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.

Signature

Signature (pronounced sig-nuh-cher or sig-nuh-choor)

(1) A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

(2) The act of signing a document.

(3) In music, a sign or set of signs at the beginning of a staff to indicate the key or the time of a piece.

(4) In broadcasting, a song, musical arrangement, sound effect, etc., used as a theme identifying a program.

(5) Any unique, distinguishing aspect, feature, or mark.

(6) In computing, as digital signature, any one of a number of attempts to create a mechanism whereby a digital object can have the same unique identifying characteristic as a physical signature in ink; in cryptography, data attached to a message certifying the message originated from its claimed source; in email and some other variations of communication, test, images or other objects collectively appended usually at the end of a message, analogous with a traditional signature on a letter.

(7) In digital forensic analysis, as digital signature, a term used to refer to any collection of characteristics which can be used as an identifier of origin, intent etc;

(8) The part of a prescription for pharmaceuticals instructing the patient the frequency and quantity in which a drug should be administered (US only).

(9) As an adjective, something intended to be emblematic of an institution or individual (signature dish signature cocktail, signature scent etc).

(10) In printing, a sheet of paper printed with several pages that upon folding will become a section or sections of a book; such a sheet so folded.

(11) In mathematics, a tuple specifying the sign of coefficients in any diagonal form of a quadratic form.

(12) In medicine, a resemblance between the external character of a disease and those of some physical agent (obsolete).

1525-1535: From the Old & Middle French signature, from the Medieval Latin signātura, future active periphrastic of the verb signāre (to sign), the construct being signum (sign), + -tura, feminine of -turus, the future active periphrastic suffix.  The first use with a link to English appears to have been as a kind of document defined in Scottish law.  The Medieval Latin signatura, was, in Classical Latin a rescript (the matrix of a seal).  The meaning "one's own name written in one's own hand" is from 1570s, which replaced the early-fifteenth century “sign-manual” in this sense.  The use in musical notation in which composers used "signs placed it the beginning of a staff to indicate the key and rhythm" was noted first in 1806.  Signature began to be used in the generalized sense of "a distinguishing mark of any kind" as early as the 1620s.

Non est factum

Historically, in contract law a signature was binding on the party who signed and obliged the performance of the specific terms of the contract.  Even if someone could prove they signed because of their own misunderstandings or in an act of carelessness even to the point of gross negligence, courts would still usually enforce the contract but a notable exception was the doctrine of non est factum.  Translated literally from the Latin as "it is not my deed", it’s available as a defense where a person has been induced to sign something in circumstances where the contents of what was signed differ fundamentally from what the person was led to believe.  Where a plea is upheld, the court can set aside the contract (void ab initio).  Special circumstances must exist for the defense to succeed: it does not cover a claim where someone either misunderstood or failed to read the terms and conditions.

An octuple of Lindsay Lohan signatures on Lohanic merchandise. 

It’s novel in that it differs from other aspects of contract law such as the provisions which permit judges to strike-out particular clauses or even entire contracts if their enforcement is held to be “unconscionable”.  Non est factum is available even where terms and conditions can be reasonable such as the sale of a property for fair value; it hinges instead on the state of mind of the signee and the circumstances under which a signature was induced.  Typically, courts are most sympathetic to “innocent victims”, those who through no fault of their own (those illiterate, deaf, blind or suffering some other relevant incapacity) could not understand the document they were signing and relied upon another for advice.  Such is the reverence in contract law for the sanctity of the signature, a heavy evidential onus of proof is laid upon a claimant for non est factum to succeed; it’s a rare and exceptional defense.

The signature dish

Noted chefs and great restaurants often have signature dishes, not necessarily unique to them but something with which they’re famously associated.  Countries and regions also have signature dishes, sometimes advertised and promoted and sometimes just a link which develops over time.  There can even be disputes if the origin of something is thought a source of pride; there are factions in both Australia and New Zealand which lay claim to the pavlova. 

Minnesota Hotdish.

Despite the name, the concept of the Minnesota’s signature hotdish didn’t originate there and, with variations, is popular across the Upper Midwest region of the United States.  As a dish, such is the simplicity in preparation and adaptability in content that something recognizably close has probably been a feature of human cuisine for as long as the technical means of production has been available.  Anything of the hotdish type contains usually a starch, a meat, canned or frozen vegetables with canned soup as the binding agent; cooked in the one flat dish, it’s served heated.  The distinguishing characteristic of the classic Minnesota hotdish is the use of mushroom soup but beyond that, there’s much variation, inventiveness encouraged by the many hotdish completions in the region.  As well as the traditional beef base, tuna, turkey and chicken are used, pasta is often replaced by rice or potatoes and vegetarian versions have appeared.  The critical aspect seems to be the texture, while a Minnesota hotdish won’t entirely maintain the shape when sliced, it should have sufficient integrity for the potatoes or breadcrumbs to stay atop and not sink into the mix.

Hubert Humphrey, Cardinal Terence Cooke (1921–1983; Archbishop of New York 1968-1983) President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969) & Richard Nixon, twenty-third Alfred E Smith dinner, New York, 16 October 1968.  Cardinal Cooke was a less controversial figure than his predecessor (Cardinal Francis Spellman (1889–1967; prelate of the US Catholic Church & Archbishop of New York 1939-1967)).

Hubert Horatio Humphrey (1911–1978) served as a senator for Minnesota (1949-1964 & 1971-1978) and as US vice president (1965-1969).  He was the Democrat Party’s nominee for president in 1968, his candidature something of a rush-job after LBJ's abrupt decision not to seek re-election.  As part of the 1968 campaign, his wife’s Minnesota hotdish recipe was published, unusual today in that it didn’t include the potato gems which usually now sit atop the concoction.  Mrs Humphrey’s culinary campaign contribution wasn’t decisive, her husband, although running Republican Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974) close in the popular vote (Nixon (31,783,783 votes; 43.4%), Humphrey (31,271,839; 42.7%)), lost the electoral college (Nixon, 32 states & 301 votes, Humphrey 13 states & 191 votes).

Mrs Humphrey’s Ingredients

4 tablespoons shortening
2 green bell peppers, sliced
1 medium onion, chopped
1 lb (500 g) ground beef
1½ half teaspoons salt
¼ teaspoon pepper
2 eggs
2 cups whole kernel corn
4 medium tomatoes, sliced
½ cup dry bread crumbs
Butter

Mrs Humphrey’s Instructions

(1) Put shortening in skillet; lightly fry green peppers, onion and ground beef for 3 minutes or until partially done. Salt and pepper. Remove from heat; stir in eggs and mix well.

(2) Place 1 cup corn in casserole. Top with layer of meat mixture and layer of sliced tomatoes.

(3) Repeat until corn, meat mixture and tomatoes are used.

(4) Cover casserole with crumbs. Dot with bits of butter.

(5) Bake at 375º F (190º C) for 1 hour or until heated thoroughly.

It can be finished in a grill to add something to the cheese.  Serve with a side salad and rolls.

Hitler's signature

Becoming tremulous: Hitler’s signature: 1933-1945.

Between 1943-1945, Adolf Hitler's (1889-1945; Führer (leader) and German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945) handwriting suffered and, towards the end, it took some effort even to etch his name, a process which happened in conjunction with a physical decline noted in many contemporary accounts.  The reason for this deterioration has been discussed by doctors, historians and popular authors, most recently in 2015 by Norman Ohler (b 1970) in Der totale Rausch: Drogen im Dritten Reich (The Total Rush: Drugs in the Third Reich), published in English in 2017 as Blitzed: Drugs in Nazi Germany (Penguin, ISBN: 9780141983165).  Blitzed is a study of the use of methamphetamine stimulants in German society, the military and Hitler himself during the Nazi years with a focus especially on the relationship between the Führer and his personal physician, Dr Theodor Morell (1886–1948) who prescribed and administered a variety of drugs and vitamins between 1936-1945.  It’s the use of opioids and psychoactive drugs that is of most interest.

A best seller, Ohler wrote a lively work in a jaunty style which made his book readable but did attract criticism from the academic and professional historians never happy with journalistic trespassing on their carefully trimmed turf.  While there’s always sensitivity to authors injecting elements of humour and pop-culture references into anything about Hitler and the Third Reich, these essentially stylistic objections matter less than the substantive concerns about presenting as proven fact inferences drawn from incomplete or inconclusive sources.  That critique of scholarship should be noted but Blitzed needs to be read as just another text interpreting the documents of the era and in that, if read in conjunction with other accounts of the time, Ohler’s thesis is in places compelling while sometimes contradicted by multiple other sources.  The argument that the drugs had no effect Hitler’s decline and increasingly erratic behavior were due to stress and the onset of Parkinson’s disease is as dogmatic a position as many accuse Ohler of taking.  There are interesting aspects in the accounts from 1943-1945: the unexpected way Hitler’s physical tremors briefly vanished in the aftermath of the explosion during the assassination attempt in July 1944 and the various clandestine analysis of Morell’s preparations, some of which revealed a strong opioid and some harmless concoctions with barely a pharmacological effect.  While clearly not a conventional work of history, Blitzed seems a valuable contribution.

Patient & doctor: Hitler and Dr Morell.

The fault in Blitzed is probably that habitual journalistic tendency to exaggeration.  That stimulants were widely available and demonstratively popular in Germany doesn’t mean the entire workforce, every hausfrau and all servicemen in the Wehrmacht were habitual or even occasional users of amphetamines although, given the documentary evidence and the observational accounts of behavior, the case for Hitler’s addictions (or at least dependence) is stronger.  Critics felt also compelled to run the usual objection to anything which could be constructed as some sort of exculpatory argument; the idea that being stupefied by psychoactive drugs could somehow absolve individual or collective guilt.  Among those who lived the Nazi experience, long has been established the guilt to one degree or another of the many and the innocence of a few.  That said, there seems little doubt the rapidity of the Wehrmacht's advances in 1939-1941 were at least partially attributable to the soldiers being supplied amphetamines which enabled a heightened level of alertness and performance for sometimes thirty hours without need for sleep.  It was a most effective force multiplier.  Other factors, notably (1) the revolutionary approach to deploying tanks as armored spearheads, (2) the used of dive-bombers, (3) the ineptness of the Allied response and (4) luck were more significance but the speed did make a contribution.

Revoke & Irrevocable

Revoke (pronounced ri-vohk)

(1) To take back or withdraw; annul, cancel, rescind or reverse; rescind or repeal.

(2) To bring or summon back.

(3) In certain card games, to fail to follow suit when possible and required (renege the more common term).

(4) Such an act or instance of revoking.

1300–1350: From the Middle English revoken, from the Latin revocāre (to call again; to call back; withdraw), the construct being re- (in the sense of “again”) + vocāre (to call).  The synonyms (depending on context) are countermand, nullify, recall and retract.  Revoke is a noun & verb, revoker is a noun, revoked & revoking are verbs and revokingly is an adverb; the noun plural is revokers.

Irrevocable (pronounced ih-rev-uh-kuh-buhl (U) or ih-ri-vohk-kuh-buhl (non-U))

Not to be revoked or recalled; unable to be changed, repealed or annulled; unalterable.

1350–1400: From the Middle English, from the Middle French irrévocable from the Latin irrevocābilis (that which cannot be recalled, unalterable), the construct being ir- (the prefix an assimilated form of in- (not, opposite of)) + revocabilis (able to be revoked).  Irrevocable is an adjective, irrevocableness & irrevocability are nouns, and irrevocably is an adverb; the noun plural is irrevocabilities.

The trust, Rupert Murdoch and irrevocably

The trust in its modern form is an invention of English common law.  Although the trustee concept was a part of Roman civil law, its operation essentially was restricted to the a class of ownership of assets held by someone who would now be known as the executor or administrator of the estate of a deceased; the administrator would be the legal owner (though not necessarily the possessor) of the goods but their rights to them was limited to distributing them (or if sold or dissolved, their value) to the beneficiaries named in the deceased testamentary documents (will).  The novel innovation of the English common law was to apply a similar concept to the property of someone living.  During the Crusades (the expeditions by Christian military formations between 1095-1291 attempting to retake the Holy Land (Jerusalem and its environs)), it was the practice for a land-owning Crusader to convey (ie transfer ownership) his property to another so the estate could continue to operate as part of the feudal land system, this done on the basis that upon his return to England, the property would revert to him.  Most such arrangements were honored but some were not and because English law regarded land title as absolute, whomever was the legal “owner” of the land could defend that right against any claim.  A subject’s only recourse was to seek justice by petitioning the king and in most cases the matter would be referred to the chancellor (an office something like a mix of prime-minister & minister of justice) who would decide each case on its merits.  That of course resulted in inconsistencies and led to the development of the Court of Chancery and the emergence of the principles of the law of “equity”, designed both to remove inconsistencies and avoid the injustices sometimes the result of the strict application of the rigid rules of the common law.

Thus the emergence of the trust in which property could be transferred from one to another but with rights of the legal “owner” of the property in the trust restricted by the terms of the trust (typically that the property or its proceeds could be used or applied only to those beneficiaries named); the “legal owner” was thus really the trustee (the administrator).  It was a mechanism which proved useful over the centuries including during the wars of religion when trusts could be created to protect property from confiscation.  The trust is a flexible beast and a variety exist including the “secret trust” (although in most places they’re not as secret as once they were) and although most trusts formally are created an so-named, if an arrangement is found in substance and operation to be “a trust in all nut name”, a court can declare it to be a trust (technically a “constructive trust”).  Trusts are widely used today, mostly tax-minimization platforms because, as a general principle, income gained by a trust is not taxable until paid out to a beneficiary.  That has made trusts of great interest to those advocating tax-reform but because among the most enthusiastic users of trusts are the rich and politicians (society’s most dynamic and influential symbiosis whether in New York, Moscow, Beijing, Islamabad or Pyongyang), not much is likely to change.  A particular flavor of trust is the “irrevocable trust” which, as the name suggests, should be one in which the terms cannot be altered.

Washoe County Courthouse (1910), Reno Nevada.  Built in Classical Revival style, it first gained national attention when the combination of liberal residency requirements and liberal divorce laws created a "divorce boom" which made a significant contribution to the Nevada economy.

In 1999 Rupert Murdoch (b 1931), at the time of his second divorce, created the Murdoch Family Trust (MFT), into which was transferred the shareholdings of a number of companies and the terms of the trust were such that the succession plans for his media empire were settled.  The trust grants the family eight votes, Mr Murdoch controlling four, each of his eldest four children holding one; upon Mr Murdoch’s death, his four would have been distributed equally to them.  The device was created as an “irrevocable trust” as part of the terms of the divorce, the ex-wife waiving the right to a much higher payout in return for the “irrevocable” protection the terms of the trust afforded the four children.  In December 2023, Mr Murdoch filed papers in Reno, Nevada seeing to amend (ie in the technical sense “partially revoke”) the terms of the “irrevocable” MFT to the extent that his oldest son would assume full control over News Corp, the holding company which manages literally hundreds of assets (the best-known of which is now Fox News), excluding the other three siblings.  This was about operational control and did not affect the children’s financial stake in the trust.  The matter (In the Matter of the Doe 1 Trust) was in September 2024 heard before a probate commissioner, in camera, at Washoe County Courthouse, the parties (1) Rupert Murdoch and the eldest son on one side and (2) the three other siblings on the other.

Mr Murdoch had not previously been much associated with the state of Nevada but his legal team chose to file in Nevada because the state has the nation’s most flexible (they like to use the term “progressive”) statutes relating to trust law and it was thus concluded it was there that the highest chance existed for amending an “irrevocable” trust.  The Nevada approach in these matters in interesting in that the state permits “decanting”, a process by which a trustee can transfer assets from one trust into a new trust with different terms, in effect modifying the original trust in that the assets become subject to different rules.  Decant (inter alia “to pour from one vessel into another”) was from the French From French décanter, from the Medieval Latin dēcanthāre, the construct being dē- (of; from) +‎ canthus (beak of a cup or jug).  For administrative simplicity, decanting does not require the approval of a court but can be subject to challenge if it’s alleged a trustee lacks the requisite discretionary authority under the terms of the original trust document.

Wedding day: Rupert Murdoch (b 1931) & model Jerry Hall (b 1956).  The ceremony was conducted at Church of England church of St Bride's, Fleet Street, London, March 2016.  The couple divorced in 2022.

Under Nevada law, despite the name, an “irrevocable trust” is not “irrevocable” in an absolute sense because beneficiaries and trustees can agree to modify the terms of such a trust, even if the trust is irrevocable.  This process (a “non-judicial settlement agreement”) avoids the need for a court hearing, thereby reducing the expense and time required and exemplifies the sort of “flexibility” Nevada’s corporate regulators cite as reasons why the state should be a trustee’s jurisdiction of choice.  However, Nevada does require any modifications be consistent with the trust's purpose and not in violation with its fundamental terms and moreover the usual principles of equity governing trusts apply: there can be no unconscionable conduct.  A Nevada court also can modify or terminate an irrevocable trust if the trust's purpose has become impossible, impracticable, or illegal, or if circumstances not anticipated by the original grantor arise.  In that the remit of equity is wider than in contract law where courts have always been reluctant to “write contracts” although they will correct technical errors and a Nevada court can appoint a “trust protector”, an officer with the authority to amend trust terms, change beneficiaries, or even (under specified conditions) terminate the trust.  This authority can extend to the creation of a “directed trust” (a special class of constructed trust) which allow the grantor or beneficiaries to appoint an entity or individual to oversee specific trust decisions, which can include modifications (all of which are subject to the supervision and ultimately the approval of the court).

The decision of the probate commission in Reno will not have pleased Mr Murdoch.  In a 96 page opinion published on 9 December, the commissioner found Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch (b 1971; the eldest son) had acted in “bad faith” in their attempts to change the terms of the irrevocable MFT, suggesting the pair had organized a “carefully crafted charade” to “permanently cement Lachlan Murdoch’s executive roles” inside the empire “regardless of the impacts such control would have over the companies or the beneficiaries” of the MFT.  He didn’t go as far as one New Zealand judge who once damned evidence brought before him as “an orchestrated litany of lies” but the tone was still severe.

One untypical aspect of the matter is that it wasn’t directly about money; most trust cases involve money, indeed, a financial motivation is at the root of most civil matters.  Mr Murdoch was moved to seek to change the terms of the MFT because he’d concluded Lachlan was the only one of the four children who shared his views on how the editorial position of affected media outlets (most notably Fox News) should be maintained, the other three tending to a more liberal (in US terms) stance.  Interestingly, although that may appear a family’s ideological squabble, the documents which emerged from the discovery process in the matter of Dominion Voting Systems v Fox News (Delaware Superior Court: N21C-03-257; N21C-11-082) which culminated (thus far) in Fox settling the matter by paying Dominion some US$790 million, the alternative being to continue the case and allow more of Fox’s internal documents to enter the public domain) suggested that Mr Murdoch’s decisions about such things are led more by a commercial imperative than any political commitment.  In other words, Fox News should do what it does because it attracted viewers (the product) to deliver to advertisers (the customers); were the Fox News audience suddenly to have a moment of mass-catharsis and become a bunch of seed-eating, basket-weaving hippie vegans, so would shift the Fox News editorial stance.

The usual purpose of an irrevocable trust is to protect the beneficiary (or beneficiaries) from others but they have been recommended for those who might be advantaged by being “protected from themselves”.

So what Mr Murdoch wishes to ensure is that Fox News keeps on doing what it does (and whether one agrees with it or not, few would deny at what it does it’s the best in the world) because that is the path to the highest financial benefits for the MFT.  Lachlan understands and the others don’t so Mr Murdoch is trying to protect the three dissident children from themselves.  Whether defiant or deluded, the dissident triumvirate were pleased with the recommendation: “We welcome the commissioner’s decision and hope that we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members.”  It’s there’s a Murdoch family Christmas dinner, there might be what a diplomatic communiqué would describe as a “frank and robust exchange of views”.

Wedding day: Rupert Murdoch (b 1931) & molecular biologist Elena Zhukova (b 1956).  The ceremony was conducted at Mogara, Mr Murdoch’s Californian vineyard, June 2024.

The procedure in Nevada is the commissioner’s opinion will now be referred to a district court judge, sitting as a court of probate.  The judge can issue a ruling wholly favourable to one side or the other or in some way structure a decision which gives something to each; there will thus be one appeal or two and that may trigger more so although it’s possible the matter may not be finalized before Mr Murdoch dies (God forbid), he recently celebrated his fifth marriage so appears to remain robust and in rude good health.

Safari

Safari (pronounced suh-fahr-ee)

(1) A journey or expedition, for hunting, exploration, or investigation, historically applied especially to expeditions in eastern Africa.

(2) The hunters, guides, vehicles, equipment, etc, forming such an expedition.

(3) Used loosely (sometimes very loosely), any long or adventurous journey or expedition (although usually restricted to non-developed, hot places with abundant wildlife).

(4) To go on a safari; to take part in a safari.

(5) In fashion, as “safari suit”, a men’s outfit of dubious appeal.

1890: From the Swahili safari (journey), from the Arabic سَفَر‎ (safar) (referring to a journey) from safara (to travel) & safarīya (travelling).  Etymologists belief the word “safari” was absorbed into English in 1890, having been documented since 1860s as a foreign word in the sense of “an expedition over country in East Africa lasting days or weeks, particularly for purposes of hunting”.  The Swahili safar (journey) first appeared in English publications in 1858.  From the 1920s, as an adjective “safari” was applied liberally to devices & appliances used on or associated with safaris (safari knife, safari park, safari trailer, safari map et al) but ultimately most influential was the safari jacket, a practical garment (robustly tailored with lots of pockets) which unfortunately would in the 1960s be picked up by the industry as the “safari suit”, perhaps the most derided piece of men’s fashion in the 1970s which, given what that decade produced, was quite an achievement.  The nouns safarier, safarigoer & safariman (all descriptors of “those who go on a safari) seem to have gone extinct but surfari (surfers travelling from beach to beach in search of the best waves) is still sometimes heard though “whale-watching” seems to have replaced “whale safari”.  Safari is a noun, verb & adjective, safaried & safariing are verbs; the noun plural is safaris.

Mercedes-Benz 450 SLC 5.0s, Safari Rally, Kenya, 1979 and Lindsay Lohan on safari, meeting zebras, Mauritius, June 2016.

The big 450 SLC 5.0 was one of the more improbable rally cars but it enjoyed some success in long-distance events and is a footnote in the sport's history as the only V8-powered car to win a European rally; all 450 SLC 5.0s were fitted with an automatic transmission which makes the thing more unusual still.  In motorsport, the annual rally in Kenya was between 1953-1959 known as the “Coronation Safari Rally” and between then and 1974 as the “East African Safari”; subsequently, it was variations of "Safari Rally".  The name “East African Safari Rally” was revived in 2003 as an event for historic rally cars and run biannually (COVID-19 the only interruption, the 2020 event cancelled).

Safari Station Wagons

Chrysler South Africa's advertising for the Valiant Safaris, 1972.

Instead of the 245 (4.0) & 265 (4.3) "Hemi" sixes, the South African cars were fitted with the old 225 (3.6) "slant-six" so the Apartheid-era government's local content rules could be met.  There was no V8 option but to compensate there was the Safari Premium with the US-flavored appliqué (imitation wood) glued to the sides, something not seen in other places.  Somewhat opportunistically, the advertising copy referred to the "Chrysler Charger engine" but technically that was correct, the 225 being for years on the Dodge Charger's option list and in South Africa Safaris used a two-barrel caburetor version rated at 160 horsepower rather than the usual 145 so the wagons were more powerful than the few US coupes with the slant-six.  

Chrysler's UK advertising for the Australian Valiants, the various Safaris & Station Wagons there described with the familiar "Estate".

Autocar Magazine, 18 October, 1966 (left) and the 1974 brochure (right) using images from a photoshoot conducted in the grounds of Windsor Castle.  In 1966, UK prices for the colonial imports ranged between Stg£1795-Stg£2545 and when Motor Magazine in 1966 tested a six-cylinder estate, it was noted the tag of Stg£1945 was about the same of that for a Jaguar 420, the two otherwise having little in common except fuel consumption.  It's not known if the advertising agency ever was tempted to all the things "shooting brakes" a term which had come to be more loosely applied.  

In Australia, during the 1960s and much of the 1970s, Chrysler’s mainstream model was the Valiant (1962-1981), based on the US A-Body (compact) corporate platform.  In 1963 a station wagon (dubbed "Safari) was added to the AP5 range, the name retained in export markets including New Zealand, South Africa and the Pacific.  In New Zealand, the nomenclature rarely changed but the utility models sold there and in the home market as the “Wayfarer”, when exported to South Africa, were badged as “Rustlers”.  After 1973, for Australia & New Zealand the Safari name was dropped in favor of "station wagon" which, although unimaginative, was at least an industry-standard which had been adopted even by Holden which had by then abandoned the curious use of "station sedan".  The notion of a "Safari" must have been judged too exotic for the UK (although some Citroëns station wagons were sold there with the label applied) and the Valiants sold there were, reassuring, named "Estate".  The appearance of a machine like the Valiant (with engines as large as a 5.9 litre (360 cubic inch) V8) in the UK market probably seems curious given that although a “compact” in US terms, it was by European standards unfashionably large but Chrysler, having in 1967 ceased production of the antiquated Humber Super Snipes upon their absorption of the Rootes Group, wanted to plug the gap in their range.  Even by 1967 that gap probably no longer existed and demand, never high, dwindled sharply after 1973, a consequence of (1) the first oil shock and (2) the UK joining the EEC (European Economic Community) which meant the end of the Commonwealth preference scheme, a low tariff regime which was the last relic of the chimera of imperial free trade.  Still, although promotion was only ever half-hearted, the Australian Chryslers could be ordered until 1976.  Ford Australia too flirted with the UK market, arriving also in the mid 1960s but found little more success in convincing the British their six and eight cylinder Falcons, Fairlanes & LTDs made sense on UK roads, the last sold in 1984 after several dismal years.

Safari Seats

Mercedes-Benz 220 SE Coupé (foreground) & cabriolet (background) with standard rear bench seats, Frankfurt, September 1961 (left) & 1965 220 SE coupé with safari seat option (right).

One rarely specified option on the Mercedes-Benz W111 (1961-1971; 220 SE, 250 SE, 280 SE & 280 SE 3.5) & W112 (1962-1967; 300 SE) coupés and cabriolets was the fitting of two individual (bucket) seats in the rear instead of the usual bench.  While not uncommon in the early days of the industry, separate seats in a car’s rear compartment had, by the time the W111 coupé was first displayed at the opening of the Daimler Benz Museum in Stuttgart in February 1961, become rare and but for a few one-offs by coach-builders, the option was unique.  The factory called them “safari seats”, the source of that being a special metal frame which allowed them to be removed and placed on the ground outside, the implication presumably this would be handy for those on safari who wished to sit under a shady tree and watch the zebras.  Whether many of these machines were taken on safari isn’t known but the concept was transferrable to those going on picnics or watching the polo.  On both sides of the Atlantic, the fitting of individual rear-seats caught on for some high-end models but other than in some utility vehicles intended mostly for off-road use, no manufacturer made them removable, although in the 1966 Dodge Charger they could be folded to create additional storage space, a feature appreciated by Allison Parks (1943-2010) who was awarded a pink one for being Playboy magazine's 1966 PotY (Playmate of the Year); Ms Parks used it to take her children to swimming practice so the space was handy.

The Safari Suit

Great moments in the history of the safari suit.  Charles III (b 1948; King of the United Kingdom since 2022) & Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) visiting Uluru (formerly known as Ayers Rock) in Australia's Northern Territory, 1983 (left) and Kim Jong-il (Kim II, 1941-2011; Dear Leader of DPRK (North Korea) 1994-2011) (right).  Despite decades of debate, fashionistas have never agreed who wore it best.

The “safari jacket” was a name applied to a style of clothing which evolved to suit the demands of travel in the sort of places which had become associated with “going on safari”.  The jackets were constructed with a robust material which was resistant to contact with the foliage likely to be encountered and they included fittings like multiple pockets and often some provision for carrying rifle bullets or shotgun shells in a manner which made them easily accessible.  On safari, that was fine but the fashion industry discovered them in the late 1960s and during the following decades actually persuaded some men that the “safari suit” was a good idea.  It was not and not only did it take an unconscionable time a-dying, in the twenty-first century there’s been the odd attempt at a revival.  Men should thus avoid the look but on women a safari suit can be quite alluring.

Garbage

Garbage (pronounced gahr-bij)

(1) Discarded material (often animal and vegetable matter from food production).

(2) Any matter that is no longer wanted or needed.

(3) Anything contemptibly worthless, inferior, or vile (physical material or, used figuratively, any idea or content (literature, music, film, ideas, theories et al).

(4) Worthless talk; lies; foolishness.

(5) In informal use in architecture & design, unnecessary items added merely for embellishment; garnish.

(6) In the space industry, no non-functional artificial satellites or parts of rockets floating in space (space junk, a genuine and growing problem in near-earth orbit).

(7) In computing, meaningless, invalid or unwanted data.

(8) The bowels of an animal; refuse parts of flesh; offal (obsolete).

(9) In North American slang (of ball sports), an easy shot.

(10) In North American slang (of team sports), as “garbage time”, the period at the end of a timed sporting event that has become a blowout when the outcome of the game has already been decided, and the coaches of one or both teams will often decide to replace their best players with substitutes.

(11) In North American slang, to eviscerate (obsolete).

1400–1450: From the Middle English garbage, garbidge & gabage (discarded parts of butchered fowls; entrails of fowls used for human food).  In the Middle English, garbelage meant “removal of refuse from spices” & garbelure meant “refuse found in spices” while the Old French garbage (also as jarbage) meant “tax on sheaves of grain”.  Quite what were the mechanics of the sense-shifts has never been clear and further to muddy the waters there was also the Old Italian garbuglio (confusion).  All dictionaries thus regard the original form as being of “unknown origin”.  The familiar modern meaning (refuse, filth) has been in use since at least the 1580s, an evolution from the earlier sense of “giblets, refuse of a fowl, waste parts of an animal (head, feet, etc) used for human food).  Etymologists noted it was one of many words to enter English through the vector of the French cooking book and its sense of “waste material, refuse” was influenced by and partly confused with “garble” in its older sense of “remove refuse material from spices” (while Middle English had the derived noun garbelage it seems only ever to have been used to mean “the action of removing refuse (ie not the material itself)).  In modern North American use, “garbage” generally means only “kitchen and vegetable wastes” while “trash” the more common term generally used of “waste; discarded rubbish”.  The alternative spelling garbidge is obsolete (although it does sometimes still appear as a marker of the use of an eye dialect).  Garbage is a noun, verb & adjective, garbaging & garbaged is a verb and garbagelike is an adjective; the noun plural is garbage.

Portrait by Lindsay Lohan constructed entirely from recycled garbage by Jason Mecier (b 1968).  His work is crafted using discarded items and he attempts where possible to use objects in some way associated with his subjects.  Although described by some as mosaics, his technique belongs to the tradition of college.

The derived terms are many and include “garbage can” or “garbage bin” (a receptacle for discarded matter, especially kitchen waste), “garbage bag” (a bag into which certain waste is placed for subsequent (often periodic) collection and disposal), such a bag functioning often as a “bin liner” (a usually plastic disposal bag used to make the disposal process less messy), “garbage day” (or “garbage time”), the day on which a local government or other authority collects the contents of a householder’s garbage bin, left usually kerbside, “garbage collector”, “garbage man”, “garbage lady” & “garbage woman” the employees (“garbos” in Australian slang) who staff the collection process (known (usually humorously) since 1965 also as “garbologists” whose trade is “garbology”, “garbage truck” (A vehicle for the collection and removal of waste, usually a truck with a custom-built apparatus to compact the collected waste), “garbage dump” (the place to which garbage trucks deliver their load), “garbage disposal (unit)” (an electric device installed in a kitchen drain that shred waste before washing it down the drain (known commercially (sometimes capitalized) also as a “garburator” or “garberator”), “garbage bandit” (the wildlife known to raid garbage bins for food).  For the two holding centres used in 1945 to imprison the suspected Nazi war criminals prior to trial, the British used the codename "Camp Dustbin" and the Americans "Camp Ashcan"; both resisted the temptation to use "garbage" or "trash".  In coining derived terms or in idiomatic use, depending on the country, not only are "garbage" & "trash" used interchangeably, elements such as "ash", "rubbish", "dust" etc can also sometimes be substituted.  Charlie Chaplin’s (1889–1977) film The Great Dictator (1940) was a satire of the Nazi regime (1933-1945) and the character that was a parody of Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) was named “Herr Garbitsch” (pronounced garbage).  

In appearing to characterize the supporters of Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) as “garbage”, Joe Biden (b 1942; US president 2021-2025) gave something of a “free kick” to the Trump campaign which wasted no time in focusing on this latest gaffe to divert attention from the joke which triggered the whole “garbagegate” thing.  In mid-October, 2024 US comedian Tony Hinchcliffe (b 1984), whole performing a set as part of the entertainment for a Trump rally at New York’s Madison Square Garden, included material in keeping with having “a bit of previous” in the use of jokes regarded variously as anti-Semitic, misogynistic and racist, the most controversial being: “I don't know if you guys know this, but there's literally a floating island of garbage in the middle of the ocean right now. I think it's called Puerto Rico.”  The punch-line was well-received, greeted with much laughter and applause.

Tony Hinchcliffe on stage, Madison Square Garden, New York, October 2024.

It was interesting the comedian used “island of garbage” rather than “island of trash” because, in the US, “trash” is the more commonly used term and one which has a long history of being applied to social & ethnic minorities (white trash, trailer trash etc) which presumably was the intended implication.  The choice may have been influenced by the well-known “Great Pacific garbage patch”, an accumulation of (mostly) plastic and other marine debris in the central Pacific which is believed to cover at least 600,000 square miles (1.5 million km²).  While “…literally a floating island of trash” could have worked, not only would it have been more blatant but the impact of the punch-line depended on the audience summoning the mental image of the Pacific Ocean phenomenon (caused by and essentially circular sea current which is oceanography is called a “gyre”) before learning the reference was actually to Puerto Rico (and by implication, Puerto Ricans).  The racial slur wouldn’t have pleased the Trump campaign professionals who will have explained to their candidate that while it’s important to “feed the base” with messages they like, it doesn’t have to be done that often and certainly not in a way with the potential to alienate an entire sub-set of demographic in which a percentage are known to be the prized “undecided voters”.  There is a significant Puerto Rican population in three of the so-called “battleground states” where the election will be decided.

Still what’s done is done and there was a problem to be managed, but the problem soon vanished after President Biden decided to issue a condemnation of the rally saying: “The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporters — his, his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it’s un-American.”  That statement was reflected in the text of the transcript prepared by the official White House stenographers, but the political operatives in the White House press office decided to apply some spin, appending a “psychological apostrophe”, rendering “supporters” as “supporter’s”, explaining for those of us too dim to get it that what Mr Biden meant was that his critique was limited exclusively to the deplorable comedian.  Clearly the White House press office operates in the tradition of “Don’t report what he says, report what he means”, urged on reported by the staff of crazy old Barry Goldwater (1909–1998) during his disastrous 1964 presidential campaign against Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president 1963-1969).

President Joe Biden nibbles on a baby dressed as chicken during White House Halloween event, Washington DC, 31 October 2024.

Predictably, the “battle of the transcripts” made things worse rather than better so Mr Mr Biden tweeted his “clarification” on X (formerly known as Twitter): “Earlier today I referred to the hateful rhetoric about Puerto Rico spewed by Trump's supporter at his Madison Square Garden rally as garbage—which is the only word I can think of to describe it. His demonization of Latinos is unconscionable. That's all I meant to say. The comments at that rally don't reflect who we are as a nation.”  The problem with the tweet was it was coherent and used close to standard English grammar, leading readers immediately to suspect it had been written by someone else, it anyway being widely assumed the president is no longer allowed unsupervised use of any internet-connected device.  Worse still, the apparent disdain of Trump’s supporters did appear to be in the tradition of Democratic Party “elite” opinion of the people they like to call “ordinary Americans”, Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) in 2008 caught belittling small-town Pennsylvanians for being bitter and turning to God, guns and anti-immigrant sentiment to make themselves feel better (he was probably also thinking of pick-up trucks and country & western music too) and crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) during the 2016 campaign infamously described the Trump crowd as “a basket of deplorables”.  Again, it’s really counter-productive to feed an already satiated base if the menu also further alienate some of the undecided.

Crooked Spiro & Tricky Dick: Spiro Agnew (1918–1996; US vice president 1969-1973, left) and Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974, right).

The Republican Party has for over fifty years paid much lip service to defending and acknowledging the dignity of those they claim liberals in general and Democrats in particular disparage as “garbage”, or “deplorable”.  That they did this while driving down their wages didn’t escape attention but one can’t help but admire the way the Republican Party has managed to convince the deplorables repeatedly to vote against their own economic self-interest by dangling before their eyes distractions like the right to own guns, abortion and transgenderism.  Occasionally, there’s even been the odd amusing moment, such as on 11 September 1970 when Spiro Agnew gave a speech designed to appeal to what he called the "forgotten Americans", that group of white, working middle & lower class votes Nixon believe could be converted to the Republican cause because the once blue-collar Democratic Party had abandoned their interests to focus on fashionable, liberal causes such as minority rights.  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 attacking the liberals, it also had some fairly tortured alterative flourishes:  

“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."

Mr Trump lost no time in exploiting the latest in a long line of Mr Biden’s gaffes, turning up to a rally in Green Bay, Wisconsin (another battleground state) in a Trump branded Freightliner garbage truck flying an American flag, conducting an impromptu interview in the passenger’s seat decked out in the hi-viz (high-visibility) gear worn by garbagemen.  “How do you like my garbage truck?” he asked reporters.  “This truck is in honor of Kamala and Joe Biden.”

Probably the Biden camp was lucky the comedian didn’t use “trash” in his racist joke because had the president mangled his words enough to end up calling the Trumpers “trash” their reaction would likely have been visceral because it would of course have been deconstructed as a clipping of “white trash”.  The slur “white trash” has a long history in the US, first used in the ante-bellum South of the mid-nineteenth century (possibly and certainly concurrently as “poor white trash”), said to be the way black slaves referred to whites of low social status or working in low-level jobs.  It was apparently one of the first of the attempts to find an offensive term for white people, something which in the late twentieth century became something of a linguistic cottage industry and although literally dozens were coined and some have had some brief popularity in popular culture, none seem ever to have achieved critical mass acceptance and, importantly, none seem ever much to have offended the white folks.  Indeed, “white trash”, “white trashery” etc have even been adopted by sub-groups of white society as a kind of class identifier, rather as the infamous N-word has become a term of endearment among African Americans.

Edgar Winter's White Trash Live at the Fillmore (1971) and Edgar Winter's White Trash Recycled (1977).

Edgar Winter (b 1946) formed Edgar Winter’s White Trash in 1971, the name an allusion to the stereotype of “white trash” being most commonly found south of the Mason-Dixon Line because the band was an aggregation of musicians from Louisiana & Texas.  It was an example of a slur being “reclaimed” and “embraced” by a group originally it target.

Even when it’s directed at a whole society, the white people seem to cope.  In 1980, Lee Kuan Yew (1923–2015; prime minister of Singapore 1959-1990) felt compelled to issue a statement telling the people of Australia their economy needed significant reforms were the fate of becoming “the poor white trash of Asia” to be avoided.  Mr Lee’s advice was certainly prescient, 1980 being the last “good” year of the “old” Australian economy (things would get worse before they got better) and the reforms would be imposed over the next two decades (especially during the 1980s) but at the time, the mention of “poor white trash” attracted less comment than the implication Australia was “an Asian nation”, the political class dividing into an “Asianist” faction and a group which agreed with the UN (United Nations) that like New Zealand, the place belonged with “Western Europe and others”.