Saturday, February 15, 2003
PIN BALL LORE
I remember the first pinball machines.
We had a kindergarten grade visitor at our house several weeks ago and she sat down at this very computer and I witnessed her bat out a pinball game which I was not even aware we had since “games” is not our forte. She did well, as far as I could tell, and played as several “players” getting bumped, flipped, bounced and batted all over the place in an elaborately colorful and noisy routine.
The first pinball machines I remember must have been in the early l930's. It developed as Depression Times amusement because of the low cost.
The first I remember was called “Baffle Ball” I think and those early models strictly mechanical and all were “counter mounted”. One of the first I remember was placed on the end of the cash register counter in a news-stand set-up. The keyboard faced the customer area and I am certain the price was a nickel for a “game”,or for so-many tries. There was a short plug on front at the bottom which sent the balls up into the glass covered case. They rattled around and fell in holes which were cut into a slanted field in a moon design with stars around it.
That's about all the first ones did. Player sought for the highest scores and some places gave prizes for the best scores or sets of scores. There were other versions called Ballyhoo and Bingo ...with art work to distinguish them because they all did that much the same things. Before too long they got battery power which made them more interesting and largely because players learned to bump the machine, lift them to guide the ball too other areas, so “tilt” devices were invented to shut the practice down when someone played “unfairly”. The counter top boxes grew legs of their own, too, and by, because heavier and by 1934 they were usually equipped with transformers and could be plugged in for dependable power. At about that same time, lights were added and the things went wild with colored lights blinking and flashing light luring players of all ages, circumstances, age and social levels to enter the behold the wonderful make-believe world that seemed top offer plus rewards or varied kinds as a reward for very little skill and effort. There was a time when the pinball machine was deemed to be socially unacceptable by some. They machines were found mainly in pool halls, dives, joints and other limited access locations, but, in time, it turned up in corners at the drugs stores, grocery stores and service stations - seemingly without number - and they became a mainstay of the arcade, game rooms spots where they developed a more complex group of players. - some of whom grew to “expert” status at playing the now, more complicated games at advanced levels
.
That's when the antiques people started buying up the older, creaky ones and some of the flashy newcomers, which are still around in private collections and museums.
Do you have some pleasant memories of the Pin Ball era?
A.L.M. February 14, 2003 [c526wds]
Friday, February 14, 2003
MADAM, PRESIDENT
When the subject of our having a woman president some day comes up, I sense a feeling if uneasiness among men in the conversational group.. Some of us are not ready to deal with that subject, but a woman president is not as remote an idea as some seem to think it remains.
The possibility has support among many people and it has gained in the past few years. This has come about, I think, because more and more women have proved to be capable and have done well in governmental offices at various levels. These successes have help form a sense of confidence in the mind of many who have favored the plan for years.
We have already experienced women running for the office of Vice-President an in accepting that possibility voters have, in a backhanded way, conceded that a woman can, will and should run for the top office as well. The Vice President is a “stand-by” President who can step in an take over the Oval Office if he President becomes incapacitated in is unable to do the job.
Rather, it would seem to me, than with the general electorate, the problems to center more on the male-oriented nature of the political party mechanisms which, in a final analysis seem to be oriented toward a male perspective fundamentally accountable to established political mores not given to change.
Geraldine Farrar is among those who worked to achieve the office of Vice-President years ago and others have ventured on stage. The have been pioneers. They have broken paths through the political wildernesses often encouraged but not really assisted in their quest for the prime office.
The entire concept of running woman for the top office has been increased, I think, in recent years by the presence of Hillary Clinton. Many people see her as the Democratic nominee. Some think an immediate attempt in the next election would be too early. But few planners discount the possibility of a run four years hence. One hears other names suggested from various areas: Jan Fonda, Barbara Strisand, Elizabeth Dole, Condoleezza Rice, or one of the women governors in those states who now have women at the helm.
It will happen, I 'm sure - in time, and perhaps sooner than most men seem to concede.
Another critical factor is the problem we have with fewer people actually voting. A very small percentage of qualified voters show up at the booths on Election Day. A woman would stand a far better chance of election if that voter base expanded among those already qualified to vote. Prior to election, however, a candidate has to be nominated and that remains as the main stumbling block keeping us from saying “Madam, President”.
A.L.M. February 2003 [c465wds]
Thursday, February 13, 2003
SAY WHEN
How much is too many?
We often have to make a decision with that in mind and we often arrive at the same conclusion - it varies with the nature of the individual concerned.
There is, for example, no hard and fast regulation which determines how much time should be spent airing commercials on the average television show. That number which seems to be the absolute upper limit to some people and drives them wild, may, to another viewer, be less than offensive – even commendable.
Some viewers actually like to see the commercials and some prefer them to the content of the show they are “stuck with” for a half-hour or hour segment. It never occurs to them to either turn the TV set off or to change to another channel, because they feel if they do change they will end up with more of the same. With such TV viewers, once a TV set is turned “on” it cannot be turned “off”. TV is only social life they experience. One does not ,simply, discard it. One learns to “make do” with disruptive conditions which are bound to come along in any association.
The latest studies are said to say we use nineteen minutes out of every hour for commercial on night time shows and twenty-one minutes for daytime formats. Although the survey did not say so, I think they must combine the two limitations for movie re-runs.
Some protester types like to rave and rant on this “too many commercials” theme, and just anyone has, a one time or another, thought about seeing a show favoring program over “a word from”.
This foolish game is being played in the wrong court.
It is the program producers, not the viewers, who should be taking all of this commercial commotion to heart. If they keep on pushing the envelope, the whole thing is going to blow up in their prosperous face! They should, by this time, know how a goose, laying golden eggs , can be killed and what the consequences might be for them.
At random, I counted the number of commercials in a “break”.There were twelve of them. I fail to see how any of the sponsors profited from their brief and confused “message” jammed in with so many others. I find I don't recall the content of any of them. Local stations will tell, you it is the networks which do the overloading on commercials;the networks will tell you it is the cable stations and , since our “local” TV station depends upon cable for seventy-five per cent of its viewers we end up with neat “round robin” in which no one is “guilty.” The need to run and rerun the same spot, even minutes apart, is another killer.
One of these fine days business men and women will start to demand that their “spots” be presented to best advantage and not sandwiched in as a layer in a whole-arm “Dagwood” special. The glamor is gone from TV selling. It is routine now and if it is to continue to be lucrative it had better shape up and face reality.
A.L.M. February 11, 2003 [c531wds]
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
FABLE FOR OUR TIMES
In this world there are thorns. They are not attached to poison ivy, but to beautiful roses - bright, colorful,tempting roses.
For that reason, mankind has had to learn to take extra precautions when he wanted to gather roses. They had a deterrent to ward off dangers. The poison ivy did as well, but it would, take time for that to have any affect. The prick of the the thorn's sharp point gave instant and impressive warning to man that he had wandered into a forbidden area.
The thorns are below and around the flower it is to protect and not a part of it. The thorn is disguise in that it appears to be much the same color as the stem from which it projects., and it has little of the quality of beauty ,very must the same as that of the stem from which it projects. Is lacks the compelling beauty of the rose, but has a stark, stripped and alert stance all its own. Man does well to respect the common thorn guarding the rose.
The thorns multiple and hide themselves in the wild twists and turns of the bush on which they grow and pointing in all directions ward off perils to the bloom they guard. It is their place. It is their duty. Their nourishment is supplied by the same sources which cause the rose to burst into furious glory above. Some people see the arrangement and say : “What a pity so much energy has to be sacrificed to activate those no-good thorns!. It it could all be channeled to the rose! Think how more beautiful it could become!”
It is a wise thing to respect the power and welcome the presence of thorns where there is beauty even at times when danger is not readily seen.. Yes, even in wintry,storm-blasted times when the flower itself is no apparent! The ground and the bush upon which the new rose will bloom in the spring must be held ready, not crushed or torn apart by enemies.
There will always scorners who will say they hate the thorns worse than the unseen enemy. They, all too often, tend to see little good in preparedness... in being ready. Life goes on regardless, they contend.
The rose is our nation .The oft scorned thorns are our armed forces both here and across the seas.
A.L.M. February 10, 2003 [c408wds]
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
BUILDING NEW CHURCHES
Wherever you live, there are new church buildings being constructed. Some designs are realistic but so many seem to be going to exotic extremes.
Does it disturb you when you find such combined community centers, with gyms, fully-equipped banquet facilities, radio and television studios and sanctuary lighting, organ placement and display - everything though to be needed for extended media mission plans.
I would urge upon building committees to think about what they are building. Is it a house of worship? Or, is it something else, entirely?
It is, truly, a dwelling place for God?.
I think most of us would agree that the proper dwelling place of God is within the hearts, minds, and souls of mankind.
A few might insist it is to be within a physical tent, shed, building, tabernacle, temple, church, or cathedral... built as near to perfection as possible, as a proper dwelling place apart for God in our midst. Much depends, it seems, on what we are born to believe. But, environment and circumstances can also have a marked bearing on what we accept as proper.
In actual experience where God lives is connected vitally to where we live and we must, from time to time, consider the bounds and limits of our total community of faith.
Each of us is a Temple in a sense. So our sphere is larger than the physical counting and tabulations of the condition of rooms, or bathrooms or garages or any accountings of our possessions or holdings earned directly or by inheritance and fortunate happenstance. Our domain is bigger than any room; larger than any extended listing of such chambers, and ,by far, more impressive in essential simplicity . It is bigger than the holdings which made it possible.
What we build deals with essential facts about our faith and changes made by the coming of Christ into our personal life and affairs. We are not as we used to be at one time and we must learn to act and to build accordingly..
Our fellow fellow citizens in the community of God will held build the new church upon a foundation not unlike the fellowship of and prophets and apostles of old. Christ Jesus, himself, being the chief cornerstone, in whom the entire structure is joined together is is is to prosper as you intend it – as a dwelling place for God among us.
The new church you build is more than mere brick and mortar, glass and steel, adobe slabs and grass - if that be your circumstance.
To confine our religious potential to a certain unnecessary finite real estate is to take upon ourselves burdens of debt and management which can only detract from the intended purposes of the building.
A.L.M. February 10, 2003 [c465wds]
Monday, February 10, 2003
I BLEW IT!
Aw-right! So I blurted out the wrong answer!
We were watching a school-kids quiz show and the question was: “What is the national motto of the United States of America?”
I knew the answer right away, of course, but I was wrong.
What do you think it might be?
I said it as “E Pluribus Unim” - “from many, one” and I was crushed when the moderator informed the world I was mistaken. I looked it up and found I'm forty-eight years behind the times. On January 30, 1956 the law became effective which changed the motto from “E Pluribus Unim” to “In God We Trust” .
I knew, of course those words are on some of our coins and printed currency, but I did not know it had been made our national motto as well. It seems to me that lawmakers, in making this change were leaning a bit too far toward the area of wishful thinking. We are, in reality, formed from many into one” but in no sense do I see how we claim to be nation which places its full trust in God.
In today's street talk terms: “Let's get real, Ralph!”
We are said to be the most religious nation in the world and , at the most recent count, attest to the fact because most recent statistics show we have, I find we have over 2600 different religious faiths many of which are contending with some or all of the others.. Factions are fashionable; friction is urged, union is beyond the realm of reality. Trust is placed in many things other in God.
It is quite true that many of the early immigrants to these shores were seeking religious freedom and I would say they exhibited profound trust in God when they dared to cross the Atlantic ocean in such flimsy craft as they called ships. I question our so-called Founding Fathers attitude as they came along in time to form a government. We are, I feel, often too willing to be led to believe them to have been a bit more religious than they actually were. Rather, I think, they are shown to have had some rather strong views concerning the wisdom of keeping religious regulations and temporal laws separate.
It is rather easy to show how we are, indeed, one from many. The use of Latin may floor some people because that's been “out”of educational fashion''for some time. There are people who would oppose any slogan in other than English as being, in their view, un-American.
The Congress in 1956 worked a political miracle of a sort. In view of the fact that we did not not have a national motto of which they had officially approved, they agreed that the line “In God We Trust” was to be established as our official national motto but also that any citizen who wished to continue the use of “E Pluribus Unim” was free to do so.
In effect, the “chicken” side of both houses must have voted both ways. The one motto is official; the other is traditional. The use of either one is right, except only one is official.
It is no problem for me. I prefer the “E Pluribus Unim” and feel a bit unsure of the other. All of this does help me to see how it is that our Congress is often so slow and has difficulty maintaining a proper separation of church and state. They may be looking for a another chance to vote both ways at once.
A.L.M. February 9, 2003 [c601wds]
Sunday, February 09, 2003
SHOT TOWERS
In old Baltimore, Maryland, you will see a structure that looks like an old-fashioned factory smoke stack. It rises 220 feet above the street and it was build in 1828 to make ammunition for muskets of that era.
There are other such towers, including one here in Virginia at Ft .Chiswell. You can see the square, brick tower on the south back of the New River when you cross bridge on Interstate 77 just south of I-81.
They were a part of our war efforts in the past and each played important, at times even critical, role in defending the nation in time of need.
The thing that fascinates me, however, about the shot tower in Baltimore, is that it was built from the inside without scaffolding on the outer sides. The builder followed the designer's plan which instructed him to mark out a one hundred twenty-nine foot circle on the ground. He then dug down, on an average, about seventeen feet until he found firm footing on which to place the construction. Thus prepared he started laying a six foot wall of brick around that circle, gradually bringing the inner surface inward by shortening the circumference, until he reached the height of two-hundred and thirty-four feet with an upper opening of just eighteen inches!
Known as the Phoenix Shot Tower, it was in operation from 1828 to 1892. Molten metal was dropped from the upper region of the tower through a sieve-live gadget and fell in a tank of cold water at the base. When hardened, dried and polished each ball formed in the fall became a usable shot. The tower could make over a million bags of shot per year... double that if needed. For smaller sizes of shot, the molten metal was dropped from points below the top platform through different screens. The tower was dedicated by Charles Carroll, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and was, until the Washington Monument was finished after the Civil War was the tallest structure in the United States
The Shot Tower in southwestern Virginia is less impressive, but it played a vital role in both the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, having been built in l804. It as functioned largely in association with the famed lead and zinc mine in nearby Austinville and Ivanhoe, Virginia.
A.L.M. February 8, 2003 [c399wds]
|
