Nice

Nice (pronounced nahys)

(1) Pleasing; agreeable; delightful.

(2) Amiably pleasant; kind.

(3) Characterized by, showing, or requiring great accuracy, precision, skill, tact, care, or delicacy.

(4) Showing or indicating very small differences; minutely accurate, as instruments.

(5) Minute, fine, or subtle.

(6) Having or showing delicate, accurate perception.

(7) Refined in manners, language etc.

(8) Virtuous; respectable; decorous.

(9) Suitable or proper; carefully neat in dress, habits, etc; dainty or delicate (especially of food).

(10) Having fastidious, finicky, or fussy tastes (sometime used as over-nice in a disparaging sense).

(11) Coy, shy, or reluctant (obsolete).

(12) Unimportant; trivial (obsolete).

(13) Uncertain; delicately balanced (obsolete).

(14) Wanton (obsolete).

(15) A Mediterranean port and the capital of the department of Alpes-Maritimes, in south-east France; a resort on the French Riviera; founded by Phocaeans from Marseille circa third century BC; it was ceded to France in 1860 by Sardinia.  Ancient Nicaea is from the Ancient Greek nikaios (victorious) from nikē (victory); Nizzard (a resident of Nice) is derived from Nizza, the Italian form of the city name.

(16) In the UK, an acronym for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, a body established in 1999 to provide authoritative guidance on current best practice in medicine and to promote high-quality cost-effective medical treatment in the National Health Service (NHS).

(17) In computing (the Unix operating system), a program used to trigger a script or program with a specified priority.

(18) In the slang of drug users, being well affected. 

1250–1300: From the Middle English nice, nyce & nys (foolish, stupid), from the Old French nice, niche & nisce (silly, simple, foolish, ignorant) from the Latin nescius (to be ignorant, incapable), the construct being ne- (the Latin negative prefix) + sci- (stem of scīre (to know)) + -us (the Latin adjectival suffix); the more familiar Latin form being nescire (to know not, be ignorant of), the construct being ne- + scire, the ultimate source of which was the primitive Indo-European ne (not).  Use of the noun "nice" is restricted to the Unix operating system, where it describes a program used to trigger a script or program with a specified priority, the implication being that running at a lower priority is "nice" (in the sense of "kind") because it leaves more resources for others (thus the specialized verbs nicing & niced).  Nice is a noun, adjective & adverb, nicity is a noun, nicer & nicest are adjectives & adverbs, niceish (nicish the archaic spelling) is an adjective, nicely is an adverb and niceness & nicety are nouns; the most common noun plural seems to be niceties.

Not always nice

Lindsay Lohan in a nice dress, LLohan Nightclub pop up event, Playboy Club, New York, October 2019: David Koma crystal-embellished cady midi dress with asymmetric hem, Valentino Rockstud 110mm pumps (part-number WS0393VOD) and Chanel mini tweed bag.

The sense development of nice is regarded as unusual by most etymologists, most of whom find the meaning shifts extraordinary, even for an adjective.  Meaning originally “silly or foolish”, by circa 1300, it meant "timid, faint-hearted", came to mean "fussy or fastidious" by the late fourteenth century, shifting (slightly) within decades to "dainty, delicate" yet meaning "precise, careful" by the 1500s, the sense preserved in Modern English in such terms as “a nice distinction” and “nice and early”.  By 1769 it’s being used to convey something "agreeable or delightful and by 1830, "kind & thoughtful" yet the variety of meanings clearly overlapped, perhaps due to generational inertia: the Duke of Wellington (1769-1852), writing in 1815 of the recent battle of Waterloo which at many points could have gone either way said “It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life”, using nice in yet another older sense of "uncertain, delicately balanced".

Lindsay Lohan and her lawyer in court, Los Angeles, December 2011.  As early as the 1990s, some guides were predicting the use of "nice" to convey the sardonically ironic was becoming so clichéd it might become unfashionable but it continues to flourish, possibly because it has never become associated with "lower class" speech.

The meaning shifts have created problems for historians and archivists, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) noting that when analysing documents from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries it can be difficult to say in what particular sense a writer intended "nice" to be taken.  The imprecision upset many and by 1926, the authoritative Henry Fowler (1858–1933) wrote in his Dictionary of Modern English Usage that nice had become "too great a favourite with the ladies, who have charmed out of it all its individuality and converted it into a mere diffuser of vague and mild agreeableness."  Pace Henry Fowler but it is handy for a language to include a word which so encapsulates “vague and mild agreeableness” and in any of its meanings, nice is not without synonyms.  So the semantic history is varied and, as the etymology and the obsolete senses attest, any attempt to insist on only one of its present senses as correct will not be in keeping with actual use.  The criticism usually extended is nice is used too often and has become a cliché lacking the qualities of precision and intensity that are embodied in many of its synonyms.  In modern use, it’s now often used ironically, something not desirable, or worse, can now be described as “nice”, the meaning well-understood.

Naughty

Naughty (pronounced naw-tee)

(1) Disobedient; mischievous; wilful; wayward; misbehaving (used especially in speaking to or about children or pets).

(2) Improper, tasteless, indecorous, or indecent.

(3) Wicked; evil (obsolete).

(4) Sexually provocative; usually in a weakened playful sense, risqué or cheeky.

(5) Bad, worthless, sub-standard (obsolete).

1375-1400: From the Middle English naughty, nauȝty, nauȝti, naȝti, nowghty & noughti (needy, having nothing, also (also evil, immoral, corrupt, unclean)), from nought & naught (evil, an evil act; nothingness; a trifle; insignificant person; the number zero), from the Old English nawiht (nothing).  In the seventeenth century, as words like “bad” and “evil” came to be the preferred descriptors of the more extreme, naughty became something milder, used to describe the mischievous or those with a tendency to misbehave or act badly and this soon became most associated with children, a linguistic acknowledgment that bad behaviour unacceptable by an adult was excusable by in youth, This mitigated sense of "disobedient, bad in conduct or speech, improper, mischievous" to describe the delinquencies of children is attested from the 1630s.  The sense of "sexually promiscuous" is from 1869 but between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, a woman of bad character (which might include but was not limited to lose virtue) might be called “a naughty pack” and there is evidence this was occasionally extended also to men and later an especially recalcitrant child.  Naughty, naughtier & naughtiest are adjectives; naughtily is an adverb and naughtiness a noun.  The alternative spelling noughty is archaic and obsolete.

The construct was naught + -y.  Naught in the mid-fourteen century meant "evil, an evil act" and also " a trifle"; by circa 1400 it had come to mean "nothingness", hence the adoption by mathematicians in the early fifteenth century as “the number zero" (from noht & naht (nothing) both of which had existed since the twelfth century, from the Old English nawiht (nothing, literally "no whit" from the primitive Indo-European root ne- (not) + wiht (thing, creature, being).  It was cognate with the Old Saxon neowiht (nothing), the Old High German niwiht, the Gothic ni waihts, the Dutch niet, and the German nicht. In the Old English, it became and adjectival form meaning "good for nothing" which endured to evolve by the mid-sixteenth century to the more focused "morally bad, wicked", softened over the years to the way the modern adjective naughty is now variously applied.  Naughty is an adjective & verb, naughtiness is a noun and naughtily an adverb; naughty has been used as a (non-standard) noun, usually as a euphemism for something related to sex so the noun plural there would be naughties (on the model of nasties).

It certainly had a long gestation to get to the point where “naughty” now is used  to describe mischievous kittens, vegan restaurants, sex shops and patisseries.  The primitive Indo European roots ne (not) & wekti (thing) both date back almost seven thousand years and, at the time of Antiquity, proceeded through the Proto-Germanic to become the Old English word nawiht (not a thing; nothing).  With the same meaning the word existed in the Middle English as naht, nought & naught, the last spelling, though now quite rare, enduring to this day.  Naughty was a fourteenth century fork, with the addition of the –y it was used to convey the same quality but with a new meaning (poor, literally "having nothing").  In the way class systems work by association, the rich (and perhaps even more so, the less-poor) extended the definition to include lazy, lawless, dirty, malignant etc (as required) because of a perception of correlation between poverty and crime.  Naughty however mellowed somewhat and society adapted, finding many other words with which to demonise the poor.

Naughty and Nice

Before mobile bandwidth and faster hardware drove them extinct, there were free afternoon newspapers, handed to commuters to read on the bus, tram or train journey home.  They were a welcome replacement for the afternoon papers (for which people had to pay) which, years or even decades earlier had been killed off by television.

mX Newspaper 2012 London Olympics medal table, 2 August 2012.

During the 2012 London Olympic Games, Melbourne’s mX commuter daily noted North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; the DPRK) and South Korea (Republic of Korea; the ROK) coincidently were running respectively fourth and fifth in the medal count so causing the ROK directly to sit atop the DPRK on their medal table.  Fearing confusion among readers not well acquainted with the peninsula’s geopolitics, mX decided to help, labelling the South “Nice Korea” and the North “Naughty Korea”.

In Pyongyang, the DPRK’s official Korean Central News Agency was quick to respond, accusing capitalist lackey mX of "…sordid behavior…" and “…a bullying act little short of insulting the Olympic spirit of solidarity, friendship and progress and politicising sports.”  The news media, it added, was “…obliged to lead the public in today's highly-civilised world where [the] mental and cultural level of mankind is being displayed at the highest level.”  Warming to the topic, the agency damned mX’s editors a being “…so incompetent as to tarnish the reputation of the paper…" which will remain a “…symbol of a rogue paper which will long be cursed in Olympic history."

DPRK Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un (b 1983) inspecting the North Korean pastry production line.

In response, mX ran the agency's attack on the next day’s front page under the headline Pyongyang Goes Ballistic Over mX Tally, claiming the table was “…not intended to be offensive” and just a “…humorous but harmless way…” for readers easily to differentiate between two countries with similar names.  It’s presumed Pyongyang was more upset at being labelled “naughty” than it was at the rogue state in the south being called “nice”.  Although nice has had many meanings, the agency probably well understood mX’s implication and acted appropriately against the imperialist propaganda.  The newspaper’s explanation was apparently accepted as an apology, the Supreme Leader not ordering any retaliatory missile strikes on the editorial office.

Naughty but Nice Patisserie, 39 Ilsham Road, Wellswood, Torquay, TQ1 2JG, UK.  Cakes, pastries, pies & rolls etc; it’s thought The Supreme Leader approves of pastry shops.

Naughty or Nice sex shop, 836 Main St, Lewiston, 83501 Idaho, USA.  Lingerie, toys, devices & accessories etc; it’s not known if The Supreme Leader approves of sex shops.

In December 2022, as a holiday season promotion, the Pepsi Corporation teamed with Lindsay Lohan to promote Pilk.  A Pilk is a mix of Pepsi Cola and milk, one of a class of dirty sodas created by PepsiCo which includes the Naughty & Ice, the Chocolate Extreme, the Cherry on Top, the Snow Float and the Nutty Cracker.  All are intended to be served with cookies (biscuits) and although Ms Lohan confessed to being “…a bit sceptical when first I heard of this pairing”, she was quickly converted, noting that “…after my first sip I was amazed at how delicious it was, so I’m very excited for the rest of the world to try it.”  

PepsiCo provided the instructions for mixing a Naughty & Ice: "For a pure milk taste that's infused with notes of vanilla, measure and combine 1 cup of whole milk, 1 tbsp of heavy cream and 1 tbsp of vanilla creamer.  From there, pour the mixture slowly into 1 cup of Pepsi and serve with a chocolate chip cookie."

Naughty and nice: Lindsay Lohan promotes Pilk.

Illusion

Illusion (pronounced ih-loo-zhuhn)

(1) Something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.

(2) The state or condition of being deceived; misapprehension.

(3) An instance of being deceived.

(4) In clinical psychology, a perception, as of visual stimuli (optical illusion), that represents what is perceived in a way different from reality.

(5) A very thin, delicate tulle of silk or nylon having a cobwebbed appearance, for trimmings, veils and similar designs.

(6) The act of deceiving; deception; delusion (mostly obsolete).

1340–1350: From the Middle English, from the Latin illūsiōn(em), stem of illūsiō, (irony, mocking), the construct being illūs(us), past participle of illūdere (to mock, ridicule) + lūd (play) + tus (past participle suffix) + iōn.  The suffic -ion was From the Middle English -ioun, from the Old French -ion, from the Latin -iō (genitive -iōnis).  It was appended to a perfect passive participle to form a noun of action or process, or the result of an action or process.  It was from the Latin lūd that English ultimately gained ludicrous, illudere meaning "to mock at" (literally "to play with").  The borrowing from Latin displaced the Old English dwimmer, from the Old English ġedwimor or dwimor (illusion, delusion, sleight, magic) and, as absorbed by both Medieval English & French, meaning tended towards “act of deception” rather than “mocking or irony” which was the Classical Latin form.  The English sense is reflected in the word’s use in Church Latin which is thought the source of the meaning-shift.  In modern English use, particularly since the rise of mass-market visual entertainment, to some extent the preponderant meaning has shifted back.  Illusion & illusionist are noun, illusionary, illusional and illusioned are adjectives; the noun plural is illusions.

English offers many variations on the theme; words like fantasy, hallucination and delusion all refer to false perceptions or ideas.  An illusion is either (1) a false mental image produced by misinterpretation of stuff that actually exists or (2) a deliberate creation in some form to create an impression of stuff in a way not real.  A mirage is a distortion of reality produced by reflection of light against the sky but in general use is widely deployed as a synonym for anything illusory. A hallucination is a perception of a thing or quality that is either wholly or partially unreal.  A delusion is a persistent false belief that need not have any basis.  A chimera is something which, while unreal, has many elements of the real and thus seems more plausible.  A fantasy is either (1) a fictional creation where one is aware of its untruth or (2) a fictional creation one believes.

The Illusion Panel

The illusion panel is a visual trick used by fashion designers which to some extent mimics the appearance of bare skin.  It’s done by using a flesh-colored fabric, cut to conform to the shape of wearer and the best known products are called illusion dresses although the concept can appear on other styles of garment.  Done well, the trick works, sometimes even close-up but it’s really intended for photo opportunities.  Lindsay Lohan illustrates the idea in a few examples:

At left is a gown from the Fendi Spring/Summer 2016 collection, worn at the Asian Awards, London, April 2016.  The gown was technically a different take on the illusion panel because the skin was real: Fashion faking itself.  It’s a playful take on the idea because above the modest cut at the midriff were translucent panels which created a nice effect, especially when in motion although opinion was divided on whether the geometric pattern was too busy for the concept, some suggesting a solid color or even some bold stripes might have lent better emphasis.

The centre image is of a Julien Macdonald green and blue sequin embellished mini dress with open neckline, accented with illusion panel & black hemline, from her Fall 2013 collection, worn at Gabrielle's Gala, Old Billingsgate Market, London, May 2014.  Some comment was provoked by the choice not to retain the black belt with which it was shown on its catwalk debut and it true that did work well with the hemline trim, width and shade of both matching.  However, a panel with quite that much illusion doesn’t demand accessories and probably is more effective with neither belt nor necklace to distract.

At right, dating from January 2013 is a black Dion Lee cocktail dress with illusion panels and an off-the-shoulder silhouette, the shoes Christian Louboutin peep-toe booties.  It’s a classic example of why it’s thought illusion dresses work best if tailored in solid colors with a marked contrast between material and skin tone.

Kylie Jenner (b 1997, left) in 2017 used the idea in what was (by the standards of her clan) quite subtle but trolls quickly realized the possibilities offered by digital editing (centre).  Swedish musician Tove Lo (Ebba Tove Elsa Nilsson, b 1987, right) actually enhanced the illusion with a T-shirt which included shadow effects so the look would be consistent even in settings where ambient light was unhelpful.  Pairing the T-shirt with an oversized, double-breasted blazer was a nice touch.

As a garment, an illusion dress is not technically difficult to cut or assemble but for its effect it relies on a close congruence between the colors of panel and the skin.  Assuming such fabrics are either available or can be dyed to suit, that’s fine for bespoke creations but in the vastly bigger prêt-à-porter (ready-to-wear) market, buyers are compelled to pick whatever is the closest match, the technique of choice being to alter the skin tone for the occasion, fake tanning product the usual choice which is fine if a darker hue is needed but when lightening that’s needed, the creams used temporarily to cover tattoos are said to work well, better even than the (now often controversial and in some cases dangerous) skin-lightening preparations popular in some markets.

The illusion industry also borrows motifs.  A cage bra is built with a harness-like structure which (vaguely) resembles a cage, encapsulating the breasts using one or more straps.  Few actually use the straps predominately to enhance support and the effect tends to be purely aesthetic, some cage bras with minimal (or even absent) cup coverage and a thin band or multi-strap back.  Some things about cage bras can be illusory but the skin on show is usually real whereas when used over a skin-toned panel, the straps exist to enhance the illusion although, there’s no reason why they can’t also be structural, functioning effectively as an external bra.  Ashley Graham (left) in cage bra with the focus on flesh and Ricki-Lee Coulter (right) in a dress with illusion panel under straps illustrate the difference.

The Great Illusion (1910) by Norman Angell (1972-1967) was first published in the United Kingdom in 1909 as Europe's Optical Illusion.  Angell’s theme was that the economies, financial systems, markets and supply chains of the world’s big industrial and military powers had become so inter-twined and inter-dependent that war had become impossible.  Angell proved that not only would war be unprofitable, in any big conflict, the victor would suffer at least as much as the vanquished so no nation would be so foolish as to start one.  Quickly, The Great Illusion was translated in eleven languages and in the optimistic world of early twentieth century Europe, it became a cult, its thesis a dogma.  The aristocrat commissioned to review the British Army after its disastrous performance in the Boer War (1899-1902) were understood instantly became an adherent to the idea that “new economic factors clearly prove the insanity of aggressive wars”, delivering lectures in which he pointed out that “a twentieth century war would be on such a scale… that its inevitable consequences of commercial disaster, financial ruin and individual suffering [would be] so pregnant with restraining influences” as to render the thought of war unthinkable.

Read even now, the wealth of examples he offered and the incontrovertibility of his argument seem convincing.  Unfortunately, Wilhelm II (1859–1941; Kaiser (Emperor) of the German Empire 1888-1918), although it’s known he received a copy of the book, was more influenced by one published in 1911 by the Prussian General Friedrich von Bernhardi (1849–1930) with the unambiguous title Deutschland und der Nächste Krieg (Germany and the Next War).  Bernhardi’s text is of great interest to students of military, diplomatic and political history but the casual reader can gain the necessary understanding merely by glancing at the table of contents, the uncompromising chapter headings including The Right to Make War, The Duty to Make War and World Power or Downfall.  In case anyone might have thought he had written a work of abstract theory, another chapter was titled Germany’s Historical Mission.   Describing war as a "divine business", his central two-pronged strategy was the one which would doom both the Second Reich and the Third: Wage wars of aggression and ignore treaties.

World War I (1914-1918) was something probably worse than even Angell had prophesized and in its aftermath the phrase “the war to end all wars” was popular although some of the delegates leaving Paris after the Treaty of Versailles (1919) weren’t so sanguine, reckoning all that had been gained was a truce.  Despite the cynicism however, the 1920s were the years in which the (now mostly forgotten) successes of the League of Nations included the notion that war had been made not only unthinkable (both because of Angell’s analysis and the shock of the World War) but actually unlawful.  It was a brief, shining moment and by 1933 Angell felt compelled to add to a revised edition of The Great Illusion the new theme of the need for collective defense.  Other things happened in 1933, the implications of which would mean that too would prove an illusion itself but that year, Angell was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Illusions however seem to be something to which men can’t help but be drawn and by the late twentieth century, as globalization 2.0 accelerated, another part of Angell’s conceptual framework gained a new audience.  Angell had noted the obvious: That the imperative of modern capitalism was profit, not romantic nationalism and that there was more to be gained from peaceful trade than attempts at conquest with its unpredictable outcomes.  By the 1990s, political commentator Thomas Friedman (b 1953) had reduced this to what came to be called the “Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention (the idea that countries with McDonalds restaurants didn’t go to war with each other) and while that’s since been proved untrue, the point he was making was the same as Angell: That democracies run according to the rules of market capitalism don’t go to war with each other because the it’s too threatening to the hegemonic class which owns the means of production and distribution.

By the time Mr Putin (Vladimir Putin, b 1952, president or prime-minister of Russia since 1999) began his special military operation (the invasion which started the Russia-Ukraine war in 2022), it’s doubtful there were many left in Europe with illusion about the nature of man.  Unfortunately, it may be that in the Kremlin the reading of Bernhardi may not have gone beyond those first few bellicose chapters because deeper into his book, the author moved beyond the justification of “necessity” to the nuts and bolts of “method” for once one convinces one’s self one has a duty to make war, one must ensure it is waged with success.  To be successful he explained, the state must begin a war at “the most favourable moment” of its own choosing, striking “the first blow” in a manner which guarantees victory.  Mr Putin had illusions of his own, about the people of Ukraine, about the West and about the state of his own military.

In 2014, an illusion outfit attracted much comment when the Colombian women’s cycling team uniform was first seen at an event in Italy, held in honour of former Italian champion Michela Fanini (1973–1994).  Despite the appearance, it wasn’t a two-piece, the otherwise standard strip augmented by a flesh-coloured section across the lower torso and upper hips.  The photographs caused a stir and the unusual degree of international attention must have pleased the team’s sponsor, the city government of Colombia's capital, Bogota.  Innovations like this might be one way to redress the imbalance in the media coverage afforded to women's sport.

Homologate

Homologate (pronounced huh-mol-uh-geyt or hoh-mol-uh-geyt)

(1) To approve; confirm or ratify.

(2) To register (a specific model of machine (usually a car), engine or other component) in either general production or in the requisite number to make it eligible for racing competition(s).

(3) To approve or ratify a deed or contract, especially one found to be defective; to confirm a proceeding or other procedure (both mostly used in Scottish contract law).

1644: From the Latin homologāt (agreed) & homologātus, past participle of homologāre (to agree) from the Ancient Greek homologeîn (to agree to, to allow, confess) from homologos (agreeing), the construct being homo- (from the Ancient Greek ὁμός (homós) (same) + legein (to speak).  Homologate, homologated and homologating are verbs, homologation is a noun.

Once often used to mean “agree or confirm”, homologate is now a niche word, restricted almost wholly to compliance with minimum production numbers, set by the regulatory bodies of motorsport, to permit use in sanctioned competition; the words "accredit, affirm, approbate, authorize, certify, confirm, endorse, ratify, sanction, warrant & validate etc" are otherwise used for the purpose of agreeing or confirming.  It exists however still in Scottish law as a legal device, used (now rarely) retrospectively to declare valid an otherwise defective contract.  The best known application was to validate contracts of marriage where some technical defect in the legal solemnities had rendered the union void.  In such cases case a court could hold the marriage “. . . to be homologated by the subsequent marriage of the parties”.  It was a typically Scottish, common-sense application of the law, designed originally to avoid children being declared bastards (at a time which such a label attracted adverse consequences for all involved), vaguely analogous with a “contract by acquiescence” from contract law though not all were pleased: one dour Scottish bishop complained in 1715 that homologate was a "hard word".

Case studies in homologation

1962 Ferrari GTO

In 1962, fearing the effectiveness of Jaguar’s new XKE (E-Type) which looked faster even than it was, Ferrari created a lighter, more powerful version of their 250 GT, naming the new car 250 GTO (Gran Turismo Omologato (Grand Touring Homologated)).  The regulatory body, the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) required a production run of at least one-hundred for a car to be homologated for the Group 3 Grand Touring Car class but Ferrari built only 33, 36 or 39 (depending on how one treats the variations and 36 is most quoted) 250 GTOs, thus encouraging the myth the car violated the rules.  However, as was acknowledged at the time, the FIA regarded the 250 GTO as a legitimate development the 250 GT Berlinetta SWB (Short wheelbase), homologation papers for which had been first issued in 1960 with variations, including the GTO, approved between 1961-1964.  They’re now a prized item, one selling in 2018 for a world-record US$70 million which makes it the second most expensive car ever sold, the sum exceeded only by the US$142 million paid in 2022 for one of the two Mercedes-Benz 300 SLR Uhlenhaut gull-wing coupés.

1965 Ferrari 250 LM

The FIA’s legislative largess didn’t extend to Ferrari’s next development for GT racing, the 250 LM. The view of il Commendatore was the 250 LM was an evolution as linked to the 250 GT’s 1960 homologation papers as had been the 250 GTO and thus deserved another certificate of extension.  This was too much for the FIA which pointed out 250 LM (1) was mid rather than front-engined, (2) used a wholly different body and (3) used a different frame and suspension.  Neither party budged so the 250 LM could run only in the prototype class until 1966 when it gained homologation as a Group 4 Sports Car.  Although less competitive against the true prototypes, it’s speed and reliability was enough for a private entry to win the 1965 24 Hours of Le Mans, a Ferrari’s last victory in the race until 2023.   One quirk of the 250 LM was that when the FIA ruled against its homologation, the point of retaining the 3.0 litre displacement became irrelevant and most 250 LMs used a 3.3 litre engine and when fitted with the enlarged power-plant, under Ferrari’s naming convention, the thing properly should have been called a 275 LM.  

1969 Porsche 917

In 1969, needing to build twenty-five 917s to be granted homologation, Porsche did... sort of.  When the FIA inspectors turned up to tick the boxes, they found the promised twenty-five cars but most were in pieces.  Despite assurances there existed more than enough parts to bolt together enough to qualify, the FIA, now less trusting, refused to sign off, despite Porsche pointing out that if they assembled them all, they'd then just have to take them apart to prepare them for the track.  The FIA conceded the point but still refused to sign-off.  Less than a month later, probably nobody at the FIA believed Porsche when they rang back saying twenty-five completed 917s were ready for inspection but the team dutifully re-visited the factory.  There they found the twenty-five, lined-up in a row.  The FIA delegation granted homologation, declining the offer of twenty-five test-drives.

1969 Dodge Daytona (red) & 1970 Plymouth Road Runner Superbird (blue).

By the mid 1950s, various NASCAR (National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing) competitions had become wildly popular and the factories (sometimes in secret) provided support for the racers.  This had started modestly enough with the supply of parts and technical support but so tied up with prestige did success become that soon some manufacturers established racing departments and, officially and not, ran teams or provided so much financial support some effectively were factory operations.  NASCAR had begun as a "stock" car operation in the literal sense that the first cars used were "showroom stock" with only minimal modifications.  That didn't last long, cheating was soon rife and in the interests of spectacle (ie higher speeds), certain "performance enhancements" were permitted although the rules were always intended to maintain the original spirit of using cars which were "close" to what was in the showroom.  The cheating didn't stop although the teams became more adept in its practice.  One Dodge typified the way manufactures used the homologation rule to effectively game the system.  The homologation rules (having to build and sell a minimum number of a certain model in that specification) had been intended to restrict the use of cars to “volume production” models available to the general public but in 1956 Dodge did a special run of what it called the D-500 (an allusion to the number built to be “legal”).  Finding a loophole in the interpretation of the word “option” the D-500 appeared in the showrooms with a 260-hp V8 and crossed-flag “500” emblems on the hoods (bonnet) and trunk (boot) lids, the model’s Dodge’s high-performance offering for the season.  However there was also the D-500-1 (or DASH-1) option, which made the car essentially a race-ready vehicle and one available as a two-door sedan, hardtop or convertible (the different bodies to ensure eligibility in NASCAR’s various competitions).  The D-500-1 was thought to produce around 285 hp from its special twin-four-barrel-carbureted version of the 315 cubic inch (5.2 litre) but more significant was the inclusion of heavy-duty suspension and braking components.  It was a successful endeavour and triggered both an arms race between the manufacturers and the ongoing battle with the NASCAR regulators who did not wish to see their series transformed into something conested only by specialized racing cars which bore only a superficial resemblance to the “showroom stock”.  By the 2020s, it’s obvious NASCAR surrendered to the inevitable but for decades, the battle raged.

1970 Plymouth Superbird (left) and 1969 Dodge Daytona (right) by Stephen Barlow on DeviantArt.  Despite the visual similarities, the aerodynamic enhancements  differed between the two, the Plymouth's nose-cone less pointed, the rear wing higher and with a greater rake.  

By 1969 the NASCAR  regulators had fine-tuned their rules restricting engine power and mandating a minimum weight so manufacturers resorted to the then less policed field of aerodynamics, ushering what came to be known as the aero-cars.  Dodge made some modifications to their Charger which smoothed the air-flow, labelling it the Charger 500 in a nod to the NASCAR homologation rules which demanded 500 identical models for eligibility.  However, unlike the quite modest modifications which proved so successful for Ford’s Torino Talladega and Mercury’s Cyclone Spoiler, the 500 remained aerodynamically inferior and production ceased after 392 were built.  Dodge solved the problem of the missing 108 needed for homologation purposes by introducing a different "Charger 500" which was just a trim level and nothing to do with competition but, honor apparently satisfied on both sides, NASCAR turned the same blind eye they used when it became clear Ford probably had bent the rules a bit with the Talladega.  Not discouraged by the aerodynamic setback, Dodge recruited engineers from Chrysler's aerospace & missile division (which was being shuttered because the Nixon-era détente had just started and the US & USSR were beginning their arms-reduction programmes) and quickly created the Daytona, adding to the 500 a protruding nosecone and high wing at the rear.  Successful on the track, this time the required 500 really were built, 503 coming of the line.  NASCAR responded by again moving the goalposts, requiring manufacturers to build at least one example of each vehicle for each of their dealers before homologation would be granted, something which typically would demand a run well into four figures.  Plymouth duly complied and for 1970 about 2000 Superbirds (NASCAR acknowledging 1920 although Chrysler insists there were 1,935) were delivered to dealers, an expensive exercise given they were said to be invoiced at below cost.  Now more unhappy than ever, NASCAR lawyered-up and drafted rules rendering the aero-cars uncompetitive and their brief era ended.  So extreme in appearance were the cars they proved at the time sometimes hard to sell and some were actually converted back to the standard specification to get them out of the showroom.  Views changed over time and they're now much sought by collectors, the record price the US$1.43 million realized in January 2023 at a Mecum auction in the pleasingly named Kissimmee, Florida.  That car was an exceptional example, one of only 70 built with the 426 cubic inch (7.0 litre) Street Hemi V8 and one of the 22 of those with the four-speed manual transmission.

1969 Ford Mustang Boss 429

NASCAR could however be helpful, scratching the back of those who scratched theirs.  For the Torino and Cyclone, Ford was allowed to homologate their Boss 429 engine in a Mustang, a model not used in stock car racing.  Actually, NASCAR had been more helpful still, acceding to Ford's request to increase the displacement limit from 427 to 430 cubic inches, just to accommodate the Boss 429.  There was a nice symmetry to that because in 1964, Ford had been responsible for the imposition of the 427 limit, set after NASCAR became aware the company had taken a car fitted with a 483 cubic inch engine to the Bonneville salt flats and set a number of international speed records.  The car used on the salt flats was one which NASCAR had banned from its ovals after it was found blatantly in violation of homologation rules so there was unlikely to be much leeway offered there.

1971 Ford Falcon GTHO Phase III

Australian manufacturers were (mostly) honest in their homologation programmes, Ford’s GTHO, Chrysler’s R/T Charger and Holden’s L34 and A9X were produced in accordance both with the claimed volumes and technical specification.  However, they weren't always so punctilious.  Ford's RPO83 (Regular Production Option #83) was a run of XA Falcon GTs completed late in 1973 which included many of the special parts intended for the aborted GTHO Phase IV and although, on paper, that seemed to make the things eligible for use in competition, it transpired the actual specification of various RPO83 cars wasn't consistent and didn't always match the nominal parts list.  History has been generous however and generally it's conceded that in aggregate, the parts subject to the homologation rules appear to have been produced in the requisite number.  By some accounts, this included counting the four-wheel disk brakes used on the luxury Landau hardtops but CAMS (the Confederation of Australian Motor Sport, at the time the regulatory body) was in the mood to be accommodating.

No homologation issues: Between 1938-2003, Volkswagen produced 21,529,464 Beetles (officially the VW Type 1).    

Dictator

Dictator (pronounced dik-tey-ter)

(1) A person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who (at least ostensibly) has absolute control (ie effectively not restricted by a constitution, laws, recognized opposition, etc) in a government (and officially without hereditary succession); applied particularly to those exercising tyrannical rule.

(2) In republican ancient Rome, a person vested by the senate with supreme authority during a crisis, the regular magistracy being subordinated to him until the crisis was met (typically by conducting a war).

(3) A person who makes pronouncements, as on conduct, fashion etc, which are regarded as authoritative.

(4) A person who dictates text to someone or some sort or mechanical or electronic recording device.

(5) In Ancient Rome (during certain periods), an elected chief magistrate.

1350–1400: From the Middle English dictatour, from the Old French dictator, from the Latin dictātor (genitive dictātōris), (Roman chief magistrate with absolute authority) the construct being dictā(re) (inflection of dictō (I repeat, say often; I dictate (to someone for writing))), frequentative of dicere (to say, speak); I compose, express in writing; I prescribe, recommend, order, dictate)) frequentative of dicere (to say, speak)" (from the primitive Indo-European root deik- (to show (also "solemnly to pronounce") (and related to dīcō (say, speak) + -tor (from the Proto-Italic -tōr, from the primitive Indo-European -tōr from -tor-s; the suffix added to the fourth principal part of a verb to create a third-declension masculine form of an agent noun).  The feminine forms were dictatress or dictatrix, both probably now obsolete except in historic reference or as a jocular form; the old alternative spelling dictatour is obsolete.  Some European languages (including Dutch and Romanian) were like English and borrowed directly the Latin spelling while others used variations including Catalan (dictador), French (dictateur) Italian (dittatore), Piedmontese (ditator), Polish (dyktator), Portuguese (ditador), Russian (дикта́тор (diktátor)), Sicilian (dittaturi), Spanish (dictador) and German (Diktator).  Dictator is a noun, dictatorially is an adverb and dictatorial is an adjective; the noun plural is dictators.

The noun dictatorship (office or term of a (Roman) dictator) came into use in the 1610s to describe the historically specific terms of office the Roman senate sometimes granted individuals in extraordinary and reprehensible circumstances while the now familiar general sense of "a ruler exercising absolute authority" evolved by the late seventeenth century.  The noun dictator had already proceeded along this path, the historical sense being the first used in English circa 1600, the extension to “one who has absolute power or authority" (in any context and not just political power) noted by the 1690s.  The nasty and not infrequently genocidal nature of some of the dictators of the twentieth century and beyond certainly influenced the understanding of the word which, as late as the 1800s could be used neutrally, effectively as a synonym for president.

The adjective dictatorial (pertaining to a dictator; absolute, unlimited), dating from 1901 evolved also to enjoy use outside of descriptors of absolute government and by 1704 had acquired the general sense of "imperious, overbearing", usefully (and often applied as required to husbands, mothers-in-law, parish priests et al; the related for was the adverb dictatorially.  In that vein, to convey the notion of "pertaining to a dictator" there had been dictatorian (1640s) & dictator-like (1580s).  Etymologists insist the dictatorial’s historic duality of implication (1) a disposition to rule and (2) a sharp insistence upon having one's orders accepted or carried out has survived in modern use but instances of the former are now probably rare.

Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; German head of government 1933-1945 and of state 1934-1945) is of course the dictator who for decades has loomed over the word and “Hitler” was used figuratively for "a dictator" from as early as 1934, a use which has persisted despite there being no shortage of dictatorial tyrants in the years since his assumption of power.  One amusing variation emerged in England in the early years of the Second World War (1939-1945), a “little Hitler” being someone appointed to a minor post (archetypically someone employed to walk the streets during a “black-out” telling folk to extinguish their lights) and, cloaked in this brief, unaccustomed authority, soon intoxicated by their power.  In post-revolutionary (1979-) Iran, the regime encouraged a similar put-down aimed at opponents, the US being شيطان بزرگ (Shaytân-e Bozorg (the great Satan)) and Israel شیطان کوچک, (Shaytân-e Kuchak (the little Satan)) and it’s even worse than it sounds because “great” is not the perfect translation, the idea of the great Satan being one of derision rather than awe.  When the Ayatollahs are in a bad mood (which does happens), sometimes the UK is also described as a “little Satan”.

Lindsay Lohan never forgave dictator Hosni Mubarak (1928–2020; president of Egypt 1981-2011) for shouting at Bill Clinton (b 1946; US president 1993-2001).  When told in 2011 he’d fallen from power as one of the victims of the Arab Spring, she responded: “Cool.”  When told it was brought about by a military coup she replied: “Gross!”  Lindsay Lohan doesn’t approve of coups d'état and believes soldiers should "stay in the barracks", allowing due constitutional process to be followed.   

Because of the evil of Hitler and his many spiritual successors in this century and the last, dictator really doesn’t cry out for synonyms but autocrat, despot, tyrant, absolutist, authoritarian, oppressor & totalitarian all tend in the direction.  Historically, the closest is probably the noun generalissimo (supreme military commander), dating from the 1620s and a borrowing of the Italian generalissimo, superlative of generale, from a sense development similar to the French general.  However, despite the title being used by the dictators comrade Stalin and General Franco, it’s never come into use as a general descriptor in the manner of dictator.

1935 Studebaker Dictator phaeton (left) & 1936 Studebaker Dictator sedan (right).

The Studebaker Dictator was produced between 1927-1937 and was part of a naming scheme which used titles from government service to indicate a car’s place in the hierarchy, the Dictator replacing the Standard Six as the entry-level model, the progressively more expensive being the Commander and President.  Briefly (only for 1927) there was also the Chancellor but, presumably because it wasn’t a title which much resonated in the American imagination, it was short- lived.  Other manufacturers have adopted a similar idea, Opal once also merging admiralty and political ranks, offering the Kapitän, Commodore, Admiral & Diplomat.  

Some of the opposition to crooked Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign in 2016 accused her of wanting to turn the US into a dictatorship.  That was hyperbolic because, although it may have been what she wanted, the US constitution would make it almost impossible to achieve.  The meme makers responded with agitprop.

It probably now seems strange a US manufacturer would call one of its products the Dictator but in 1927 the Nazis were years from power and Mussolini, in office since 1922 was far from the tainted character he would later become and the public perception of his rule was still at the stage of admiring him for “making the trains run on time” (although it’s thought unlikely any improvements in punctuality were noted by many).  Studebaker anyway had always explained the name as suggesting “a fine car at a moderate price” that would “dictate the standards” in the vital mid-priced field.  That was fair enough but with the benefit of post-Nazi hindsight, when the option of a straight-eight engine was offered as an upgrade from the straight-six, Studebaker probably would not to have used the marketing slogan “a brilliant example of excess power”.  By 1937, the use of excess power by the Third Reich’s dictator was becoming obvious and Studebaker quietly dropped the Dictator name for 1938, re-positioning the Commander as the base model, the cars exported to the Europe, the UK and the British Empire having early been renamed Director.  Of those changes, probably just about everyone except Henry Ford (1863-1947) approved.

So Studebaker’s tale is an example of how the shifting meaning of words can influence many things.  Still, if in 1937 any association with Hitler had become distasteful for a US corporation, even by 1940, some two years after the Nazi’s most publicized pogrom against the Jews (Kristallnacht (Night of Broken Glass)), Charlie Chaplin (1889–1977) released his satirical comedy The Great Dictator which parodied both dictators (Hitler and Mussolini), his argument being that however controversial it might be, “…Hitler must be laughed at."  He later admitted that had he known in 1940 what would later be understood, he’d never have produced the film.

The Hijab Police

Of the many “morality police” forces which have existed in countries with a majority Islamic population, the best known was Afghanistan's Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice which actually pre-dated the Taliban takeover in 1996 but they certainly deployed it with an enthusiasm which went much beyond it functioning as “burka police” and in one form or another, it actually operated for most of the (first) post-Taliban era.  When the Taliban regained power in 2021, immediately they created the "Ministry of Invitation, Guidance and Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice" and, in a nice touch, allocated as its headquarters the building formerly used by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs.

The institution is infamous also in Iran.  In the West, it’s usually referred to as the “morality police” and among women the sardonic slang is “hijab police” but technically, the instrument of the Islamic Republic of Iran which enforces, inter alia, the laws governing the wearing of the hijab is گشت ارشاد (Gašt-e Eršād (Guidance Patrol)).  On 16 September 2022, the hijab police arrested Mahsa Amini (b 2001) because she was wearing her hijab in “an un-Islamic way”.  While in custody, Ms Amini suffered a medical event, dying two days later without recovering consciousness, the hijab police claiming the cause of death was heart failure, induced by pre-existing conditions.  Her family dispute this, saying the evidence suggests she was severely beaten and many witnesses have confirmed she was tortured in the back of a van before arriving at a hijab police office.

Handy guide for the hijab police.  Not only must hijab must be worn correctly but clothing must also be (1) not brightly colored, (2) not patterned with extravagant designs or shapes and (3) be loose enough that the shape of the body is not discernable.

Her death triggered waves of protests in Iran, which, on the basis of footage seen in the West, seem dominated by school girls and young women which, in the context of political protest, is historically unusual.  With protest signs and banners rendered in YouTube & TikTok friendly English, the headline issue is of course the matter of the hijab and whether women should be beaten to death for letting a lock of hair slip from beneath but the women and girls are making clear they're protesting about corruption (noting the poverty of most while the clerical elite have become very rich), the structure of the state, the economy and the very question of whether the republic should be an Islamic theocracy.  The Ayatollahs are no doubt well aware that the standard calculation in political science is that if 3½% of the population can be mobilized to revolt, regimes can be toppled and most recently, the Afghan Taliban did it with a fraction of that.  For many reasons, Afghanistan may be a special case and the Iranian state, on paper, is much better equipped to suppress internal dissent but then the security apparatuses around Hosni Mubarak (1928-2020; Egyptian dictator 1981-2011) and Muammar Gaddafi (circa 1942–2011; Libyan dictator 1969-2011) both looked impregnable until the volume of the protesters reached critical mass.  These things are however hard to judge from afar, Bashar al-Assad (b 1965; Syria dictator since 2000) looked vulnerable long before Gaddafi and Mubarak fell yet today he sits still as dictator in Damascus.  The Ayatollahs are of course watching things with concern but so will individuals in the Kremlin, aware their security apparatus has proved inadequate to execute the battle plan of the recent special military action (war) in Ukraine and, in a nice echo of the 1979 revolution, the protesters are again chanting the cry once spat against the Shah: “Death to the Dictator!”.