Blog Archives

132 Halloween and VOTING!

10/30/2018

It’s Fall.  It’s getting colder and the leaves are turning and falling.  We’ve even had snow for a few minutes here in Omaha!  Better still, it’s almost Halloween, probably my favorite holiday of the year. Of course, it’s really Samhain (/ˈsɑːwɪn), which is an ancient Gaelic festival marking the end of the harvest and the beginning of winter. Samhain is also related to the Mexican Day of the Dead and Celtic festivals honoring the turn of the year, the end of harvest and one’s ancestors.  There are/were other festivals of a somewhat similar nature in other cultures, as well.  All of these go back farther than Christianity, and the early Christians weren’t exactly sure what to do about these “pagan” festivals, which they had considerable difficulty in trying to suppress.  So, as they did with many “pagan” celebrations, they took some pains to modify them and adopt them into appropriately “Christian” events, since they were going to happen in any case.

Looking specifically at Samhain, during the Ninth Century, the Christian Church moved All Saint’s Day from May to November 1, probably in an effort to “Christianize” Samhain.  The Church also (later) introduced All Soul’s Day on November 2, probably to provide a “Christian” holiday to supplant the practice of honoring one’s ancestors during the older festival.  In any event, under the Church, these holidays became jointly known as Allhallowtide and included All Hallows’ Eve (October 31st, the eve of All Hallows), which is what eventually came to be called Halloween.

In any event, I enjoy Halloween, and I am, apparently, not alone as it is reported that it is second only to Christmas in terms of the amount of money spent on house decorations, parties, costumes, food, etc.  Some “Christians,” of course, insist that Halloween is “the Devil’s Night,” ignoring the fact that it’s named for a Christian Church holiday, probably because the Church referred to is the Roman Catholic Church.  (Note to the uninformed: The Roman Church WAS the Christian Church until the Protestant Reformation [1517 C.E., and after], but history doesn’t seem to be of much importance to some “believers.”)  It may also be worth noting that some “reformers,” like my Salem ancestors, forbade the celebration of any “holidays,” including Christmas and Easter, as too “Popish” to be worthy of mention.

I don’t care.  I like Halloween and have many fond memories of “trick or treating” as a child, hayrides, etc., as I got older, more “trick or treating” with my own kids, having costume-wearing kids (including, on occasion, some of my students) come to the door of our house, etc.  I also think it’s fun to indulge in a bit of costumed horseplay and fantasy every so often.  It seems unlikely to me that this is really going to hurt anyone very much, in spite of the “anti-Halloween” celebrations I have seen advertised by some groups.

In any event, I hope you have some fun this Halloween.  Dig up a costume, have a party, indulge in some treats.  Winter is coming with its dark days and long nights.

I saw this cartoon a while back and thought it very amusing, so I thought I’d include it:

So, now that the Halloween witches are able to use more up-to-date technology to mix up a batch of “brew,” I thought I’d also include Lord Fluff’s poem about “Sam Hain,” which I used in post #73, back in 2016.  It’s not great poetry, but I think it’s worth repeating.

Sam Hain

By Lord Fluff

Who is this guy they call Sam Hain?
I see his name in witchy books;
But when I ask my witchy friends;
They just give me the strangest looks.

He seems to be so important;
And everyone knows him but me;
Each year they throw him a party;
It sounds like THE cool place to be!

When I ask my friends what he’s like;
They all practically turn and run;
I need to get to know Sam Hain;
So I can join in all the fun!

I asked friends to introduce me;
I’ll have to introduce myself;
‘Cuz when I asked they looked at me;
As if I’m a demented elf!

So I searched the yellow pages;
I called up information too;
I just can’t find this guy Sam Hain;
I surfed the web ’til I turned blue!

I’ve heard my witchy friends planning;
And although they’ll think I’m a pain;
I’m going to crash his party;
Then I’ll finally meet Sam Hain!

Moving right along…

I see from my calendar that we have an election coming up pretty soon, so I want to remind everyone of the importance of voting (I hope everyone is registered).

You see, there is this rumor that we live in a democracy.  That’s not really accurate.  We live in a representative democracy, where we elect folks to vote for us as a group, rather than having to deal with of the clunky process of every person having to vote on every issue (a direct democracy).  That, at least to me, makes the choice of who represents me of considerable importance, as I can’t be sure of exactly what the issues will be before I have my next chance to choose someone else to represent me.

As I do care about the issues of the day, in spite of trying to avoid discussing into them in this blog, I try to be careful to vote for people who seem to share my beliefs and ideas about the direction we should be going in the various governments in which I participate.

I’m not going to belabor the point, but it’s a bit like the lottery, if you don’t enter, you can’t win. I have no sympathy for folks who want to complain about the government, but who don’t even bother to make a decision as to who they want to represent them and follow through with casting their ballot in support of their choices.

So, VOTE already!

LLAP

P.S. I also think that the notion of acting to limit, restrict, or even just make difficult the right of other citizens to express their support for their choices is about the most “unamerican” idea that I have encountered.

P.P.S. I’m rather fond of this advice from Robert A. Heinlein regarding voting:
If you are part of a society that votes, then do so.  There may be no candidates and no measures you want to vote for... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against.  In case of doubt, vote against.  By this rule you will rarely go wrong.  If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice.  Then vote the other way.  This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.

However you do it, VOTE!

0 Comments

131 Jokes From the Bar (the one with booze, lawyers will come at some later moment)

10/19/2018

0 Comments

I confess: I don’t drink a lot.  That is, I don’t drink beer, wine, or whiskey very much, or very often.  Now, that does not mean that I am a teetotaler.  I do have an occasional drink (there really is nothing quite like a pint of Guinness) it’s just that alcohol isn’t something that I consider to be of particular importance. That's probably due, in part, to the fact that Bonnie really never drinks; she just doesn't enjoy it, which doesn't bother me a bit.

Still, the other day it occurred to me how much a part alcohol (and the bars where we consume it) plays in our comedy, so I thought I’d put together a blog post related to booze and bar humor.  I’m sure that I haven’t even scratched the surface, but here are some examples of what I found.

From The Tragedy of Macbeth: II, iii; (a.k.a. “The Scottish Play” because theatre people are concerned about the curse on that play, with which I am entirely too familiar):

MACDUFF. What three things does drink especially provoke?

PORTER. Marry, sir, nose-painting, sleep, and urine. Lechery, sir,
it provokes and unprovokes: it provokes the desire, but it takes
away the performance. Therefore, much drink may be said to be an
equivocator with lechery: it makes him, and it mars him; it sets
him on, and it takes him off; it persuades him and disheartens
him; makes him stand to and not stand to; in conclusion,
equivocates him in a sleep, and giving him the lie, leaves him.

On the subject of drinking humor, for some reason the Irish always seem to play a major role.  I suspect that this is due to the evils (laziness, drunkenness, lechery, stupidity, etc.) projected on the Irish people by King Billy’s folk.  The similarities to the bigoted prejudices against “Jim Crow” are striking, but I guess you can tell that my heritage includes a good deal of the Irish.  Of course, there have been similar statements about most (probably all) of the groups which have been singled out for discrimination, but it seems to have stuck on the Irish more than most of the others.

In any event, there are a lot of alcohol-related jokes which involve the Irish, some of which are pretty good.  I confess that I do like this advice from a dying nun:

The wise old Mother Superior from County Tipperary was dying.

The nuns gathered around her bed trying to make her comfortable.

They gave her some warm milk to drink, but she refused it.  One of the nuns took the glass back to the kitchen.

Remembering a bottle of Irish whiskey received as a gift the previous Christmas, she opened it and poured a generous amount into the warm milk.

Back at Mother Superior's bed, she held the glass to her lips.  Mother Superior drank a little, then a little more.  Before they knew it, she had drunk the whole glass down to the last drop.

"Mother," the nuns pleaded, "Please give us some wisdom before you pass."

She raised herself up in bed with a pious look on her face and said: "Don't sell that cow."

I also like this one a good deal:

Two men were sitting next to each other at O’Reilly’s Pub in London.  After a while, one bloke looks at the other and says, “I can’t help but think, from listening to you, that you’re from Ireland.”

The other bloke responds proudly, “Yes, that I am!”

The first one says, “So am I!  And where about from Ireland might you be?”

The other bloke answers, “I’m from Dublin, I am.”

The first one responds, “So am I!” “Mother Mary, faith and begorrah.  And what street did you live on in Dublin?”

The other bloke says, “A lovely little area it was.  I lived on McCleary Street in the old central part of town.”

The first one says, “And it’s a small world, isn’t it.  So did I! So did I!  And to what school would you have been going?”

The other bloke answers, “Well now, I went to St. Mary’s, of course.”  The first one gets really excited and says, “And so did I.  Tell me, what year did you graduate?”

The other bloke answers, “Well, now, let’s see.  I graduated in 1964.”

The first one exclaims, “The Good Lord must be smiling down upon us!  I can hardly believe our good luck at winding up in the same place tonight.  Can you believe it, I graduated from St. Mary’s in 1964 my own self!”

About this time, Vicky, a regular patron walks up to the bar, sits down and orders a drink.  Brian, the barman, walks over to her, shaking his head and mutters, “It’s going to be a long night tonight.”

She asks, “Why do you say that, Brian?”

“The Murphy twins are drunk again.”

Still, not all bar/drinking humor is Irish-related.  I like this story of changing needs as we grow older…

A 77-year-old man is having a drink in a Chicago bar.  Suddenly a gorgeous girl enters and sits down a few seats away.  The girl is so attractive that he just can't take his eyes off her.  After a short while, the girl notices him staring, and approaches him.

Before the man has time to apologize, the girl looks him deep in the eyes and says to him in a sultry tone: "I'll do anything you'd like.  Anything you can imagine in your wildest dreams, it doesn't matter how extreme or unusual it is, I'm game.  I want $100, and there's another condition."

Completely stunned by the sudden turn of events, the man asks her what her condition is.

"You have to tell me what you want me to do in just three words.”

The man takes a moment to consider the offer from the beautiful woman.  He whips out his wallet and puts $100 dollars in her hand... then looks her square in the eyes and says slowly and clearly: "Paint my house."

I ran across this the other day from one of my “usual sources” of humor, and I liked it enough that I thought I’d include it.

A guy was sitting at the bar, staring at his drink when a large, trouble-making biker steps up next to him, grabs his drink and gulps it down in one swig.

"Well, whatcha' gonna do about it?" he said, menacingly, as the guy burst into tears.  "Come on, man," the biker says, "I didn't think you'd cry.  I can't stand to see a man cry."

"This is the worst day of my life," the man said.  "I'm a complete failure.  I was late to a meeting and my boss fired me.  When I went to the parking lot, I found my car had been stolen and I don't have any insurance.  I left my wallet in the cab I took home.  I found my wife with another man ... and then my dog bit me."

"So, I came to this bar to work up the courage to put an end to it all.  I buy a drink, I drop a capsule in it and sit here watching the poison dissolve.  Then you show up and drink the whole damn thing!”

“But, Hell, enough about me, how are you doing?"

Here's another that I have enjoyed:

A man walks into a bar and says, “Give me a beer before the problems start!”

He drinks the beer and then orders another saying, “Give me a beer before the problems start!”

The bartender looks confused.  This goes on for a while, and after the fifth beer the bartender is totally confused and asks the man “When are you going to pay for these beers?”

The man answers, “Now the problems start!”

DKJ, my brother-in-law knows that I like language humor, so he sent these to me a while back.  I noted at the time that they all seemed “bar/booze” related, so I kept them for some future need (like now).  Anyway, he says that he got them from a friend, who got them from a friend, etc. …. In any case, enjoy!

A malapropism walks into a bar, looking for all intensive purposes like a wolf in cheap clothing, muttering epitaphs and casting dispersions on his magnificent other, who takes him for granite.

A dangling participle walks into a bar. Enjoying a cocktail and chatting with the bartender, the evening passes pleasantly.

A bar was walked into by the passive voice.

An oxymoron walked into a bar, and the silence was deafening.

Two quotation marks walk into a “bar.”

Hyperbole totally rips into this insane bar and absolutely destroys everything.

A question mark walks into a bar?

A non sequitur walks into a bar.  In a strong wind, even turkeys can fly.

Papyrus, Helvetica and Comic Sans walk into a bar. The bartender says, "Get out -- we don't serve your type."

A mixed metaphor walks into a bar, seeing the handwriting on the wall but hoping to nip it in the bud.

A comma splice walks into a bar, it has a drink and then leaves.

Three intransitive verbs walk into a bar.  They sit.  They converse.  They depart.

A synonym strolls into a tavern.

At the end of the day, a cliché walks into a bar -- fresh as a daisy, cute as a button, and sharp as a tack.

A run-on sentence walks into a bar it starts flirting.  With a cute little sentence fragment.

Falling slowly, softly falling, the chiasmus collapses to the bar floor.

A figure of speech literally walks into a bar and ends up getting figuratively hammered.

An allusion walks into a bar, despite the fact that alcohol is its Achilles heel.

The subjunctive would have walked into a bar, had it only known.

A misplaced modifier walks into a bar owned by a man with a glass eye named Ralph.

The past, present, and future walked into a bar. It was tense.

A dyslexic walks into a bra.

A verb walks into a bar, sees a beautiful noun, and suggests they conjugate.  The noun declines.

An Oxford comma walks into a bar, where it spends the evening watching the television getting drunk and smoking cigars.

A simile walks into a bar, as parched as a desert.

A gerund and an infinitive walk into a bar, drinking to forget.

A hyphenated word and a non-hyphenated word walk into a bar and the bartender nearly chokes on the irony.

Anyway, I hope these gave you a smile, or two.

LLAP

0 Comments

130 SALEM 1962 -- We Know What Happened, Why It Did Is Harder

10/4/2018

0 Comments

I recently read quite an interesting book called The Salem Witch Trials: A Day-by-Day Chronicle of a Community under Siege by Marilynne K. Roach.  Now, I’m not sure I would suggest it to others as a great example of “light” reading, as I found it rather slow and ponderous with some frequency and it took me longer to get through it than I expected.  On the other hand, I do have a good deal of personal interest in the events centered on Salem, MA, in 1692 (see “About This Website”), so I did decide to plow my way through the book, despite some difficulties.  So, what was hard about this book?
In the interests of honesty, I had hopes for some more adequate explanation of the events and their cause(s).  What I discovered was that I wasn’t going to find that in this source.  But, I have to admit that the book was exactly as advertised; a day-by-day discussion of the “witchcraft” related events from January 1, 1692 through January of 1697, as things were happening on a daily basis for much of this period. If one adds to that some Prologue and Introduction and some Epilogue, you have a large book (over 700 pages including Notes, Bibliography, etc.).  The writing style is what I would call “academic,” that is, it’s not intended to be casual reading, it’s intended as a serious, historical study of the facts surrounding this incident in colonial history.  I think it’s fair to say that Roach was not trying to offer any particular explanation of why or how these events occurred but was attempting to bring together as complete a documented record as possible of what actually happened with little, or no, discussion as to why.

By the end, what I learned was, in fact a good deal.  What I had previously thought to be a fairly small, isolated incident centered in one Puritan community was revealed to be a fairly lengthy series of events of a substantially greater nature; involving essentially the entirety of the New England colonies from New York to Maine and having serious impacts on a very large number of people for at least five years (and some continuing consequences down to the present.

What most people “know” about these events they (apparently) got from Arthur Miller’s play, The Crucible, or the movie/TV versions of it.  Of course, one doesn’t have to look very hard at Miller’s work to discover that he was not writing a “history” play, but a play about the early 1950’s set in the historical period of 1692.  To put it bluntly, he got it wrong and he knew he did because he said so.  His interest was more in discussing what he saw as the parallels between the events of the McCarthy era and Salem than in revealing anything about the Salem experience, itself.

I guess that what this book drove home to me, more than anything else, was that (like so many things in history) it was far more complex and complicated than many “historians” would like you to believe. Yes, I understand that the straightforward theory which “solves” the question of why some event happened, or “explains” the existence of some artifact can be very satisfying and can serve to help someone obtain tenure or make a good deal of money because it explains (in one short, easy to understand book [generally with few notes and more theory than factual basis]) such things as “The Meaning of Stonehenge: How it was Built and Why!” in 200 pages or less for only $10.95.  I’m unconvinced that ANY of such discussions are actually likely to go very far towards an adequate explanation.  That’s been my problem with Salem, even before I encountered Roach’s book. After reading her book, I am even less convinced by any of the “explanations” I have encountered.

After a pretty close reading of Roach’s discussion, what I find revealed is a community centered around Salem, but which included many other communities in the area which were caught in a vast network of petty squabbles focused around political and social power, lawsuits over land titles and inheritances, and the influences of (and over) the local church. I don’t think one can emphasize strongly enough the role of the church in essentially ALL events in the Massachusetts colonies.

One must remember that the many small communities within the larger colony were all centered on the church as a major focus of political and social power.  It was also intimately tied into the legal structure, especially since the educational system [mostly Harvard] was heavily focused on providing appropriately trained Protestant ministers, although some graduates did pursue careers in business and/or law.  Still, the essential training was focused on a specific view of religion.

One also must remember (or know) that while attendance at church was expected (if not required), it was not democratic. Given the Calvinistic nature of these churches, there were those who simply attended (the great mass of people) and those who formed the REAL church, who had been accepted to be able to participate in the sacrament of bread and wine and were, therefore, FULL members of the church.  While this status did have obligations, it was, in fact, also a sign of advanced social status.

One must also remember that women (who made up the majority of those accused of witchcraft) were also definitely second-class citizens at this time (I’m not sure that’s really changed a lot, no matter what we say!) and were, in large measure, poorly educated (Roach is constantly noting females actually signing documents with a mark, and many of those who ultimately “confessed” to witchcraft stated that they made a mark or simply touched the “Devil’s book” which was being offered to them.  There is some reason (at least I think so, based on what I have read) to believe that a large portion of these colonial women not only couldn’t write, but couldn’t read either, although that may well not have been true of the “higher classes.”

There was also a virtually constant and ongoing threat of physical attack from the French in Canada and their allies from among the indigenous population.  We have to remember that, while the King in England “gave” the colonies to the various groups, the land had been in use by others for a long time, and the French King also disputed the right of the English King to claim (and dispose) of this land.  Given this, there was, essentially, a constant state of war with attacks of small, outlying communities and land being conquered and reconquered with some frequency and various people being captured, held as hostage, released (or not) and, certainly, being killed and/or scalped on a constant basis.

It also appears, based on Roach’s listing, that these were fairly litigious people, often at odds with each other and suing and/or threatening each other over all kinds of occurrences, and engaging in various sorts of legal/religious infractions (the number of comments about people admitting to “fornication” I found to be staggering).  I was led to the conclusion that these people were certainly NOT what is usually believed (or implied) about these people who came to this country to establish “God’s country.”

Once the accusations of witchcraft broke out (it’s worth noting that they kept expanding for months, seemingly ending only when they went so far as to accuse socially prominent people like the Royal Governor’s wife), the whole process was, logically enough, conducted by the educated elite, who were trained primarily as ministers.  Most were, in fact, prominent businessmen or lawyers, but their education (all have college degrees, I believe) would have largely been the same as for ministers.  And, the “trial” process clearly operated on the assumptions that: 1.) there were witches; 2.) witches were responsible for the experiences of the “possessed” accusers; 3.) the accusers claims to encountering the spectral figures of the accused (who would try to force them to “sign the Devil’s book,” etc., and would torture them if they refused) were clearly true (based on the judges’ and jury’s actions in court).

All too often, when brought in for questioning, or trial, the judges (who also acted as prosecutors and were also expected to provide fair advice to the defendant) would begin with such questions as “With what spirits are you familiar?”, or “Why do you hurt these children?”  Thus, there is an appearance of an assumption of guilt right off the bat.  The continued reliance on “spectral” evidence throughout the trials (even though opposed by some clergy in a rather “wishy-washy” manner) also seems to continue the assumption of guilt.  Certainly, there seems to have been an attitude of requiring an accused to “prove” her/his innocence in the face of “tormented” accusers, whose “evidence” consisted of screams, shouts, and “visions” available only to them, etc.

It’s worth noting (I think) that the majority (but not all) of the “afflicted” accusers were unmarried, young women and most (again, not all) of the accused were women.  When you consider that women were likely the group with the least socio/political power in the community, I find it hard to feel any assurance that at least part of what was behind the “afflictions” was simply a desire to feel powerful.  That’s not to suggest that psychosomatic conditions are not real, just that their causes can easily be misunderstood, and, as a result, become “reasons” for inappropriate actions.

Much of what this seems to boil down to, at least for me, is that a relatively small group of men were trying to maintain their own power in a situation which was largely out of their control.  After all, there was political turmoil between England (the mother country) and France; a, perhaps, somewhat low key, but real, state of war with the French in Canada and their allies from some indigenous tribes; socio/political/religious complications regarding the obligations of church membership and the desire for the Salem Village (farming) community to have its own church separate from the Salem Town (mostly business) community; ongoing conflicts between and within family structures over property rights, inheritances, etc.; dependence on royal authority for major decisions which led to a state of uncertainty for extended periods of time; to say nothing of the likelihood of personality clashes within the community and, probably, other tensions I can’t think of at the moment.

Then, something happened in Salem Village.  Two young girls seemed to be afflicted with an unknown condition which was eventually blamed on “witchcraft.”  It’s quite understandable that the powerful elite of the community would try to assert that they could control and contain this phenomenon.  When it didn’t work quickly and easily, it’s not really surprising that the complications were severe and, probably, became mixed up with other causes, other grudges, other quarrels.

Eventually, although it took years, common sense would prevail, and all of the accused would be declared innocent, although that didn’t do much for those who had been killed.  The fact that it took until 2001 for the law to finally clear all of the accused, seems to say a good deal about the slowness of the law and the unwillingness of politicians to acknowledge wrongs they have committed and to take steps to correct them.  The fact is, of course, that the system did, eventually, resolve this, when enough people had rubbed their noses in their mess long enough.  It’s enough to give one hope that current messes might , eventually, get cleaned up.

All this being the case, Roach’s bibliography is extensive (eleven plus pages of VERY small print) and includes the personal letters and papers of many of the figures involved, records from the investigations and trials, many other scholarly studies, and on, and on.  It’s also obvious that Roach was quite familiar with these materials as the text of the book is heavily noted with the sources of the material as it is being presented.  All things considered, this doesn’t make for easy reading, but, at least for one with some interest in these events, such as myself, it was definitely worth the time and trouble to follow through on reading the entire book.

LLAP

0 Comments

132 Halloween and VOTING!

131 Jokes From the Bar (the one with booze, lawyers will come at some later moment)

130 SALEM 1962 -- We Know What Happened, Why It Did Is Harder

Archives

Categories