all right

Occasionally adding corroborative details to add verisimilitude to otherwise bald and unconvincing,
but veridicous accounts
with careful attention, indefatigable assiduity, and nice discrimination.

15 August, 2012

Of Newspapers, Accidents, and Honesty

From Chapter VII of Gryll Grange by Thomas Love Peacock (London, 1861):
 Mrs. Opimian.
Perhaps, doctor, the world is too good to see any novelty except in something wrong.

The Rev. Dr. Opimian.
Perhaps it is only wrong that arrests attention, because right is common, and wrong is rare.  Of the many thousand persons who walk daily through a street you only hear of one who has been robbed or knocked down.  If ever Hamlet’s news—‘that the world has grown honest’*—should prove true, there would be an end of our newspaper.  For, let us see, what is the epitome of a newspaper?  In the first place, specimens of all the deadly sins, and infinite varieties of violence and fraud; a great quantity of talk, called by courtesy legislative wisdom, of which the result is ‘an incoherent and undigested mass of law, shot down, as from a rubbish-cart, on the heads of the people’; lawyers barking at each other in that peculiar style of hylactic delivery which is called forensic eloquence, and of which the first and most distinguished practitioner was Cerberus; bear-garden meetings of mismanaged companies, in which directors and shareholders abuse each other in choice terms, not all to be found even in Rabelais; burstings of bank bubbles, which, like a touch of harlequin’s wand, strip off their masks and dominoes from ‘highly respectable’ gentlemen, and leave them in their true figures of cheats and pickpockets; societies of all sorts, for teaching everybody everything, meddling with everybody’s business, and mending everybody’s morals; mountebank advertisements promising the beauty of Helen in a bottle of cosmetic, and the age of Old Parr§ in a box of pills; folly all alive in things called reunions; announcements that some exceedingly stupid fellow has been ‘entertaining’ a select company; matters, however multiform, multifarious, and multitudinous, all brought into family likeness by the varnish of false pretension with which they are all overlaid.
 
Mrs. Opimian.
I did not like to interrupt you, doctor; but it struck me, while you were speaking, that in reading the newspaper you do not hear the bark of the lawyers.

The Rev. Dr. Opimian.
True; but no one who has once heard the wow-wow can fail to reproduce it in imagination.

Mrs. Opimian.
You have omitted accidents, which occupy a large space in the newspaper.  If the world grew ever so honest, there would still be accidents.

The Rev. Dr. Opimian.
But honesty would materially diminish the number.  High-pressure steam-boilers would not scatter death and destruction around them, if the dishonesty of avarice did not tempt their employment, where the more costly low pressure would ensure absolute safety.  Honestly built houses would not come suddenly down and crush their occupants. Ships, faithfully built and efficiently manned, would not so readily strike on a lee shore, nor go instantly to pieces on the first touch of the ground.  Honestly made sweetmeats would not poison children; honestly compounded drugs would not poison patients.  In short, the larger portion of what we call accidents are crimes.
 
Mrs. Opimian.
I have often heard you say, of railways and steam-vessels, that the primary cause of their disasters is the insane passion of the public for speed.  That is not crime, but folly.

The Rev. Dr. Opimian.
It is crime in those who ought to know better than to act in furtherance of the folly.  But when the world has grown honest, it will no doubt grow wise.  When we have got rid of crime, we may consider how to get rid of folly.  So that question is adjourned to the Greek kalends.

Mrs. Opimian.
There are always in a newspaper some things of a creditable character.
 
The Rev. Dr. Opimian.
When we are at war, naval and military heroism abundantly; but in time of peace these virtues sleep.  They are laid up like ships in ordinary.  No doubt, of the recorded facts of civil life some are good, and more are indifferent, neither good nor bad; but good and indifferent together are scarcely more than a twelfth part of the whole.  Still, the matters thus presented are all exceptional cases.  A hermit reading nothing but a newspaper might find little else than food for misanthropy; but living among friends, and in the bosom of our family, we see the dark side of life in the occasional picture, the bright is its every day aspect.  The occasional is the matter of curiosity, of incident, of adventure, of things that really happen to few, and may possibly happen to any.  The interest attendant on any action or event is in just proportion to its rarity; and, happily, quiet virtues are all around us, and obtrusive virtues seldom cross our path.  On the whole, I agree in opinion with Theseus, that there is more good than evil in the world.
 
Mrs. Opimian.
I think, doctor, you would not maintain any opinion if you had not an authority two thousand years old for it.
 
The Rev. Dr. Opimian.
Well, my dear, I think most opinions worth mentioning have an authority of about that age.

Hamlet, II.2.
†  Jeremy Bentham.  [Peacock’s note.]
  Cerberus forensis erat causidicus.—Petronius Arbiter. 
[Frag. VIII, “Cerberus was a forensic advocate”; Peacock’s note.]
§  Thomas Parr, known as Old Parr, was allegedly born in 1483, and died in 1635; he is buried in Westminster Abbey, and his portrait hangs in the London Portrait Gallery.  A blended whisky also now bears his name.
  Eurip. Suppl. 207: Herm[Peacock’s note.]

13 August, 2012

Some Light Relief

Rather than posting further details of the sordid past of our corrupt prime minister, for now, here’s some light relief in the form of a little, helpful epitome of Homer’s Iliad which I wrote (rather rapidly, in 2006) for a music forum and which I just found when jettisoning some old files.

The Iliad in a Nutshell

Achilles in a fit of pique will not fight for fellow Greek,
for Agamemnon, king of kings, took his girl (and other things).
Achilles now far from the fray, Trojans almost seize the day;
and the cause of all this strife?  Young Paris stole a fetching wife—
this occurred nine years before, and that’s how long they’ve been at war.
(There’s lots of other words, fighting, heroes, gods, and moonlighting.)
Patroclus, with Achilles’ shield, nearly makes the Trojans yield,
but Hector, mighty prince of Troy, fights and kills the headstrong boy.
Achilles now gets fighting mad, slaughters Hector, cries with dad.

(It’s The Odyssey, of course, wherein you’ll find the Wooden Horse.)

04 August, 2012

Gillard and “False Assertions”

From “Cut and Paste” in The Australian:
Lines from the Prime Minister’s “live issues brief” yesterday morning – a pollies’ guide to responding to hot media topics if asked by journalists:
These are ancient matters that have never gone anywhere, no matter how many times people have tried to reheat them.  Because there's nothing in them.  It is worth remembering that the only reason they are being brought up today is because someone's promising to reheat them in a deal to avoid criminal charges  The last time they were published the newspaper ended up apologising for making false assertions.
The newspaper “ended up apologising for making false assertions” only because some gutless editor cravenly surrendered to the bullying Prime Minister who threatened all sorts of payback such as, perhaps, a cessation of Government advertisements in News Ltd newspapers, but not because any false assertions were published.*
Let’s be clear: Hon. Julia Gillard, the incompetent PM, from a reasonable interpretation of publicly available information, would seem to be a lying, deceitful, unprincipled, duplicitous, conniving, fraudulent, disloyal, unscrupulous, forswearing, corrupt thief.  If she have a better interpretation, or a better account of the facts, she should say so.

See some previous posts:
Gillard and the AWU Scandal”—nine video clips (30 July, 2012);
A Song from Julia” (23 June, 2012);
The PM’s Distress” (22 June, 2012);
A Song for Julia” (5 June, 2012);
The PM Lied” (1 March, 2012);
Unfit to Lead” (28 February, 2012);
The PM’s Gag” (10 February, 2012);
Incredibly Challenging” (10 November, 2011);
The Loathing of Julia Gillard” (22 September, 2011);
The National Interest
” (20 September, 2011);
The Elocution of Julia Gillard
” (18 September, 2011);
Principium Exitus
” (31 August, 2011);
Another Story You May Not Read
” (includes a Statutory Declaration by Robert Kernohan,
29 August, 2011);
A Story You May Not Read” (29 August, 2011);
A Clean Energy Future” (at The Friends of CO2, 18 July, 2011);
The PM and the People Agree” (4 July, 2011);
The Wisdom of Julia Gillard (at The Friends of CO2, 26 June, 2011)
;
Let Them Eat More Dirt
” (30 May, 2011); and
She’s a Woman” (at Say “Yes’’ to More Taxes,
17 July, 2010).
See also “The scandal that now demands answers”, by Andrew Bolt.
 

UPDATE I:  see “Cops wanted Julia Gillard’s ex, Bruce Wilson charged”, by Hedley Thomas, in The Australian:
Internal documents from an exhaustive police probe into a union funds scandal in the 1990s show detectives suspected former Australian Workers’ Union boss Bruce Wilson and his then alleged bagman, Ralph Blewitt, were “crooks” and wanted them criminally prosecuted over a $400,000-plus alleged fraud.
The documents from the police file include letters showing leaders of the powerful AWU, which remains the most influential industrial supporter of the federal Labor government, were deeply annoyed that the two men were not charged with criminal offences.
Most of the funds that allegedly went missing had been paid into an entity, the AWU Workplace Reform Association.
Julia Gillard, as a solicitor at the time for Slater & Gordon lawyers in Melbourne, which acted for Mr Wilson, Mr Blewitt and the AWU, did legal work related to the establishment of the association in Western Australia.
At the time, Mr Wilson and the Prime Minister were in a close relationship [which is code for “furtively living together in a sexual relationship”].  Ms Gillard has repeatedly and strenuously denied that she had any knowledge of what the association was going to be used for, and has also denied receiving any benefit.  She has declined to provide further comment about her role at the time and referred the newspaper to her previous strong denials of wrongdoing.
UPDATE II:  see “What Blewitt Has on Gillard Is Big”, by Larry Pickering:
The Pickering Post, July 20, 2012:  “Blewitt, and his wife, have been paid by a Melbourne law firm to fly back from Malaysia, where he is hiding out, to give evidence on behalf of a group of other people who also want Gillard’s blood.  He is in Melbourne now.  Stay tuned.”
Seventeen days later The Australian, on Friday August 3, splashed with a page one lead story that Blewitt had flown into Melbourne from Malaysia and was seeking personal indemnity to spill the beans on the whole Gillard/Wilson/AWU scandal.
Blewitt immediately made contact with me and I explained to him how the information we had was obtained.  He appeared relieved.  But he and Mel are safe from union thugs now because The Australian already has his statements in hand.  The police also have a fair idea of his likely disclosures.
How do I know there is much more to come?  The paper I once worked for would never splash this story as a page one lead without knowing the full extent of the substance of what Blewitt has to say.  The story, when it breaks, will have plenty more meat on the bone; meat we have not yet chewed on, and certainly enough to ruin Gillard’s holiday.
Gillard will not be charged but it will be claimed that she was fully aware of, and complicit in, the fraudulently-acquired funds and that she benefited from them.  Her boyfriend at the time, and prime culprit, Bruce Wilson, will again attract police interest.  My view is that he will not be charged either.  Blewitt’s testimony will need to withstand rigorous scrutiny against a closing of the ranks in the AWU.  Only a Royal Commission will prise apart that sort of solidarity.
Kim Williams, the incoming CEO of News Ltd, deserves commendation for biting the bullet and not bowing to Gillard’s threats of exposing phone hacking if the story was exposed.  Maybe he had a religious epiphany or simply realised that Gillard is already spayed and far beyond the power to blackmail media.
When the dust settles on this ugly episode Julia Gillard’s reign as Prime Minister will be over, if not before.
UPDATE III (7 August):  Larry Pickering continues to expose Gillard’s corruption in Part One of  “Our Prime Minister Is a Crook”, wherein he writes, “we have the full story ... a story that will cause a Government to fall.”

UPDATE IV (9 August):  Larry Pickering has published Part Two (though titled slightly differently from Part One) of  “Is Our Prime Minister a Crook?”:
Gillard’s old enemies are singing like canaries.  They have seen the whites of her eyes and they are moving in for the kill.
Her enemies are former AWU officials and staff.  Salivating ex-employees of her fraudster boyfriend, Bruce Wilson.  They have a conscience and a clear, corroborated recollection of exactly what went on.  They are willing to testify.
UPDATE V (10 August):  Alan Jones and Michael Smith discuss allegations of fraud again.  Hear also their previous discussion on Gillard and AWU (previously linked here).

UPDATE VI (11 August):  Andrew Bolt’s “Law firm wants permission to release its Wilson files” is essential reading.

UPDATE VII (11 August):  Larry Pickering has published his third part of “Is Our Prime Minister a Crook?”:
Gillard’s current claims of “young and naive” do not apply to her complicity in widespread fraud.  Those claims apply solely to Wilson’s false declarations of love for her.
As partner in the law firm it would be stupid as Prime Minister to suggest she was “young and naive” when she was clearly instrumental in the blatant fraud [yet the majority of alleged journalists in the Australian media credulously accept or pretend to accept the lame excuse].  She has not denied her complicity but claims she didn’t know what it was for.  Mmmm, ok.  […]
Slater & Gordon aided and abetted the fraud.  The AWU sacked the law firm and turned to the other infamous Left wing Law firm, Maurice Blackburn, where Bill Shorten and Nicola Roxon were resident.
It is Slater & Gordon’s ex- and current employees who are now daily leaking devastating information on the activities of this listed law firm.  The ASX and ASIC will no doubt be taking an interest.
UPDATE VIII (13 August):  Larry Pickering has published his fourth part of “Is Our Prime Minister a Crook?

UPDATE IX (16 August):  Larry Pickering has published his fifth part of “Is Our Prime Minister a Crook?

UPDATE X (18 August):  in Revealed: Julia Gillard lost her job after law firm's secret investigation”, Hedley Thomas provides further evidence which, to a party of fair-minded and upright politicians, would suggest that Julia Gillard would be an unsuitable person to be a parliamentary representative and certainly not the Prime Minister:
Julia Gillard left her job as a partner with law firm Slater & Gordon as a direct result of a secret internal probe in 1995 into controversial work she had done for her then boyfriend, a union boss accused of corruption, The Weekend Australian can reveal.
Nick Styant-Browne, a former equity partner of the firm, broke a 17-year silence yesterday to reveal that the firm’s probe included a confidential formal interview with the Prime Minister – then an industrial lawyer – on September 11, 1995, which was “recorded and transcribed”.
In the interview, Ms Gillard stated that she could not categorically rule out that she had personally benefited from union funds in the renovation of her Melbourne house, according to Mr Styant-Browne.
She said in the interview that she believed she had paid for all the work and materials, and had receipts [handwritten with, perhaps, superadded annotations from “Julia’s mum” remarking on their authenticity], which she later produced.
The firm’s probe revolved around Ms Gillard’s work since mid-1992 for the Australian Workers Union and her then boyfriend – the AWU’s ambitious leader at the time, Bruce Wilson – as well as her direct role in establishing the AWU Workplace Reform Association for Mr Wilson.  […]
Mr Styant-Browne revealed yesterday that Ms Gillard had said in her formal interview on September 11, 1995, that “she could not categorically deny AWU union or (AWU) Workplace Reform Association monies” had been used in the renovation of her own house in Melbourne. He said she had subsequently produced receipts for work done on the Abbotsford property.
In a two-page statement to The Weekend Australian, Mr Styant-Browne also revealed unusual circumstances surrounding what he described as Ms Gillard’s “legal and related work to establish the AWU Workplace Reform Association in Western Australia”.
He said that in her formal interview, Ms Gillard had confirmed that “she did not open a file at the firm” to establish the association, and that she could not at the time recall any reason why a file was not opened.  He said that she had stated that no other lawyer at the firm worked on the matter, and “to her recollection, no other lawyer was consulted”.  She stated in the interview that she “was not involved in opening or operating any bank accounts for the association," Mr Styant-Browne said.
UPDATE XI (18 August):  see also The political controversy that won’t go away”, wherein Hedley Thomas provides a timeline of Gillardgate.

UPDATE XII (18 August):  Andrew Bolt continues to insist that journalists display some courage in “Claim: Gillard said she couldn’t rule out benefitting from AWU scam”:
Yesterday on The Contrarians, host Peter van Onselen angrily attacked viewers who’d asked him why he’d never discussed this scandal.  He bizarrely dismissed it as just the obsession of cartoonist Larry Pickering, and said there was nothing new that been revealed that serious commentators could or would comment on.  He announced he certainly wouldn’t be asking any questions about the scandal when Julia Gillard appeared on his show, Sky News Agenda, tomorrow.
Now that this material appears in his own paper today, will van Onselen find the courage to admit there are serious questions for the Prime Minister to answer – and have been for some time?
Courage, man.
UPDATE XIII (18 August)see “Push to relaunch fraud probe”, by Gary Adshead and Sean Cowan, in The West Australian:
An unremarkable Maylands storage unit could provide new clues to $1 million fraud allegations written off by police but which have frustrated union officials and dogged Prime Minister Julia Gillard during her political career.
Tim Daly, a former State secretary of the Australian Workers Union, can still recall his decision to box up and lock away hundreds of documents in the late 1990s knowing that the stench of the financial dealings would one day return.
Two AWU executives, Ralph Blewitt and Bruce Wilson, were investigated in 1995 and 1996 over allegations made to police and the NSW Industrial Relations Commission that they had channelled up to $1 million into secret WA bank accounts and a bogus union association in Northbridge.
There was also a separate police probe into claims that money from an AWU members’ fatal accident and death fund was used to buy two holiday units in Kalbarri.
No charges were ever laid in relation to either case.
At the time of the alleged frauds, Ms Gillard was in a relationship with Mr Wilson and acting as Slater and Gordon’s lawyer for the AWU, but she has repeatedly denied any involvement or knowledge of Mr Wilson’s conduct which police investigated.
Earlier this month, the old allegations surfaced again when Mr Blewitt, a former State secretary of the AWU in Perth, said he would reveal everything he knew in return for immunity from prosecution.
Mr Wilson, who was also the union's WA secretary before moving to Melbourne, has never spoken publicly about the investigations.
But in the mid-1990s, Mr Daly became the union’s boss in WA and pushed hard for Mr Wilson and Mr Blewitt to be prosecuted over claims fake entities were used to receive huge sums of cash from construction companies in the name of workplace training and reform.
“I’m still very frustrated by the outcome of the whole thing,” Mr Daly said.
UPDATE XIV (19 August)seeThe dangers of reporting what the powerful do not want told” and Gillard Responds”, by Andrew Bolt.

UPDATE XV (19 August)see also “I’ve done nothing wrong: Gillard defends record of time at law firm Slater & Gordon”, by Lanai Vasek, in The Australian:
Julia Gillard has defended her record at law firm Slater & Gordon and says she is the subject of a “scurrilous” and “malicious” online campaign.
In a fiery interview with Sky News’s Australian Agenda this morning the Prime Minister said she had done nothing wrong throughout her time as an industrial lawyer at the firm during the 1990s and resigned on her own terms.  […]
Manager of opposition business Christopher Pyne said Ms Gillard should give a personal explanation to the parliament to clear up any misunderstandings.
“There are serious questions which do need to be answered.  This matter has percolated in the background for months, if not years, and the intensity has become much more dramatic,” Mr Pyne told Australian Agenda.  […]
Mr Pyne rejected the Prime Minister’s assertions this morning that the matters were no longer relevant and should be laid to rest.
“They are relevant because it appears to be one of those stories that doesn’t go away,” Mr Pyne said.
“And it is relevant because it goes to her integrity as a solicitor at Slater & Gordon and what she knew or didn’t know about what are very serious matters involving the misappropriation of funds of members of the Australian Workers’ Union.”

Some Maxims

Incompetence ought to be assumed before malfeasance (following Occam’s Razor and the maxim—assigned to various authors—that we should “never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence”) but, in many cases, easily preventable incompetence might as well be deliberate; accordingly, these maxims appear to be applicable to the scandalous, burgeoning cases of misfeasance and malfeasance which blight our commonwealth.
Informal’s Assertion:
Callously indifferent incompetence may be indistinguishable from malfeasance.

Informal’s Corollary:
A concatenation of malfeasance functions indistinguishably from a conspiracy.

Informal’s Axiom:
The larger the bureaucracy the higher the likelihood of indifferent incompetence.
“The lot of princes, Domitian remarked, was most miserable: they were not believed when they uncovered a conspiracy unless they were murdered.”  (Condicionem principum miserrimam aiebat, quibus de coniuratione comperta non crederetur nisi occisis.—C. Suetonius Tranquillus, De Vita Caesarum, “Domitianus”, XX.)  If you haven’t spotted a conspiracy, you’re not paying attention.*

John Nolte observes, for example, “If you don’t think there’s an agenda behind this, you haven’t been paying attention the last 40 years.” 

UPDATE I: 
Informal’s Annotation:
As an online discussion of totalitarianism or authoritarianism or the Second World War grows longer, the probability of an inappropriate but smug reference to “Godwin’s Law” approaches 1.
UPDATE II:
Informal’s First Principle of Satire
No satire of modern behaviour and doctrines can be so ridiculous that some people won’t interpret it as accurate reportage.
Informal’s Second Principle of Satire
No supposed proposal invented by a satirist can be so ridiculous that some people won’t support it.
Informal’s Commentary on the Two Principles of Satire
Purportedly progressive people are particularly likely to confuse satire with actuality.

30 July, 2012

Gillard & the AWU Scandal


















From CANdo Australia.

UPDATE I (03 August):  see Andrew Bolt’s “Wilson scandal: I could face criminal charges”, and, in The Australian, “Union scandal: I’ll come clean, says ‘bagman’ Ralph Blewitt” and “Scandal refuses to die”, both by Hedley Thomas.

UPDATE II (04 August):  see Andrew Bolt’s “The scandal that now demands answers” as well as the linked editorial , in The Australian, “AWU scandal questions linger”.

21 July, 2012

“Depart, I Say, and Let Us Have Done with You”

ὦ μῖσος, ὦ μέγιστον ἐχθίστη γύναι
θεοῖς τε κἀμοὶ παντί τω’ ἀνθρώπων γένει.
—Euripides, Medea, 1323-24.*

She Has Sat Too Long

Gillard is a bold
but incompetent liar,
corrupt to the core—

so one would believe
from the PM’s refusal
to explain her acts

when she helped her old
leman defraud his union—;
but Gillard cries, “Poor

me, young and naïve!”
She must forgo feigned surprise,
and give us some facts:

she must clarify
just how much she knew, and when,
and how much she took;

and she must say why
we have a PM who is
such a rotten crook.

See “Serious Questions for Gillard: Still No Answers”, by Larry Pickering, as well as his “Gillard: the Story She Tried to Kill” and his “Doth the Lady Protest Too Much”; listen to Alan Jones and Michael Smith discuss the Prime Minister and the AWU; and see also “A Story You May Not Read” and “Another Story You May Not Read” (which contains scanned pages of a Statutory Declaration of Robert Kernohan).

*  Jason: “O, hated one!  O, most detested of women—
   by the gods, by me, and by the whole race of men!”

UPDATE I:  see “The Wilson scandal: now the Cambridge affidavit”, by Andrew Bolt. 

UPDATE II:  meanwhile, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott have announced that the PM whom they supported must remain in the position lest they be upset and take their pensions and go home.

The Two Queen-making Berks

Oakeshott and Windsor
are silly, arrogant, and
two peas in a pod.

They foisted on us
a bad, corrupt government
which seems rather odd

for two idiots
who are always blethering
about just how well

Oakeshott and Windsor
have improved democracy
and how they excel.

Nonetheless, despite
their constant, self-serving praise,
the standards have not

improved in the House—
it hardly could when it has
Windsor and Oakeshott.

Now they have bellowed
that any attempt to sack
the Prime Minister

and reinstall Rudd
has to be deemed by then as
highly sinister.

Oakeshott and Windsor
would very much rather bring
down the Parliament

than think adequate
administrations occur
without their consent. 


They spare little time
from all their big-noting for
any reflection.

Bring it on, morons;
can’t you tell that wise people
want an election?
 
UPDATE III (22 July):  seeJulia Gillard’s Former Lover and Fraudster Bruce Wilson Found by Mike Smith”, by the ever forthright Shane Dowling, at Kangaroo Court of Australia.

UPDATE IV (23 July):  at Quadrant Online, Tony Thomas provides a transcription of the Alan Jones and Michael Smith interview.

UPDATE V (19 August):  see many links and updates at Gillard and ‘False-assertions’”.

03 July, 2012

Enigmatic Invective

At Letters of Note, we can read a famous missive of invective from Algernon Swinburne, the English poet, to The New York Tribune, wherein he alludes to another notoriously rude reply:
If I am to believe that that name has been made the mark for such vile language as is now publicly attributed to men of note in the world of letters, I, who am not sufficiently an expert in the dialect of the cesspool and the dung-cart to retort in their own kind on these venerable gentlemen—I, whose ears and lips alike are unused to the amenities of a conversation embroidered with such fragments of flowery rhetoric as may be fished up by congenial fingers or lapped up by congenial tongues out of the sewerage of Sodom—can return no better or more apt reply than was addressed by the servant of Octavia to the satellites of Nero, and applied by Lord Denman, when counsel for Queen Caroline, to the sycophants of George IV.
Swinburne refers to the account of Nero’s bringing allegedly false charges of adultery (with a slave!) against Octavia, his sister* and wife, in the Annals of Tacitus:
Actae ob id de ancillis quaestiones, et vi tormentorum victis quibusdam, ut falsa adnuerent, plures perstitere sanctitatem dominae tueri; ex quibus una instanti Tigellino castiora esse muliebria Octaviae respondit quam os ejus.   (Ann. XIV. 60. 4)
[“On account of this, her slave-girls were examined under torture, and though some were forced by the intensity of agony into admitting falsehoods, most persisted in upholding the virtue of their mistress; to the menaces of Tigellinus one of them responded that Octavia’s female parts were purer than his mouth.”]
This reference to female naughty bits was quite rude for Romans—and, since Tacitus uses indirect speech, his readers would likely have assumed that the servant’s actual words were far ruder—; Romans (or, at least, surviving Roman writers) were so horrified that saying cum me—“with me”—might sound like cunne—the vocative of cunnus, “vulva”—that they not only made cum follow the personal pronoun in the first person singular but also insisted that other personal pronouns postposited cum likewise (thus, for instance, tecum and vobiscum, for “with thee” and “with you”).  We may safely assume, I submit, that Swinburne wasn’t thinking that “female parts” would be an adequate English translation for muliebria.

*  Tacitus presents Octavia, though older than Nero, as younger and (though unlikely for a Julio-Claudian woman) as adorably sweet and politically naïve.
†  originally, A Latin Dictionary by Lewis and Short (Oxford, 1879) chastely and succinctly defined cunnus—not in English but, less usefully for those who might be using a Latin dictionary because they have a less than expert knowledge of Latin, in Latin—as pudenda muliebrum, which means “the shameful things of women”; later (in my 1933 impression, for example), the definition is a slightly less prudish “the female pudenda”.

Latin and Lexicographical Prudery

Nam castum esse decet pium poetam
ipsum, versiculos nihil necesse est.   
—Catullus, Carm., XVI, 4-6.*

OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE WARNING:  very coarse terms in Latin and English. 

A problem with lexicographical prudishness in Latin dictionaries can be exemplified by translating an elegiac epigram of Martial:
Cum futuis, Polycharme, soles in fine cacare.
   Cum pedicaris, quid, Polycharme, facis?  (VIII, lxix)
In only two lines, three verbs occur which (rare in canonical literature) are absent from many small Latin dictionaries, so a student without access to a larger dictionary might be at a loss (though able to make, no doubt, some fair guesses):
When thou art futuere-ing, Polycharmus, thou art accustomed to cacare in the end.
When thou art pedicare-d, what, Polycharmus, dost thou do?
Furthermore, in fine, found in Juvenal and Martial, has a particular sexual meaning which, too often, dictionaries fail to explain; for example, Juvenal describes the demands of a schoolmaster in his seventh satire as he cares for his boys:
observare manus oculosque in fine trementis. (VII, 241)
Peter Green, in his translation for Penguin (rev., 1974), has, “To keep check over all those darting eyes—and fingers”, but a more explicit translation is, “to observe the hands and trembling eyes in climax.”  Another wittily Shakespearean translation of manus oculosque in fine trementis would be “hands and eyes in fine frenzy rolling”—but I digress.
So, since in fine means “in [sexual] finish”, and futuere, cacare and pedicare mean, respectively, “fuck”, “shit” and “bugger”, we can translate Martial’s epigram (whilst modernising the name with an apposite, topical reference to a pornerastic member of federal Parliament):
Whenever you fuck, Thommo, you shit as you come.
But what do you do, Thommo, when fucked up the bum?
*  For, though an upright poet should be pure,
    there’s no such need for his literature.

Glenn Reynolds on “The Higher Education Bubble”


Thanks to Ed Driscoll, Silicon Graffiti and PJ Media.
(The Higher Education Bubble is available from Amazon.com.)

02 July, 2012

Not Out by Much

Phil Jacob, of The Daily Telegraph, in “Global chaos as a moment in time kills the interwebs”, writes:
All it took was a single second to bring down websites all over the world.
Sites such as Reddit, Gawker, LinkedIn, Foursquare and Yelp crashed after a “leap second” was added to the universal clock in order to keep up with the Earth’s rotation.
Slight fluctuations on the Earth’s axis meant that some days ended up being longer than others meaning that in a few hundred years time we’d be eating lunch at midnight if the problem went unaddressed.  […]
The last leap seconds happened in 2008, 2005 and 1998.
Assuming that Jacob means that our clocks will be marking midnight when it’s around midday, by the sun, he’s a little wide of the mark.  Even if the world’s clocks were slipping behind at a rate of exactly one second every year, it would still take a lot more than “a few hundred years” for those seconds to add up to half a day’s worth: it would take forty thousand.*
Note also that Jacobs (or his subeditor) uses “chaos”, not to mean “complete and utter disorder and confusion” but, as so many journalists do these days, apparently, signifying “a slight amount of disorder, with a little confusion and inconvenience”; and “global”, in this instance, seems to mean “within Australian aerodromes and parts of the USA”.

* assuming that twelve hours contain 43,200 seconds.