity as something more attractive.  As the Book of Revelation makes clear, Christians not only expected to suffer the tribulation before they were raptured, that suffering lies at the core of their holy duty.  Pre-tribulation is an un-Christian cop-out.

(12) Dispensationalists. Anderson is also correct that dispensationalist is another nineteenth century heresy and a kind of cultural relativism and while he doesn’t dwell on it, thinks cultural relativists are among the worst reprobates).  Anderson asserts that God never changes, noting “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Hebrews 13:8).  The Old Testament carries the same moral imperatives it always did, and the God of the New Testament aligns completely with it.

(13)  Calvinists, and others who deny free will.  It matters not to Anderson whether one cites a theological or biological basis for rejecting the doctrine of man’s free will; both are wrong.

(14) The lazy box-tickers. It’s not enough just occasionally to walk the neighborhood streets and leave in the mailboxes a flyer about Jesus, at least twice a week a Christian must go about their district, knocking on doors and spreading the word of the Lord.

US screenwriter & film director Paul Schrader (b 1946) really knows how to hurt someone's feelings.

Caffeine

Caffeine (pronounced ka-feen, kaf-een or kaf-ee-in)

A white, crystalline, bitter alkaloid with the chemical compound C8H10N4O2.

1830: From the French caféine, the construct being café (coffee) + ine (the chemical suffix).  The earlier German was kaffein, from kaffee (coffee); the adjective is caffeinic.  Technically, caffeine is a trimethyl-derivative of xanthine, a coining as Kaffein in 1830, from German Kaffein, by German analytical chemist Friedlieb Ferdinand Runge (1794–1867).  He chose the name because the alkaloid was found in coffee beans; its presence accounting for the stimulating effect of coffee and tea.  The noun caffeinism was coined as medical jargon in 1880 to describe the "morbid state produced by prolonged or excessive exposure to caffeine" although the condition had for centuries been noted by doctors and others.

Of coffee

Caffeine's molecular structure.

Methyltheobromine (or caffeine) is a central nervous system stimulant and the most widely consumed psychoactive drug which works, inter alia, by reversibly blocking the action of adenosine on its receptor and consequently prevents the onset of adenosine-induced drowsiness.  Caffeine is a bitter, white crystalline purine, a methylxanthine alkaloid, chemically related to the adenine and guanine bases of DNA and ribonucleic acid RNA.

Human caffeine consumption is said to date from circa 3000 BC when, according to Chinese legend, the mythological Emperor Shennong (Divine Farmer) serendipitously invented tea, a story derived from an early book on the history of tea.  Coffee drinking first became common in the mid-fifteenth century in the Sufi monasteries of Yemenin Arabia and it spread first to North Africa and by the sixteenth century was widely consumed throughout the Middle East, Persia and Asia Minor.  The first European coffee houses were in Italy and they soon became common throughout the continent.

Voltaire (1760) by Théodore Gardelle (1722–1761); he doubtlessly agreed with de Fontenelle.

In its pure form, caffeine can be fatal in tiny quantities although in the form usually enjoyed, coffee, one would need to drink over a hundred cups in a day to approach toxicity.  Voltaire (1694–1778), often at the Café de Procope in Paris, drank sometimes as many as forty cups a day, enjoying it so much he ignored the advice of his doctors to stop.  He lived to eighty-four but there’s no evidence the often attributed quotation: “It may be poison, but I have been drinking it for sixty-five years, and I am not dead yet” was his.  The more likely source is French author Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle (1657–1757) whose actual words were: “I think it must be [a slow poison], for I’ve been drinking it for eighty-five years and am not dead yet.”   Fontenelle died a month short of his hundredth birthday.

Depiction of seventeenth century London coffee house.

Whatever the concern about coffee the drink, the coffee house the place attracted its own concerns.  There’s some evidence coffee houses were welcomed by the authorities when first they became popular in seventeenth century London because they seemed a desirable alternative to the ale house where men would drink beer and later gin, leading to all the notorious social ills.  However, it seemed soon to kings and ministers that while having drunken men brawl or beat their wives was hardly good, it was a more manageable problem than having them cluster, share the newly available cheap newspapers and pamphlets, talk and think.  Men taking and thinking might lead to them getting ideas which was worse than them fighting in the street and government made repeated attempts to suppress the coffee shops.  Ultimately, caffeine prevailed.

Johann Sebastian Bach (circa 1760) by Johann Eberhard Ihle (1727–1814).

On the continent, the Habsburgs were no more impressed than the Stuarts in England, the government there encouraging the idea of coffee was a subversive societal vice and there was something of a minor moral panic among good citizens disturbed at the corrupting influences of such places.  This didn’t amuse a German composer famously associated with the late Baroque, JS Bach (1685–1750) who was fond of taking his frequent shots in his favorite coffee shops and, although never noted for his light-heartedness, he took an amusing poem mocking the public’s concerns, written by his frequent collaborator Christian Friedrich Henrici (1700–1764; pen name Picander), and set it to music as Schweigt stille, plaudert nicht (Be still, stop chattering).  Composed between 1732-1735, it’s usually called the Coffee Cantata, although, it’s really a comic operetta.  A satirical commentary, the work makes fun of the concerns respectable folk had about coffee and coffee houses.  In Vienna as in London, caffeine triumphed.

Despite the joys of a Bach cantata and the persuasive (if misattributed) endorsement of Voltaire, the killjoy editors of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) weren’t sure ordinary folk could be trusted to decide how many cups of coffee daily to enjoy and declared more research was needed.  They often conclude more research is needed.  Strangely, the DSM’s editors appear to be less trusting than most clergy, caffeine a drug to which even normally condemnatory priests, rabbis and mullahs don’t object, the only famously abstemious among the major faiths being the Church of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormons), the Seventh-Day Adventists and the Rastafarians, the last perhaps a surprise given how well a long black complements some good weed.

Simple pleasure: the long black.

Widely consumed, caffeine is a psychoactive drug which produces its psychomotor stimulant and reinforcing effects through antagonism at adenosine receptors and indirect effects on dopaminergic neurotransmission.  The editors of DSM-5 (2013) were prepared to concede consumption of caffeine at recommended dietary doses is usually at least harmless and may even have some benefits such as the enhancement of analgesia but do caution some may experience caffeine-related health effects and functional impairment and that this can manifest in different people at different levels of consumption.  Higher doses can produce dysphoric subjective effects and caffeine intoxication, including restlessness, nervousness, insomnia and an irregular heartbeat.  It’s also associated in some with gastrointestinal problems, urinary incontinence and anxiety, use during pregnancy said to be associated with especially poor outcomes.

Lindsay Lohan with coffee, leaving Coffee Bean, Los Angeles, December 2007.

Cold turkey may not be the solution either, the editors documenting withdrawal symptoms which some may experience if abruptly discontinuing regular use, including headaches, fatigue, irritability, a depressed mood, difficulty concentrating, and even flu-like symptoms, the DSM-5 codifying the conditions as (1) caffeine intoxication, (2) caffeine withdrawal, (3) caffeine-induced anxiety disorder and (4), caffeine-induced insomnia.  These are listed as the potential diagnoses when symptoms cause clinically significant distress or impairment and, because some individuals report an inability to reduce their consumption despite clinically significant problems even after seeking treatment, caffeine consumption can be said to lead to substance dependence.

Caffeine is an essential part of the recommended pro ana breakfast.

Thus the DSM-5 proposed three necessary diagnostic criteria for caffeine use disorder: (1) a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to reduce or control caffeine use, (2) continued caffeine use despite knowledge of (it’s not specified if an explicit acknowledgment is needed) having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by caffeine and (3), withdrawal, as manifested by the characteristic withdrawal syndrome for caffeine, or caffeine or a closely related substance being taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms. Six additional diagnostic criteria included in other substance use disorders, such as craving, tolerance, and taking caffeine in larger amounts or over a longer period of time than intended, were also included as markers for greater severity beyond the three key criteria for caffeine use disorder.  Because caffeine is so widely consumed, to reduce any potential for over-diagnosis, the proposed diagnostic strategy for caffeine, despite sounding onerous, is actually more conservative than for other substances.

Red Bull girls.  One can see the attraction of energy drinks.

The editors did note the paucity of data relating to the prevalence and clinical significance of caffeine use disorder and the suspicion is the interest may have been triggered not the usual suspect, coffee, but the newer generation of energy drinks and diet supplements.  Previous research was apparently too focused on specific, small-subsets rather than the general populations, some of the studies so specialized as to be thought unrepresentative of the general population.  One (very small) study of caffeine use disorder in the United States (reported in the DSM-IV (1994)) found that 30% of caffeine consumers fulfilled the generic DSM-IV criteria for substance dependence as applied to caffeine but this fell to 10% under (the supposedly more realistic) DSM-5 criteria, a hint the concerns of clinical over-diagnosis do need to be taken seriously.  Again, the point was made that more research is required, the extent to which caffeine use disorder is associated with markers of clinical significance such as self-reported caffeine-related distress or impairment, psychological distress, sleep problems, or other drug use is wholly unknown.

The documented study the editors reviewed was the most thorough evaluation yet conducted of the prevalence, clinical significance and correlates of meeting proposed criteria for caffeine use disorder yet it was extensive enough only to inform future research and considerations regarding risk and differential diagnosis, technical points about the parameters of control group populations especially noted.  Despite the apparent lack of robustness, the editors were persuaded the findings did support the inclusion of caffeine use disorder in future editions of the DSM.  Although only a small percentage of sampled caffeine consumers met the proposed key diagnostic criteria, where the standards were met, there were clinically meaningful effects.

All reputable authorities recommend a caffeine intake of not more than 400 mg a day, or two long black coffees.  Many coffee fiends exceed this before breakfast is over.

Caffeine has become more interesting as a drug because of the late twentieth-century phenomenon of the energy drink, the interest not so much in the caffeine content which, can be much more or much less than a cup of coffee but because the pattern of consumption is, in certain sub-groups, so associated with strong alcohol, often on a 1:1 (ie 30-60 ml spirits to 250 ml energy drink) basis, a pattern well known with long-established mixers like Coca-Cola but now in both much greater volume and a much higher caffeine content.  It’s difficult to tell whether a problem has emerged because while the deaths associated with the combination attract attention, the aggregate numbers, impressionistically, seem small and may not be statistically significant.  There's even been the suggestion extreme variations in ambient temperature may have been an at least contributory factor in some deaths.

Caffeine addiction is one of humanity’s most widespread vices and it extends to those driving cars.  In famous tort case, Stella Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc. and McDonald's International, Inc (1994 Extra LEXIS 23 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. 1994), 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. 1994), a passenger in a car (a 1989 model with no cup holders) received severe burns from spilled coffee, just purchased from a McDonald’s drive-through.  Although the matter received much publicity on the basis it was absurd to be able to sue for being burned by spilling what was known by all to be “hot” and the case came to be cited as an example of “frivolous” litigation, there were technical reasons why some liability should have been ascribed to McDonalds.  The jury awarded some US$2.6 million in damages although this was, on appeal, reduced to US640,000 and the matter was settled out of court before a further appeal.

Hertella Auto Kaffeemachine, 1959.

In the twenty-first century, some now judge cars on the basis of the count, capacity & convenience of its cup-holders but in the less regulated environment of the FRG (Federal Republic of Germany, the old West Germany, 1949-1990) of 1959, one company anticipated the future trend by offering a dashboard-mounted coffee maker for the Volkswagen Type 1 (better known as “the Beetle”).  The Hertella Auto Kaffeemachine was not a success, presumably because even those not familiar with Sir Isaac Newton's (1642–1727) First Law of Motion (known also as the Law of Inertia: “An object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will continue in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced external force”) could visualise the odd WCS (worst case scenario).

A happy caffeine addict, pouring himself a cup of coffee in his VW Beetle.

That it was in 1959 available in 6v & 12v versions is an indication Hertella may have envisaged a wider market because VW didn’t offer a 12v system as an option until 1963 and the company seems to have given some thought to Newtonian physics, the supplied porcelain cups fitted at the base with a disc of magnetic metal which provided some resistance to movement although the liquid obviously moved as the forces were applied.  The apparatus was mounted with a detachable bracket, permitting the pot to be removed for cleaning.  The quality of the coffee was probably not outstanding because there’s no percolation; the coffee added in a double-layer screen and “brewed” on much the same basis as one would tea-leaves and for those who value quality, a thermos-flask would have been a better choice but there would have been caffeine addicts willing to try the device.  The trouble was there clearly weren’t many of them and even in the FRG of the Wirtschaftswunder (the post war “economic miracle”) the fairly high price would have deterred many although now, one in perfect condition (especially if accompanied by the precious documents or packaging) would command a price well over US$1000.