| |
Saturday, February 05, 2005
OU R CAT
Ours has not always been a household where cats were welcomed.
That change is one we have learned about in our later years and it has proved to be a good thing for us - possibly something we ought to have done years ago.
We were not, and never have been "cat haters", of course. We had a number of cats as outdoor members of the larger family, so we have not been cat haters, of course. We had cats - many of them at times - and we valued their presence in the family-farm pattern in which we have lived.
"When the house cat sleeps - all is well." That sentiment could well have been something the Town Crier called out at night. Watch a cat at sleep. They can , and do, actually sleep with their eyes open. The lids are up just a fraction; enough for you to see the pupils of their eyes - always looking right at you, or, "through" you, it seems. The pupils appear to be lifeless; they do not "follow" your movements. It is as if the cat has placed its nerve center on stand-by alert to react accordingly if anything comes within the line of sight which seems to be out of the ordinary. When all is well, that same cat will sprawl across a bed, cushion, table or space on the floor to its full one-yard length, stretch its head out loose and oddly twisted at time and sleep totally with deadly intensity. When they do that you can be sure your home is secure.
Our cat - who answers to the name "Angel" when she is in the mood to do so has what we call "a mind of her own". She lives by a rigid Code
of Conduct which will not vary. She knows who she likes or dislikes; she knows who controls the food supply and can tell when the door of a specific car has been slammed shut in the driveway outside the house, and a bearer of foodstuffs will be entering the the front door. Be there!
We are fortunate, I find, in that our "Angel" is a fastidious feline. There is no "do-nothing time" for her. She is preening, tongue-washing rubbing or re-arranging fur at every lull in activity. She is neat, careful and efficient in her dining room and bathroom areas. She does not beg for, or eat table scraps of any kind. I would say she is a serious cat, but there are times when she want to run and play. She can chase imaginary objects or real ones if available. She enjoys rearranging snarls of oxygen transfer tubing which is common to our floors when she is in a playful mood. This morning, while I was pretending to chase her, she plainly told me:"All work and no play, takes seven of your years away."
A.L.M. February 5, 2005 [c494wds]
Friday, February 04, 2005
'OH, YEAH?"
We are still at it!
Why is it, I wonder that older folks – those of us who think of ourselves as being “more mature” - often seem to take great delight in vilifying and demeaning the youth of our day? Not all of us – of course, but a remarkably obvious number do such a thing. They take special jaundiced joy in seeking out and displaying ways in which young people today different and joyously set about proving it all to be wrong.
They can’t be all that bad! They are our children, chips off the much-revered “old block” and we have had, or should have had a major role in their upbringing.
Few people today remember when a world famed novelist that time – in l931 it must have been – by the name of Edna Ferber upset a cart load of caustic criticism the youth of that day – of her day. She, of all people,could do so and get away with it. She was internationally popular as the author of the novel “So Big”in 1924 and then, of everything to do with “Show Boat” out of Bath, North Carolina. Shed was known for a caustic wit and outspoken manner and she could hold her own among the wits at the Hotel Algonquin meetings where she was a member in rude standing.
Ferber, after a trip to Paris, did an interview with “The Literary Digest” in which she American youths as being "our beautiful young idiots".. she was no not impressed by the rash of :"youth movements then sweeping Europe, and said American youth could make it if they started using their "beans" ;never mind the gin-drinking admitting she rather liked that herself.." All they talk about if football and "Oh,Yeah?" terms ruin their speech. If they wish to do so, they can end Prohibition; bring an end to war. Absolutely everything depends on them. The old men, or even the middle aged men lack the courage and vitality to stand against the racketeers and cheap politicians."
She went on-ad-on. That's just an at random sample and I, as high school student at the time,listened to her and read what she wrote about us. It was only later that I realized she made her judgments on American youth she met on Atlantic ocean liner crossings and those who were part of Parisian society in those post-war years. That would be a very limited sample of American youth.
We repeat Edna Ferber's mistake today when we do studies, surveys, polls and other such "convincers".
We use some very inadequate samples.
A.L.M. February 4 2005 [c445wds]
Thursday, February 03, 2005
THE STATE OF THE "STATE"
In politics a person can so play the game in ways which quickly reveal him or her as a real "heel". Actually, the term in common use is one which calls the participants in illegal activity within the political framework. Whatever terms might be used to tag such off-limits activity it , far from being far too often, boils down to semantics within our language. Should I , for example, listen with a mind-set which tells me he is speaking resolutely or stubbornly? Each could be sincere; each could be honest and yet, I also know they could be the exact opposite!
I was thinking such thoughts just last night as I watched the President of the United States of America deliver his annual "State of The Union" message. Certainly, the head of the "greatest nation on Earth"is a august personality; one steeped in tradition and knowledge of what it takes to be a true leader of a nation. But, I realize, even as I watch him move about and gesture and as I listen to his words, that he, too, has his critics, his downright enemies, in truth, those who would gladly see him "done in" - which is about as final as we can get.
Yet, the man speaking gave me a good feeling that I was listening to a real person - a man who is resolute in the beliefs he holds; a man who was standing there before us all - friend and foe alike - and sets forth, in plain, honest language, the concepts he favors and doing so without seeming to be stubborn or demanding of any of us.
The idea of doing such a speech so closely upon the heels of having been ire-elected has been faulted by critics of the system. I rather like it. There is an opportunity to reassert ones intention to do even better than they might claim to have done in the past - a new, more vibrant and active sense of resolve and depth of concerns. I kept hearing a man who planned to continued to do as he had been doing but now with a renewed and strengthen assurance that it was the path in which to take ten our nation at this time. There is a confessional quality about the "State of the Union" more often said to be a "message" - something close and more personal than an "address", "speech" or "report". It expresses a stronger resolve and deeper concerns for active issues.
One portion of the evening's current telecast schedule of the event could well be eliminated - the opposition party's pathetic, inept, childish "rebuttal" - so called - which demeans the very group it was, apparently, intended to exalt. The lowly party member assigned to "do the rebuttal" is about the only time, he or she, is ever pictured as being "live" on national TV. There is a possible use for it!
Who knows? It could be the next successful "realities" format for prime time TV!
A.L.M. February 3, 2005 [c509wds]
THE STATE OF THE "STATE"
In politics a person can so play the game in ways which quickly reveal him or her as a real "heel". Actually, the term in common use is one which calls the participants in illegal activity within the political framework. Whatever terms might be used to tag such off-limits activity it , far from being far too often, boils down to semantics within our language. Should I , for example, listen with a mind-set which tells me he is speaking resolutely or stubbornly? Each could be sincere; each could be honest and yet, I also know they could be the exact opposite!
I was thinking such thoughts just last night as I watched the President of the United States of America deliver his annual "State of The Union" message. Certainly, the head of the "greatest nation on Earth"is a august personality; one steeped in tradition and knowledge of what it takes to be a true leader of a nation. But, I realize, even as I watch him move about and gesture and as I listen to his words, that he, too, has his critics, his downright enemies, in truth, those who would gladly see him "done in" - which is about as final as we can get.
Yet, the man speaking gave me a good feeling that I was listening to a real person - a man who is resolute in the beliefs he holds; a man who was standing there before us all - friend and foe alike - and sets forth, in plain, honest language, the concepts he favors and doing so without seeming to be stubborn or demanding of any of us.
The idea of doing such a speech so closely upon the heels of having been ire-elected has been faulted by critics of the system. I rather like it. There is an opportunity to reassert ones intention to do even better than they might claim to have done in the past - a new, more vibrant and active sense of resolve and depth of concerns. I kept hearing a man who planned to continued to do as he had been doing but now with a renewed and strengthen assurance that it was the path in which to take ten our nation at this time. There is a confessional quality about the "State of the Union" more often said to be a "message" - something close and more personal than an "address", "speech" or "report". It expresses a stronger resolve and deeper concerns for active issues.
One portion of the evening's current telecast schedule of the event could well be eliminated - the opposition party's pathetic, inept, childish "rebuttal" - so called - which demeans the very group it was, apparently, intended to exalt. The lowly party member assigned to "do the rebuttal" is about the only time, he or she, is ever pictured as being "live" on national TV. There is a possible use for it!
Who knows? It could be the next successful "realities" format for prime time TV!
A.L.M. February 3, 2005 [c509wds]
resolutely.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
DEMO
When I happen to pass by any area where a demolition of an old building is in progress, I am filled with mixed emotions.
I find it only natural for me to have strong sympathies for the individual who holds pleasant memories of the old structure and does not want it taken away. I have been on the side of the sentiment fence at times and I have also seen times when a structure has become a real burden to individuals, even to entire communities.
There is, often, far too much pretending is involved in any attempt to keep things “the way they have always been.” Such a plan is deceptive right from the start. Many subtle changes have been put in place to such a degree that, if the person who actually built the building to start with, were to come upon it suddenly today he or she might well not even recognize it.
It is not uncommon today for us to come across a news item concerning the demolition of an older building to make way for a change. Confusion often reigns in t the mind of those who do not wish such a change to be made. Each individual seems to have his or her memories of what the old building was to them at one time, and they seem to be certain theirs is the only valid view. Impasse leads to less discussion and the best laid plans often fall apart.
Restoration workmen must even eliminate prime features in order to meet the demands of the stickler for including minor details. The restoration of a fine old hotel will, I dare say, not include a bright, shiny, brass cuspidor based at each column in the lobby. The dining room will no longer overlook the hotels livery stables, and the hotel driveway out front will not have to be swept down after each coaches departure. The work-a-day tasks of the chambermaids and other hotel employees will have been modified somewhat, as well.
Often, that which remains after the restoration, is evidence enough that the place was,indeed, ready for a remake or elimination. You decide, of course, which way it will go. If you are currently making such a decision, you have my sympathies.
A.L,M.. February 4, 2005 [c389wds]
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
ARTS AND DOERS THEREOF....
Who, among us, can be truly called an "artist"?
The term is batted around rather loosely these days, in the entertainment field in particular and elsewhere, and now seems to be based on the premise of who can best excite the attention of fame makers in the form of followers, imitators, devotees of various grades, chronic applauders, and dedicated critics and fault-finders who keep the pot boiling with conflict, habitual opposition and senseless bickering over unimportant but newsworthy bits of information either true or false.
It appears today that we use the term without limits but I have an idea that has always been true to some extent. It makes a far better news story if the murderer can be depicted as a frustrated artist having owned a watercoloring set at one time when he tried to paint some watercolors at the beach one summer. Lack of praise and appreciation for his initial efforts led to a career of crime. We are led to believe he had the mind of an artist, deeming perfection his constant aim.
In polite society, I would have to call all that sort of talk: "Balderdash!"
So often, I feel, the true artist is any one who does what he does - paints, sings, draws, acts, writes, plays a musical instrument primarily for the sheer pleasure he gets from doing so, is an artist or becoming one. No man has ever labored at doing a fine thing well. As man truly loves what he does, so he becomes more and more qualified to be really good at doing whatever it may be. I have known cooks who were engaged in the development of works of culinary art, but with a far greater "practical" view as to its purpose and use than other "artists. His gain is in seeing his work used by others as intended, and, thus properly praised.
The feeling of joy in the doing thereof will tell you when our are thinking and acting as an artist should; or it can be seen in others if you are courageous enough and willing, even eager, to guide them on their way when they most need help to face up to those evil qualities of life when say it cannot be. A few minutes of your time spent to acknowledge that which you see in them which is good; perhaps even to share a personal gift - a small portion of your own dreams. Added to that which they already have, it could be your greatest contribution to art for its own sake.
The urge to be an artist flies in the face of financial fact. There is no half-way point at which one can turn aide and say "enough... no more." Art goes all the way; as far as you can take it.
A.L.M January 31, 2005 [c482wds]
Sunday, January 30, 2005
TRUST?
I need an answer to a political question.
What, exactly, in plain English, does the term:"Trust Fund" mean when is used in relation to the Social Security program under which we have been living for these many years? I have yet to be given a clear picture of exactly what it was originally intended to be or to accomplish in time. If not, it would seem we are justified in asking for some explanation as to why it has not done so, is not working out as planned, or if it is a downright fabrication which allows other ends to be achieved without condemnation.
By keeping the Trust Fund as a internal secret, the agency has done the entire nation a great disservice. By allowing other parts of the governmental machinery to "legally" drain off earnings of the two established trust funds as they wished can be seen only as an intended means of built-in wrongdoing. The technical facts which make it all seem to be a legal activity does not make it "honest", however. Common decency required that it be corrected. It would, in a practical sense, be unwise for us to try to punish those who did the original wrong, but we should be able to bring an immediate halt to the pilfering of designated trust funds for other uses in the governmental system.
The future of the entire Social Security System depends on our willingness to do so. The books are being "cooked" in street parlance. It must be stopped.
There are two such Trust Funds known as: "OASI" and "DI". All "Old Age and Survivor Benefits" are paid from "OASI.". All "Disability Insurance" are paid from "DI.".
The assets of the larger trust fund (OASI) was almost totally depleted as recently as the year 1982. No beneficiary was shortchanged because the Congress stepped, jerry-rigged, and quickly passed "temporary, emergency" legislation which enabled the federal to borrow. The funds borrowed which brought the Trust Fund so close to extinction were, it appears, paid back four years later.
We can all learn that much simply by looking at semi-public records, but I would like to know to what extent they compensated for the use of their accumulated funds. We should have available public records showing exactly how the funds are fairing at all times. Their management should not be a a political football to tossed about or kicked around at will.
Go back to l982. Check out who was "in charge" at various levels of our governmental structure if you wish to determine who has caused difficulties in the past - and judge with known facts in mind.
A.L.M. January 30, 2005 [c452wds]
|
|
