Catholics and child abuse in Ireland

And the Catholic Church is at it again. This time it’s the horribkle story of the Christian Brothers and their exploits in Ireland. From BBC News we can read that:

An inquiry into child abuse at Catholic institutions in Ireland has found that sexual abuse was "endemic" in boys’ institutions. It also found physical and emotional abuse and neglect were features of institutions. Schools were run "in a severe, regimented manner that imposed unreasonable and oppressive discipline on children and even on staff".

The nine-year inquiry investigated a 60-year period. About 35,000 children were placed in a network of reformatories, industrial schools and workhouses up to the 1980s. More than 2,000 told the Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse they suffered physical and sexual abuse while there. …

The five-volume study concluded that church officials encouraged ritual beatings and consistently shielded their orders’ paedophiles from arrest amid a "culture of self-serving secrecy". It also found that government inspectors failed to stop the chronic beatings, rapes and humiliation.

The Irish Times succinctly summarises the situation with: "abuse was not a failure of the system. It was the system."

Further down the BBC News page we can also read that there will be no criminal charges brought on any of the clergy involved.

The findings will not be used for criminal prosecutions – in part because the Christian Brothers successfully sued the commission in 2004 to keep the identities of all of its members, dead or alive, unnamed in the report.

That there will be no prosecutions is absolutely astounding, but clearly in line with Catholic ideology (and in this case also that of the Irish state), which seemingly is to protect the perpetraters and piss on the victims. Obviously it is more important to protect the "good name" of Catholicism than to right a wrong.

According to a BBC Panorama documentary aired a few years ago, covering up child abuses is a long-standing tradition within the Catholic Church. The current Pope Benedict has been instrumental in this concealment conspiracy for years. In the London Evening Standard, we can read that:

In 2001, while [the current Pope Benedict] was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church’s interests ahead of child safety. The document recommended that rather than reporting sexual abuse to the relevant legal authorities, bishops should encourage the victim, witnesses and perpetrator not to talk about it. And, to keep victims quiet, it threatened that if they repeat the allegations they would be excommunicated.

Systematic child abuse is obviously nothing new among the Catholic clergy. Eamonn McCann of the Belfast Telegraph provides a historical perspective in his column:

The oldest known instruction to Church officials, the Didache, dating from the second century, commands, ‘Thou shalt not seduce young boys’. The earliest recorded gathering of bishops, the Council of Elvira, in 309, spelt out 81 Canons, of which 38 dealt with sex. Among those excluded from receiving communion were ‘bishops, presbyters, and deacons committing a sexual sin’, ‘those who sexually abuse boys’, and ‘people who bring charges against bishops and presbyters without proving their cases’.

Why would the Church have mentioned such things had they not already become problems?

No doubt, Pope Benedict will continue to do his utmost to protect the interests of paedophiles and child abusers, rather than to do the right thing, which would be to help bring the perpetrators to justice.

His God must be really pleased with him.

Music for Darwin 200

I have entered a piece of music into Myriad’s 21st Sample Tunes Friendly Contest. This year’s theme is "Evolution", in celebration of the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. The closing date of the contest if May 31, so if you’d like to enter, too, there’s still time.

There’s quite a lot of hullabaloo re Darwin this year, being an anniversary and all. Actually there are two anniversaries. Not only was he born 200 years ago, his book On the Origin of Species first appeared 150 years ago. Hence there are special editions of magazines, Darwin-themed conferences, documentaries, all kinds of special events, and so on and so forth. Most of these can be tracked via The Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online, one of the most useful sites on the web.

Anyway, back to the contest. The name of my contribution is "Natural selection: a prelude to evolution". You can see the score here, where you can also listen to it by clicking the play button. In order to do so, however, you must first install the (free and unobstrusive) Myriad Music Plug-In.

The piece is performed by digitally simulated instruments. There’s a flute, a grand piano, an acoustic guitar, a cello, and three percussion instruments (maracas, cabasa, triangle). I suppose that makes it a quintet, as you would need five people to perform it. The melody and its various permutations, although not entirely original, turned out quite satisfactory. The percussions tap out a deceptively irregular rythm, which may sound odd at first. But it’s not entirely random. If you listen carefully, you can hear a kind of "intelligent design" underlying it. (No, I’m not a loony creationist.) In fact, the rythm is based on a quote from Darwin himself, namely "I have called this principle … Natural Selection" (fr. Origin of Species, 1859) — hence the title of the piece. I know this last bit sounds as if it doesn’t make any sense, but trust me, it does.

For realz!

Have you ever wondered what the Z in for realz is actually doing there? I have. The dictionary form of the phrase is for real, without a final Z.

There is a (formally) similar expression, for keeps, in which the S is historically a plural marker. Apparently, the word keeps is short for keepies, and originates from some sort of game in which players collected marbles. The ones one won, one “kept”, and these became known as keepies. Possibly the phrase for keeps has contributed to the formation of for realz by way of analogy. Although admittedly, it sounds a bit far-fetched.

The Z in for realz seems clearly to be a plural marker (i.e. plural S), but why has it been added at all? There doesn’t seem to be any plurality involved in the semantics of the phrase, not even metaphorically. (It means ‘in earnest’, ‘really’, ‘truthfully’.)

We may get at a solution if we look at phrases like many thanks and many apologies, in which there clearly is a plural S on each respective noun. But here it makes sense. You can easily think of many acts of thanking or apologising, so here the plural meaning is semantically justified. The assumption is, of course, that the more you thank or apologise, the more sincere you are. However, when we say many thanks, we say just that. We don’t usually go on actually thanking multiple times (although that may happen, too). The point here being that the plural forms’ major function is to intensify or emphasize the act of thanking or apologising, not to mark a plurality of acts as such (which in these phrases would only count as a minor, secondary function).

It is conceivable that it is this intensifying function of the plural S that is being used in for realz. Hence in this phrase at least, English plural S seems to have developed a function devoid of plurality. If that really is so, then it would be interesting to see if this intensifying S pops up elsewhere in the language.

(Another explanation would be that there’s some cross-linguistic interference going on, namely, from Spanish de veras, in which veras is a plural noun with a Spanish plural marker S. If that’s the case, then it would seem that English has incorporated the Spanish plural S as an intensifier, and again, devoid of plurality.)

How much is every other?

On a recent math test for Swedish 7th graders, one question asked: How many percent is every tenth? (Hur många procent är var tionde?) You’d think the answer is a straightforward 10%, but is it? Several students have had difficulties with that particular question. Why?

In order to arrive at 10% you have to assume infinity. The question requires you to imagine a situation where you can pick every 10th apple (for instance) out of an infinite amount of apples. Hence it requires a certain level of abstraction that isn’t necessarily intuitive, because in reality no one has an infinite amount of apples to chose from.

In fact, the expression every Nth can correspond to a whole number of varying percentages unless you have been taught to assume infinity. For instance, every 4th equals 25% only when the total amount is either four, eight, twelve, any other number divisible by four, or else if the total is (the hypothetical) infinity. If the total is, say, five, then picking every 4th apple may only give you 20%. That is, { 1, 2, 3, 4=pick, 1 }, leaving you with four unpicked apples, namely, the first three and the one remaining after the one you picked. If the total is seven, every 4th equals a mere 14.28%, i.e. { 1, 2, 3, 4=pick, 1, 2, 3 }, or one out of seven.

If the total is:	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	…
then ‘every 4th’ equals:	0%	0%	0%	25%	20%	16.7%	14.3%	25%	22%	20%	18.2%	…

An important point here is that every Nth is not the same as a Nth. While a 4th always equals 25%, irrespective of the assumed total, every 4th does not, simply because every Nth is unit-based, meaning it counts only whole units. That is, you don’t cut up any "remainders" as you would if you were to chose a 4th of all apples.

I don’t have any statistics showing how often students experience difficulties with this seemingly uncomplicated question, but I know that at least some do. This is undoubtedly a tricky question, if not a trick question. Answering it in the expected way is in any case a cultural feat (i.e. you have to be taught to assume the abstract concept of infinity) just as much as it is a logical or mathematical one.

Fake Rock

Believe it or not, but I have just released an album! Woohoo! I’m an indie artist! You never expected that, did you? Ha!

The album is called Fake Rock and appears under my anagrammatic nom-de-plum, John Miaou. It’s wholly instrumental, save some simulated choir bits. Indeed, all sounds on the album are digital simulations of real instruments, which accounts for the album title. Guitars, keyboards, piano, accordion, trumpet, flute, cello, bass, cymbals, timpanis, and so on, are all fake. I suppose I could have gone for pure electronic sounds only, but I didn’t. Maybe I will on the next album.

The advantage of using simulations is that you don’t have to deal with moody musicians and egos — other than your own, of course. The album is thus also unfiltered by performers’ interpretations, and contains pure compositions. It is music per se subsistere. Or should that be per se esse? Or just per se? Why not music a se? I never could get Latin right.

Anyway, just so there’s no doubt about it, it’s a darned good album. At least I had endless fun making it, although a certain amount of agony was involved, too. But hey, all good art comes from suffering and pain.

Fake Rock clocks in at roughly 40 minutes (classic vinyl length!) and contains twelve tracks:

• Two purple minutes (MIDI version)
• Duh Duh
• Suite 3122, pt. 1 : Verona
• Suite 3122, pt. 2 : Milano
• Suite 3122, pt. 3 : Genoa
• Suite 3122, pt. 4 : Roma
• Street smart
• Four bars
• Piano walk
• Walking guitar
• Will I ever hear from you again?
• Frantic Christmas

The music was composed and created using Melody Assistant, an impressively versatile music programme sold by Myriad Software, which I strongly recommend to anyone interested in making their own music. The finished album was subsequently self-published via TuneCore, a US-based service offering digital distribution to, well, anyone. It’s especially useful to all unsigned fringe artists, indie acts, amateur musicians, home composers, and unsignable musical riff-raff like me!

The Fake Rock album, or any of its individual tracks, can be purchased through iTunes if you live in Europe or the US. It’s not yet available elsewhere, unfortunately.

Don’t say he’s foreign

Here’s an odd bit of language usage.

What qualifies something or someone to be of a "foreign persuasion"? In its most literal interpretation, you would expect it to refer to someone being influenced by a foreigner, a foreign nation, or otherwise something foreign. After some googling, it seems clear that that is in fact also how many people use it.

However, the phrase has another usage, too, and an odd one at that. For some people, it’s a roundabout way of referring to foreign (and foreigner?), as when writing about "films of the independent and foreign persuasion", or the "foreign persuasion in NASCAR" (referring to foreign-born drivers). Can NASCAR drivers be persuaded to become foreign-born?

In those contexts, "foreign persuasion" doesn’t refer to any particular opinions (as in Christian persuasion), or people who have been persuaded into believing or doing something. It’s simply used as a tortuous alternative to foreign.

When did foreign become a derogatory word in English?

How literal is literal?

Have you noticed that literally doesn’t literally mean ‘literally’ anymore?

It’s now quite frequently used as a general intensifier. I’ve only recently begun to notice it in phrases like I literally died laughing and I literally worked myself to death. Online dictionaries say this is an "informal" usage.

Compact English Dictionary:

1. in a literal manner or sense
2. informal used for emphasis (rather than to suggest literal truth)

Cambridge International Dictionary of English:

1. used to emphasize what you are saying
  <He missed that kick literally by miles>
  <I was literally bowled over by the news>
2. simply or just
  <Then you literally cut the sausage down the middle>

Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary:

1. in a literal sense or manner : actually
  <took the remark literally>
  <was literally insane>
2. in effect : virtually
  <will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice — Norman Cousins>

They add:

Since some people take sense 2 to be the opposite of sense 1, it has been frequently criticized as a misuse. Instead, the use is pure hyperbole intended to gain emphasis, but it often appears in contexts where no additional emphasis is necessary.

None of my readily available print dictionaries mention this "informal" usage, although the thesaurus part of Collins dictionary and thesaurus (publ. 1987) lists actually and really under literally, words which can similarly be used for emphasis. Also, one of my English-Swedish dictionaries, Engelsk-Svensk ordbok by Kärre, Lindqvist, Nöjd & Redin, publ. 1938, does add "fullkomligt" (meaning ‘entirely’) as a possible translation for literally, but labels it "familjärt" (i.e. colloquial).

It’s use for emphasis must be fairly new. At least I’ve just started noticing it, although that’s admittedly no proof of anything but my observational skills. However, older dictionaries don’t seem to recognise it at all. For instance, the online version of Webster’s 1828 dictionary says:

1. According to the primary and natural import of words; not figuratively.
  <A man and his wife cannot be literally one flesh>
2. With close adherence to words; word by word.
  <So wild and ungovernable a poet cannot be translated literally.>

(The same appears in the online version of Webster’s 1913 edition.)

Anyway, I’m not opposing this (new?) usage. The fact that words change meaning is an inevitable and natural feature of any living language. It’s a sign of health. Word meanings are only stable in dead languages.

You are what you blog

Well, you are, if you believe the Typealyzer, which is some sort of text analyser. They don’t give any details of what it is that they do exactly, and should probably not be taken too seriously. Still, having typed in the URL of my own blog, it concludes the following about me:

The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.

They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

So while I’m logical, creative and intellectual, I’m also an insensitive, arrogant bastard. That should make some people very happy to hear, I suppose.

To catch a predator

I want to draw attention to the TV show Dateline NBC: To Catch a Predator, an awe-inspiring TV show in which adults who solicit sex from minors are caught red-handed (and on a couple occasions literally with their pants down). The show is done in co-operation with a watchdog group called Perverted Justice, and local law enforcement.

In brief, adult volunteers from Perverted Justice create fake IDs on various chat rooms, and pretend to be under-age kids. Almost immediately, they are accosted by adult men, who sooner rather than later start to probe the supposed minors about their sex fantasies and sex habits. It doesn’t take long before they set up a meeting. But instead of a kid home alone, the adult meets Chris Hansen, the host of the TV show, and has to sit through a very discomforting interview. After that, they are usually apprehended by the local police. And it all takes place in front of multiple hidden TV cameras.

Some people adore the show, others despise it. Personally I’m a bit ambivalent, though I tend to lean towards the praisers. There is a clear educational, even samaritan, purpose with the show. Hopefully it scares other potential predators, but one of it’s greatest merits lies in the fact that it shows us (others) what these people look like. Or rather, it shows us that internet predatos look, behave and talk just like anyone else. There’s nothing in their outward appearance or behaviour that makes them stand out as sex predators. They look like you and me.

The part which the show relies most heavily on, the torturing interviews, could be described as a heartless ratings gimmick. It is obvious that while the predators are being interviewed, they experience considerable emotional distress. Normally I would feel sympathy for persons going through the kind of anguish most of them display, but in this case I don’t feel any sympathy at all. I don’t feel sorry for them. I even enjoy it.

The predators are, of course, fully responsible for the situation they are in. They themselves initiated contact with someone who they thought was under-age. Their chats are usually sexually explicit, and sometimes even disturbing. (You can read them on Perverted Justice’s homepage, uncensored, but beware, some of them are very disturbing.)

Many of them sent pictures of themselves fondling their own genitals. They intentionally sought physical contact with the minors. They soemtimes went through considerable trouble to reach the location where they believe a minor was home alone. They brought alcohol, condoms and lubricants. One of them brought ropes and duck tape. One even had a loaded gun in his pocket. One guy started fondling his own genitals as soon as he came the door, and two guys stripped completely naked in preparation for the meeting.

There’s seldom any question about their intentions, even though their initial explanations often indicate quite innocent reasons for them being there:

• A friend told me to come here.
• All I wanted to do was probably be like a big brother or something.
• I didn’t intend to do anything.
• I don’t know what to tell you.
• I feel very bad about this.
• I go to church every Sunday.
• I got two kids of my own.
• I gotta 15-year old daughter myself.
• I guarantee it’ll never happen again.
• I had no intention of having sex.
• I just came to hang out.
• I just wanted to talk. I swear to you.
• I love my wife.
• I made a mistake, and I won’t do it again.
• I needed someone to talk to.
• I never really was gonna do anything.
• I swear I’ll never do it again.
• I was bored.
• I was curious but I wasn’t going to do anything.
• I was fully intending on sitting right here till her mother got home.
• I was just coming here to check on her if she’s ok.
• I wasn’t gonna do anything.
• I would never do anything like this.
• I wouldn’t do that to a 13-year-old, believe me.
• I wouldn’t have gone all the way.
• I’m a very good family person.
• I’m a very lonely guy.
• I’m a very religious person.
• I’m here to party.
• I’m just visiting. That’s all.
• I’m no pervert.
• I’m really a good guy.
• I’m so embarrassed.
• I’m so sorry.
• I’m very loyal to my wife.
• I’ve got a family at home. I love them dearly.
• I’ve never done this before.
• This is the first time. It will never happen again.

Apparently they just want to hold the kids company till their mothers get home. They want to warn them about the dangers of the internet. You know, be a mentor for them, a big brother, a good samaritan, a good Christian, the pillar of society. The pictures of their penises were only sent for educational purposes (as one of them said to the police). Well, you can’t fault them for lack of trying.

To date, NBC has produced and aired 12 shows, and they’ve been in cities all over the US. The predators themselves come from all walks of life and include students, truck drivers, businessmen, unemployed, fire fighters, priests, a rabbi, a cancer doctor, a police man, and so on.

In Sweden, the show has been titled "Jakten på nätpedofilerna", which literally means The hunt for the internet pedophiles. The Swedish title is a ridiculous choice. The show is not about pedophiles. The show’s producers are very clear on that issue. They have deliberately chosen to talk about predators, not pedophiles.

Anyhoo, I strongly recommend the show, especially the special editions called "The unseen tapes", which contain complete interviews, virtually unedited.

Slips of the tongue: read vs wrote

I’ve noticed that I sometimes mix read (past tense) and wrote. When intending to say I just read a good book, I might say I just wrote a good book instead. Or, instead of saying I just wrote a letter, I could just as well say I just read a letter. This has bugged me for some time. I refuse to believe that I’m going crazy. That just can’t be.

The curious thing is that I only seem to mix the past tense forms (read, wrote), and never the present tense forms (read, write). At least I can’t ever recall having made a mix involving present tense forms.

The fact that read and write are semantically linked concepts certainly plays a part, but apparently not sufficiently so in order to cause the mixing by itself. Otherwise I would be making mistakes involving the present tense forms, too. But I don’t. I’m pretty sure about that. Hence the answer must be something else, or at least something additional to that.

The best explanation I can come up with is that my brain links the two past tense forms via a chain of associations that looks something like this:

READ (past tense)
sounds like
  |
RED
means the same things as
  |
ROT (German)
sounds like
  |
WROTE

Indeed, that’s a perfectly logical chain of associations via phonetics, semantics (plus a little bit of phonetics), and phonetics again. And it works both ways, of course. The fact that it involves two languages (English and German) may seem a bit unintuitive at first, but really isn’t. I did study German for seven years, after all.

How’s that for a home-spun theory.