Craic is Whack

Go to almost any Irish pub in the United States and you’ll probably see the word “craic” somewhere. It’s an Irish word meaning “news, gossip, or fun”.

Or is it? The word is actually English, and comes from the Middle English word crak, which meant “loud conversation” or “bragging talk”. Over time, the spelling was normalized to match the pronunciation: “crack”. The word was especially popular in Northern England and Scotland, where people would ask their friends “what’s the crack?”, in the sense of “what’s up?” or “what’s going on?” or “how are you?”. And if you’ve ever heard an English person say something was a “cracking good time”, it’s this meaning of fun and revelry they’re talking about.

There are scholarly works that mention crack being used in northern England as early as 1825. Sir Walter Scott also used it in Rob Roy (1817) as “I maun hai a crack wil an auld acquaintance here”. Another Scot author used it in 1813, while other written records confirm the usage of “crack” in this sense from 1865 (Cumberland), 1869 (Lancashire, Edinburgh), 1878 (Yorkshire), 1886 (Cheshire), and 1892 (Northumberland).

Linguists are pretty certain that “crack” entered Ireland via the Ulster Scots. This wasn’t until the mid 20th century, however. The first Irish records of the word are from the 1950s, and they clearly indicate its English origins by way of Ulster, and even spell it the “correct” way: in 1964, a linguist named John Braidwood said that “perhaps one of the most seemingly native Ulster words is crack… In fact the word is of English and Scots origin”. As recently as 1980 the word appeared as “crack” in works by Irish writers.

The Irish language has borrowed a ton of words from English, and crack was no different. The word was “Gaelicized” as craic, and the first written records of this appear in 1968. The word soon became part of not just everyday conversation, but of pub mottos and tourism slogans, too. The Irish, apparently unaware of the word’s English origins, eagerly adopted it in the 1970s and 1980s, such that “the craic” is as Irish today as “baseball and apple pie” is American.

But then a curious thing happened. The word came back to England, where it inexplicably retained the Irish spelling. The Irish craic, not the English crack, is what you’ll find now in most of Great Britain. And, just to show you how confusing language can be, even with all the modern tools at our disposal these days, and how very recently this all was, linguists still aren’t sure whether the “updated” spelling of craic came to Scotland by way of Ireland from the west or England from the south.

Needless to say, there are many English linguists who detest the existence of craic. Diarmaid Ó Muirithe, a retired senior lecturer in Irish at University College, Dublin, says that

“The constant Gaelicisation of the good old English/Scottish dialect word crack as craic sets my teeth on edge. It seems, indeed, that many people think that the word is an Irish one; hence we find advertisements proclaiming ‘music, songs, dancing and craic’; the implication is that craic = boozing and high jinks, great fun as it used to be…”

Others agree. While I doubt that most Americans will have such a strong opinion on the matter, we can still smirk at our nation’s Irish pubs, which heavily push craic as some ancient Irish idea of fun… where “ancient” in this case means “1968”.

And it’s really amusing that the term is now totally ingrained into Irish culture, given that it’s basically a tourism slogan. Remember Fahrvergnügen? It was a word Volkswagen made up for a 1990s ad campaign in North America. It was supposed to mean “driving pleasure” (from the German fahren, “to drive,” and Vergnügen, “enjoyment”). But even though the German language never met a compound word it didn’t like, there’s no such word in German. It’s as if if Americans actually started using the word seriously, and the word somehow crept back into usage in Germany. That’s crazy… or whack, like craic.

Chrome Annoyances

I was a long-time user (and lover of) Firefox. But I got really sick of the Firefox screen randomly turning white and not responding for 30 seconds to 3 minutes at a time. I tried all the standard troubleshooting stuff: disabling my extensions and plug-ins, clearing my history, etc. But nothing worked, and no one at the Firefox support forums seemed to be interested in helping me.

So I ditched Firefox and have been using Chrome for the past couple of months. While it works – as in, it doesn’t hang up like Firefox does – Chrome isn’t without its problems. The version of AdBlock for Chrome sucks, and frequently caused massive slow-downs. Disabling this made the problem go away, but now I have to use Ghostery, which is fine, but not the same sort of ad-blocker AdBlock is.

But the worst thing about Chrome is the way it renders text. Check this out.. it’s a screencap of text from this very website. My site runs WordPress (one of the most common publishing platforms in the online world) on Apache (the most common web server in the world). Running Chrome with minimal plug-ins looks like this:

chrome_render_01
(click to enlarge)

Notice that the words “an illusion instantly shattered when I came home and my then-” are in a different font that the rest of the text. For comparison, here’s the same text captured on IE and Firefox on the same computer:

ie_render_01
Rendered in IE (click to enlarge)
firefox_render_01
Rendered in Firefox (click to enlarge)

Notice that IE and Firefox use consistent fonts throughout.

Also, Chrome has a nasty habit of adding extra whitespace around italicized text:

chrome_render_03
(click to enlarge)

In the above sample, you can see the mismatched text (“the loneliness” is a different font), while there’s too much space between “just” and “feel”. Here’s an especially bad example. Why is there SO MUCH SPACE between “positively” and “perfect” near the bottom of the paragraph?

chrome_render_04
(click to enlarge)

I want to like you Chrome, I really do. But while IE and Firefox can seemingly handle the basic task of displaying text, you seem to have problems with it.

FINALLY!

My first “real” girlfriend – the first woman I totally flipped for – was a slightly older woman named Beverly. On one of our first dates, she took me to the Virginia-Highland neighborhood of midtown Atlanta. It was my first time there, and we spent a rainy afternoon going through all the cute lil’ shops in the area. I felt all grown up and glamorous, as if I were so much more sophisticated than other kids in my school who were taking their dates to the local cinema or the Chinese restaurant next to the mall.

I bought a cheap pair of browline sunglasses while I was on that date. They were tortoise shell with green lenses. And they were my favorite pair of sunglasses. Sure, part of that was because when I bought them I was head over heels in love with a sexy, cosmopolitan older woman. So yes, there was an emotional attachment. But I mostly loved them because they were cool. I imagined Hunter S. Thompson wearing similar sunglasses, and I hoped to channel some of his gonzo through them.

About a year later, one of my friends accidentally dropped something important – car keys, I think – into a big drain next to one of the buildings at my school. I, being a complete idiot, had the sunglasses in my shirt pocket. So when I leaned over to look, the sunglasses slid out of my pocket and fell through the grate and into the drain, lost forevermore.

I was oddly heartbroken. Yeah, they were just a stupid pair of $5 sunglasses. Beverly and I had split a long time prior, and I’d totally moved on by then. But still.

I looked and looked for a similar pair of sunglasses, but could never find ones exactly like the pair I’d had before. Maybe the frames were black instead of tortoise shell. Maybe the accent metal was silver instead of gold. Maybe the lenses were black instead of green. And towards the end of my high school life, I developed a problem with contact lenses, and couldn’t wear them any more. So I had to wear prescription sunglasses. And since this was the suburban America in the 80s, my options were limited to whatever LensCrafters or Pearle had… which wasn’t all that.

I got my last pair of sunglasses in 1999. I thought they were super-cool, like something Neo would wear in The Matrix… an illusion instantly shattered when I came home and my then-girlfriend said I looked like Paul Shaffer from the Letterman show (so… thanks, Sheila!).

I still have my Neo\Paul Shaffer sunglasses, but they’re really falling apart. They’ve been folded closed so many times that the black has rubbed off the sides. And the tint is starting to bubble around the edges, something I became painfully aware of on my last trip to the beach: Lisa asked if I had sand all over my glasses. Nope, it was spots where the tint had come off.

So recently I stepped up and got the sunglasses of my dreams: a genuine pair of Ray Ban Clubmaster sunglasses in my prescription and everything:

Ray Ban
(click to embiggen)

Maybe I look like a big dork in them, but I don’t care. I’ve wanted a pair of sunglasses like these since 1987 and I finally got them… 27 years later!

A big thanks to Dr. Mike at Advanced Family Eye Care for helping to make my dreams come true!

NIFTY GADGET: Braun M90 Mobile Shaver

I’ve worn glasses since the 4th grade, and so I’m intimately familiar with all the minor annoyances that come with wearing them. There’s falling asleep in them and waking with a mess of twisted metal on your face. There’s playing sports and the fear of a baseball destroying your glasses. There’s rain: I could never work on one of those Deadliest Catch boats, ‘cos I’d have to stop and clean my glasses every 14 seconds. There’s even being careful what you order at a restaurant, ‘cos you don’t want to accidentally get spaghetti sauce or fried chicken grease on your glasses (even though I usually carry glass wipes, you can be sure that the day I forget it is the day I get kung pao sauce all over my glasses!)

One of the biggest annoyances for glasses wearers is shaving. My vision’s so bad that I can’t shave at a sink without glasses. But if I do wear glasses, there’s a good chance they’ll get covered in shaving cream. I could shave in the shower, but I’d need one of those anti-fog mirrors with magnification. This also takes extra time, something I don’t normally have in the morning. That’s why I became such a fan of electric shavers. No shaving cream is required, so I can shave with glasses on and not make a mess. And if I’m running late… hell, I can shave in the car!

But electric shavers have their own set of problems. The “block and foil” (the bit that actually cuts your beard, and the thin piece of metal that covers it, respectively) need to be replaced every 12-18 months or so. Replacements usually cost $25-$30. It’s not a huge expense, but it’s an annoying one. But the big kick in the ass is the battery: most electric shavers use a very uncommon Ni-Cad battery that must be soldered into the unit. It’s not a matter of just popping in a fresh set of AA batteries. You have to: a) order the battery online, take the shaver apart, take the old battery out, solder the replacement in and then put it all back together again; or b) send the shaver somewhere to have someone else do it.

Most repair shops charge $30-$40 to replace a battery. And since hardly anyone actually repairs things locally these days, you’ll most likely have to ship it somewhere, which is probably another $10. And should you need to replace the block and foil at around the same time the battery dies (a common thing), you’re looking at something like $65 to $80 to replace consumable parts on a shaver that probably only cost $79.95 to begin with. It’s kind of like how you can buy an inkjet printer for $39.99 these days, but replacing the ink cartridges costs $65.

I got a Braun shaver a couple Christmases ago. It works fine… except for the battery. I can get two shaves (barely) before the “low battery” light comes on. I used to be able to use it for a whole week before needing to charge it. Irritated at this, I decided to look for a new shaver, one with user-replaceable batteries. And believe it or not, there don’t appear to be any… except for “mobile shavers” or “travel shavers” – tiny units designed to fit in a glove box or weekend bag with ease. Since I’m a big fan of Braun (except their batteries), I went with the Braun M90:

braun_m90
Photo by Amazon

The shaver takes two AA batteries, which you install by twisting the bottom of the unit and pulling the cover out. A built-in cover swings open to reveal the shaver; the cover also locks the ON\OFF button in place, preventing you from turning it on accidentally. The M90 also features a hair trimmer, seen on the left in the picture (it doesn’t normally stick out like that; Amazon slid it out for the photo). There’s even a nifty brush tucked in to the bottom of the shaver!

Continue reading “NIFTY GADGET: Braun M90 Mobile Shaver”

Is it just me, or…

Am I the only person driven to the brink of insanity by this?

This week’s episode of Intelligence (a new CBS series featuring Josh Holloway from Lost, aptly described by some as “Chuck without the humor”) opens in London:

intelligence_01

The very next scene – the first actual scene after the opening shot of London – is of a guy walking through a door:

intelligence_01a

What’s wrong with this picture? I’ll give you a hint:

intelligence_02

OK, the screencap is a little dark, and maybe you can’t see the detail. So let me use the old CSI tactic of zooming in and enhancing it:

intelligence_03

Yep… even though we’re supposed to be London, the set has North American electrical outlets. It might seem nitpicky to some, but it’s the FIRST SCENE of the episode, and the outlets are RIGHT THERE!

This little “flub” also struck the season premiere of Psych a couple weeks ago: leads Shawn and Gus went to England so the show could do a Guy Ritchie parody. And here’s what happened:

psych_01

Sigh.

psych_02

And Psych took it further by showing the “English countryside”… which apparently looks a lot like British Columbia:

psych_03

GET IT TOGETHER, SET DESIGNERS!

The Rarest of the Rare

In 1967, a perfectly ordinary apartment building in Chicago started undergoing perfectly ordinary renovations. One perfectly ordinary day, a perfectly ordinary plumber started tearing down a perfectly ordinary brick wall. And, behind the wall, he found a completely unusual motorcycle.

The building’s elderly owner sheepishly admitted that his son had stolen the bike before leaving for the Army in World War I. His son died in combat, and it’s not known if the old man hid the bike in the wall out of shame (that his son had stolen it) or out of depression (that his son had died). All that’s known for sure is that the bike had been trapped behind the wall for 50 years and had license plates from the year 1917 on it.

The motorcycle had the name “Traub” on it. There is no company named Traub known to have manufactured motorcycles in the United States (or anywhere else) at that time, And believe me, people have really researched it. But perhaps that’s all well and good, because almost all the parts of the motorcycle were made by hand.

The engine is a handmade 80 cubic-inch flathead engine made by sand casting. The pistons are also handmade. According to the bike’s current owner, the overall machining on the bike parts was “simply years ahead of their time”. The bike, which can easily reach 85 mph (137 km/h), has a three-speed transmission, perhaps the first of its kind. And despite having both German and American parts, the transmission’s design is completely unique. And the rear brakes use a system never seen before (or since) on American-built motorcycles. Some of the screws used on the bike are uncommon to motorcycles, while others that control things like oil level must be turned by hand, indicating that the person (or persons) who built the bike had to be an expert with engines and\or machining parts.

Traub Motorcycle

If none of that made any sense to you, then imagine this: the most popular car in the United States in 1916 was the Model T. Model Ts look like this:

model-t

 

Now, Imagine someone, somewhere building a car by hand in 1916  that looks like this:

aston-martin-concept-car

Now you can see what a truly amazing piece of engineering the Traub motorcycle really is.

No one knows who built the Traub or why, It’s known that the bike was bought by a Chicago area bicycle shop owner named Torillo Tacchi shortly after it was discovered. Tacchi sold it to a Hollywood stuntman named Bud Ekins in the 1970s (Bud was in town working on the original Blues Brothers movie at the time). Ekins sold it to a motorcycle collector named Richard Morris, who in turn sold it on to Dale Walksler, owner and curator of the Wheels Through Time Museum in Maggie Valley, NC. The Traub has been on display there ever since.

If you’d like to read more about the Traub (especially if you like the technical side of things), check out this post or this post.

A REALLY COOL Photograph

Wanna see something cool? Check out this picture:

Conrad Heyer

The man in the picture is Conrad Heyer. Heyer was born in Waldoboro, Maine. The picture was taken in 1852, when Heyer was 103. Since he was born in 1749. this picture is unique in that it’s a photograph of the earliest born human being. In other words, as far as anyone knows, there are no photographs of anyone born before Heyer was.

But there’s more. Heyer served in the Continental Army under George Washington. You know how Washington crossed the Delaware River to attack Hessians in Trenton, New Jersey on Christmas 1776? Washington-Crossing-the-Delaware

Yeah, Heyer was there. The eyes you see in the photograph above once gazed on George Washington himself! Which is pretty cool. It’s also a connection to a world we can’t imagine. Heyer was born in Maine back when Maine was still part of Massachusetts… and was barely explored by Europeans. The entire population of the United States was less than 2 million. If you wanted to go from point A to point B, horseback and walking were your only options, It’s likely that Heyer remembered even the Seven Years War, which came to an end when he was 14.

It kind of blows my mind that someone who fought with Washington lived long enough to be photographed. But there you are.

David Bowie’s Eyes

Ask a hundred people to name a physical feature of David Bowie and almost all of them will say that he “has different colored eyes”:

bowie_eyes

Here’s the thing though… Bowie doesn’t have different color eyes. That’s a medical condition called heterochromia iridum, which is usually just shortened to heterochromia. Instead, as the picture above clearly demonstrates, one of his pupils is permanently dilated, a condition known as anisocoria. And the reason his eyes are like that… is because of a girl.

In 1962, when Bowie was 14, he fell for a girl named Carol Goldsmith. Problem was, his best friend, George Underwood, fell for her too.

According to Bowie, he got the date with Goldsmith. The next day, Bowie went to school and bragged to everyone about it, and the jealous Underwood punched him.

According to Underwood, he’d gotten the date with Goldsmith, and Bowie was jealous of him. So Bowie called Underwood on the day of the date and made up some story about how Goldsmith couldn’t make it. Underwood believed him, and made other plans. Goldsmith waited for Underwood for an hour and, of course, was furious when he didn’t show up. So she went out with Bowie instead. When Underwood found out that he’d been double-crossed, he punched Bowie.

Whatever actually happened, Underwood’s punch landed so that his knuckle hit Bowie in the left eye. This badly tore the sphincter muscles in his eye (oh, grow up), preventing the pupil from closing. Doctors were able to save his eye, but the dilation was permanent.

As proof of the old “bros before hos” maxim, Bowie and Underwood remained friends after the incident. Underwood played in a few of Bowie’s early bands, and ended up becoming a graphic designer. He did the covers for Bowie’s Hunky Dory and The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and The Spiders From Mars albums, as well as several Bowie posters, flyers and book covers. You can see several of Underwood’s works on his website here.

There are, however, several celebrities that do have heterochromia iridum. Kate Bosworth’s eyes are particularly striking:

bosworth_eyes

English actress Alice Eve’s eyes are two slightly different shades of blue:

eve_eyes

Wikipedia also lists Dan Aykroyd, Elizabeth Berkley, Henry Cavill, Benedict Cumberbatch, Robert Downey, Jr., Mila Kunis, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Simon Pegg, Jane Seymour, Kiefer Sutherland, Christopher Walken, and Alyson Hannigan as having the condition.

EDIT: Sadly, David Bowie died two years ago. However, I recently found a picture of him, taken at age 14 before the infamous fight, that shows him with identical eyes:

David Bowie at 14

 

Ask One Simple Question…

So I’ve been watching a lot of Australian crime dramas over the past couple of years, and one slang term always piqued my interest: “Jacks”, Aussie slang for police officers, as in “ever since the bank robbery, the Jacks have been watching me nonstop”. I wondered where it came from. Did early Australian police officers wear badges with prominent Union Jacks on them, maybe? Or did they represent British authority, as embodied by the Union Jack?

Nope – as always, the answer is far more complicated.

It all goes back to the Middle Ages, specifically France. Cavalrymen of noble birth were known as gens d’armes, which literally translates as “men at arms”. By the early 1700s, however, the gun had made heavily-armored cavalrymen nearly obsolete. So in 1720, the cavalry was placed under the authority of the French national police force – the Maréchaussée de France – and became known as the Gendarmerie de France. During the French Revolution, both the Maréchaussée and the Gendarmerie were abolished, only to be reincarnated as a military police force (still around today) called the Gendarmerie Nationale.

Contrary to popular belief, gendarme is not the generic French term for “police officer”.  The Gendarmerie Nationale has very specific tasks:

– to provide police services in areas outside the jurisdiction of the Police Nationale. This mostly includes rural areas, towns of less than 20,000 people and areas that cross multiple jurisdictions (like lakes and rivers). In this sense, they’re roughly analogous to county police in the United States that patrol areas outside city limits.

– Certain criminal investigations under judicial supervision.

– to provide all security at airports and military bases, and to conduct all investigations related to the military.

– to dress up in fancy costumes and participate in ceremonies involving foreign heads of state (much like the Coldstream Guards and their funny bear hats in the UK).

– to provide for crowd control.

– to provide all para-military (SWAT) services in France.

Sooooo… what does any of this have to do with Australian slang? Well, for a time in the late 1800s it was fashionable for seedy British types to call the police “John Darmes” in an obvious riff on gendarmes. Over time, “John Darme” became “John”, and then just “Jack” (that word being in use in English since the 1700s as British slang for a common man, as in “every man Jack needs a job”).

If it sounds weird… it’s possible that “John Darme” had a brief life in the United States, too. In the early 20th century, many Americans referred to the police as “John Law”. Whether this particular “John” comes from Britain and Australia’s “John Darme” or whether it’s a home-grown usage of John meaning “an everyman” (like “John Doe” or “John Q. Public”) is up for debate.

No Kidding?

So the other day I was reading this post at The Daily Caller. The gist of the story was that increasing tobacco taxes decreases revenue. This should seem obvious to anyone who took ECON 101 in college: the higher the price, the less demand there will be for the product. Because, ya know, that’s how supply and demand works.

Yet America’s politicians keep piling on the taxes and end up amazed when the higher tax generates less revenue than the lower tax did before. The linked article cites a study by the National Taxpayers Union, which found that (among other things) a 2006 cigarette tax increase in New Jersey actually produced $52 million less than the lower tax did the previous year. And broke-ass Illinois approved a $1/pack increase last June… which led to 39% less revenue compared to the lower tax the year before. Total shortfall: $130 million.

Of course, it helps that neighboring states might have lower taxes. Illinois has Missouri on one side (which has a 17¢/pack tax, the lowest in the country) and Indiana on the other side (which has half the excise tax of Illinois). And, for much of Massachusetts, dirt-cheap smokes and booze are only a 30-minute drive to New Hampshire.

Believe it or not, of all the issues we disagree on, THIS has always been my main beef with the Democratic Party. Not cigarette taxes specifically, but how Democrats want to have it both ways.

Back in 1990, Congress passed the infamous “luxury tax”, which added a 10% surcharge to jewelry and furs over $10,000, cars over $30,000, boats over $100,000 and private planes over $250,000. The theory, of course, was that wealthy Americans could easily afford such taxes, and would happily pay them. Or, to put it in more economic terms, TAXATION WOULD NOT AFFECT CONSUMPTION.

So… what happened? It was a disaster for American boat and airplane manufacturers. Before passage, Congressional policy wonks had estimated that the luxury tax would generate $9 billion in revenue over 5 years. But in 1991, the first full year of the tax, government revenues from the luxury tax were a mere $3 million. Demand for new boats plummeted by 70%, and at least 7,600 people in the boating industry lost their jobs (other estimates are much higher: one source says 13,000 workers in Florida alone lost their jobs, and as many as 30,000 people in related industries lost their jobs, too). It’s almost certain that the federal government paid out more in unemployment benefits than they gained from the tax. At the same time, the “boat tax” helped make a bunch of Bahamians and Panamanians rich. I don’t know if the tax did not apply to purchases made outside the US, or if the tax was simply easy to evade with overseas purchases, but suddenly overseas boat salesmen were swimming in money, thanks to Democrats in Congress. Odd how the world works sometimes..

The tax was such a disaster that Congress repealed it in 1993. And you know a tax is a mistake when the New York Times (a bastion of right-wing thought if ever there was one) says so. But yet, that very same year, First Lady Hillary Clinton advocated raising the tax on cigarettes by as much as $2/pack, with the publicly stated goal of “reducing teen smoking”. Thus, TAXATION DOES AFFECT CONSUMPTION.

So Democrats… which one is it? Does taxation affect consumption or not? You guys might be surprised to find that Chief Justice John Marshall figured it out all the way back in 1819 in McCulloch v. Maryland:

“the power to tax involves the power to destroy”

Use that power wisely, folks.