August 30, 2003

Waltzing Mathilda

The world in Australia is upside down: Waltzing Mathilda may no longer be performed as the national rugbyteam stampedes onto the grounds. My favorite reference work, the official dictionary of Australian slang, has to be extended with at least ten pages of new expressions or expletives, i guess. Aussies not only wear their hart on their sleeves, but they'r also pretty creative with language. Fair dinkum!

To prevent misunderstanding: there is only one Waltzing Mathilda, and that's not, as almost everybody in the US and Europe seems to think, the burden of Tom Traubert's Blues, as performed by Tom Waits. That song, to use suiting terminology, hasn't got a fuck to do with it.
Waltzing Mathilda is what Banjo Paterson wrote an sang for the first time in 1895. About the jolly swagman under the coolibah tree who's watching his billy boiling, and sadly drowns when he jumps in the billabong, with the jumbuck and the tuckerbag.
What the hell I am talking about? You may borrow my dictionary mentioned above.
Waltzing Mathilda may no longer be officially performed as Australia takes on the defence of the world title from the tenth of oktober. The fat is in the fire, because Mathilda is the guardian angel of the Wallabies. No longer allowed, not even during the opening ceremony in the Telstra Dome in Sydney, with 82.000 seats months before the event sold out.
Measured to it's 74.000 union members Australia is a rugbydwarf, compared to France, South Africa, New Zealand en England, while even the Japanese Rugby Union has over 100.000 members. But it are the in green shorts and gold shirts dressed Wallabies - a little kind of kangaroo - that have won everything that is possible to win in the world of rugby. The World Cup in 1999, when France was beaten in the final in Cardiff, being the crown on a reign of terror in the last decennium of the twentieth century.
When the Cup was brought home someone started to sing Waltzing Mathilda when the newly crowned champions of the world played for home audiences. In the samen manner as You'll never Walk Alone was made world famous and immortal from Liverpool. According to the legend in 1965 Gerry Marsden visited a Liverpool home match when someone on The Spionkop spotted him an started to sing the Rodgers and Hammerstein classic, then a hit as covered by Gerry and his Pacemakers. The rest, right, history.
In the gigantic Melbourne Cricket Ground Mathilda floated above her protegees when a sold out crowd sang them to the decising try in the last seconds of a game. Coincidence or not, with a deafening Mathilda more matches were won, so the myth was born.
Myths get cultivated. A bloke called John Williamson was brought in from the outback. A singing true blue jackaroo - check my reference - RM Williams at his feet, Akubra on his head, acoustic guitar in his hands, put right in the middle of the stadium five minutes before match time. People loved it, the players swallowed the perfect and legal drug, Australia sang along.
It's over. The international rugby union has ordered that from now on only national anthems may be performded at the beginning of international matches. Rules are rules, one is inclined to think, but why made an exeption for hymns with extraordinary cultural or historical bond? And what's wrong with Mathilda, culturally and historically?
For now this stupid decision suits New Zealand very well, because under the new rule the All Blacks are allowed to maintain the performance of their fearfull Haka. The same All Blacks who, as they admitted last year, succeeded in keeping 0-0 on the scoreboard until five minutes before the game started. 'Then 100.000 people started singing Waltzing Mathilda and we'd lost the match before it even started'.
The good news for Australia is that the problem will be solved. To begin with, for years there's a very active movement Down Under that wants to dump the national anthem, the a bit pompous Advance Australia Fair, and replace it by something else. Guess what. Right.
Secondly premier Johnny Howard, on the far left side of the political spectrum also known as the bloody little creep, said something smart - even the left wing agreed this time - when whe was asked about the case that will keep his country busy for a while.
'No worries', a grinning Howard shrugged his shoulders, 'how in the world can they prevent 82.000 people singing Waltzing Mathilda?

For the original column in Dutch, as published in Bn/DeStem on august 30, 2003, as well as on the website of BN/DeStem, click here (archive BN/DeStem). If you haven't done so already, you'll have to register yourself.

 Posted: August 30, 2003, 09:23 PM | Comments (0) |

August 29, 2003

'Brights' come out of the closet

This is the latest E-skeptic from © Michael Shermer from The Skeptics Society.
Chek out Skeptic magazine, e-Skeptic magazine at www.skeptic.com.
Members (i am) have permission to print, distribute, and post with proper citation and acknowledgment. We - members - are encouraged to broadcast e-Skeptic to new potential subscribers. Newcomers can subscribe to e-Skeptic for free by sending an e-mail to: join-skeptics@lyris.net

E-skeptic d.d. august 28, 2003

As many of you are aware by now, there is a movement afoot to introduce a new meme into our cultural lexicon to substitute for the melange of descriptive words such as atheist, nontheist, agnostic, nonbeliever, infidel, heretic, skeptic, humanist, secular humanist, free thinker, and the like. The new meme was introduced at the Atheist Alliance International conference last April in Florida, by Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell, from Sacramento, California.

Interestingly, this proposal followed my own lecture at the conference, in which the promoter had encouraged me to address the "labeling" problem in a slightly different context. (I did not know about the new meme about to be introduced.) It seems that this promoter had received some flack from some Atheist Alliance International organizers over whether or not I should be allowed to speak because I wrote in How We Believe that as a statement about the universe (there is a God or there is not a God) I am an agnostic (in the sense Huxley meant the term when he coined it in 1869, meaning that this is an insoluble question), and as a statement of personal belief I am a nontheist. Since I did not strictly identify myself as an "atheist," apparently some felt that my participation at the conference was not welcome. Essentially, I explained what I meant by these terms, that labels are arbitrary and loaded ("atheist" has all sorts of pejorative baggage in our culture), and that in any case there are so few of us in America who do not believe in God (between 5 and 10%) that to squabble over which nonbelievers in God should be allowed in the club is doing the same thing so many nonbelievers dislike about religion, along the lines of the Baptists and Anabaptists quibbling (fighting, really, to the point of splintering the church) over when baptism should be employed.

Paul and Mynga noted that, by analogy, homosexuals used to suffer a similar labeling problem when they were called homos, queers, fruits, fags, and fairies. Their solution was to change the label to a more neutral term--gay. Over the past couple of decades, gays have won significant liberties for themselves, starting with gay pride and gay marches that have led to gay rights.

Analogously, instead of calling ourselves nonbelievers, nontheists, atheists, agnostics, skeptics, free thinkers, humanists, and secular humanists, it was suggested that we call ourselves Brights. We are the Brights. I am a Bright. The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, the philosopher Daniel Dennett, and the magician and paranormal debunker James Randi have all announced publicly that they are Brights. In fact, Dawkins, Randi, and I were the first to sign up on the spot at the conference.

However, just as there is no one gay organization, the Brights Movement is not an organization; it is a constituency which, if it grows large enough, may one day influence society in a positive direction of increasing tolerance and liberty for both Brights and non-Brights.

For more information go to www.the-brights.net or write Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell at P.O. Box 163418, Sacramento, CA 95816, e-mail: TheBrightsNet@aol.com

What is a Bright? At the Brights web page it is explained: "A Bright is a person whose worldview is naturalistic--free of supernatural and mystical elements. Brights base their ethics and actions on a naturalistic worldview."

Bright is a good word. It means "cheerful and lively," "showing an ability to think, learn, or respond quickly," and "reflecting or giving off strong light." Brights are cheerful thinkers who reflect the light of science, reason, and tolerance for all, both Brights and non-Brights. I believe that the long-term future of humanity rests in the hands of those who embrace a naturalistic worldview and a secular society (regardless of what personal religious beliefs are embraced by individuals within the society). Our future is bright.

I have a more formal and literary statement on this subject, that closes the final chapter of my next book (The Science of Good and Evil, released next February from Henry Holt/Times Books) and goes into more detail, but for now I am officially out of the "other closet" in print. ----------------------------

ORIGIN OF "GAY" MEME

Ever since the "Bright" meme was introduced, with the "gay" analogy, I have wondered about the actual origin of the usage of word. Was this a top-down organizational strategy or was it a bottom-up emergent property of social self-organization? The following explanation comes from a correspondent, Rik Isensee (rikisensee@yahoo.com). Thanks Rik.

Following up on your question about "gay" origins and usage:

I ran across this fascinating description of how the word gay made its way from a form of insider code to identity:

In George Chauncy's "Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture and the Making of the Gay Male World 1890-1940," he sets out the history of the word "gay":

"Originally referring simply to things pleasurable, by the seventeenth century gay had come to refer to more specifically to a life of immoral pleasures and dissipation (and by the nineteenth century to prostitution, when applied to women), a meaning that the 'faggots' [a term used by gay people to refer to themselves at the turn of the century] could easily have drawn on to refer to the homosexual life.

"Gay also referred to something brightly colored or someone showily dressed -- and thus could easily be used to describe the flamboyant costumes adopted by many fairies [another term used by gay people to refer to themselves at the turn of the century], as well as things at once brilliant and specious, the epitome of camp." Chauncy, "Gay New York" p. 17.

"Over time, however, the word "gay" moved out of the slang of the effeminate gay men (the self-described fairies, faggots and pansies) and was used more and more as a code word by the non-effeminate gay men (the self-described "queers"). As one gay writer explained in 1941:

"Supposing one met a stranger on a train from Boston to New York and wanted to find out if he was 'wise' or even homosexual. One might ask: 'are there any gay spots in Boston?' And by slight accent put on the word 'gay' the stranger, if wise, would understand that homosexual resorts were meant. The uninitiated stranger would never suspect, inasmuch as 'gay' is also a perfectly normal and natural word to apply to places where one has a good time.... The continued use of such double entendre terms will make it obvious to the initiated that he is speaking with another person acquainted with the homosexual argot." Chauncy, p. 18.

Having moved from being part of the "fairy" slang to a "queer" code word, the meaning of the word gay changed again. Gay became not only an adjective but also a noun -- and a new way to identity oneself.

"While such men spoke of 'gay bars' more than of 'gay people' in the 1920's and 1930's, the late 1930's and especially World War II marked a turning point in its usage and in their culture. Before the war, many men had been content to call themselves 'queer' because they regarded themselves as self-evidently different from the men they usually called 'normal.' Some of them were unhappy with this state of affairs, but others saw themselves as 'special' -- more sophisticated, more knowing -- and took pleasure in being different from the mass.

"The term gay began to catch on in the 1930's, and its primacy was consolidated during the war. By the late 1940's, younger gay men were chastising older men who still used queer, which the younger men now regarded as demeaning. As [one man], who came out into the gay world of Times Square in the 1930's, noted in his diary in 1951, 'The word "queer" is becoming [or coming to be regarded as] more and more derogatory and [is] less and less used by hustlers and trade and the homosexual, especially the younger ones, and the term "gay" [is] taking its place. I loathe the word, and stick to "queer", but am constantly being reproved, especially in so denominating myself."

"Younger men rejected queer as a pejorative name that others had given them, which highlighted their difference from other men. Even though many 'queers' had also rejected the effeminacy of the fairies, younger men were well aware that in the eyes of straight men their 'queerness' hinged on their supposed gender deviance. In the 1930's and 1940's, a series of press campaigns claiming that murderous 'sex deviates' threatened the nation's women and children gave 'queerness' an even more sinister and undesirable set of connotations. In calling themselves gay, a new generation of men insisted on the right to name themselves, to claim their new status as men, and to reject the 'effeminate' styles of the older generation. Some men, especially older ones, continued to prefer queer to gay, in part because of gay's initial association with the fairies. Younger men found it easier to forget the origins of gay in the campy banter of the very queens whom they wished to reject." Chauncy, p. 19.

I also found a reference to the French gaie, (or Old French gai) referring to homosexual men in the 16th century--which makes one wonder whether gay meant light-hearted and fun because so many homosexuals were gay, or gay men were called "gay" because they were light-hearted and fun? (Do we call ducks, "ducks," because ducks duck, or do we call ducking "ducking" because ducks duck?)

This may have been more than you wanted to know about origins--but I think it does speak to the point that the word gay has a very long history.

It had some aspects of in-group code, especially for more flamboyant homosexuals, but then was claimed by most gays as preferable to the more sinister 'queer.' This history is all the more ironic, given that nowadays, many younger men identify as "queer," claiming it's more inclusive, whereas now it's the older men who object to its derogatory history! (Some of whom may be the very same men, who, when they were younger, claimed "gay" as their own, in contrast to "queer.")

But the queer controversy speaks a bit to what you're trying to do--it was a conscious effort by a small group (Queer Nation, in the early 90s) who decided to reclaim the expletive as a word that could include all of the lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgender/intersex/leather-s/m and questioning community. It's caught on a bit, especially amongst more activist and artistic communities; whether it will catch on generally will be interesting to see. (Don't expect to see queer replace gay in the New York Times just yet--since it took them 30 years to use gay instead of homosexual!).

As for bright as an all-inclusive term for the non-religious --when I ran across the bright website, my initial reaction was that it was needlessly alienating, implying that people of faith aren't very bright? It's also the top-down sort of attempt at influencing language that I suspect won't go very far in terms of general usage (although it has a far better chance than eupraxsophy ('good practice of wisdom'), the rather academic neologism that Paul Kurtz (Center for Free Inquiry) advocates).

I recently heard a linguist named Allan A. Metcalf discuss his book, Predicting New Words, on NPR. He describes how language evolves, and provided a number of criteria for a new word, phrase, or usage catching on, which might be helpful in deciding on your next steps!

>From Houghton-Mifflin's promo:

"Why are some new words adopted while others are ignored? Allan Metcalf explores this question in his fascinating survey of new-word creation in English. By examining past new-word contenders, Metcalf discerns lessons for linguistic longevity. For instance, he shows us why the humorist Gelett Burgess gave us the words blurb and bromide but failed to win anyone over with bleesh and diabob. Metcalf examines words invented for political and social reasons (African American, pro-life), words coined in books (edge city, the Peter principle), brand names and the words derived from them (aspirin, Ping-Pong), and words that started as jokes (big bang, couch potato).

"On the basis of this research, he develops a scale -- the FUDGE scale -- for predicting the success of newly coined words. The FUDGE scale has five factors: Frequency of use, Unobtrusiveness, Diversity of users and situations, Generation of other forms and meanings, and Endurance of the concept. By judging how an emerging new word rates for each FUDGE factor, Metcalf is able to predict which words will take root in the English lexicon and which words will dry up and blow away. In this highly original work, Metcalf shows us how to spin syllabic straw into linguistic gold."

I myself prefer "free thinker"--it has a history, and it seems more inclusive, since it originally included some religiously-inclined, but independent-minded folks as well (such as Quakers and Unitarians). It was also considered pejorative and subversive, and many free thinkers have claimed it as a positive identity. Anyways, I certainly support the efforts of non-believers (whatever we call ourselves!) to support the separation of church and state--organizations such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State, your own magazine Skeptic; Free Inquiry, Skeptical Inquiry, American Humanist, and American Atheist are all doing their parts! It's an interesting question whether a common term will enable us to represent our interests better, but I suspect organizing non-theists is a bit like the proverbial herding of cats!

Rik

 Posted: August 29, 2003, 06:21 PM | Comments (0) |

August 27, 2003

Slick: new Sony

Giant step in the never ending rat-race for a newer and better consumer camrea: the new Sony Cyber Shot DSC-F828. Slick! Is it a consumer camera of a professional one? It's a 8-megapixel, which can produce resolutions up to 3360 x 2460. Lots of tricks too, such as a 4-color Super HAD CCD and Carl Zeiss T* lens.
The lens is a wide angle to telephoto zoom lens with an equivalent 35mm focal length of 28mm-200mm, a 7-iris diaphragm giving a maximum aperture of F2.0 at wide angle and F2.8 when set at telephoto. It rotates and also offers a 7x Optical Zoom with a macro auto focus range of 20mm to 600 mm.
For sale in Europe from november, extimated body price over 1000 euros. I'll stick to the Ixus 400 for now, and wait for the nextt step in the camera rat race.

 Posted: August 27, 2003, 08:26 PM | Comments (0) |

August 18, 2003

Yeahronimo? Yeah!

Maybe because i haven`t checked often enough development of streaming video, after so many disappointments during the last couple of years, that i wasn`t aware of the status of watching live events on the net.
Anyway, never before my scepticism vaporized so fast as sunday afternoon, while i was watching the soccergame Groningen - NAC, live, on the web.
Fair dinkum, it works, at last al those predictions are beginning to become true!

How they manage to handle the technology at Yeahronimo.com, where Roelof Oltmans is director Sports and Events, i don`t know, but does it matter?
Driving a car, talking in a phone, watching television, nobody bothers how it works, as long as it works. Yeahronimo works, but having said that, it took me about fifteen minutes of fiddling - irritating time in which my scepticism was growing, before the soccer players finally started to move on my monitor.
The result, among other peeves, of the registration procedure, that doesn`t excel in clearness. It`s a pretty simple process that goes wrong on two simple things. Watching a game costs you five cents less than five euros, and you have to pay per credit card (only Master Card or Visa accepted). You only have to do this once, afterwards you`re a regular customer, in the possession of a username and a password.
Yeahronimo wants the number of the card and the expiry date, and i presume they get it from you it through a secure shell or something like that. I trust them because if they hadn`t taken care of a secure and safe way of doing that they wouldn`t exist anymore. Simple as that.
Then why two such stupid and irritating things that kept me busy for a while? First one: the expiry date, which is printed on the card in the format two digits, slahs, two digits: 07/04. On submitting the form returns and tells me in a red warning font that i`ve submitted a wrong expiry date. Check, 07/04, submit, again refused. Now what?
Yearonimo doesn`t tell me it wants the full year, 2004 instead of /4. When i finally try that, teletekst on the good old television shows me that NAC is already one goal behind, and i still have to pay 4,95 euros.
Second blooper: Yearonimo also wants a three digit code, printed on the back of the credit card, but when i flip my card there`s a seven digit code. First three digits, middle three digits, of last trhree digits? It turns out they want the last three, but why don`t they say so?
When my card is at last authorized and i`m accepted as new customer, some thing go very wrong in the Windows Media Payer, and it`s build 9.xxx, as Yearonimo wants it. I get, in the best Microsoft traditions, a number of error messages which might as well have been written in Swahili or Sanskriet: absolutely incomprehensible. The bloody thing can`t find one server, or something, while the other doesn`t answer, and nothing happens. Now what? I`ve just payed five eurodollars, i want to see the bloody game and if it doesn`t work, i`ll call Oltmans, and ask my money back!
After having closed down Media Player a couple of times, and having clicked left and right, by cripes, there`s a yellow black shirt moving on my monitor, i hear a soccer commentator, apparently there are more camera`s, and the commentator sounds like a professional. The sound is crisp, the guy knwows what he is talking about, the shots are professional looking, and the repeats in slow motions are allright.
I guess it differs from machine tot machine, form connection to connection, but in pc-terms my three year old 650 mhz Pentium III is a Neanderthaler. The connection, a LAN connected to the web on a 2 mbit pipe, is okidoki, but i`ve never noticed that much difference with my 1.5 mbit ADSL at home, which sometimes performs better than the LAN.
I don`t think you should try do it through a modem, or an ISDN connection without DSL. But if you have a reasonable (A)DSL, or cable-connection at home, you like soccer, but don`t feel like driving to a far away game, give it a try.
Yeahronimo? Yeah! It works!

The original article in Dutch, in the archives of BN/DeStem, where i am working as the internet editor. If you want to read it in Dutch, you have to register once, but it doesn't cost you anything (yet) :-)

 Posted: August 18, 2003, 09:26 PM | Comments (0) |

August 09, 2003

RoopramRoti

Yesterday we made a fun trip to Rotterdam. On the last two softball matches we played at Sparta I took my Giant FCR from Breda to The Castle at Spangen, and passed a big roti restaurant in Rotterdam, called RoopramRoti. There were huge lines waiting for the food, so that must be very good. So we took Dorus to Rotterdam, and checked it out. It was fantastic indeed. Anja tried the lamb roti, i enjoyed the chicken. Check it out!

 Posted: August 09, 2003, 08:31 PM | Comments (0) |

August 07, 2003

The feared boktor

Ixus is here, first pictures will follow tomorrow. First things first: getting used to the new manuals, which are slightly different from its predecessor, the first version of Ixus, or digital Elph as it is called in the US. And i have to make my daily trip to the wastedump, as i am demolishing the inside of our old house, built in 1895. We've temporarily moved to another house in Breda.
Upstairs i've removed all walls, inner roofing covering and ceilings, downstairs i've taken out all ceilings. There were three: one constructed around 1980, hanging down 40 centimeters from the original ceiling. The second one, guessing by old newspapers (De Volkrant and De Stem) from 1962 and 1969, used as preparation for wallpaper, must have been constructed around 1970.

This was softboard on a wooden frame, which was nailed to the original 1895 ceiling, constructed in plaster on natural reed. The reed (or is cane, or thatch the right English word for the stuff?) was nailed to the old beams, kept together by some kind of netting of ironwire.
A bloody messy, dusty job. Just pushed a crowbar through a hole somewhere, closes my eyes and pulled. Nu use wearing safety goggles during the ongoing heatwave, because they stain from the sweat; steamy windows. I did wear a dustmask, and got showered by all kinds of black and white dust and sometimes bigger hunks of gypsum and plaster for a couple of days. The combination of the dust with the reed and ironwire was nasty stuff to get in the trailer, but i made in a couple of trips.
The beams were better than i expected, but the roofing was completely gone or in the final stages of rotting on the leaking spots that gave us free showers for the last couple of years during heavy rains, especially in combination with south-western winds, when the falling water was blown under the tiles.
I think i'll have to do a few trips more with the trailer before all mess is gone. I don't see any dry rot, and i haven't seen or heard termites. Termites overe here are the feared boktor, which sounds, by the way, great in English: boktor (i'll have to see the boktor :-). But i'll let an exterminator decide, now that everything is visible. All beams sound sound whem i knock on them with a heavy hammer, and all soft spots seem to be caused by leaking water.
Next step, after cleaning out the remaining mess: pulling down the ceiling in the kitchen, breaking down the kitchen kabinets, cleaning out the old garden house. Then: the exterminator, followed by a roof contractor. See ya later.

 Posted: August 07, 2003, 10:29 PM | Comments (0) |

August 05, 2003

Ixus it is

Why should i buy anything not on the net? I`ve been looking around for a few weeks for the best price for my new digital camera. I haven`t been looking at any tests, because my choice was clear to begin with: the new digital Ixus 400.
I`ve been using the first digital Ixus now for a couple of years, and it`s a perfect little machine. As long there is sufficient light, picture quality is good, which suits us as we like travelling to countries where there`s usually a lot of light. What`s more: good battery life, and the flash memory cards ar getting cheaper and cheaper. One of the most important reasons to love the Ixus is the size: while travelling it fits in the breast pocket of a denim jacket.

The battery loads fast, and when you disable the lcd window while shooting, you don`t have to plug it in for at least a week or so.
The new Ixus come with 4 megapixels, new lens, better zooming, and the possibility to add an indirect flash.
Ixus it is, but where to buy it? I had a look at some of the cheapest discount shops in Holland, but they were way too expansive. If you nee a new camera in the Netherlans, go shop on the web and first vist the websites of Vergelijk and Kelkoo. They sort it out for you, and i bought the Ixus finally for 505 Euro, 40 to 100 Euros cheaper than the big discounts. Camerahuis gave the best price, and they delivered right on time too. I ordered on july 31 and today, august 5, the mailman called at the door. Bummer i wasn`t home, so i`ll have to pick it up tomorrow morning at the post office.

 Posted: August 05, 2003, 09:34 PM | Comments (0) |