My Home Page

Welcome to
the Cayuga Nest's 
thinking department!


Click on any of my thoughts that may seem to be of interest to you.
Some are frivolous and others are deadly serious. And some are quite technical.
• • Or click HERE for a Precis • •

The Religious Conundrum

Good, Bad or Indifferent?

"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people". Mother Teresa (1910 - 1997).

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich" Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821).
"There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages". Richard Lederer (1938 - ).
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." 
 Jonathan Swift (1667 - 1745)

So I guess there is no point in me trying either. But then why should I care what others think or believe in? After all I am a “live and let live” (LALL) person.
The trouble is, are they? And can I just ignore their behaviour to the rest of us?
And therein lies the rub. It is very difficult to, using a biblical term, “turn the other cheek”.
Perhaps I should ask “what are the advantages of being in a religion?” Would I be a better person, would I be happier? It’s a bit like joining a club. Although I may be able to make useful contributions, I still need to know what would be in it for me?
They tell me I will have a soul which will put me into a superior category and separate me from all other living creatures on this globe. Wow; that is really something!
And I understand that this privilege allows us to abuse the rest of our fauna in what ever way we choose, way way beyond our food chain requirements. We can condemn them to imprisonment in Zoos; we can kill them just for fun and make them suffer in the name of sport and entertainment.
Well that’s a bit of a turn off for me. It doesn’t fit my LALL persona. And religions either directly or tacitly approve of such treatment to our fauna. They certainly do not condemn.
So what else?

All religions without exception are blatantly sexist. I’m told the Bible was written by God through the hands of men. (Is that true of the Koran as well?) Apparently God didn’t use the hands of any women. So he (I assume God is supposed to be a he) must have been the ultimate sexist!

I’m certainly not happy with that. And often as not, they discriminate, perhaps more subtly, for other totally irrational reasons such as colour of skin, class, differing beliefs – you name it. And that is not good at all. A big NO NO.

I was lucky. In my formative years; I was about 14, and had a very close school buddy. One day I was making some disparaging remarks about Jews. To which my buddy retorted, “I am a Jew”. I am eternally grateful to him, in that those four words taught me that any form of discrimination was totally irrational and to be deplored.
Well there’s got to be something in religion that would attract me!
"When lip service to some mysterious deity permits bestiality on Wednesday and absolution on Sunday, cash me out."  Frank Sinatra (1915 - 1998)
It does seem, at times, there is one law for the rich and famous and one for the poor. But it also seems at times that the church is above the law! Is that a good enough reason to join? Not really, because it also clashes with my LALL attitude. It has concerned me that child abuse can go on, and yet be covered up and allowed to continue. And what other crimes are being covered up?
No I don’t think I could be seen to condone that!
Ok then; what about fighting wars?
I don’t claim to be a top notch historian, but consider there has only been one just and necessary war since the turn of the 20th Century. That was WWII. Hitler was said to be an atheist. Well if he was, then that would explain why that particular war had to be fought. Pretty well every other war has been religious or anti religious.
And directly or indirectly all wars are driven by religious people.
Tony Blair, being responsible for the death of a few hundred thousand innocent lives, on his retirement declared he had no regrets, while preparing to become a Roman Catholic! No doubt the Pope will give him a thousand blessings!
George W Bush is a “born again Christian” and John Howard (Australia’s prime minister), well, whatever his religion, he preys for rain!
When I served my National service in 1949/50, I had the opportunity to make the navy my career. But could not see myself as a war machine and returned to Civvy Street.
So I guess religion’s associations with war does not impress me either.
There is of course the Jehovah Witnesses who were given a special dispensation during WWII as Conscientious objectors. But oddly enough, they condone corporal punishment of little children! Just another form of child abuse. A touch of hypocrisy I think. Besides they spend most of the time knocking on people’s doors like pestering salesmen!
"We have just enough religion to make us hate but not enough religion to make us love one another."
Jonathan Swift (1667 - 1745)
Religion is supposed to be about love isn’t it? But instead all I see is considerable affluence in some religions, with the leaders in all their wealth and refinery, dictating to and expecting the poor to come and kiss their hand as if they were something other than their equals. In fact with the exception of the “Mother Teresas” of this world, there is very little love to be found within any religion.

So I just cannot seem to find anything attractive with any religion, and there are too many negatives for me to become associated with them. Maybe, one day they will learn the folly of their ways and beliefs. Who knows?

As for me, I’m not much bothered about having a soul. And it is just as well I do not accept that we are all created by "God" and that my Mum and Dad had nothing to do with it! Otherwise I would be suffering severe withdrawal symptoms!
In conclusion it seems that my views are so diametrically opposite, I would have to stay with the Marxist (Groucho) philosophy and say,
"I would not join a religion that would have me in its flock".   Brian Pay (1931 - )

(posted  June 2007)

• return to My Home Page • Or check the Precis •

Precis

Reforming the House of Lords An elected upper house must be better than the rabble of failed MPs, jobs for the boys, back handers, hereditary peers and religious nuts. We must be able to do better than that!

The Politics of Democracy The covenience of opinion swings!

Musical Memories All that jazz with a touch of the classics. How I learned to appreciate the best music. But I would say that wouldn't I?

Legend of the Cayuga Nest I started building a house in 1964, and finished up living in a cayuga nest!

High Fidelity has been the goal of all audio engineers starting with Edison himself. We have come a long way with audio technology. But have we finally reached the ultimate in sound quality?

Dimensions through the ages have been selected and invented by us to be appropriate for the job in hand. But for some unknown reason the beurocrats seem to think we should only use metres, grammes and litres!

Do we love our Fauna? Have we the right to abuse animals the way we all do? Anything from a fashion accessory dog to the most gruesome torture imaginable.

The Religious Conundrum Are there any facets of religion that are so admirable that we should consider embracing it for the good of all?

return to My Home Page

The Politics of Democracy

Some people believe that cyclic party swings are inevitable and has nothing to do with policies or popularity! There are times when it certainly seems like that. And I think also, that this is a pernicious evil of the system.
For example, there are things which one party will do but the other would not dare to do. For example a Labour Government would not realistically privatise an industry, but would feign objection when a Conservative Government were so to do!
During the 17 years of Tory rule in the UK, VAT leapt from 8% to a swingeing 17.5%! Also working practices and strike rules were heavily modified. These are typical "right wing" philosophies along with privatizing everything under the sun.
Needless to say, the opposing Labour party were “officially” against all of this. Yet after 10 years of a “New” Labour Government, all the Conservative changes are still firmly in place!

Now, Tony Blair and company have well and truly blotted their copy book due to the atrocities in Iraq. So will conveniently lose the next General Election!
One thing is for certain, however. Should the Conservatives win the next election, as sure as summer follows spring, VAT will be increased to 20%!**
The right wing German Government have already done this, and it is something Gordon Brown could not do but would have loved to!
Yes it is very convenient that there are popularity swings and it would be folly for me to suggest that there was a bit of rigging going on!
This is just one of the “politics of democracy”, the wonderful system we want to inflict on the Iraqis.


Footnote: **That prediction was easy. And when Labour get back into power, the 20% VAT will stay firmly in place!
• return to My Home Page • Or check the Precis •

(posted May 2007 & updated Aug 2011)

Reforming the House of Lords

Winston Churchill once said that democracy was a pretty dreadful system of government. But “show me one that is better”. 
Perhaps a potted history is worth a glance. 
Originally the House of Loads ran the show. And as the name implies, we were run by Lords.
What’s more they were hereditary Peers. They were running the country by stint of the accident of birth! 
However, power was being shifted to the House of Commons albeit very slowly. And to cut a long story short, it was in 1911 that the Lords could do little more than stall the progress of legislation. 
For those who would like to know the whole story, I can recommend two excellent web sites. (Just click on either) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_House_of_Commons

I should point out here, that these two sites are my only source of information, and rely entirely on their integrity and acuracy. But as I am discussing a principle, there is no need for exact figures.

As to why we need an upper house is a mute point. But every country that has based its system on the British, do have two houses! But in every case, both houses are elected. 
What I think the UK needs is an elected upper house that does have some relevant powers. 

Proportional representation 
In my book the way the House of Commons is elected is fine. There are so many advantages it should not in any way be modified. But it is not perfect and an upper house with seats distributed in proportion to how we vote, would provide a good balanced setup depending upon what powers this new upper house will be given! 
If there had been an elected upper house at the last election in 2010, the House of Lords would have been allocated seats as a proportion of the votes won, nation wide. The table below just shows the first 11 parties out of a total of nearly 50!

						As a proportion, the
		Percentage		Commons		no. of upper
		of votes		seats		house seats
Conserative		36.1		306		284
Labour		29		258		229
Lib Dems		23		57		182
UKIP		3.1		0		25
BNP		1.9		0		15
SNP		1.7		6		13
Green		1		1		8
Sinn  Fein		0.6		5		5
Democratic Unionist		0.6		8		5
Plaid Cymru		0.6		3		5
SDLP		0.4		3		3

These are my figures calculated from the data supplied in the above mentioned Web sites. 

The actual make up of the Life Peers in the Lords in 2010:

		Labour		242
		Conservatives		217
		Lib. Dems		92
		Cross Benchers		184
		Others		30

To add to that total, there are also 24 Lords Spiritual! So much for our secular democracy! And something like 88 hereditary peers. And if nothing is done, these will go on ad infinitum. A bit like nuclear waste! But at least there are 184 cross benchers. These are the folk who do not align themselves to any party.

You’ll note there is a majority of labour peers in a house which is fundamentally a conservative club! 
The introduction of life peers did mean that as soon as Tony Blair got into power, he created enough life peers to get his head in front. Of course, as soon as the Conservatives got back into power they could redress the balance in their favour. 

I assume that the reason David Cameron has not done this, is because the coalition (Conservatives and Lib Dems together) do have a majority.

The introduction of life peers far from making the house more democratic, it became a source for possible corruption and a distribution fixed by the party who happens to be in power, and also a haven for failed politicians! Can we really trust such a rabble to take any responsibilities at all? Not in my book. 
Surely we can do better than that! 

So, how to elect the upper house by proportional representation? 
People will blow their top at my controversial suggestion! They will say “it is not democratic”, “I didn’t have a say”, “they are just also rans”. And no doubt a few others I have not thought of. 
My approach is both simple and cost effective. And therein lies the rub. Have you ever come across a bureaucracy who will do something both simple and cheap when they can find a way of doing it 10 times more complicated and expensive?! 
My  method: You have a general election exactly as it has been. Nothing different at all. Then the upper house is elected with the aid of a  computer from all the collected results.
For example: Based on the proportion of votes, Lib Dems should be allocated 182 of the available seats. The 182 seats are awarded to those Lib Dems who scored most votes as a percentage of each individual’s constituency but who did not actually win the House of Commons seat. 
As simple as that. And actually will not cost anything at all because these sorts of statistics are done anyway. Or most of them. 
Now for the criticisms. 
"All 182 winners might all be from the South East." 
Well yes, in theory that could be, but unlikely. Maybe one would have to divide the country up and take some from each area. The problem here would be getting someone who has lost his/her deposit being the only one available in that area! And also, what do we do about the party who is only entitled to 1 seat. 
 "I didn’t have a say"
Quite the opposite. Your vote counts twice. If you are fortunate to have your choice win, your vote also is added into the total helping to increase your chosen party’s proportion. If your choice loses the Commons seat, your vote not only increases the proportion but also helps to get your man/lady selected to the Upper House. 
 "They are just 'also rans'" 
That’s like saying Silver medallists are 'also rans'! I don’t think so. But the whole principle of proportional representation is an integrating or smoothing exercise, ironing out all the peaks of popularity and excellence. 
 "It is not Democratic" 
Well, there is no way any one member in the Commons or the Upper house can get in without having received a hell of a lot of votes. Compare that with the shambles and dare I say corruptness in the House of Lords now! 
I'm sure there are a few rough edges to be honed, but I feel the principle would provide an elected Upper House of responsible members who could be trusted to have more powers than the present House of Lords. 
If Winston Churchill could hear this I’m sure he would approve. After all he was one of a very small club who had the balls to refuse a peerage. 
Footnote: This new upper house will not have a cross bench. It would be nice to have a totally non partisan house. But that is a Utopian dream I’m afraid. 

(posted May 2007, & updated Aug 2011)

• return to My Home Page • Or check the Precis •

Musical Memories

Or how I became a Jazz Nutter!

I'm not sure when I became more than peripherally interested in music. Certainly as a kid I had compulsory piano lessons which I objected to and therefore neither showed much interest in nor demonstrated any natural talent

I also remember listening to the radio in the days when it was called the "wireless". Geraldo and Henry Hall were two very popular dance bands. But unlike most youths, the pop music of the day did not interest me too much either.
But somewhere along the line I was introduced to jazz, more by accident than design. Quite how I'm not sure. I had and still have a friend Peter who was an avid listener to the American forces network where we could hear the likes of Billy Holiday, Lester Young, Teddy Wilson and Benny Goodman etc. Peter was an incurable jazz addict; he had collected quite a few equally addicted friends, and somehow I became engulfed. The very first jazz 78-rpm record I bought was of Woody Herman playing "the Good Earth". I was in my teens, and naturally an "angry young man" and in my small but highly cherished collection of 78s was Peggy Lee's "Don't smoke in bed" and Billy Holiday's "Strange Fruit". But with out a doubt I was unquestionably weaned on Stan Kenton.

And I am sure it was his influence that led me into classical music via such great composers as Prokofiev, Richard Strauss, Rimsky-Korsakov, Shostakovich and Stravinsky. Although through the years my interests have broadened considerably my allegiance to my early mentors have remained to this day.

I also consider myself lucky to be "involved" with jazz in the 50s and feel highly privileged to have seen in concert so many jazz idols. Of the big bands, Kenton of course, Duke Ellington, Count Basie. Then there were the ensembles; Dave Brubeck, Jerry Mulligan, Jack Teagarden with Earl (Fatha) Hines, Modern Jazz Quartet. There were as well the Norman Granz groups, called Jazz at the Philharmonic who would tour the UK as well as the rest of Europe. There were so many, Dizzy Gillespi, Miles Davies Ella Fitzgerald, Oscar Peterson and many many more. Most of them, sadly dead.

And we have to face it, when it comes to Jazz there is nobody in the same league as the Americans.
Jazz to the Americans is like Opera to Italy, Bag pipes to Ireland and Scotland and Classical music to mid and east Europe. Sure there is a lot of talent elsewhere, but as often as not such talent migrates to the centres of excellence.
I think that the 50s is the period I am most comfortable with although I really enjoy some of the earlier 30s and 40s music, such as Louis Armstrong's Hot 5 & 7 in the 30s. Also Kid Ory, Muggsy Spanier and even earlier, King Oliver.
As for the present day, I seem to be less interested because the people I most enjoy play the type of jazz that was of an earlier era. For example, Bob Wilber on soprano sax keeping up the Bechet image along with Kenny Davern's complementary clarinet. And there is tenor sax man Scott Hamilton maintaining the traditions of Ben Webster and Coleman Hawkins.
But maybe I do myself an injustice, because I do have in my collection such artists as Kenny Baron, Regina Carter and Fred Hersch. And I also do enjoy what I call "chamber Jazz" such as Chico Hamilton, Eric Dolphy and Charlie Mingus.

I've often wondered what the recipe is for enjoyable music. Naturally it will be different for each of us, but do wonder.

I am probably a bit old fashioned with respect to jazz in that there are some basic ingredients without which it does not work.

First of all, jazz is all about improvisation or to use the equivalent "classical" phrase, variations on a theme. And you cannot appreciate the improvisations if you do not know the theme. That's pretty fundamental and I touch on the principle in other chapters.

Secondly, I say to myself, it has got to swing. But maybe that is not too rigid a specification even if a real foot tapper takes a bit of beating. Although "mood" music for the want of a better phrase does captivate me, I would generally say I get a real kick out of a happier nature.

For example Prokofiev's "Classical Symphony", Richard Strauss's "Till Eulenspiegel" and Saint-Saens's "Carnival of the Animals".

And the one Jazz pianist who in all of his records seems to exude so much fun and enjoyment. Without a doubt when I am feeling a little low it is with Erroll Garner that I would choose to relax.

And also for some reason, there just does not seem to be a single work of ballet that I dislike, covering the whole gambit from Herold to Shostakovich and beyond. Something that captivates me with Classical music and the likes of Duke Ellington and Stan Kenton, there is so much going on underlying the basic melody line. I must have listened to Tchaikovky's 5th and 6th symphonies 50 times or more, but with each listening I hear something fresh and even surprising.

And Art Tatum's piano playing. He packs so many notes in every second, yet very one is so important that if left out then it would sound wrong. But then there is the negation of Tatum. Can there be anyone better than Count Basie who will generate great swinging jazz from just a handful of notes.

So I have difficulty in the concept that the music must be fresh, with surprises, yet familiar. Of course, familiarity can mean a lot of things. The style of a composer or a performer or a particular melody. For example Thelonious Monk's "'Round Midnight", a jazz standard played by so many different groups. Also did you know that The Beatles "Yesterday" has been recorded by more people than any other piece of music?

Then there is the interpretation by each conductor of a symphony. Mind you I think a conductor is more akin to a football coach or cricket captain trying to get the absolute best out of his team. With a large orchestra this must be very difficult.

As I mentioned before, I am a ladies man. And that goes for jazz singers. June Christy, Ella Fitzgerald, Rosemary Clooney, Anita O'day, Maxine Sullivan, Peggy Lee, Billy Holiday, Sarah Vaughan to mention just a few. Then there is that special group of ladies who accompany themselves on the piano a tradition started by that great jazz pianist, Nat King Cole. Nelly Lutcher, Rose Murphy, Blossom Dearie, Shirley Horn and most recently, Canadian Diana Krall.

One rather satisfying thing is I can honestly say I am unable to identify a favourite. It may be June Christy today, next week it may be the fabulous piano of Earl "Fatha" Hines. And then again I'll start getting hooked up on Janacek's Suite for string orchestra.

If pressed I would say the most important instrument for me would be the piano. Perhaps because I can play it a little and can appreciate just how difficult it is to play. It is supreme as a solo instrument in both jazz and classical. Raval's Piano concerto in G for example. Also it is a superb orchestral instrument fully exploited by Stravinsky in his Petroushka.

But for the piano, I would have to give my vote to the trombone. This may date back to my Kenton days. Kai Winding while with Kenton was convinced that massed trombones made the noise closest to the angels!

No Dixieland, Creole or Ragtime band would be right without the fruity sound of the trombone. George Brunis, Kid Ory, John Gill to name but three. Of course JJ Johnson needs no introduction. And who else better at playing the blues than Jack Teagarden and Al Grey (top picture). Interestingly, the blues is the simplest of all music, yet in the "right" hands it is completely riveting. Kai Winding was born in Denmark, which only goes to show that one can find pockets of talent almost anywhere.

Before I leave the subject of music, I just start to wonder who is the artist now that technology has infiltrated so much.

TO BE CONTINUED!

• return to My Home Page • Or check the Precis •

(posted April 2007, updated Aug 2011)

the CAYUGA NEST legend

I was about 30 years old, and in my prime. And I had itchy feet wanting to design and build my own home. My wife and I also wanted to live on the river Thames. For certain, I would never be able to buy such a property with my income!
Finally in 1963, we found the ideal plot of land in the Village of Wraysbury Berkshire in England, on the river Thames about 5 miles from Windsor Castle. So I set about persuading my bank manager to lend me enough money to both buy the land and cover the building costs. That proved to be an incredibly difficult task. But we won in the end.
And in January 1964, the first sod was cut, and building commenced. By early spring, the foundations were completed and building materials were shipped in to commence the structure. But then it happened.

A friendly duck made a nest smack in the middle of all the building materials. We reluctantly decided to hold up the work till the eggs were hatched. Fortunately, ducks and their ducklings leave the nest as soon as they are born. So we only had to wait for the gestation period of 21 days.
Now this duck was black with a white breast. Also I should point out that in this village, houses did not have numbers; they had names. And we needed a name for our new house!
My friend Peter a bit of a twitcher suggested we find the name of this particular duck and give that name to the house. It was taking weeks to find this. In those days there was no WWW where you could put in the key phrase "black duck with white breast" and get 3 million references found in 3.8 secs! But finally found a reference in the book "Collins Guide to Bird Watching" by R. S. Fitter. Pub: 1963 by Collins.
To quote: "A more widespread pitfall for the unwary is the so called Cayuga duck, a white breasted domesticated variety of the mallard, which escapes and often consorts with wild mallards in town parks and on reservoirs, probably interbreeding with them."
In retrospect, I should have been alerted to the domestic reference, but was far too busy working for a living, building a house and raising two kids! So there is a possibility that that particular lady was not a relation of the Cayuga duck. I have learned since, that the true breed, although black with a greenish tinge, does not have a white breast. And I have now seen the genuine Cayuga ducks at Folly Farm near Bourton-on-the-Water in Gloucestershire. Nevertheless we were happy.

We had got a name for our house!

A few years later, researching the Oxford English Dictionary, I found out all about the Cayuga Indians in New York State USA, also the Finger Lakes (the largest being "Cayuga Lake"). And of course it is from there that the domesticated Cayuga duck was, and probably still is, being bred.
We lived at 'Cayuga' Park Avenue, Wraysbury for just on 30 years and during that period there was never a shortage of our white breasted friends along with the more natural coloured mallard. Thus the name "cayuga" became synonymous with yours truly and has remained with me to this day.

And that is, as they say,

the legend of the CAYUGA NEST

on Brian's Pad, Wraysbury Berkshire UK, in March 1964!

Footnote: In September 2005, I visited that area in New York State. There is a Cayuga Village, Cayuga County and various Cayuga Streets as well as the Cayuga Lake. But found no evidence of Cayuga Duck breeding!



• return to My Home Page • Or check the Precis •

(posted April 2007, updated May 2012)