Pardon

Pardon (pronounced pahr-dn)

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

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

(3) Forgiveness of a serious offense or offender.

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

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

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

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

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

Pardons from the president: Without check or balance

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

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

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

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

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

Pardons from God (via the pope)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ostrobogulous

Ostrobogulous (pronounced os-truh-bog-yuh-luhs or os-truh-bawg-yuh-luhs)

(1) Something (slightly or tending towards) the risqué or indecent.

(2) Something bizarre, interesting, or unusual.

Circa 1910s: The word was coined by the writer Victor Neuburg (1883–1940), a model of English eccentricity who was Jewish, bisexual and an occasionally intimate associate of the notorious occultist Aleister Crowley (1875–1947) with whom he shared several interests and proclivities.  Neuburg & Crowley travelled near and far to collaborate on many things but the best remembered (and still much celebrated in the cult which to this day surrounds the memory of Crowley) was the blending of occult rituals and certain sexual practices which was systematized as “Sex Magick”, a combination which has been a notable part of many sects and cults since.  Arthur Calder-Marshall (1908–1992) was an author (one with a remarkable eclectic oeuvre) acquainted with both and in one of his memoirs (Magic my Youth (1951) he recalled “Ostrobogulous was Vickybird’s (Victor Neuburg) favourite word. It stood for anything from the bawdy to the slightly off-colour. Any double entendre that might otherwise have escaped his audience was prefaced by, ‘if you will pardon the ostrobogulosity’”.  Ostrobogulous is an adjective, ostrobogulation & ostrobogulosity are nous and ostrobogulously is an adverb; the noun plural is ostrobogulations.

Neuburg claimed ostrobogulous was a most irregular formation, the construct being the Ancient Greek ostro (something rich) + the English bog (in the sense of “dirt” from the schoolboy slang sense of “the toilet”) + the Latin suffix ulus (full of), the literal translation thus “full of rich dirt”.  The Latin suffix -ulus was from the Proto-Italic -elos, from the primitive Indo-European -elós, thematized from -lós; it was cognate with the Proto-Germanic -ilaz & -ulaz and used to form (1) a diminutive of a noun, indicating small size or youth, (2) a diminutive of an adjective with diminished effect (denoting “somewhat” or “-ish”) and (3) an adjective from a verb.  The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) rejected that, claiming the first element was from the Greek adjective oestrous (oyster), from the Latin ostrea, from Ancient Greek ὄστρεον (óstreon) (all related to the Modern English oyster).  Neuburg however ignored the professional lexicographers and decided he was as qualified to determine Classical etymology as he was to coin novel Modern English forms and noted the Greek word ostreon which was a type of mollusc was harvested to obtain a rare and expensive purple dye, hence he decided that figuratively, it meant “something rich”.  In that he was on sound historic ground; what was known as Tyrian purple (also shellfish purple) was for long periods the most expensive substance in Antiquity, often (by weight) three times the value of gold, the exchange rate set by a Roman edict issued in 301 AD.

Upon release, I Know Who Killed Me (2007) received generally bad reviews (it was at one point a popular inclusion on “worst movie ever” lists) but there’s since been a reappraisal by some and the film now has a cult following and appears with some frequency in “midnight screenings”.  Those searching for an adjective to describe I Know Who Killed Me might find ostrobogulous suitable because it leave the viewer free to decide which of its two meanings they prefer.  

However tangled might be the etymology, there’s no doubt Newburg coined ostrobogulous to mean “something (slightly or tending towards) the risqué or indecent” yet by the 1960s it was recorded being used by respectable middle-class folk to mean “something weird, strange, bizarre unusual’ without any hint of indecency; the sense rather of the “harmlessly mischievous”.  Quite how that happened isn’t known but it is an example of the meaning shifts and re-purposing common in English.  Now, it’s only artificially common in that it’s one of those curiosities which are a fixture of lists of strange and obscure words, a lexicographical fetish which has flourished since the advent of the internet.

Flummery & Pabulum

Flummery (pronounced fluhm-uh-ree)

(1) Oatmeal or flour boiled with water until thick (historically, a slightly tart, jelly-like food of Welsh origin, made from extensively boiling oats, then boiling down the liquid extracted from it).

(2) A fruit custard or blancmange,  any of several bland, gelatinous foodstuffs, made usually from stewed fruit and thickened with oatmeal, cornstarch or flour.

(3) In speech or writing, complete nonsense; foolish humbug; words devoid of meaning (applied especially of flattery); deceptive or blustering speech (applied especially in politics and, as an interjection, an expression of contemptuous disbelief).

(4) Pretentious trappings, useless embellishments or ornaments intended to impress (applied to architecture, interior decorating, fashion etc).

1623: From the Welsh llymru (which was assimilated into English with an –ery ending) of uncertain origin but there may be some link with llymrig (slippery).  The figurative use to describe flattery or empty, meaningless talk, is from the 1740s.  Flummery is a noun; the noun plural is flummeries.

The Welsh llymru was “a jelly derived from oatmeal”, the name first noted in English poet Gervase Markham's (circa 1568–1637) Countrey Contentments (1623) and was known also as wash-brew although in Lancashire and Cheshire, it was called flamerie or flumerie.  The modern spelling was one of the variant forms which in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries also included thlummery and flamery.  By the nineteenth century, flummery had become the standard form, both to describe bland, unsatisfying food and unsubstantial talk or writing, and nonsense.  The US food with similar meanings is Mead Johnson's pablum, a soft, bland cereal, intended for infants, invalids and the weak.  In post-war Australia, a flummery was the name given to a mousse dessert made with beaten evaporated milk, sugar, and gelatine.  Also made using jelly crystals, mousse flummery became popular as an inexpensive alternative to traditional cream-based mousse.  In the US, it was named blancmange.

Pabulum (pronounced pab-yuh-luhm)

(1) Something that nourishes an animal or vegetable organism; food; nutriments.

(2) Figuratively, food for thought (can be neutral or positive but is more commonly used of material thought bland, dull or intellectually undemanding). 

(3) Material that fuels a fire (now rare except in technical documents).

1670-1680: From the Classical Latin pābulum (food, nourishment; fodder or pasture for animals; nourishment for the mind, food for thought), the construct being pā(scō) (to nourish) +‎ bulum (the suffix denoting an instrument).  Root was the primitive Indo-European peh-dlom, the construct being pe- (to feed) or peh- (to protect; to shepherd) + -dlom (a variant of -trom (the suffix denoting a tool or instrument)).  In the early eighteenth century the adjective pabulary (of or pertaining to pabulum (in the sense of food) and from the Latin pabulosus (abounding in fodder)) enjoyed a brief vogue as a noun (an eating place or a counter in an inn from which meals were served).  Pablum is a noun, pabular is a verb, pabulous, pabular & pabulary are adjectives; the noun plural is pabulums.

Crooked Spiro & Tricky Dick: Spiro Agnew and Richard Nixon.

The word in the late seventeenth century was used of food in the widest sense (ie that which feeds or nourishes) and that applied to that taken by people, animals, agricultural crops (in the sense of fertilizer) and even the material used to fuel a fire.  A trademark of manufacturers Mead Johnson, Pablum is a soft, bland cereal, intended for infants, invalids and the weak which was released in 1932 and it was this association which was picked up in the figurative use made of pabulum (to describe vapid or mushy political prose) in a speech made on 11 September 1970 by Spiro Agnew (1918–1996; US vice president 1969-1973).  The tone of the speech (though perhaps not the labored syntax which would be rejected as TLDR (too long, didn’t read) in the social media age) would be familiar to modern audiences used to political figures attacking the news media and was a critique of what later Republicans would label “fake news”.

“In the United States today, we have more than our share of the nattering nabobs of negativism.  They have formed their own 4-H Club - the “hopeless, hysterical hypochondriacs of history”  “…As long as they have their own association, crooks will flourish.  As long as they have their own television networks, paid for by their own advertisers, they will continue to have their own commentators.  It is time for America to quit catering to the pabulum peddlers and the permissive.  It is time to speak up forcefully for the conservative cause."

It wasn’t a new complaint for the aggressively alliterative Agnew and certainly represented well the opinions of Richard Nixon (1913–1994; US president 1969-1974) whose long list (and it was literally a list) of enemies included many journalists, editors and media proprietors.  In November 1969, Agnew had appeared at the Midwestern Regional Republican Conference in Des Moines, Iowa where he attacked “…this little group of men” who he accused of wielding “a free hand in selecting, presenting and interpreting” the news.  Intellectuals, he labeled “…an effete corps of impudent snobs”, a sentiment Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) would later recycle, the phraseology simplified so his “deplorables” would comprehend.  Agnew’s speeches are not classics in the art of rhetoric but remain landmarks in the culture wars which began in the early 1960s and which are being fought still.

Concurrent with though not related to the Watergate affair, in early 1973, Agnew was under investigation on suspicion of conspiracy, bribery, extortion and tax fraud.  While for months denying everything (always good legal advice which succeeds more often than it should), Agnew eventually was forced to negotiate a plea-bargain whereby he would resign from office but avoid jail.  On 10 October 1973, Agnew pleaded no contest to a single felony charge of tax evasion and resigned, not a few of those he’d earlier derided as “crooks” not reluctant to ensure the juxtaposition was well publicized.  Facing impeachment for his role in the Watergate affair cover-up, President Nixon (who earlier had made his soon infamous “I am not a crook” speech, followed within a year, saved from prosecution by a presidential pardon, granted by Gerald Ford (1913–2006; US president 1974-1977) who had been Nixon’s choice to replace Agnew as vice-president.

Lemon, Orange & Passionfruit Flummery

Ingredients

115g (½ cup) caster sugar

2 tablespoons plain flour

1 tablespoon powdered gelatine

250ml (1 cup) water

2 oranges, juiced & strained

1 lemon, juiced & strained

125ml (½ cup) fresh passionfruit pulp

Whipped cream, to serve

2 tablespoons passionfruit pulp, (extra, to spread on top)

Method

(1) Place the sugar, flour, gelatine, water, orange juice and lemon juice in a medium saucepan. Use a balloon whisk to whisk until well combined. Bring to the boil over medium heat, stirring constantly. Simmer for 2 minutes.

(2) Pour the mixture into a heatproof bowl and place in the fridge for 1 hour or until the mixture begins to set around the edges. Stir in the passionfruit and transfer to a large bowl. Use an electric beater to beat for 15 minutes or until the mixture is thick and pale.

(3) Pour the mixture evenly into four 310ml (1¼ cups) serving glasses. Cover the glass tightly with plastic wrap and place in the fridge for 1-2 hours or until the mixture is set.

(4) Serve topped with whipped cream and with extra passionfruit pulp.

Installation

Installation (pronounced in-stuh-ley-shuhn)

(1) Something installed (which can be physical, as in plant or equipment or weightless, as in software).

(2) The act of installing (to install) or the state of being installed.

(3) In military use, any permanent or semi-permanent post, camp, station, base etc, maintained to support operations.

(4) In art, an exhibit (widely defined) where the relation of the parts to the whole and the context of the space where exhibited are sometimes claimed to important to the interpretation of the piece.

(5) A formal ceremony in which an honor is conferred or an appointment made to an office (the state of being so honored or appointed being to be “installed”).

1600–1610: From the Middle French installation, from the Medieval Latin installātiō.  The construct was install + -ation.  The verb install (which was used also as instal and before that enstall) was an early fifteenth century form used to mean “place in ecclesiastical office by seating in an official stall”.  It was from the Middle English installen, from the fourteenth century Old French installer, from the Medieval Latin īnstallō (to install, put in place, establish), the construct being in- (in)- + stallum (stall), from the Frankish stall (stall, position, place), from the Proto-Germanic stallaz (place, position), from the primitive Indo-European stel-, stAlǝn- & stAlǝm- (stem, trunk).  It was cognate with the Old High German stal (location, stall), the Old English steall (position, stall), the Old English onstellan (to institute, create, originate, establish, give the example of), the Middle High German anstalt (institute), the German anstellen (to conduct, employ), the German einstellen (to set, adjust, position), Dutch aanstellen (to appoint, commission, institute) and the Dutch instellen (to set up, establish).  The suffix -ation was from the Middle English -acioun & -acion, from the Old French acion & -ation, from the Latin -ātiō, an alternative form of -tiō (thus the eventual English form -tion).  It was appended to words to indicate (1) an action or process, (2) the result of an action or process or (3) a state or quality.

The mid fifteenth century noun installation (action of installing) was a reference to the processes (both administrative & ceremonial) of appointment to church offices or other positions, and in that sense was from the Medieval Latin installationem (nominative installātiō), the noun of action from past participle stem of installare.  Of machinery (in the sense of plant & equipment), the first known use in print, describing the “act of setting up a machine; placing it in position for use” dates from 1882 but it may by then have for some time been in oral use.  Installation & installationer are nouns and installational & installationlike are adjectives; the noun plural is installations.  Installationism & installationist are non-standard forms used in art criticism.

In computing, an “installation” can be of hardware or software.  With hardware, the point of distinction is an installation is something which is permanent (or, even if temporary, installed in a manner of something permanent), as opposed to a mere connection (such as plugging to a USB cable).  In software, the idea to is transfer from an external source (the internet, a place on a network or transportable media (diskettes, optical discs etc)) onto a device's permanent storage, the installation process usually taken to include putting things into the state where functional use is possible.  Installations can be as simple as copying a single file to a drive to long, interactive processes involving multiple external media and on-line registration or validation procedures.  Some installations are effortless while some are worse than others, as those who have enjoyed the experience of installing the earlier versions of Nvidia’s video drivers for some flavors of Unix can attest.  Especially in software, the terms “pre-installation” and “re-reinstallation” are common although “un-install” is more common than “un-installation” (the terms “failed installation” and “corrupted installation” are also not unknown although in most use, IT nerds usually clip “installation” to “install”).

Installations and Performance Art

It’s now unfashionable, and probably thought reactionary, to attempt to impose definitions on the various expressions of Western art.  There was a time, in living memory, when such distinctions were taken seriously, one squabble about whether an entrant in an Australian portraiture competition could be considered “a portrait” (and by implication the work of “an artist”) or “a mere caricature” (and the thus the scribblings of “a cartoonist”) ending up in the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Attorney-General v Trustees of National Art Gallery of NSW & Another (1945) 62 WN (NSW) 212.).

Portrait or caricature?  Mr Joshua Smith (1943, left), oil on canvas by Sir William Dobell (1899–1970) and Joshua Smith (1905-1995, right).

Wisely, Mr Justice Roper (1901–1958) decided the bench was not a place for amateur art criticism and agreed the work was indeed “a portrait”, holding, inter alia, that “portrait” “…means a pictorial representation of a person, painted by an artist. This definition denotes some degree of likeness is essential and for the purpose of achieving it the inclusion of the face of the subject is desirable and perhaps also essential.”  Of the work in question, he observed it was “…characterised by some startling exaggeration and distortion which was clearly intended by the artist, his technique being too brilliant to admit of any other conclusion.  It bears, nevertheless, a strong degree of likeness to the subject and is think, undoubtedly, a pictorial representation of him.  I find as a fact that it is a portrait…”  Given that, the judge found it unnecessary to consider whether the painting was a “caricature” or a “fantasy” which was a shame, even if it wouldn’t have been something on which the verdict hung.

Year later, in an essay he titled The White Bird (1987), the English painter & art critic John Berger (1926–2017) would discuss the relationship between artist, artwork & viewer and the tension between accurate depiction (“imitation” as he sometimes called it, a growing trend in modern portraiture) and creative expression: “The notion that art is the mirror of nature is one that only appeals in periods of scepticism.  Art does not imitate nature; it imitates a creation, sometimes to propose an alternative world, sometimes simply to amplify, to confirm, to make social the brief hope offered by nature.  Art is an organised response to what nature allows us to glimpse occasionally. Art sets out to transform the potential recognition into an unceasing one.”  With that, one suspects Mr Justice Roper would have concurred.

Finding legal proceedings tiresome, the art industry solved the problem of what does and does not belong in galleries by embracing “installations” and “performance art”, two categories without definitional boundaries and thus able to accommodate anything which can’t be squeezed into one of the traditional slots.  In retrospect, it is course easy to identify stuff stretching back many centuries which could be classified as either but in the modern age, there’s certainly a perception curators are now artistically more promiscuous.  It thus both impossible and pointless to try to define “installation” and “performance art” but some characteristics certainly are identifiable.

Installation art tends to be three-dimensional, is often site-specific and designed to transform the perception of a space in which it exists and the range of materials used is unlimited, the genre notable especially for the use of everyday objects, video & audio content and often, interactive components.  Installation art has encompassed unmade beds so there’s some scope.  Just as there’s no one type of installation, nor are there defined parameters for the mode of display: installations have been hung from ceilings, wrapped around buildings and sat on the seabed.  In gallery spaces however, the most frequently seen installations are those on the floor with sufficient room surrounding them for the viewer to walk around, experiencing the work from multiple angles and perspectives.  Installations can be temporary or permanent or even in some way vanish, decay or be destroyed during the exhibition and in more than one case, the “installation” didn’t actually exist.

The context of location can also dictate the definition.  Wax figures of Lindsay Lohan & Paris Hilton might be all or part of an installation if exhibited in a gallery but when on display at Madame Tussauds in New York City (left), they are a tourist attraction.  More typically, installations combine artistic technique with social or political comment: Gabriel Dawe's (b 1973) Plexus series (centre) was made with a reputed 60 miles (97 km) of embroidery thread hooked from floor to ceiling in a repeating overlay while Judy Chicago’s (b 1939) The Dinner Party, 1974-79 (right) was a feminist piece but one which later attracted criticism because some degree of “ethnic exclusionism” was detected.

Performance art, as the term implies, is a form of “live art” where “something happens”, the actions of the artist or performers components of the work.  Perhaps best thought of as a form of encapsulated theatre, performance art would seem to depend on movement, sound, color and sometimes text although, being art, some performance art has been wholly static.  For that reason, Empire (1965), Andy Warhol’s (1928–1987) eight-hour, slow-motion film of an unchanging view of the Empire State Building must be considered performance art although, given the nature of the experience, it really must be the viewer who is thought the subject.  Performance art is of course intrinsically ephemeral and Empire played with that idea, each moment of the production seemingly the same yet in tiny ways different, rather like the exercise in textual definitional philosophy lecturers like to give students to ponder: “Is the river the ‘same’ river from one day to the next when almost all the molecules of water are different?”

The muse as performing installation: US rapper, singer, songwriter, record producer, hip hop identity & fashion designer Ye (formerly the artist known as Kanye West (b 1977)) and Australian architect & model Bianca Censori (b 1995), annual Grammy Awards, Los Angeles, 2 February 2025.

The recent, much publicized appearances by Mr Ye and Ms Censori attracted all sorts of comments and the consensus was the project (one presumably restricted to the warmer months) was a promotional device for him and to some extent that seems to have worked, despite Mr Ye being mostly unnoticed while in the presence of his photogenic muse.  Although there are references to the pair being “married”, it’s not clear if that is their legal status and in artistic terms that may be significant.  What is of interest is whether in these appearances Ms Censori should be thought a “performance artist” or Mr Ye’s “installation”; both have been suggested and there’s no reason why the two states can’t be simultaneous.  Most intriguing has been the suggestion Ms Cansori is being paid by Mr Ye on a "per outfit" basis and is thus a kind of "walking installation".  That would make it a very "modern" marriage and one of which not all would approve but there have been relationships (artistic and otherwise) based on more dubious arrangements.   

Mr Ye & Ms Cansori at Paris Fashion Week, June 2024, the latter in character as an installation.

In the decadent West, when considering the sometimes dubious artistic merit of installations, professional and amateurs critics alike both usually focus on the work but ever since 1917 when a porcelain urinal appeared in an art gallery, the matter of location has had to be considered: "If something (including a porcelain urinal) is exhibited in an art gallery, is it thus a 'work of art'?"  The question was by most treated as an absurdity but it troubled some critics and went on to sustain the pop-art movement. remaining a staple for post-modernists (they still exist), "cultural commentators" and such.  For decades, the manifests of art galleries have included many items few prior to the modern era would have been prepared to call "art".  

Kim Jong-un (right) looking at Jang Song-thaek (left).

For some, professional careers have been built exploring the implication of the question while for most, it's all been variously annoying or amusing but there are places in which where an object sits can be critical and choosing a "shady" rather than "sunny" spot can be a capital offence.  In the DPRK (Democratic Republic of Korea (North Korea)), Jang Song-thaek (1946-2013) was married to Kim Kyong-hui (b 1946; believed still alive), only daughter Kim Il-sung (1912-1994; Great Leader of DPRK 1949-1994) and only sister of (1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK; 1994-2011). He was thus the uncle (by marriage) of Kim Jong-un (b circa 1983; Supreme Leader of DPRK since 2011).  Within the party, he had a mixed career but ups and downs within the structure were not unusual and later in the reign of the Dear Leader, he emerged as a important figure in both the political and military machines around which things in the DPRK revolve.  His position appeared to be strengthened when the Supreme Leader assumed power but in 2013 he was accused of being a counter-revolutionary, was expelled from the party, dismissed from his many posts and was un-personed by having his photograph and mention of his name digitally erased from all official records.  In December that year, the KCNA (Korean Central News Agency, the regime's energetic and highly productive state media organization) announced his execution.

Obviously guilty as sin: Jang Song-thaek (left) being brought before the court (right).

On the basis of the official statement issued by the KCNA, he must have been guilty, highlights of the press release including confirmation he was “an anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional element and despicable political careerist and trickster…, a traitor to the nation for all ages who perpetrated anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional acts in a bid to overthrow the leadership of our party and state and the socialist system”.  It noted that despite receiving much trust and benevolence by the “peerlessly great men … The Great Leader, The Dear Leader and The Supreme Leader”, he behaved “worse than a dog, perpetrated thrice-cursed acts of treachery in betrayal of such profound trust and warmest paternal love”.  Of note was his subversion of interior decorating, preventing “the Taedonggang Tile Factory from erecting a mosaic…” as a monument to the Great Leader, not in its deserved place in the sun but “…in a shaded corner”.  Perhaps worse of all, he “let the decadent capitalist lifestyle find its way to our society by distributing all sorts of pornographic pictures among his confidants since 2009. He led a dissolute, depraved life, squandering money wherever he went.”  In summary, the release added Jang was a “thrice-cursed traitor without an equal in the world” and that “history will eternally record and never forget the shuddering crimes committed by Jang Song Thaek, the enemy of the party, revolution and people and heinous traitor to the nation”.

Details of such matters are hard to confirm so it’s not known if the rumors of him being executed by anti-aircraft gun fire or a flame-thrower are true.  Nor is it known if whatever remained of the corpse was thrown to a pack of wild dogs but the KCNA's press release did add: “…the revolutionary army will never pardon all those who disobey the order of the Supreme Commander and there will be no place for them to be buried even after their death” so the dog-food theory was at least plausible.

KCNA’s official photograph, commemorating the Supreme Leader’s tour of “inspection and field guidance” of the Taedonggang Tile Factory, September 2012.  Included in the Supreme Leader’s entourage was Jang Song-thaek (in army uniform on top platform).

The Supreme Leader learned in detail about factory operations including the processes used in the microlite shop and artificial marble tile shop, the latter able to produce tiles in the same colors and patterns as those of natural marble.  Addressing the workers, the Supreme Leader underlined the need to continue directing big efforts to improving the quality of products, noting that the quality of tiles depends on plane and right angle tolerable numerical value, contraction rate, intensity and resistance to cold.  When seeing tiles of diverse colors and sizes, he expressed great satisfaction that, figuratively speaking, “all clothes and underwear are locally made”, a thoughtful observation which attracted much applause.  It was on this visit the Supreme Leader became aware of the subversive and treasonous order from Jang Song-thaek that the mosaic erected as a monument to the Great Leader must be installed not in its deserved place in the sun but in a shaded corner.

Unconscionable

Unconscionable (pronounced un-kno-shon-ible)

(1) Not guided by conscience; unscrupulous.

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

(3) Excessive; extortionate, imprudent or unreasonable

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

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

Unconscionability in the law

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

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

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

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

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

Macrocephalic

Macrocephalic (pronounced mak-roh-sef-a-lee)

The condition of having an abnormally large head or skull, the diagnostic criterion usually the circumference being beyond the normal range.

1851: From the Ancient Greek makrokephalos, the construct being māk ros (large, long), from the primitive Indo-European root māk- (long, thin) + the Ancient Greek κεφαλή (kephalḗ) (head).  English borrowed cephaly from the French -céphalie or the German -zephalie, from the Latin -cephalia, from the Ancient Greek kephalḗ.  The form macrocephalous (having a long head) dates from 1810.  The primitive Indo-European root māk (long, thin) forms part of emaciate, macro, macro-, macrobiotic, macron, meager & paramecium.  It’s thought to be the source of the Ancient Greek makros (long, large) & mēkos (length), the Latin macer (lean, thin), the Old Norse magr & the Old English mæger (lean, thin).  The less commonly used terms in pathology are megacephaly and megalocephaly and a related term is sub-macrocephaly.  Macrocephalic & macrocephalous are adjectives, macrocephalous and macrocephaly are nouns; the noun plural is macrocephalies

DPRK generals in their big hats, leaving the monthly hat ceremony, wearing the millinery badges they've been awarded.

There’s no evidence heads in the DPRK (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) differ, on a population basis, from the those of the rest of the human race.  Even though the DPRK has to a high degree been physically isolated from the outside population since the early 1950s, the gene pool in the population is sufficiently diverse that most in the field expect there’d be no change to aggregate outcomes in human physiology.  Indeed, those changes which have been noted (stunting etc), are thought the consequence of nutritional deficiencies rather than anything genetic.

Suleiman I (Süleyman the Magnificent, 1494-1566, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire 1520-1566) (far left), Pius XII (1876-1958; pope 1939-1958) in the papal triple tiara (triple crown) at his coronation, 1939 (centre left), depiction of Süleyman the Magnificent in his retaliatory four tier helmet (centre right) and Officer of the 4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards (1826), watercolor by Richard Simkin (1850-1926) (far right).  The dragoons always had famously good hats.

Kim Jong-un, looking at DPRK generals in their big hats.

In military uniforms, ecclesiastical dress and fashion, big hats have been a thing for thousands of years, the earliest presumably a form of biomimicry, inspired by examples like the plumage of birds or the manes of lions.  In human society, the purpose would not have been dissimilar to that of the other animals: wishing to appear (1) larger and more threatening to deter attacks, (2) of a higher status than others or (3) more attractive to attract a mate and this procreate.  Some uses would of course have been for mere function, headwear serving as protection from the elements or impacts, modern examples including the wide-brimmed hats adopted to shade one from the sun, the Mexican sombrero emblematic of this.  In the modern era (and it's a trend noted since at least late antiquity), extravagant headwear exists for no purpose other than to attract whatever is the currency of the age, photographers at the fashion shows or clicks on the internet.  On the catwalks, some creations can hardly be described as functional or conventionally attractive so clickbait is the only explanation and whether some of that worn by figures such as Lady Gaga (b 1986) was inspired by the millinery of Süleyman the Magnificent isn't known but the thematic similarities can't be denied.  Of course, over thousands of years, there's going to be some stylistic overlap; there are only so many ways to adorn a head.

DPRKesque fashion: Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945, left) and Victor Emmanuel III (1869–1947; King of Italy 1900-1946, right) observing the Italian Navy conduct maneuvers, Gulf of Naples, 1938 (left) and Lindsay Lohan in a promotional image from her campaign for US hair and skin beauty care corporation Nexxus, 2024.

Celebrities like big hats for a number of reasons.  Jacqueline Kennedy (1929-1994; US First Lady 1961-1963) told Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969) she wore wide-brimmed hats to prevent him kissing her while the diminutive Victor Emmanuel III (1869–1947; King of Italy 1900-1946) had the royal milliners craft a number of unusually tall hats (including military caps) to add two inches (50 mm) odd to his  stature.  The elevation was especially obvious when he was standing with those wearing conventionally sized military headwear and it's doubtful anyone was fooled.  Technically, Victor Emmanuel didn’t fit the definition of dwarfism which sets a threshold of adult height at 4 feet 10 inches (1.47 m), the king about 2 inches (50 mm) taller (or less short) and it’s thought the inbreeding not uncommon among European royalty might have been a factor, both his parents and grandparents being first cousins.  However, although not technically a dwarf, that didn’t stop his detractors in Italy’s fascist government calling him (behind his back) il nano (the dwarf), a habit soon picked up the Nazis as der Zwerg (the dwarf) (although Hermann Göring (1893–1946; leading Nazi 1922-1945, Hitler's designated successor & Reichsmarschall 1940-1945) was said to have preferred der Pygmäe (the pygmy)).  In court circles he was knows also (apparently affectionately) as la piccola sciabola (the little sabre) a nickname actually literal in origin because the royal swordsmith had to forge a ceremonial sabre with an unusually short blade for the diminutive sovereign to wear with his many military uniforms.  His French-speaking wife (Princess Elena of Montenegro (1873–1952; Queen of Italy 1900-1946)) stood a statuesque six feet (1.8 m) tall and always called him mon petit roi (my little king).  It was a long and happy marriage and genetically helpful too, his son and successor (who enjoyed only a brief reign) very much taller although his was to be a tortured existence.  Still, in his unhappiness the scion stood tall and that would have been appreciated by the late Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (1921–2021) who initially approved of the marriage of Lady Diana Spencer (1960-1997) to the Prince of Wales (b 1948) on the basis that she “would breed some height into the line”.

Kim Jong-un at a military briefing, conducted by DPRK generals in their big hats.

The papal triple tiara is a crown which has been worn by popes of the Roman Catholic Church since the eighth century.  Traditionally it was worn for their coronation but no pontiff has been so crowned since Saint Paul VI (1897-1978; pope 1963-1978) in 1963 and he abandoned its use after the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II, 1962-1965).  The name tiara refers to the entire headgear and it has used a three-tiered form since a third crown was added during the Avignon Papacy (1309–1378).  It's also referred to as the triregnum, triregno or Triple Crown.  In a piece of one- (or perhaps four-) upmanship, Süleyman the Magnificent commissioned from Venice a four tier helmet to show, in addition to the authority claimed by popes, he could add the symbol of his imperial power, his secular sovereignty.  Often put on display as the centrepiece of Ottoman regalia to impress visitors, there's no documentary evidence the sultan ever wore the four layer tiara, crowns not part of the tradition and, fashioned from gold and gemstones, it would anyway have been extraordinarily heavy and it may be it was worn only for brief, static, set piece ceremonies because an incautious movement could have risked neck injury.

A younger, more svelte Kim Jong-un at a military field conference, noting one general not issued with big hat.

A representation of the triregnum combined with two crossed keys of Saint Peter continues to be used as a symbol of the papacy and appears on papal documents, buildings and insignia.  Remarkably, there’s no certainty about what the three crowns symbolize.  Some modern historians link it to the threefold authority of the pope, (1) universal pastor, (2) universal ecclesiastical jurisdiction and (3) temporal power.  Others, including many biblical scholars, interpret the three tiers as meaning (1) father of princes and kings, (2) ruler of the world and (3) vicar of Christ on Earth, a theory lent credence by the words once used when popes were crowned:  Accipe tiaram tribus coronis ornatam, et scias te esse patrem principum et regum, rectorem orbis in terra vicarium Salvatoris nostri Jesu Christi, cui est honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum (Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns and know that thou art father of princes and kings, ruler of the world, vicar on earth of our Savior Jesus Christ, to whom is honor and glory for ever and ever).

Kim Jong-un on an afternoon stroll with DPRK generals, discussing the politics of big hair and big hats.

The preference in the DPRK armed forces for big hats is appears to be a matter of military fashion rather than physiological need and big hats are part of a military tradition which, although now restricted mostly to ceremonial use, were once functional in that they provided warmth, an impression of greater height and some degree of protection from attack.  Being made from animal fur, the hats are now controversial but, as a natural material, they have proved more durable and resistant to the weather than synthetic alternatives, factors which military authorities long cited as the reason for their retention.

Bearskin cap of the UK Foot Guards, made traditionally with the fur of Canadian bears (left) and model Lucy Clarkson (b 1982, right), fetchingly body-painted in the uniform of the Queen's Guards, in a demonstration organized by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) to draw attention to the slaughter of the bears due to the use of real bearskins in the Guard's ceremonial headdress, Westminster Bridge, London 2010.  Whether the Ministry of Defence was persuaded by PETA's arguments, Ms Clarkson's charms or some analysis which revealed the exorbitant cost of purchasing and maintaining the bearskin hats isn't clear but recently it was announced the traditional ones will be "phased out" in favor of units made from “faux” bearskin.

Kim Jong-un discussing millinery ethics with DPRK generals wearing big hats.

The tall bearskin cap, usually associated with parade ground manoeuvres around Buckingham palace, was historically the headgear of the Grenadier Guards and, remarkably, it was sometime part of battlefield dress even in the twentieth century.  It remains part of the ceremonial uniforms in many armed forces and not just those once part of the British Empire.  That up to a hundred Canadian bears are each season slaughtered "just so men could wear big hats while marching around in circles" is claimed by the activists to be of "no obvious military value but merely a tourist attraction".  While there's merit in the argument there is a legitimate military purpose in the maintenance of traditions, extending that to fur hats does seem quite abstract.  

Kim Jong-un (right) looking at Jang Song-thaek's big hat (left).

In the DPRK, Jang Song-thaek (1946-2013) was married to Kim Kyong-hui (b 1946; believed still alive), only daughter Kim Il-sung (1912-1994; Great Leader of DPRK 1949-1994) and only sister of (1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK; 1994-2011). He was thus the uncle (by marriage) of Kim Jong-un (b circa 1983; Supreme Leader of DPRK since 2011).  Within the party, he had a mixed career but ups and downs within the structure were not unusual and later in the reign of the Dear Leader, he emerged as a important figure in both the political and military machines around which things in the DPRK revolve.  His position appeared to be strengthened when the Supreme Leader assumed power but in 2013 he was accused of being a counter-revolutionary, was expelled from the party, dismissed from his many posts and was un-personed by having his photograph and mention of his name digitally erased from all official records.  In December that year, the KCNA (Korean Central News Agency, the regime's energetic and highly productive state media organization) announced his execution.

Obviously guilty as sin: Jang Song-thaek (left) being brought before the court (right).

On the basis of the official statement issued by the KCNA, he must have been guilty, highlights of the press release including confirmation he was “an anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional element and despicable political careerist and trickster…, a traitor to the nation for all ages who perpetrated anti-party, counter-revolutionary factional acts in a bid to overthrow the leadership of our party and state and the socialist system”.  It noted that despite receiving much trust and benevolence by the “peerlessly great men … The Great Leader, The Dear Leader and The Supreme Leader”, he behaved “worse than a dog, perpetrated thrice-cursed acts of treachery in betrayal of such profound trust and warmest paternal love”.  Of note was his subversion of interior decorating, preventing “the Taedonggang Tile Factory from erecting a mosaic…” as a monument to the Great Leader, not in its deserved place in the sun but “…in a shaded corner”.  Perhaps worse of all, he “let the decadent capitalist lifestyle find its way to our society by distributing all sorts of pornographic pictures among his confidants since 2009. He led a dissolute, depraved life, squandering money wherever he went.”  In summary, the release added Jang was a “thrice-cursed traitor without an equal in the world” and that “history will eternally record and never forget the shuddering crimes committed by Jang Song Thaek, the enemy of the party, revolution and people and heinous traitor to the nation”.

Details of such matters are hard to confirm so it’s not known if the rumors of him being executed by anti-aircraft gun fire or a flame-thrower are true.  Nor is it known if whatever remained of the corpse was thrown to a pack of wild dogs but the KCNA's press release did add: “…the revolutionary army will never pardon all those who disobey the order of the Supreme Commander and there will be no place for them to be buried even after their death” so the dog-food theory was at least plausible.

KCNA’s official photograph, commemorating the Supreme Leader’s tour of “inspection and field guidance” of the Taedonggang Tile Factory, September 2012.  Included in the Supreme Leader’s entourage was Jang Song-thaek (in army uniform on top platform).

The Supreme Leader learned in detail about factory operations including the processes used in the microlite shop and artificial marble tile shop, the latter able to produce tiles in the same colors and patterns as those of natural marble.  Addressing the workers, the Supreme Leader underlined the need to continue directing big efforts to improving the quality of products, noting that the quality of tiles depends on plane and right angle tolerable numerical value, contraction rate, intensity and resistance to cold.  When seeing tiles of diverse colors and sizes, he expressed great satisfaction that, figuratively speaking, “all clothes and underwear are locally made”, a thoughtful observation which attracted much applause.  It was on this visit the Supreme Leader became aware of the subversive and treasonous order from Jang Song-thaek that the mosaic erected as a monument to the Great Leader must be installed not in its deserved place in the sun but in a shaded corner.

Kim Jong-un, looking through binoculars across the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) at the small hats worn by RoK (Republic of Korea (South Korea)) generals.