Saturday, December 21, 2002
IS IT TRUE?
“Facts” can be confusing with today's curious modes of validation.
Here's an example.
I keep hearing we now have a total of nine-million “illegals” among us. It is often more specific – using the term “ illegal citizens”. And, once that “fact “is established, all manner of problem solving becomes possible, simply by blaming those excess people for whatever the to trouble seems to be. It becomes a panacea which cures all ills.
But, is the “fact” a statement which can be accepted as being true?
Such statements are far too serious to be accepted simply because “they say”, “officials state”,“figures show” or something which sounds more official, such as “ government documents indicate that" we now have nine million illegals in our midst.” If it is true, then it deserves prompt attention. But, until it is shown to be accurate one must move with caution. Innocent people might be harmed.
They are used, too often, primarily to shock people, and they do just that especially when they appear as the head lines above stories which deal with immigration to this country from nations all over the world. They create additional divisions and needless conflict.
I find I am wary of accepting such figures as being entirely true. Nine million? That's a goodly group of people and the compilation of figures concerning that many individuals has to be a blend of fact and fiction, census studies and guess work, "about" -counting and the making of estimates.
Certainly,September 11th of last year taught us that we must pay more attention to whom we authorize entry. We have been excessively liberal in such matters is the past. Even a cursory glance at the terrorism patterns shows how dismal our guard has been.
One would hope that the new department of homeland security, which can not, as yet, be deliberately written using capital letters because it doesn't really exist. Perhaps, in time, when this department gets up and running, it can give us some more trustworthy guidelines as to what is true and what is not accurate.
Right now, you see, we need to know if we have nine million illegals in our midst. We know we have a number of people of foreign extraction, but just who is legal and is not, is unknown to most of us.
The school system a nearby city has thirty-eight languages evident in the lower grades of the school system. Illegal workers are gathered up by the bus loads month-after-month and deported. The rooming houses where they live do not even try to re-rent the rooms in which they lived because they know the same people will be back - with newcomers - in week or two after having spent a few weeks vacation at home.
What, exactly is considered to be illegal?” How can we count 'em if we don't know, who, where or what they may be?. Until I know... what about this nine million? Is it fact or fancy?
A.L.M. December 20, 2002 [c502wds]
Friday, December 20, 2002
WHO DONE IT?
Who took melody out of modern music?
You certainly must have missed it by this time! People no longer go about their work humming a happy tune or mouthing romantic lyrics or silly, child-like metric puzzles to help cover cares and concerns of their work day. We used to do so - all of us. Who put a stop to it? Who can be blamed for changing the tuneful songs we loved and used so routinely?
That which poses for popular music today is a pulsing mass, a cacophony of warped noises cuffed with electronic curdles and drizzled in drum-like doodles which suggest the basic reason for tympani but distort and exaggerate it out of proportion.
We don't have to look too far for the main culprits, either!
No, we cannot - we must not – blame the “new” generation! They are the victims rather than the spoilers.
We fall into both catagories ourselves. We should have seen much of this coming on, back before it became endemic and permeated every fiber of the music body politic.
In the later “ Big-band “ years we began to fragment into factions in music which should have signaled danger and urged common sense applications. Elite little groups started setting themselves apart as being “progressive” or “modern” - both terms which we had discovered and re-discovered so often in political life and found wanting. Economics played a seeding role in it all, no doubt, when it became impossible to pay larger groups.
We should have recognized flawed formations right from the start. Such twosomes. trios, or quintets, at best - strung-out string bases, ever- increasing drum sets, fast-finger and flay-handed keyboards, and, on occasion, electronic versions of instruments with melodic capabilites which were sublimated or ignored. Far too many such “progressive” acts went too far, too fast. They became ingrown and snooty verging on, and, actually becoming snotty in some cases.We fell in to other divisive sub-titles, as well We fragmented. The music we played was trivialized.
Many such groups and curious sounds sold well. They became “authority”. The norm. What should be. And, larger groups followed. In addition to all of this ferment taking place within music, technological advances and electronically powered istrumental equipment, hit the markets at this very time in abundance and took over in ways , not at first, even thought to be possible.
When the Moog Synthasizer became available I felt I needed one. That, to me, theMoog was the promise of an new world of music for our future. I never got one, of course, and I have seen the concept eroded by mis-use and mis-judgment and, even more so, by the acceptance of immitations in the place of the real thing. The Moog mode is still there, to be developed, I feel, but set aside for the time being, until we regain our musical equilibrum.
We dropped the melody ball and did not provide adequate safeguards of musical instruction and encouragment for youngsters coming on. We became a nation of music spectators rather than serious performers...showmen rather than sidemen...barkers instead of Ring Masters!
We have a trememdous amount of re-grouping to do if music is to be regenerated; taken out of the twitching hands of specialists who continue to set forth sameness fronted by photogenic freaks, and fueled by self-feed flames of mediocrity.
Hum a tune for me. Sing some words.
They can be re-newed - together like that, but it is going to take time to regain a foothold on the main trail of musical travel and adventure.
A.L.M. December 16, 2002 [c605wds]
Thursday, December 19, 2002
JUST A'JOSHIN', FOLKS!
We have not, as yet, been told who propped Strom Thurman upright in his chair so he could attend his 100th birthday party. They did a good job, however, and he played his same “old” role well, as he has done for many years.
How long have we viewed Strom Thurman as being “old”? That's been a much-repeated story for many, many years and most lost track of his alleged amorous proclivities. The recent avalanche of accusations which have all but covered Senator Trent Lott is more of the so-called humor dealing with a man of exceptional age for his circumstances.
Lott comes from Mississippi, which is not exactly South Carolina in many ways, and his sense of humor may vary a bit from that of others, but he was, I think, in keeping with the general tenor of remarks being set forth at the party. I rather liked it in that he did not dwell, as so many did - and do - on the tiresome romantic theme exploited by so many for so long. I can't see too much of any vindictively planned racial discrimination in his remarks as being accurate. He did speak of the 1948 Strom Thurman campaign for the Presidency in 1948 as head of the Dixiecrat Party. Most hearers had to be reminded of what that splinter party group favored, but they did hear Trent Lott say: “I voted for him! We all supported him!” They overlooked the simple fact that in 1948 - when Strom Thurman ran for President, Trent Lott, in Mississippi, was every bit of six years old!
From that point on, the note takers started hearing all sorts of things Trent Lott was either saying, seem to be about ready to say, or had said. Their hastily jotted notes took on new authority the more they were read out of the “party time” context, and we have ended up with un-needed trouble at a time when we should, more properly, be thinking of other, more serious things.
Even if I try,I have trouble imagining six-year-old Trent going about his boyhood down there in Mississippi dedicated to developing new and devious ways in which to make life miserable for blacks, blues or reds.
About the only redeeming quality in this vendetta attack on Lott's alleged remarks,has been the fact that it has kept many of his critics from needling others with their usual, often tiresome trivia talk about temporary tensions. While the heat has been on Trent Lott, others have enjoyed a respite from chronic critics. I have a feeling they will be grateful for such favors and be silent for a time while Trent Lott - no longer six years old - puts things in order and resumes his leadership role.
It is true that Trent Lott said other things at the Thurman party and there is little doubt but that he should have quit while he was ahead. He.certainly, must know that by now, too. And knowing that he can, most likely, be a better leader in many ways than before it all happened.
And, congratulations to you, Strom Thurman.
I was thirty-two years old when you ran for President as a Dixiecrat and I did not vote for you.
I hope no one tries to read anything into that statement. I don't know that I refrained from voting for you for any particular reason, but someone is bound to be sure that I must have had some ulterior motive in not doing so. Would you go with just birthday cards next year, sir?
A.L.M. December 18, 2002 [c606wds]
Wednesday, December 18, 2002
DENSITY
All right! I still can't do the Rubric's Cube thing!
Goodness knows how many Christmases ago it was that we all got at least one such colorful toy for Christmas.
By the time I had learned various different ways in which I was able to shift some of the colors around to various sides without disturbing others, the small kids in the family had peeled most all of the colorful decals from the block divisions so it did not matter which way I turned and twisted any of them.
May I digress at this moment to speak a word or so in serious gratitude on behalf of having adequate numbers of small children in the household on whom small bits of blame such as this can be placed. A home without small, mischievous and inquiring small children must be a miserable place!
Now, back to the cube... well, there's nothing to go back to, really, because I've been at a standstill since that time of long ago. ago. I marvel at those who tell me they can work the cube without any undue effort. I marvel when I hear it, not be because I believe them, but because so many such people go out of their way to tell me they can do so! They not only apply the salve eagerly and with ease, but insist on rubbing it in, as well!
I have never, yet, had nerve enough to say: “Put up, or shut up!” to such cube-sayers. Some day I may just do that and we will have a slow show-down, possible at high noon for dramatic associations, when I can also claim the brilliance of the Sun preventing my seeing how it was done.
And, lest some of you may think me to be an inept “square”, I, herewith, point out that I am more of a “cube” than a common same-sided block.
It extends to other puzzling areas...
These “Triangle” puzzles, for instance. They are a three- sided nemesis haunting me from time to-time, as well.
They usually appear in the form of two-three inch pieces of soft wood into which some diligent citizen of far-off China has worked a series of holes.. .one at the apex of the triangle, then a row of two, four, five and six until the areas is full of such holes. If your puzzle has fifteen such holes you take fourteen little wooden pegs which resemble pygmy-sized golf tees or chair-caning plugs, and insert them in all but one of the holes. One Chinese excavation is always left unfilled and you can vary that “empty “ position as you see fit, I understand.
Possibly as a sneaky trick to shift your attention away from the moves you are to make, the pegs are often painted in colored sets - three green, three blues and two whites - a mix of sorts. You can assume that this bit of hue-buggery has nothing or everything to do with the solution to the puzzle. The idea is to “jump” those pegs over each other - removing the one jumped - until just one peg remains.
Try it. It moves along real well, and you end up with four, three or two of the pages unable to move. A scale printed on the bottom edge of the puzzle or on the reverse side,will tell you what you dumb-headed score might be.
There is a redeeming factor about these “triangu-liar” puzzles, however. Just about everyone – and I claim to be one of them – has, at one time, been successful in working the puzzle to perfection. But, I have yet to find a single soul who remembers how he or she did it!
A.L.M. December 17, 2002 [c628wds]
Tuesday, December 17, 2002
WHO DONE IT?
Who took melody out of modern music?
You certainly must have missed it by this time! People no longer go about their work humming a happy tune or mouthing romantic lyrics or silly, child-like metric puzzles to help cover cares and concerns of their work day. We used to do so - all of us. Who put a stop to it? Who can be blamed for changing the tuneful songs we loved and used so routinely?
That which poses for popular music today is a pulsing mass, a cacophony of warped noises cuffed with electronic curdles and drizzled in drum-like doodles which suggest the basic reason for tympani but distort and exaggerate it out of proportion.
We don't have to look too far for the main culprits, either!
No, we cannot - we must not – blame the “new” generation! They are the victims rather than the spoilers.
We fall into both catagories ourselves. We should have seen much of this coming on, back before it became endemic and permeated every fiber of the music body politic.
In the later “ Big-band “ years we began to fragment into factions in music which should have signaled danger and urged common sense applications. Elite little groups started setting themselves apart as being “progressive” or “modern” - both terms which we had discovered and re-discovered so often in political life and found wanting. Economics played a seeding role in it all, no doubt, when it became impossible to pay larger groups.
We should have recognized flawed formations right from the start. Such twosomes. trios, or quintets, at best - strung-out string bases, ever- increasing drum sets, fast-finger and flay-handed keyboards, and, on occasion, electronic versions of instruments with melodic capabilites which were sublimated or ignored. Far too many such “progressive” acts went too far, too fast. They became ingrown and snooty verging on, and, actually becoming snotty in some cases.We fell in to other divisive sub-titles, as well We fragmented. The music we played was trivialized.
Many such groups and curious sounds sold well. They became “authority”. The norm. What should be. And, larger groups followed. In addition to all of this ferment taking place within music, technological advances and electronically powered istrumental equipment, hit the markets at this very time in abundance and took over in ways , not at first, even thought to be possible.
When the Moog Synthasizer became available I felt I needed one. That, to me, theMoog was the promise of an new world of music for our future. I never got one, of course, and I have seen the concept eroded by mis-use and mis-judgment and, even more so, by the acceptance of immitations in the place of the real thing. The Moog mode is still there, to be developed, I feel, but set aside for the time being, until we regain our musical equilibrum.
We dropped the melody ball and did not provide adequate safeguards of musical instruction and encouragment for youngsters coming on. We became a nation of music spectators rather than serious performers...showmen rather than sidemen...barkers instead of Ring Masters!
We have a trememdous amount of re-grouping to do if music is to be regenerated; taken out of the twitching hands of specialists who continue to set forth sameness fronted by photogenic freaks, and fueled by self-feed flames of mediocrity.
Hum a tune for me. Sing some words.
They can be re-newed - together like that, but it is going to take time to regain a foothold on the main trail of musical travel and adventure.
A.L.M. December 16, 2002 [c605wds]
Monday, December 16, 2002
THEREBY HANGS...
We very seldom meet with a ghost or kindred creature who sports a real, live, switching tail as a spinal extension.
Satan has had somewhat of a corner on such bodily attachments, it seems, and together with his red-flannel skin he
certainly seems unique enough. Old Nick stands alone in having a tail as a regular portion of his torso.
There is a creditable account, however, of a red man – a Native American known by the somewhat unpleasant name of “Mud Turtle”. He was both - “red” and with tail assembly as well.
Unlike his namesake, he lived near the top of a small cliff on the shore of Nantucket Island.. That would be to the north side of the main island itself, facing the long, extended arm of the sand barrier streches out to all the way to the Great Point Lighthouse.
That elongated area of shifting sands and half-submerged pine forests has long been called "Coatue" and it was really Mud Turtle's true home. He was shunned by his own people there because they deemed him to be innately evil since he was the only one among them who had a tail. In truth they actually feared him, so he lived apart on the island's edge and traded with them across the narrow waters by means of his sturdy canoe. He was a good fisherman; he knew the backwaters area better than any other man. He was also keenly aware of the herbs and shells the main island offered which were not available on the sandy shifting shores of Coatue.
We have little creditable knowledge of the groups who lived there in the early days. It is said that a ship of Europeans wrecked on the barrier on Coatue's constantly moving shores. It was looted and all hands murdered by natives.... possibly some of Mud Turtle's earlier kinsmen.
A time passed Mud Turtle was, no doubt, blamed for anything bad which happened to the tribe. But he went about his tasks of of fishing in the backwaters and exploring up and down the coast. On such trips he found the King of a tribe down the coast from his own area had a daughter whom he felt had to be the most beautuful woman in the world. When rumor came to him that she was about to be given in marriage, he decided to kidnap her and to bring her back to his cave dwelling on Nantucket.
There was little time for special preparation. He must depend on suprizing her guards,and the first really foggy he carefully brought his canoe quietly to the shore where he knew she dwelt.All was going well, until, in his excitement, he felt his tail begin to wag from side to side, then rise up and down, and back and forth from side to side. The guards heard the unusual night noise. They thought a hugh cat creature had found its way from the dense forest to their camp. They were alert but didn't know where to look and when they came to realize it was Mud Turtle he was swinging his body from tree to tree, actully flying, it seemed, back to his canoe.
In desperation they did all the could. They rained a shower of arrows on the escaping man through the foggy bank scudding above where they thought he might be. Several days later, Mud Turtles' body washed up on the shore beneath his cave home and the Kharzds, now at war with the Mud Turtles' tribe, gained control of his arrow-pierced body. They amputated the tail and burned it. They placed a conch shell in each hand and burried him, face down in a deep pit of muck.
Mud Turtle still searches for his lost love there on Coatue on foggy nights. It is said that he blows mournful calls on conche shells cupped in his hands. They never see his face. He is allways looking away from them, but they insist he has re-grown a long, red tail which is never still.
A. L. M. December 15, 2002 [c689wds]
Sunday, December 15, 2002
WEDDING FEES
For twenty years or more after the founding of Jamestown, Virginia, it was required that young couples ask permission of the Royal Governor if they planned to marry.
One might think that it was the intent of the colony's House of Burgesses to do all they could to thwart romance and matrimony. They seem to have plans to re-write marriage legislation about every five years or so.
One reason for the Royal Governor's interest in weddings throughout the land was to be found in the fact that he got the largest portion of the license fees as part his pay check. He was looking out for Number One, not playing Cupid.
The law was strict in many ways, too. Only a minister of the established Church of England could perform the marriage ceremony Any so-called “pretended marriages” were null and void, the man and woman were subject to trial for unlawful cohabitation and all children born to such unions were illegitimate and without rights of any kind. Ministers taking part in such false weddings could be punished, as well.
A young couple, intent on starting a family, of their own, must first declare their intention to do so before the public by publishing banns for three successive weeks at their parish church. One must assume that “publishing” meant nailing a written announcement concerning the planned wedding on the church door. When that had been accomplished satisfactorily they were ready to ask the Royal Governor to issue a license for them to proceed.
The were made aware, at that time, of the laws of 1642-43 which prohibited the firing of arms, except at weddings and funerals to “prevent alarms” and “to conserve powder.” Fee payments varied over the years but legislation of 1705, disallowed fees to more than one minister in any parish even if another assisted with the actual ceremony. By the Act of 1745 the Royal Governor received 20 shillings (about $3.33); The Clerk: 5 shillings (about 84-cents); the Minister 20-shillings ,if by license; if by banns - 5 shillings, and for publishing the banns 1 shilling, 6 pence or around a quarter. During the “Interregnum” - 1775 - when the colony had to raise extra money - the tax was doubled to 40 shillings for every marriage.
As settlements spread out, the Clerk started issuing licenses locally, but a list was forwarded to the Governor so he could keep a tally on how many fees he had earned. Those lists, oddly enough, did not, as a rule, include the name of the female involved nor of the minister performed. One such list, mysteriously, does show the names of women involved. The minister took it all quite seriously,too. The Rev. John Jones, of Augusta parish, sued the Rev. Adam Smith, of Botetourt parish. in public court in 1773 and recovered 2-pounds,2-shillings and 6-pence for marriage fees unlawfully claimed by his ministerial associate.
By an Act of October 1776, the Commonwealth of Virginia, in one of its first actions, reduced the wedding tax to 20 shillings and eliminated the Royal Governor's fee entirely.
These amounts are credited to “Hening's Statues at Large” but historian Joseph A. Waddell in his “Annals of Augusta County”, 2nd edition - 1902 had this comment:
“The present wiser generation has relieved marriage of some of its burdens. The fees of clerks and ministers legally demandable, are only one dollar each, and no tax is imposed. As this is the age of pensions and subsidies, very likely after awhile bounties will be offered to stimulate the ardour of young couples.”
A.L.M. December 12, 2002 [c600wds]
|
