Showing posts with label Writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Writing. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Hubbubs Over Haboobs

In an article titled "Arabic weather term ‘haboob’ is apparently troubling for some Texans",    Washington Post Weather Editor Jason Samenow claims Texans and Arizonans are "prejudiced" if they object to using exotic neologisms from half a world away to describe local phenomena. He wrote:

"Of course, the actions of a few shouldn’t color all Texans and Arizonans as prejudiced."

But he didn't cite a single comment that talked badly about people or races or ethnicities - all specified the difference in REGIONAL weather terminology as opposed to global. Every comment clearly objected to sudden use of rare and impenetrable words for the simple reason that they are unintelligible to the audience.

But does Mr Samenow comprehend the actual words his audience uses, listening to them at face value? No. Instead, he and other weather writers project onto them attitudes, intentions and histories from their own minds. They turn defensive, never imagining that this is not a debate about nations or culture, but instead about the rules of effective communication.

Clueless and projecting, these weather writers seem to think people who have listened to weathermen describe dust storms and sand storms for fifty years using words like "dust storm" and "sand storm", should not object to media suddenly deciding to boycott effective, descriptive terms in favor of  too-cute-by-half virtue signals that are so obscure the only English use prior to 2001 that even meteorologists can find is:

"a 1925 paper in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society was titled “Haboobs.” "

In 2014, faced with similar objections, National Weather Service's Dan Satterfield quoted  the American Meteorological Society atmospheric science dictionary. Note that in March of 2014, the word was still applied ONLY to the country of Sudan, and only portions at that. Officially, in 2014, "haboob" had no relationship to any dust storm or sandstorm outside that tiny region - and the definition itself was originally described in 1925:

HABOOB
(Many variant spellings, including habbub, habub, haboub, hubbob, hubbub.) A strong wind and sandstorm or duststorm in northern and central Sudan, especially around Khartoum, where the average number is about 24 a year.
The name comes from the Arabic word habb, meaning “wind.” Haboobs are most frequent from May through September, especially in June, but they have occurred in every month except November. Their average duration is three hours; they are most severe in April and May when the soil is driest. They may approach from any direction, but most commonly from the north in winter and from the south, southeast, or east in summer. The average maximum wind velocity is over 13 m s-1 (30 mph) and a speed of 28 m s-1 (62 mph) has been recorded. The sand and dust form a dense whirling wall that may be 1000 m (3000 ft) high; it is often preceded by isolated dust whirls. During these storms, enormous quantities of sand are deposited. Haboobs usually occur after a few days of rising temperature and falling pressure.
Sutton, L. J. 1925. Haboobs. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.. 51. 25–30.
Weather writers who use the word are ignoring its etymology in their drive to muddle their vocabularies.

Claims that this silly-sounding (to English-speaking ears) word from 1925 has 'been in common use' for years are false and misleading. The entry in the American Meteorology Society's Glossary was updated a few months later , in Dec 2014, to enable it to support the claims. Yet, aside from the original 1925 description, they found only a single other scholarly use to cite, from 1972:

"The name comes from the Arabic word habb, meaning “wind.” The term “haboob” originated as a description for wind and sandstorms/duststorms in central and northern Sudan, especially around the Khartoum area, where the average number is about 24 per year, with the most frequent occurrences from May through September. However, the term is now commonly used to describe any wind-driven sandstorm or dust storm in arid or semiarid regions around the world, and haboobs have been observed in the Middle East/Arabian Peninsula, the Sahara Desert, central Australia, and the arid regions of southwest North America, from the Sonoran Desert of northwest Mexico and Arizona to the western portions of the Great Plains of the United States..
References:
Idso, S. B., R. S. Ingram, and J. M. Pritchard, 1972: An American haboob. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 53, 930–935,doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1972)053<0930:aah>2.0.CO;2. [1]
Sutton, L. J. 1925. Haboobs. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.. 51. 25–30. 
Categories: TermTerms H
This page was last modified on 4 December 2014, at 14:21.
This page has been accessed 4,693 times."

The Thesaurus.com entry for synonyms of "Sandstorm" lists:
black blizzard, devil, dust devil, duster, harmattan, khamsin, peesash, samiel, sand column, sandspout, shaitan, simoom, sirocco

"Haboob" is also not even on the list of fifty synonyms for dust storm in PowerThesaurus.org.

Google Ngram's search of books back to the year 1800 shows the long and respectable history of the accepted terms: sand storm, and even more common, dust storm.  Despite its invention in the Roaring Twenties, it is obvious that "haboob" has been rarely, if ever used in print since it was coined, through the Millenium Year.

Google Ngram:


"Now commonly used to describe any wind-driven sandstorm or dust storm"  Sure. So common the literature only contains two references. I don't gamble. but I would bet no meteorologist who graduated before 2001 ever heard or used the word "haboob" in school.

Obviously, the silly word never quite "caught on". It is silly sounding, it's proponents don't offer any meaningful history to support its adoption, and it is needlessly obfuscative. Replacing clearly descriptive terms with a nonsense word benefits no one, although it does give us a chance to see which meteorologists disdain their audiences.

American English is a language that easily and happily adopts words from every other language and makes them our own.  And guess what? We Texans knew that and were adopting foreign  words long before Samenow, Satterfield, et al had the hubris to project their own motives into the push-back they got for making their forecasts unintelligible.

Texans are not objecting to the natural adoption or coinage of new words from any source.

Texans are not objecting to the adoption of "Arabic" words or words from any language that are useful for conditions where extant  English terms are lacking in specificity, eg "sirocco".

What Texans are objecting to is silly weather writers trying to prove their leftist globalist sensibilities while they look down their long long noses at their audience, trying to shame their legitimate critics while gleefully crowing "They didn't even know what "haboob" means! Can you imagine?".

For some progressive weather writers who put their politics before their science, their use of non-standard words may be about race or religion or culture or immigration or national borders or any other political issue.

But don't project that onto us, because politics has nothing to do with it for the people you disparage without cause.

 For US, it is about safety, and the proper use of settled language to communicate safety information.

When it comes to weather reports, in Texas our lives and property are at stake. We need clear, comprehensible data unhampered by foolish philosophical urges.  Just because you are bored with saying the same old things the same old ways, does not mean it will help us to change standardized terms, words, and phrases.

We don't have time to try to figure out what you mean if you wake up one morning and decide to announce that  "Brown County is under a Gorwynt warning until 15:00 GMT. A Gorwynt has been sighted and all residents are advised to sich unterstellen immediately."

When it comes to weather, speak clearly and communicate effectively. If you want to provide forecasts in foreign languages, go for it, but make sure you are using the established language of your "hearers" or else they won't understand you.

Our lives and safety depend on it.


6/2/16 Update: Thanks to Bill Quick at Daily Pundit for the link!


Saturday, August 2, 2014

"No Comment" From Me If a Site Uses Discus or Facebook For Blog Comments

Do you like having comments from genuine human people who actually read your blog often?

I'm no longer even going to try to comment on any blog that uses Discus or Facebook to manage their commenting function. My comments on  one site do not need to be viewed by the other participants at some other, unrelated website I might visit a year from now. And my Facebook friends are already overwhelmed with alerts from my posts, they don't need all this too.

And frankly, me and the NSA are the only people who need to have a Collected Works of my comments around the interwebs. 

So I'll still read, and maybe even share, posts on such blogs. But that is why you don't hear a peep from me.

And thank you to those folks that use a commenting software that lets me be myself without pooling my information with every other site I visit.


Monday, May 12, 2014

The Other Dame Julian: The Mother of Fly Fishing was a 15th Century English Nun

I first read about Dame Juliana Berners a few weeks ago, and I am still enthralled with this quaint little fact from "A Brief History of Fly Fishing":

"The first English book on fly fishing was written by Dame Juliana Berners in 1496: Treatise of Fishing with an Angle, which contained a wealth of practical angling advice and details on equipment. As the Abbess of the Sopwell Priory, Berners cast flies and wrote between prayers. She described the rod as having two parts: a ‘staffe’ or butt, and a ‘croppe’ or top. The butt was made of hazel or rowan, cut between Michaelmas and Candlemas (that is, in the winter), and was six feet long or more."

She also contributed a middle-ages how-to book on hunting, in "The Book of Saint Albans".  For a letterpress printer, it gets better, because the second edition of her Treatise was published by none other than Wynken De Worde, and has never been out of print in 450 years! Here is a link to the full "Treatise on Fishing With An Angle".

Those crazy Medieval nuns! I have always been fond of the eminently quotable  Dame Juliana of Norwich, whose record of her Visions of Divine Love in 1373 remains a breathtaking work of faith in Jesus Christ that inspires to this day. By happenstance, or perhaps the Grace of God, it is also the earliest surviving book written by a woman in English.  I have read her in several translations, and once even started a translation of my own, working from the original Old English.

And now to read about another ordinary soul who surprises and upends our assumptions and the "expert" guesses about the lives of Religious in those so-called dark ages following the Black Death. Something tells me their lives were quite livelier - and perhaps much more like ours - than we have been taught.

Isn't it interesting how different history looks when you let the facts speak for themselves, unpainted with fictional anachronisms or modernised disclaimers.



Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Snopes and Wikipedia Are Misleading About the Coins Issued Without National Motto

Every so often, we see - now on Facebook, earlier in email - an alert to refuse the "new dollar coins", saying that the United States' Official National Motto has been eliminated from them. Someone invariably posts a link to Snopes, claiming this is an urban legend.

The simple truth is that in 2007, anywhere from 100,000 to hundreds of thousands of new dollar coins were issued without the national motto. While most were the George Washington Dollars, there are also John Adams Dollars missing the motto.

Snopes, however, claims this is "False", even though way way WAY down the page, Snopes does finally admit that:    " (Small quantities of the George Washington and John Adams presidential dollars were discovered to be missing their edge inscriptions shortly after the initial release of those coins, but those examples were the result of minting errors and were not reflective of the new dollars' intended standard appearance."

And Wikipedia also perpetuates the fallacy that the ommission of "In God We Trust" from coins was just an urban legend: "An urban myth (wrongly) suggests that it was omitted from new U.S. dollar coins.[29]"

Recursively, the Wikipedia entry cites the Snopes entry as the source for calling it an "urban myth":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust#cite_note-29
29 ^ "Historic Change", Snopes,  http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/dollarcoin.asp

Both of these sources do themselves a disservice, because by omitting some of the facts, their statements lead people to believe it never happened, when in fact, an unknown number (estimated at the time to be at least 50,000 dollar coins but now believed to be at least twice that many and perhaps far more) were issued that did not have the official Motto "In God We Trust" on them - and the issuance was not due to mechanical error.

NBC News reported in 2007,  that  "An unknown number of new George Washington dollar coins were mistakenly struck without their edge inscriptions, including “In God We Trust,”

"[M]int spokeswoman Becky Bailey said...it was unknown how many coins lacked the inscriptions. Ron Guth, president of Professional Coin Grading Service, one of the world’s largest coin authentication companies, said he believes that at least 50,000 error coins were put in circulation.

"Guth said it appeared from the roughly 50 smooth-edge dollars he has authenticated that the problem had to do with quality control rather than a mechanical error.

"“These coins are struck like normal coins, then they go through another machine that adds edge lettering in another process. These apparently skipped that process,” he said. “We’ve seen a couple of instances where the edge lettering may be weak or indistinct, but we’re not talking about that here.”"

By now, seven years later, these "Godless dollars" as they have come to be known in the coin collecting world, have proven to be very common, and estimates range from 100,000 to hundreds of thousands in existence.

While the Mint said they were investigating how the coins could have been released, no final statement was made about the results. The reaction to coins circulating without the motto, and with the "hidden" motto on the edge, was so serious that the next year Congress issued a requirement that "In God We Trust" be on the front of all coins, not relegated to the back or the edge.

Probably the omission was, as is now claimed, just an accident. Some one person or group of people removed coinage from the process flow so that it went into circulation without bearing the name of God.  We can accept that this was an accident, but accidents have consequences just as much as intentional actions do.

Here are a few other examples of governmental "accidents" involving the Name of God:

*In 2006, Capital tour guides were instructed to identify the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court as "The 10 amendments" aka the Bill of Rights.

*In 2008,  the new Capital Visitor's Center, a half-billion dollar project, opened without "In God We Trust" in the usual places, such as removing it from a model of the House Speaker's Rostrum, and a large plaque proclaiming incorrectly that "E Pluribus Unum" was the motto.  The Visitor's Center designers also omitted the Pledge of Allegiance from any public place in the Center.   Congress had to aggressively pass legislation to force the Capital Architect to correct the deficiencies.

* In 2010 President Obama claimed, falsely, that E Pluribus Unum is the national motto, in a speech he made. The President refused to acknowledge or correct the error (which is why I say he claimed "falsely" instead of "mistakenly") and the uncorrected speech remains on the White House Website at this writing. There can't be confusion about this in the White House, as even Snopes states, accurately, that In God We Trust is the only official national motto:
"The only legislatively established national motto the United States has ever had is "In God We Trust," a phrase which first appeared on U.S. coinage in 1864... and which was adopted as the official U.S. national motto through a law passed by Congress in 1956."   
I don't object to retaining the speech text as an accurate documentation of the words he said, but this White House is quick to erase errors they don't like so I doubt this error remains out of any concern for historical veracity.)

So maybe people who don't like God to be spoken of in the public square aren't deliberately getting history and language wrong.  Maybe they accidentally forget and give out their Social Security number when someone asks their phone number. Maybe they really don't know the difference between pasteurization and homogenization when they design milk cartons.

But there is no doubt that the "accident" of" "forgetting" what the official national motto of the United States is happens far too often to be ignored.

"In God We Trust" was used by Frances Scott Key in his original lyrics for the Star Spangled Banner, written Sept 14, 1814: "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust'. ". It was published that same week and became immediately popular throughout the USA.

Saturday, February 15, 2014

First Amendment Quote of the Day - February 15, 2014

"But [the Obama] administration’s actions have too often contradicted Obama’s stated intentions. “Instead,” New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan wrote earlier this year, “it’s turning out to be the administration of unprecedented secrecy and unprecedented attacks on a free press.”

"The [Obama] administration’s war on leaks and other efforts to control information are the most aggressive I’ve seen since the Nixon administration, when I was one of the editors involved in The Washington Post’s investigation of Watergate. The 30 experienced Washington journalists at a variety of news organizations whom I interviewed for this report could not remember any precedent. "

          "The Obama Administration and the Press" A CPJ [Committee to Protect Journalists] special report by Leonard Downie Jr. with reporting by Sara Rafsky.  October 10, 2013

Friday, February 7, 2014

First Amendment Quote of the Day Feb 7, 2014

"In the First Amendment, the Founding Fathers gave the free press the protection is must have to fulfill its essential role in our democracy. The press was to serve the governed, not the governors. The Government's power to censor the press was abolished so that the press would remain forever free to censure the Government. The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people."

              Associate Justice Hugo L. Black, (New York Times Company v. United States, 1971)

Thursday, September 19, 2013

The Author Reviews My Review


There are some good books out there in the self publishing world today. One way to find some of the better ones is to read the authors' own blogs. That is how I came across a particularly memorable story about a thief and a castle and a wizard.....   Author Christopher Taylor (Word Around The Net, linked from my sidebar), approves of my review of his fun chivalrous fantasy novel "Old Habits":

 "I expect to get indifferent, happy, and even insulting reviews, but something I never expected was a review that so completely understood what I was trying to accomplish with my story and seems to have crawled inside my head when I was writing it, which is deeply humbling and gratifying all at once. I wanted to share it with everyone so they can learn more about the book."       

See? Can this guy write or what? Click over to his blog to read the review - and buy the book!

Maybe if he sells enough of this one he will feel inspired to write a sequel! 




Friday, February 17, 2012

"Information is Holy": Musings on the Printing Press, the Internet, and the Church of Kopimism

 In his letterpress printed pamphlet "Saint Gutenberg, Pray For Us",   AAPA member Michael Coughlin (Superior Letterpress) makes a case for the value of printed books over digital in the preservation of original knowledge. He writes "With our frequently shortsighted perspective, we seem to imagine what we are experiencing is unprecedented in history. While the technology is new, it's far from true that human history hasn't before experienced dramatic, sudden, and far-reaching transformations."

"Saint Gutenberg, Pray For Us" helped me sort several threads that have been getting tangled together in my thoughts for a while: in particular, the likelihood that uncensored data and accumulated knowledge can or will be preserved if they exist only in digital or continuously-editable form.  What follows are my answers.

~~~~~~

"Go now, write it on a tablet for them, inscribe it on a scroll, that for the days to come it may be an everlasting witness."  Isaiah 30:8

In Buddhism, the passion for making large numbers of copies of prayers and charms led to the early use of blocks for printing. The prayer wheel and prayer flags stem from the idea of making copies or spreading the word by keeping the prayers in motion, to create a virtual "Copy" with each turn of the wheel, with each flap in the wind.

In this world of wonders, who is to say the actual information is not tossed onto the breeze with each turn?

But the knowledge expressed in the prayer is not made accessable to human beings in these repetitions. Somewhere along the way, the form, the act, of copying and motion took precidence over the essential result: the sharing of information itself. Thus, while Buddhism teaches that enlightenment can be achieved, that rational thought and personal acquisition of knowledge are religious activities, ultimately the Buddha did not see information as holy in its own right.

But the Kopimist does.

~~~~~


 "After the king burned the scroll containing the words that Baruch had written at Jeremiah’s dictation, the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah:  “Take another scroll and write on it all the words that were on the first scroll, which Jehoiakim king of Judah burned up."  Jeremiah 36:27-28

In Sweden, the Missionary Church of Kopimism has been recognized as a legitimate religion. The Kopimi believe that "kopyacting" - file sharing - is a sacred action that deserves the protection granted other religions. The new Church grew out of the tension between draconian copyright demands by governments at the beck and call of powerful media companies, and the freedom internet technologies hold for people eager to preserve, share, and disseminate information.

According to Business Week:
[Kopimists'] "central commandment, “Copy and seed,” is a call to download files and make them available for sharing. Life itself, the newly declared believers observed, depends on the replication of cells and the endless duplication of DNA."

"“In the beginning, it was a joke,” says Gustav Nipe, the church’s chairman. “But maybe we’ve stepped on something greater than we thought.” "

"The church’s chief missionary is Isak Gerson, a 20-year-old student of philosophy. ...In addition to being the country’s top Kopimist, Gerson is a committed Lutheran who attends mass about twice a month. “Information is holy,” he says. One important distinction between religious values and other values is that you can’t explain them rationally.
"Information is holy. "

~~~~~


"Then the LORD said to Moses, “Write this on a scroll as something to be remembered and make sure that Joshua hears it..."  Exodus 17:14 (written down circa 1450 BC)

After the Roman Empire descended into chaos and barbarism in the 5th Century AD, the nations of the world confronted centuries of apocolyptic conditions of social upheaval, plague, famine, extreme weather, and war. Societies broke down, pavement crumbled, trade dissipated. Technologies and learning were lost - or would have been, had it not been for the culture of education within the Christian monasteries scattered throughout the Empire.

For a thousand years, until the invention of moveable type in the 14th Century, the scriptorum of Europe served to fill the libraries of the Christian world with books - in every place the Roman roads had gone, and farther still. From Italy to Ireland, from Switzerland to Denmark, from France to Greenland. Christian brothers made it their sacred duty to faithfully copy the accumulated knowledge of the known universe and the classical world: not only religious tomes and the Holy Bible, but works of mathmatics and science, of medicine and history.

And they not only copied, but translated and collected and sought new sources. All of the world's accumulated knowledge base was painstakingly and lovingly reproduced and disseminated, conveyed into the vernacular of the local monastics, shared to create local libraries that all could use.


The Abbey library of Saint Gall in Switzerland, founded circa 800 AD, is one of the oldest in the world, and remains in operation as a library today.

From this preservation, translation, commentary and actual copying of works, learning was reestablished and began gathering the momentum that has propelled the world throughout all the centuries since, because the Christian,Western world believed "Information is holy."

~~~~

"When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law..." Deuteronomy 17:18

When Charlemagne took the throne of France in 751 AD, he actively pursued the preservation of Rome's literature. Almost without exception, Roman authors are available to us today only from copies produced under the Carolingian government. They would be lost forever otherwise.

In the interest of educating the public, Charlemagne established free local schools to teach full literacy and mathmatics, proclaiming in the "Capitulary of 787", sometimes known as the "Charter of Modern Thought",
that the Christian work of the Church must include "the study of letters, each to teach and learn them according to his ability and the Divine Assistance."

He continued: "Let every monastery and every abbey have its school, in which boys may be taught the Psalms, the system of musical notation, singing, arithmetic and grammar.", followed 10 years later by an even stronger edict: "that the priests establish schools in every town and village....and let them exact no price from the children for their teaching nor receive anything from them save what their parents may offer voluntarily..."

By 1200, Europe had universities and seats of learning in all major cities and many minor ones. The still extant University of Padua in Italy, where the great priest-scientist Albertus Magnus studied, was one of the first true "universities" in the world.  Colleges and Libraries proliferated on the continent, and the thirst for learning that generated this activity has never slowed in the West.

All because the Christian Emperor Charlemagne believed that "Information is holy."

~~~~~


"...it will be like a sealed scroll. If you take it to someone who knows how to read and ask him to read it to you, he will say he can't because it is sealed. If you give it to someone who can't read and ask him to read it to you, he will answer that he doesn't know how." Isaiah 29:11-12

Imagine a world in which the Holy Bible itself had never been copied or translated into our own language, because a rights owner refused to license it. Without it, the ever-brightening lamp of learning that fueled the West's unending knowledge revolution would never have happened.

In contrast, that is precisely what did happen to the Koran, and all doors to the future were closed deliberately by its guardians, the very men who taught and led Islam.


 "The House of Wisdom", an Islamic library founded in Baghdad in 762 continued until the Mongols burned it in 1258, but in reality it began to decline aound 850, due to the increasing fundamentalism and insularity of the leaders of the young Islamic culture, nervous about any knowledge that did not originate within the Arab lands.

So great was the distrust of learning even at an early stage that Caliph Uthman ibn Affan burned all copies and fragments of the Koran except for the version known as the "Hafsah codex". He destroyed all religious writings that did not issue from his prescribed version. Even variations in the text due to regional dialects were prohibited.


Upon Gutenberg's invention of moveable type and the printing press in 1436, printing spread like wildfire throughout the West, and was even carried into the New World on the earliest voyages. Spain, newly freed from the yoke of Moslem rule in 1492, sent the first printing press to Mexico in the company of missionaries in 1539, and published extensively in various indigenous Native American languages.

But not in Islamic lands. There, Moslem scholars prevailed against progress, and in 1483 Sultan Bayezid II forbade, on penalty of death, any printing in Arab script in the Ottoman Empire.

The West struggled to reach out, and Pope Julius II commissioned printed texts in Arabic script from 1503 through 1512 for Christians in those areas. Even the oldest printed Koran was printed in 1537, not in Baghdad, but in Venice. But the leaders and clerics were rigid in enforcement, and stamped out attempts by the populace at modernization.

Thus, Arabic printing was expressly illegal and a capital offense until 1727 - even then, only non-religious works were allowed, and these were carefully watched. These belated attempts to establish presses were unsuccessful, and were closed by 1780.  In the intervening centuries, Jews and Christians within these territories produced a smattering of works for their own use in Hebrew, Armenian, Greek and Latin, but for all intents and purposes, according to Wikipedia, there was no genuine printing industry in the Moslem world until late in the 19th century.

Similarly, despite continual attempts by Christian Missionaries to install printing presses in the far East beginning as early as 1590, here too the agents of stagnation prevailed, terrified of the change fostered by making information freely available, and printing technology was not adopted in China, India, or Korea until late in the 19th century.

As recently as last year,  the ancient Institut d’Egypte , founded by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1798 in Cairo, which had survived for 200 years during the West's intense patronage of Egypt's archeological history, was burned by rioting Egyptians in the media-dubbed "Arab Spring".

Progress cannot come to cultures that do not believe "Information is holy."

~~~~~


"But you, Daniel, roll up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.” Daniel 12:4

The advent of the electronic age and the upheaval of the Technological Revolution have once again turned things topsy turvy when it comes to information dispersal. In "The Gutenberg Galaxy",  Marshall McLuhan had these things to say, a decade before the internet was invented, about our current situation:

"Instead of tending toward a vast Alexandrian library, the world has instead become a computer, an electronic brain, exactly as an infantile piece of science fiction. And as our senses have gone outside us, Big brother goes inside. So, unless aware of this dynamic, we shall at once move into a phase of panic terrors, exactly befitting a small world of tribal drums, total interdependence, and superimposed co-existance.....

[T]error is the normal state of any oral society, for in it everything affects everything all the time. ....

[In] our striving to recover for the Western World a unity of sensibility and of thought and feeling we have no more been prepared to accept the tribal consequences of such unity than we were ready for the fragmentation of the human psyche by print culture."

Thus, rather than sit back and give rational thought to a decision, organizations, companies, and even governments react to "virtual" riots as though they were real - as though a million automated anti-tweets in 48 hours has any basis in reality, or reflects the actual customer base itself.

This is why we see absurdities like the Susan G Komen Foundation's capitulation to funding Planned Parenthood, the founder issuing an appeasement to the abortionist in order to quiet down the server traffic.  Or companies like Carbonite and Sleep Number hysterically responding to Twitter-bullying by rejecting their long-proven, lucrative advertising with Rush Limbaugh, only to watch their sales and stock fall the next day as their legitimate customers and investors countered with concrete action to support the radio personality's right to free speech.

The forces for the status quo used the  internet to amplify hysterical voices, generating a sense of terror far beyond their actual numbers, and by this means bullied their way into control over private companies' previously freewill spending decisions. CEOs hired to front companies in easy times discover they lack courage and wisdom when faced with new informational dangers. Those like Chick-fil-A's Dan Cathy and Hobby Lobby's Steve Green,  whose decisions are based on uncompromised principle rather than  trendy focus groups, find themselves and their businesses supported and admired when they stand up to the liberal bullies.

Our science has been compromised. Scientists with political ambitions have abandoned the scientific method, refusing to make public the details of their work, instead trying to convince policy makers and the public  - and legitimate scientists - to "take their word for it", claiming that some ill-defined ideological "consensus" should trump legitimate analysis, data and methodology.

Most visible in so-called "climate science", other fields are under attack as well. All scientific disciplines that have  been politicized: statistics, biology, anthropology, genetics, sociology, psychiatry, dietetics, law, education, medicine, history, linguistics, even obstetrics - are suffering as the principles of their fields are being trampled by unhealthy pseudoscientific attempts to skew results toward desired political ends.

Only the free flow of genuine information - a belief that "information is holy" - can keep true, unadulterated science moving forward in ethical, human-friendly directions.

~~~~


"Write down for the coming generation what the Lord has done, so that people not yet born will praise him." Psalm 102:18

Imagine a world in which the writings of Descartes, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, C.S, Lewis, JRR Tolkien, or the Apostle Paul couldn't be shared, because a rights owner refused to license them for publication.

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 promotes the control of information through a concept called "intellectual property". SOPA/PIPA is the latest in these efforts to manhandle the internet and restict information flow on behalf of political darlings and moneyed schemers. Other modern copyright, trademark and patent laws enable corporations to gather and control information to an almost unlimited degree, conceivably extending monopolies for centuries.

A 2001 court case, Worldwide Church of God v. Philadelphia Church of God, centered on this. A minister wrote a book that some followers (the WCoG) later came to believe to be unscriptural. The minister died, the WCoG pulled it from publication, destroying all extra copies. Other followers (the PCoG) believe the book is actual scripture, and the foundation for their faith. They issued a new edition, claiming "fair use", and the copyright battle was joined. The court actually found for the WCoG, who refuse to publish the work, despite the acknowledged intent of the author for the work to be disseminated, and despite the express need of the PCoG for copies in order to practice their religion.

The decision stands, but it was not unanimous. In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Brunetti sided with the original verdict of the lower court, and had this to say:
"The prohibition of PCG's noncommercial, religious use "would merely inhibit access to ideas without any countervailing benefit." Accordingly, the fourth statutory factor also supports a finding of fair use.


"In this lawsuit, WCG appears less interested in protecting its rights to exploit [the book Mystery of the Ages] than in suppressing Armstrong's ideas which now run counter to church doctrine. Although the Supreme Court has recognized that "freedom of thought and expression 'includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all,'" it does not "suggest that this right not to speak would sanction an abuse of the copyright owner's monopoly as an instrument to suppress facts."


"In light of this principle and the statutory factors discussed above, I conclude that the district court ... properly found that PCG's distribution of MOA constitutes fair use. "

Judge Brunetti's opinion did not affect the outcome, which prevented the  believers from legally copying and sharing what they believe to be a holy text. But his dissent shows a foundation within United States law and precedent to deny legal protection to the suppression of facts, and to accept the belief that "information is holy".

~~~~~~



"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: This is the message from the one who is holy and true. He has the key that belonged to David, and when he opens a door, no one can close it, and when he closes it, no one can  open it." Revelation 3:7

You can't unring a bell, and devious organizations like Wikileaks and Anonymous flex their muscle against the bell rope at companies and agencies that fail - or refuse - to lock up the information they don't want made public.The debate about control of information moved from powerful high echelons onto the public world stage as WikiLeaks grew from a site on which disgruntled employees published embarrassing emails from their Silicon Valley bosses to a media outlet whose inputs originate with disgruntled corporate spies working within governments.

And yet.

While some elements of culture run to and fro in terror of each new potential cataclysm, there remain pockets of literate, lawful society who "keep calm, and carry on". Millions of people take individual responsibility for preserving those things important to the future in the format each believes to be is essential.

The Open Directory Project was a vast volunteer effort to organize the internet and open up the information on millions of individual webpages to easy use by anyone. Free and "open sourced", it became Google's original database.

Project Gutenberg was founded by Michael S. Hart, the inventor of ebooks (in 1971!), as a massive volunteer project to digitize and give to the world all the literature and accumulated knowledge therein. Hart wrote: "Learning is its own reward. Nothing I can say is better than that."

Wikipedia, from which I gathered a number of the historical facts cited above, for all its flaws and left-leaning slant, remains a sincere reflection of Western culture's understanding  that "information is holy."

Every day in the world of letterpress printers and private presses, individuals like Mike Coughlin print excerpts, new editions, or entire historical documents into chapbooks and broadsides,  generating small editions of hard copies to cast out as bread upon the water.


Even as the traditional, expert-mediated publishing industry battles against extinction, more writers are writing more books than ever before, as Print-on-Demand technology makes it possible for ordinary souls to publish
the book they always wanted to write.

Thanks to these new technologies, the number of books published in the United States in 2010 topped off in record numbers, especially in the "non-traditional" sector, which, including "print on demand" and self-published books, almost tripled from 1,033,065 titles in 2009 to 2,776,260 in 2010. And buyers are buying these books: nearly 25% of all sales of eBook fiction are now from self-published authors.

This does not represent new demand - the demand was always there - this represents new access, thanks to the internet, which has given any author a nearly cost-free access to markets outside their local area.

Print-on-demand brings all of this within the reach of any individual. And  “within the reach of any individual” is the secret of Western liberty, as well as of modern,Western-driven, civilization.

The ability to "have our own" access to information is a principle element of the Pursuit of Happiness that none willingly give up.

Despite attempts to convince us otherwise, the Western world still stubbornly believes that information is holy, and the Missionary Church of Kopimism is one expression of that deep conviction.

"Copy, and seed."


*Updated 11/17/2012

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

No One Who Writes Can Hide His True Self For Long

Richard Fernandez at the Belmont Club has two posts on perception and public communication that dovetail into each other: "Words to Live By in the Online Age" and "Body Language". I commented on "Words":

Consider: that in the "post-literate age" of You Tube etc, the overwhelming passion continually returns to text-based communication: texting, tweeting, Facebook and Blogs. Every time the futurists proclaim the written word deceased, the public passion proves them wrong.

There is a great secret about the written word: it craves truth. And while lies may be written down they
cannot expand as far and wide and long as written facts and truths can. Human beings know this instinctively, it shows up in early childhood behaviour: every two year old will write his name on the walls, just as every
human being before him since mankind left the Garden, and God graced us with writing to help us along our lonely road.

No one who writes can hide his true self for long. Oh on the net, he may assume a persona of some type and promote a fiction for a spell, but contrary to popular myth, identity is not self. And it is self that comes
through when one writes.

Body language and tone of voice can hide the true meaning of spoken (heard) words. People may show more of their true selves in their written communication than is ever visible in their public behavior. Compare Mrs Palin's email correspondence with the email records from JournoList participants or from the Climategate files. Even comparing the textual nuances of speeches given by one speaker to differing audiences over time can reveal essential points audiences might miss: not simply talking points but the underlying marketing agenda is found in the words, not the body language.

It may take time, but in written form, even now, "at the length, truth will out", always.


"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

Sunday, August 15, 2010

def·i·ni·tion: a statement of the meaning of a word

 "How do you know the fella what wrote the readin' wrote the readin' right?"  Festus Hagin






"Besides, if language must vary, like fashions... we must have our standard dictionaries republished, with the fashionable pronunciation... otherwise a gentleman in the country will become intolerably vulgar, by not being in a situation to adopt the fashion of the day. ...

"The new editions of them will supersede the old, and we shall have our pronunciation to re-learn, with the polite alterations, which are generally corruptions.

"Such are the consequences of attempting to make a local practice the standard of language in a nation. The attempt must keep the language in perpetual fluctuation, and the learner in uncertainty."
Noah Webster


 When Nicolas was very young, he scared me one day when I looked out to see him standing very close to a car stopped in the street, talking to its driver. Although the incident proved harmless, I scolded Nicolas, asking him "Haven't we told you never to talk to strangers?" His intelligent 4 year old reply "But that wasn't a stranger - that was just somebody I didn't know." Having only heard the word "stranger" used in a negative context by both the people in his life and in TV ads and shows, Nicolas had surmised that a stranger was not just someone he didn't know but specifically a scary looking person he didn't know.

So, we taught him the correct meaning of the word, and while he continued to be an outgoing kid, he was better prepared for life knowing that sometimes danger can come in attractive packages - and that sometimes words don't mean what one thinks they mean.

Between Noah Webster's definitive American Dictionary, and the Oxford Unabridged, the English language was once well served by printed dictionaries that provided a universally accepted standard for word usage and interpretation.

When it comes to words and their standard, accepted meanings, we can only make sense to each other if we all use the word to mean the same thing. And when a person or population doesn't know the standard definition or established word, the answer is not to change the word but to educate the person and the population, using established standards, so that they are then on an equal footing with us in use and understanding of the word.

To change the meaning to the incorrect one, or to stop using the word and switch to a different one robs the unknowing person and the population as a whole of clarity and understanding, perpetuates misunderstanding, and denies everyone the comprehension to debate equally with those who do use the word or phrase in its traditional sense.

If it seems Americans aren't able to reason together any more, it's not only differences of opinion but mostly due to growing differences in language. Thanks to misappropriation of words and their meanings by the Marketing and Influence industries, we've probably already lost even the word "reality". Other words that have been fully co-opted to our detriment just in the past 20 years include color words ("pink", "green"), and "integration" (now used to signal defined separation within "multiculturalism", where once it was fully understood by all with its true meaning of assimilation into a democratic union).

Rationality itself understands the need for a constant standard. The presence of instantly edited and impossibly condensed online dictionaries adds to the confusion. I once thought we'd no longer need the great old OED, Abridged, but now I am looking for another copy. Sometimes young people for whom English is their second language have a more effective vocabulary, and more easily understand my meaning, in part because they were taught from traditional source materials. Other times, I have found myself reading a resume from a well educated, sharp candidate and setting it aside because it was so laden with neologisms and buzz words that it failed to convey any coherent thought.

This trend has been growing over the past 20 years or so, with corporations setting out their own internal writing guidelines and news media adopting new style books that specify the actual words a reporter may use when reporting on a particular topic. Even small organizations like local school districts have added a Communications and PR branch to their permanent administrative payrolls.

Frequently, particularly in controversial matters, experts from one point of view may coin a new, "persuasive" definition for an established, well-understood word and begin a campaign in which they quietly use it with a new and different intention - to generate one meaning among "insiders" and deliberately foster misunderstanding among opponents. At the same time, academics may also manufacture objectionable connotations for the synonym(s) most commonly used by their opponents, not only limiting speech and pressuring English speakers to stop using a word in its legitimate context but also thereby twisting historical texts without need for rewrite as students are increasingly exposed only to the idea of the "bad" definition as the only possible interpretation.

We see this misappropriation of standard English words in many of the calls for "civility" - which itself has been co-opted to describe a peculiar system of "anger management" intervention rather than the full historical breadth of meaning - as these calls claim new objections to specific traditional words they want deleted from opponents' lexicon, yet do not establish a process that allows dissenters to impose similar restrictions on their own vocabulary. In traditional discourse, formats for debate are well established and the parties work together mutually to agree on parameters that provide each with equal footing. In traditionally civil discourse, even on topics that generate much emotion the debaters can clarify the nuance of the terms they use without attack, and agreement on specific words is unnecessary outside limitations on introduction of particular topics.

Clear communication between people on all sides of any issue requires, as a basis, that first people share a common language with long established rules of use familiar to all parties - young and old, rural and urban, self-made and ivy league, industrial and technological - and in which the words have standard definitions developed over time. Until very recently, many textbooks had a useful life of several years before edits were needed - dictionaries from my grandmother's time are still accurate. Webster's Bluebacked Speller was used for more than 100 years in nearly every school in the young United States.

Those of traditional bent overall tend not to change existing language much except where necessary for inventions or adoptions. The very word "conservative" means "to conserve, to save, to preserve". Instead, they can speak in broad vocabularies rich with historic references and the shared experience of readers. Conservatives and inventors also coin brand new, specific words or phrases for those situations or items which are truly new (as opposed to just seeming new to the inexperienced).

It seems to be nearly always those of non-traditional views who give new meanings to old words, change connotations from bad to good or good to bad, and create new words for old ideas or situations. Of course, people holding non-traditional views may be found among both major political parties, Republicans as well as Democrats: [PDF file].

If we really want to be able to sit down and talk - or stand up and debate - and really move toward understanding each other, a great place to start would be by calling things by their real names again in all of our conversation both internal and external, with supporters as well as dissenters, using the appropriate traditional professional jargon and formal vocabulary when speaking or writing, and not adopting euphemisms, neologisms or "redefinitions" to replace the words used over long history.

Try to make a habit of paying attention to the repeated words when we hear or read about things. Once your ear is attuned to flagging those buzzwords, you'll find yourself naturally becoming a little more interested in figuring out which words are deliberately not being used. And it is those words that are deliberately not said which hold the key to understanding the intentions of the speaker.

Here are some interesting lists of words and phrases that politicians of both stripes have either adopted or decried in effort to "frame the debate". As you read through them, notice which have been in use the longest, and why a new or different word is being pushed instead.

  1. The Atlantic May 2010
  2. Der Spiegel March 2009
  3. The Weekly Standard April 2010
  4. Newspeak Dictionary
  5. Ed Driscoll > The Daily Telegraph May 2010
  6. The Washington Post February 2010
  7. Buzzle.com undated article
  8. Middle East Forum May 2009
  9. Lake Superior State University 2010
  10. Skookum Pete undated
  11. Washington Post June 2010
  12. The Underground Grammarian 2000
Suffice to say that generating new meanings for old words, or new words for old crimes, it is an old, old trick. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss - or not really as the case may be. As Samuel Adams wrote in 1776: "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"

Forget a "new Reagan" - we need a new Noah Webster:

"The two points therefore, which I conceive to be the basis of a standard in speaking, are these; universal undisputed practice, and the principle of analogy. Universal practice is generally, perhaps always, a rule of propriety; and in disputed points, where people differ in opinion and practice, analogy should always decide the controversy."

"Even supposing that a number of republics, kingdoms or empires, should within a century arise and divide this vast territory; still the subjects of all will speak the same language, and the consequence of this uniformity will be an intimacy of social intercourse hitherto unknown, and a boundless diffusion of knowledge."

Monday, May 24, 2010

"So, Hamlet, How Long Hast Thou Been a Grave-maker?" Dan Akroyd meets Nick Arguello

So I was thinking whether to blog about Nick's handshake with Dan Akroyd at Twin Liquors in Austin, and then Instapundit went and blogged about Ontario banning Akroyd's Crystal Head Vodka. Heh. What a great excuse to make Shakespeare puns...


From the Globe and Mail article: (italicized items added - they are lines from "Hamlet")

"Are you afraid of this vodka? ..."

Is not parchment made of sheepskins?

"Crystal Head Vodka’s distinctive bottle shape looks remarkably life-like, a curiosity you’d expect to see in a droll chiropractor’s office. Or maybe that should be remarkably death-like, because that’s the Liquor Control Board of Ontario’s interpretation."

...why may not that be the skull of a lawyer? Where be his quiddities now, his quillets, his cases, his tenures, and his tricks?

"In a stark departure from every other state and province on the continent, one of the world’s hottest new vodka brands has been banned from Ontario stores."

 How absolut the knave is!

"“I like it, it kind of makes the product more appealing in my view,” Mr. Aykroyd told [Reporter Beppi Crosariol] over the phone last week from Texas."

 Go, get thee to Yaughan: fetch me a stoup of liquor.

"...from Texas..." where Akroyd was busy signing the Hamlet-esque portrait of Nick contemplating a bottle of the stuff!



Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio: a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy!

Here's a video of the Twin Liquors event, fun for Akroyd fans as well as Austinites.  And the full text of this passage from Shakespeare's play "Hamlet" can be found here. It's pretty funny reading!

.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails