Orlando Gibbons - O lord, in thy Wrath - YouTube

Orlando Gibbons - O lord, in thy Wrath

Orlando Gibbons was one of the greatest composers of England. This is the music Protestant aristocrats would hear. His dates are close to Shakespeare's.

O Lord, in Thy Wrath, Rebuke Me Not
–Orlando Gibbons (1583-1625)

O Lord, in thy wrath, rebuke me not,
Neither chasten me in thy displeasure.
Have mercy upon me, O Lord, for I am weak.
O Lord, heal me, for my bones are vexed.
My soul is also sore troubled.
But, Lord, how long wilt thou punish me?
O save me, O save me, for thy mercy’s sake.

The American Sense of Puritan: Concluding Images

The Pilgrims in the Capitol

 

The images in the U.S. Capitol are as follows:

In the Rotunda:
A relief of the Landing of the Puritans.
A painting of the Embarkation of the Pilgrims at Delft Haven, Holland, July 22nd, 1620.
A scene of the Landing of Pilgrims at Plymouth, Mass., 1620; within the Rotunda frieze.

In the President's Room of the Senate Wing:
A symbolic painting of William Brewster, signifying Religion.

In Statuary Hall
A Statue of Roger Williams

In the Hall of Columns
A Statue of John Winthrop


The Pilgrims in the Rotunda


The Landing of the Pilgrims, 1620 was contributed by Enrico Causici in 1825, and is one of four reliefs which stand over the four Rotunda doors. The others are: Conflict of Daniel Boone with the Indians, Preservation of Captain Smith by Pocahantas, and William Penn's Treaty with the Indians. As Vivien Fryd points out, all are representations of early contact points with Native Americans, and all indicate "the inevitable subjugation or assimilation of the Indian race" (Fryd, 40). All completed within the mid to late 1820s, they anticipated and then condoned an ideology that would see its political manifestation most clearly in the 1830 act of Indian Removal.

The Landing of the Pilgrims employs the religious signification of the Pilgrims, even as it portrays an apparent inevitability of European- based domination. The Indian is massive; a purely physical creature. All he has to offer is raw nature, in the corn he holds out and the rock he sits upon. The look on his face is a pitiful grimace, a seemingly dull recognition that the person before him is to be looked up to and entreated-- for what, is not clear. The Pilgrim 'Father' is defined as such by the presence of wife and child, and the former's upturned eyes suggest that the undeniable confidence and power is founded in an assurance of heavenly purpose. It suggests that the woman's open hand which greets God, is part of what draws down Providential power; transfers it through her other arm and hand down into her son, whose own left arm begins an arc that seems to blend into the father and emerge at his other side in his own upheld hand. The hand of the Pilgrim Father is in this way both greeting and warning in the same action.



The Embarkation of the Pilgrims at Delft Haven, Holland, July 22nd, 1620 was painted by Robert W. Weir in 1843. It stands as one of eight paintings in the Rotunda, which together form a narrative of early American history. Four of the paintings were completed by John Trumbull in the late 1810s and early 20s, and portray different important moments of the Revolutionary era: the signing of the Declaration, the surrender of Burgoyne and of Cornwallis, and the resignation of Washington. The others take as their themes Pocahontas, De Soto, and Columbus, and were added between 1840 and 1855.

How we see the pilgrims and puritans and links to factual information. Excellent resource by Scott Atkin,

The Cohabitation Revolution - Rich Lowry - National Review Online

Marriage has declined because of No Fault Divorce.

Used to be: if you were dad, and you decided to run off with Sally, 20 years mom's junior, you did so at pain of losing home, custody and being sentenced to life-time alimoney. At least Sally knew you loved her!

Used to be: if you were mom, you lost interest, got bored, read Eat Pray Love and didn't feel your marriage was meeting your needs, or maybe had a daliance ... you could leave, it's a free country ... but not with the kids.

It basically comes down to something this simple: if you are not ready to take on no-fault divorce, you are not serious about fighting the decline of marriage.

So yes - it is individual responsibility, but you know what?

The government enforces individual responsibility through courts - sign a contract - and it will be enforced.

Even libertarians need that and understand that. Should we be moral and virtuous and eschew vice?

Of course. But there is a political philosophy that relies entirely on the upstanding moral decisions of individuals for a society and economy to cohere - it's called anarchy.

With marriage - where rules and the personal biases of agents of the courts still reign, but where contract has been thrown to the fire, what remains is a cesspool. Is it worth fighting for? Well - as a central organizing institution of civilization - probably. Are conservatives helping? Examples are sparse.

Taken from a comment in reply to Lowry's essay about the recent decline in divorce and increase in cohabitation.

AgentBlackBerry talks with Gavin Bennett.wmv - YouTube

AgentBlackBerry talks with Gavin Bennett.wmv

About an app for mobile devices to let you hook up with others attending the same venue. So the fans suddenly talk to each other? B. Brecht would love it. He wanted the audience to be like a carnival crowd--lots of talk back to the stage and among themselves, not the totally silent audiences of ART theater.

So where does all this social networking lead?

A Fable from Robert Louis Stevenson

V.—THE DEVIL AND THE INNKEEPER.

Once upon a time the devil stayed at an inn, where no one knew him, for they were people whose education had been neglected. He was bent on mischief, and for a time kept everybody by the ears. But at last the innkeeper set a watch upon the devil and took him in the fact.

The innkeeper got a rope's end.

"Now I am going to thrash you," said the innkeeper.

"You have no right to be angry with me," said the devil. "I am only the devil, and it is my nature to do wrong."

"Is that so?" asked the innkeeper.

"Fact, I assure you," said the devil.

"You really cannot help doing ill?" asked the innkeeper.

"Not in the smallest," said the devil; "it would be useless cruelty to thrash a thing like me."

"It would indeed," said the innkeeper.

And he made a noose and hanged the devil.

"There!" said the innkeeper.

What to make of Andy?

Hi,

I have an iPad, and I love it... However, I have found that in a meeting, paper notes are the most effective. When I tried note taking on the iPad, it was not as 'bad' as using a laptop, but still a negative. It was felt I was playing with a toy, and not paying attention. When I took notes with paper notebook, even though it was the same notes, it was perceived as a positive.

After the meetings, I transfer any needed info/action items/etc into my ipad/electronic system. This gives me the benefit of having needed data in electronic system, review of all meetings and action points, and being effective.

 

More work for me, but benefits heavily outweigh the cost.

Respectfully,

Andy

Andy is replying to a request for advice on whether to use the Ipad for note-taking or to stick with paper and re-typing later. Andy is for paper and gives his reason.

Is Andy a wimp who should learn to stick to his guns? Or is he a wise man who wishes to arrive at a goal (effectiveness) and does what it takes to achieve it? Or What?