Sunday Concert -- A Thanksgiving

One of our favorite recordings of all time has been A Thanksgiving of American Hymns by the choirs of Brigham Young University. Enjoy.

Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing

PTSW: Breathes There a Man...

Breathes There the Man...
from the Lay of the last Minstrel
by Sir Walter Scott


Canto Sixth

I

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
"This is my own, my native land!"
Whose heart hath ne'er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he hath turned,
From wandering on a foreign strand!
If such there breathe, go, mark him well;
For him no Minstrel raptures swell;
High though his titles, proud his name,
Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;
Despite those titles, power, and pelf,
The wretch, concentred all in self,
Living, shall forfeit fair renown,
And, doubly dying, shall go down
To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,
Unwept, unhonoured, and unsung.

One of my regrets is that in sixty years of life in this blessed age of automobiles, trains, airplanes, interstate highways, and transcontinental rail lines, I have seen so little of "...my own, my native land."

In 1979 Sheila and I put up a map of the United States. On it we put red stars on locations where we had friends or relatives beloved enough that we would be welcomed for a night's lodging or more. We compared that map to the Amtrak route map. Amtrak had a promotion on their one-month "Rail Pass". Because of my school schedule that year, we had to schedule our trip to embark on the last day permitted by the promotion. But what a thirty-one days we spent touring this beautiful country by rail. We ended up imposing on only four families along the way - and one of those in absentia! What fun!

First from Brookwood station in Atlanta we boarded the Southern Crescent for the overnight run to the nation's capital. This may have been the least comfortable leg of the journey since the air-conditioning went out in our car. We crowded into another car for most of the trip, sleeping in our seats. We got to see a little of North Georgia in the twilight and then the bourgeoning housing developments of Northern Virginia in the dawn, but what a thrill to roll across the Potomac and see those gleaming monuments.

After a day or two in the capital city we boarded the Cardinal for a ride across the Appalachians through West Virginia to Cincinatti Ohio and a visit with our Kentucky friends, Bob and Sharlee and our Ohio buddy (and now contributor to the Limb) Mike Bock.

Then on to Chicago and a few days with my pregnant sister, Debi, and hubby Gregg. D&G, of course, made sure we saw all the Chicago sights.

The next leg was a long one up the Mississippi to the twin cities of Minnesota, then across the plains of North Dakota and Montana to Glacier Park. What a ride. The train was greatly delayed. 36 hours on the train! But it wasn't all bad. We met new friends. Played chess and Scrabble with complete strangers. And watched the plains slide by and the magnificent distant mountains approach.

Our first night at Glacier was spent at the Glacier Park Lodge. It was an old railroad lodge with a mammoth central lobby ringed by huge "whole tree" columns. In the morning we boarded one of the famous Glacier Park red convertible buses for the ride into the Canadian part of the park and the Prince of Wales Lodge. This grand chalet sits on the glacial moraine at the head of a beautiful lake. Our balcony overlooked the lake.

From there we took the red convertible into the heart of the park to the huge Many Glacier lodge. There the college age summer staff were all music majors and produced shows when they weren't bussing tables or making beds. We were there for their first week so the shows weren't ready, but I have never heard such beautiful renditions of "Happy Birthday" as we heard at each meal at Many Glacier Lodge. We hiked onto the retreating Grinnell Glacier. And along snow covered paths through gorgeous woods by raging glacier-fed creeks.

Soon we were back aboard the red convertible bus and climbing across the just-opened Going-to-the-Sun Highway cut through gigantic snowbanks over the continental divide at Logan Pass -- we got out to enjoy the snow and cold at the "top" --- and then descended into the warmth of the western side of the park and Lake Macdonald's smaller lodgings

There we hiked in shirt sleeves through the huge trees and great tree=strewn chasms.

From there we circled south of the park. We stopped to enjoy watching the mountain goats at a cliffside salt-lick.

Then back to the Glacier Park Lodge and a long hike through the blooming countryside there before reboarding the Empire Builder for the next leg of our journey.

From Glacier Park we passed through America's longest railroad tunnel in route to Seattle and a short stay at the station there before transferring to a different train for the ride along the coast to Portland. We could see the magnificent Mount Ranier from our coach.

At Portland we hunted down, not our friend Russ -- he was in Europe -- but his little convertible and its key and that to his Lincoln City beach house. We had wheels again! It was great to hole up in the little beach house, to walk along the beach in the June cold, and to motor up the coast in that snazzy little car. On one side of the road deserted sylvan scenes not unlike North Georgia except in scale; on the other the crashing waves of the anything-but-pacific Pacific.

The train ride from Portland climbs through the mountains hugging their sides precariously while displaying fantastic views for slack-jawed passengers.

At San Francisco's station our friends Steve and Laurie waited with baby Rachael and wonderful hospitality. We climbed through redwood forests with Rachael in a front pack. We visited Fisherman's Wharf. We ate chocolate sundaes at Ghiradelli's. We ate fresh salmon steaks. We grilled out at S&L's Oakland home. We watched the sea lions. We wondered at the marvelous Exploratorium. We hiked up the coast, playing in the tide pools, hanging over seaside bluffs on our bellies to commune with the hovering gulls practically at our fingertips, and eating cheese, bread, and nuts from our haversacks -- the best meal I've ever tasted. And we played with little Rachael, dressing her in red for June Christmas photos.

After a wonderful week we were back abouard Amtrak - the San Francisco Zypher -- headed to Salt Lake City. We spent two days there doing some family history research, shopping, and touring the Mormon sites.

On to Denver in a circuitous fashion -- backing there from Wyoming. We had no reservations in Denver and had to lug our suitcases many blocks and step over a drunk or two before we found lodgings. We toured the mint, the red rocks, and took a bus to see the mountains around.

That was really the end of our touring, Now it was back to Chicago and sister Debi's family, then onto the train to Birmingham. Sister Beth picked us up there and delivered us home, exhausted, inspired by the beauty of this great land, and happy to be back to our little corner of ".. my own, my native land!"

We have two big albums of photos from this trip. I'll scan a few and add them to this post when I get a round tuit.

January 20

One year from today George Bush and his policies will be history. One of my favorite bloggers has given her take on the major Republican and Democratic candidates to replace Bush. Her opinion seems to be that we have a "paltry choice".

My take is very different.

Ignoring, for the moment, their stands on the issues that face the country, I am very impressed with the field of candidates, by and large. All seven are smart and articulate and have been seriously involved in national public policy. I do not understand why anyone would feel that the candidates are any less able, articulate, sincere, or patriotic than previous fields of candidates in our history.

On the Republican side I was very unimpressed with those who seemed contenders before Iowa. McCain was considered out of it. The lackluster Guiliani led the polls. Another son of a politician with lots of money and not much else was contending. And there was an effort to fill the social conservative void with a disinterested Fred Thompson. Then Huckabee came out of nowhere (this coincided with hiring my niece) and McCain was reborn. Now we seem left with two quality candidates (Huckabee and McCain) and two politicians on the Republican side.

As I have said for months, I believe our major Democratic candidates - Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson, are brilliant. Any one of them could take office today and do very well. Even our "fringe candidates" - Kucinich and Gravel - have contributed strongly to the debate. The eight have now been winnowed down to three contenders - Edwards, Clinton, and Obama.

I have long thought that a prime factor to be considered is the candidate's comfort in his own skin. The quintessential examples of Presidents who have had that confidence, sincerity, eloquence, and calm that I call "comfort in his own skin" are Ronald Reagan for the Republicans and Bill Clinton for the Democrats. On the Republican side Huckabee comes closest to that ideal. McCain lacks the easy eloquence of Huckabee but comes off as sincere. Romney and Guiliani fail the test, partly, perhaps, because they must campaign as more conservative socially, than they probably really are. In this year’s field John Edwards and Barack Obama stand out on the Democratic side (as did Biden earlier), though I think Hillary Clinton has begun to find a more genuine voice, as well.

All of the major candidates have ample experience to perform well as President. Huckabee and Romney were governors, Guiliani ran a big city governement for many years, And McCain has had a long career in Congress. On the Democratic side Obama has the shortest experience, as a state legislator and US Senator, but makes up for it in savvy, vision and eloquence. Edwards has been dealing with national issues through a term in the US Senate and two campaigns for President. Hillary Clinton has been in the thick of national issues during seven years as US Senator and as a partner to Bill Clinton during his service to Arkansas and to the nation.

None of the candidates is a lightweight. They all strike me as serious folk. All seem sincere patriots who will take the oath of office as a sacred trust. I have some reservation about Romney and Guiliani who seem a bit slippery to me -- Guiliani downright dangerous.

Unfortunately we are in a time when sincerity and patriotism are not enough. We need an inspiring leader who is willing to correct the mistakes of the past eight years while putting together a concensus that can make us one country again. I realize , of course, that no one can please the hateful Limbaughs or Coulters, but I believe the right candidate can unite a majority of us. Someone who will stand on principle but who will also be willing to reach across the aisle and compromise.

I have been an Edwards supporter since 2003, but I am excited at the prospect of either of the other two as our nominee, as well. I find Huckabee and McCain very likable but wrong on the issues. Romney and Guiliani are not likable to me, for whatever that’s worth.

Here's a rundown --

Edwards
Articulate, right on the issues, inspiring speaker, sincere, has been vetted through a national campaign. brilliant mind, strong vision for the future. He has the most completely delineated platform of any candidate. He is a committed husband and father. Unfortunately for us and for him the press decided to ignore him some time ago. Should he manage to pull out a victory in South Carolina, the press would barely mention him but instead blather about Clinton's loss and Obama would be declared the winner even if he were third, because of Clinton's loss. After all, when she won New Hampshire they had to talk about the fact that a majority voted "against" her even though a larger majority voted "against" each of the other candidates -- I suspect a majority of Democrats are like me and will be solidly behind the eventual nominee. I'm sticking with John Edwards through South Carolina, then I'll re-evaluate the situation before we in Georgia vote on February 5.

Clinton
Articulate, right on the issues, good speaker and getting better, unique experience as the partner of a wonderful president, a history of working “across the aisle”, brilliant mind, inspiring as the first woman with a serious shot at the White House. Cannot be further damaged by the Republican swift-boaters. I was intriged by her autobiography. She is about my age and shares much of my history as a baby-boomer and a reformed Republican. We were both greatly influenced by our experiences in Methodist Youth Fellowship. The cold calculation she is accused of in some quarters is simply an invention of the Republican smear machine. As an aspiring professional in the 70s, she had to have a formal exterior. Her dedication to her beliefs is evident and illustrated by her dedication to her marriage.

Obama
Beyond articulate - eloquent, right on the issues, a history of working “across the aisle”, brilliant mind, inspiring as the first black with a serious shot at the White House. He would represent a “passing of the torch” His supposed inexperience does not bother me. Our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, was less experienced. Like Obama he gained his experience in political debate. And like Lincoln, Obama is a poetic and inspiring orator.

Huckabee
Articulate, sincere, had the good sense to hire my brilliant niece as a close aide. BUT... has a crazy, dangerous, disastrous, plan to shift the greatest tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class via the so-called “fair tax”. Wrong on virtually all the issues: anti-choice, pro-constitutional amendments on marriage and abortion, would appoint more Alito/Scalia type justices, no sign he would extract us from Iraq. I won't hold the worst-five-o’clock-shadow-since-Nixon against him, but if I were Charmaine I'd give him an electric razor to use whenever the cameras are pointed the other way!

McCain
Less eloquent but sincere, dislikes Bush about as much as Democrats do, history of reaching across the aisle and treating opponents with respect. Gary Hart and Bill Cohen were his groomsmen.
BUT... is VERY conservative on almost all issues, something of a hothead, a war hawk, likely to appoint right wing judges. A record of infidelity in marriage.*

Romney
Articulate, slick, well-coifed, strong family values, BUT...
a Mormon (Yes, I know, I’m prejudiced. But a serious Mormon has to reject recorded history). A record of big changes of mind - admirably openminded or shamefully wishy-washy or crassly poll-driven, you pick.

Guiliani
It is hard for me to see any thing good about Guiliani, but I’ll try: he is pro-choice.
BUT... he would be the closest thing to a continuation of the present administration. The Bill of Rights would continue under attack, the country’s reputation would continue to be smeared, we could expect to see more cowboy adventures. A record of blatent infidelity in marriage.*

I think it is good for our democracy in 2008 that we have a strong field of candidates for both parties' nominations and that the nominations are not a foregone conclusion after Iowa and New Hampshire but instead we have a real competitive race. The candidates are having to defend their policies and positions to a big hunk of the country. There have been a LOT of "debates" and though they haven't matched the Lincoln-Douglas debates in depth or style, in the aggregate, they have given those paying attention a pretty good look at these guys.

May the best candidate win in each party.

And, please, may the Democrat win in November.


------

* I mention this personal failing only because some Republicans actually hold the infidelity of Hillary Clinton’s husband against HER, the one who stood by her husband and worked to save her marriage. Two of the major Republican candidates had notorious affairs and ditched assorted wives.

Romney: Coulter speech "a good thing"

Governor Mitt Romney believes that Jesus preached among the horse-riding!, steel-using!, pre-Columbian Indians and that Joseph Smith found some gold tablets with that whole astounding new chapter of history engraved on them (sometimes in King James' or Shakespeare's words a thousand years before either lived) -- I'll try not to hold that against him: Harry Reid shares those same strange beliefs. I personally know a number of fine up-standing folk who are Mormons. I happen to believe their religion is among the goofiest of major cults. But I would consider an otherwise level-headed Mormon for President if I shared his/her ethical, moral, and political views.

Despite my disbelief in Mormonism (Sorry Rachel, I respect your right to believe it, but it doesn't fly in my book of mixed metaphors), his astonishing religious beliefs do not disqualify Brother Mitt.

But Mr. Romney also believes that Ann Coulter occupying a prestigious conservative podium to rant about "faggots" is "a good thing". It is fine to afterwards admit to the outragegeousness of her comments, but you, Mr. Mitt, knew of her previous vile words. Any conservative who treats Ann Coulter as a legitimate spokesperson for his cause has lost his moral compass and I can no longer give his moral, ethical, or political judgments any credence. Period.

No religious test...

(One reader seemed to misunderstand part of this post so I have edited it slightly to be better understood. By the way, my outgoing e-mail is still not working, dang it! I know it's just some little setting that's different on this machine.)

From the Constitution of the United States:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, under the United States.

That text is very clear and absolute. Any Congressman who tries to institute a religious test for a Member of Congress has broken his oath: He is NOT defending, protecting, supporting the Constitution.

Congressman Keith Ellison, our first Muslim Member of Congress
I congratulate him and wish him well.

My Median Sib, today, a remarkable woman; a loving wife, daughter, mother, and grandmother; and an honored teacher, and a person I respect and love and welcome to rebut what I write here, has, it seems to me in my anything-but-humble opinion, leapt off a cliff, gone off the deep end, climbed out of the pot and into the fire, [fill in your own cliche for "failed to wisely agree with her loving older and wiser brother"]. In reaction to the election of our first Muslim Member of Congress, she has written:

"Muslims worldwide have declared jihad on the United States and ANYONE who is not Muslim. I think it was a mistake to elect an “enemy” to Congress."

I cannot express how saddened I am by that unfortunate statement. And I cannot let it pass without comment.

My Sib's post seems to consider Congressman Keith Ellison an “enemy” simply because he is Muslim. If so, that is an affront to many wonderful loyal Americans, including some of my favorite students and their fine parents and one of the finest co-workers I have (an Iraqi-American Kurd whose brother was murdered by Saddam and who fled Iraq with her husband and children to escape some of the same terrorists that my Sib seems to be lumping her with). It would certainly be an affront to our Muslim-American soldiers past and present.

Would we force a member to be sworn on the Bible when that is not his Book of Faith? Wouldn’t that require him to be hypocritical? Isn't that a "religious test"? Does the Constitution preclude non-Christians from serving in Congress? Should we take away citizenship from those of other faiths?

I am not a Muslim. I am sure there is much to admire in their faith, but I happen to think it contains a lot of hogwash. I also think some elements of Catholicism are largely hogwash. (The saint "worship", the ridiculous veneration of a bit of bone or cloth as a holy relic, pilgrimages to venerate a cookie that vaguely resembles somebody’s idea of what Mary looked like.) And Mormonism, Lord have mercy! Shoot, I’m a Methodist, and I know there are some radical and ridiculous Methodists, too.

Still, I find much to admire in some Mormons, Catholics, and Muslims. Democratic Senator Harry Reid and Republican Senator Orrin Hatch are Mormons -- Do they really believe in Joseph Smith’s golden tablets? And does that strange belief preclude them from office? If Hatch or Reid want to use the Book of Mormon (I know they also claim the Bible) as the Book of Faith that they use for their swearing-in ceremonies, that’s fine with me.

I just want them to mean it when they say:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God.”

Until the Civil War, when Yankee Congressmen were concerned about domestic rebels, the original oath was used:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

That’s simple and to the point, though I like the addition of “defend”: the first duty of a member of Congress is to support and defend the Constitution.

You will note that Madison, et al, neglected to add “so help me God” to the Presidential oath written into the Constitution. They were determined that ours was to be a secular government, as they later specifically pointed out to the Muslim Barbary pirates. The following is part of the treaty read and approved unanimously in the Senate on June 7, 1797. President John Adams, a devout Christian, signed it and proclaimed it to the Nation.

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Islamic] nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The recounting of the evils of the Islamic governments elsewhere in the world, of course, begs the question and has no legitimate relevance to how we should interpret our Constitution.

I will stand shoulder to shoulder with anyone to oppose any Muslim who tries to restrict any American's freedom of religion or speech or any other Constitutional right. But I will also stand with Congressman Ellison, or my co-worker, or my students, against anyone who tries to limit their religious rights.

I know this question sounds harsh, -- no one should take it as a personal shot -- I mean it as beginning point for an honest dialogue: How can we restrict religious speech or non-violent religious practice [that is, disallow the use of the Koran for a swearing-in ceremony] and still support and defend the Constitution of the United States? Such restriction, in my book, is counter to the Constitution and therefore quintessentially un-American.

I absolutely welcome polite debate about this issue.

1-05-07 Note: The Median Sib has written a post to clarify the post that I have responded to here. I won't try to characterize it or comment on it except to invite my readers to visit her blog to better understand her position on the issue of Keith Ellison's election, his use of the Koran, and other things.

Here is a previous post on the separation of church and state.