BLESSING OF THE ANIMALS

Dear Rose and Prince Rupert are going to church this morning. Today is St. Francis Day at Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. My friend Deb Cornue will attend to my guys during the service while I sub in the choir. After the service there will be the blessing of the animals on the plaza. R & R are really excited. Of course, they love to go everywhere; and they can tell from the tone of my voice that something’s up.

I used to sing regularly at Grace—in fact for twenty-two years— from June 1973 through June of 1995.   I stayed through the Fiftieth Anniversary Commemoration of the Founding of the United Nations. Then for a year I sat in the congregation. That turned out to be rather difficult to do. So when John Renke— who at been assistant organist and choir director for my first fifteen years at Grace,  and then became  organist and music director at several other churches— asked me to sub at St. Dominic’s one Sunday in August, 1996, I accepted and ended up singing with him for more than a decade. We moved from St. Dominic’s to St. Francis of Assisi in North Beach with the founding of the Schola Cantorum. That’s a story in itself and will be a separate posting someday.

A major reason for leaving the Grace Cathedral Choir of Men and Boys back in 1995, was a regular conflict on Thursday nights with overlapping commitments up and down Nob Hill on Taylor Street. For six years I sang Evensong at Grace and had to leave before the end of the service to rush five blocks down the hill to a required rehearsal with the Aviary Chorus at the Bohemian Club, then leave that rehearsal early to slog back up the hill for another two and a half hour rehearsal at Grace. I’m amazed I continued for six years.

So when we started the Schola Cantorum at St. Francis of Assisi, I was able to convince a quorum to have our rehearsals on Wednesday nights. Now with my subbing at Grace for three different singers, I have more flexibility to do it at my convenience— though after my heart attack four years ago, it’s still a challenge. (That will be a separate posting as well.)

Rose and Rupert have had their breakfast and are asleep on their sofa in the Red Room as I write this. But it won’t take much to get them going. They’re gonna have a ball. (Though I probably shouldn’t take Rupert’s tennis ball with him this morning. Otherwise, he’ll want to play all during the service.)

 

REVERBERATIONS (Excerpt) MEMORY

 Memory

--- that vital substance of our being ---

present particles of time streaming 

endlessly

from one to next---

We spend our days and minutes... 

our lives

reflecting constant past…

projecting constant future…

The present never really is.

PLEASANT MEMORIES of FRANCE in 1980

For my 31st birthday, Mother and Dad gave me a week in gay Paris Ah, April in Paris…..but ………….with Dad and Mother! We stayed with Sherry and Sallie at their wonderful apartment (rented from Georges Clemenceau’s grand-daughter) at Nombre 1, Place du Pantheon. My birthday dinner was at café Le Procope, the oldest coffeehouse in Paris (possibly in Europe) and a favorite hangout of Jefferson and Franklin’s.

Sherry drove me to Fontainebleau so I could see the famous horseshoe staircase, from which Napoleon delivered his farewell to the troops at the time of his first abdication. I took the metro and walked to La Malmaison— an extraordinary house and furniture collection. Unfortunately the rose gardens have not been maintained. [Did you know that Josephine's given name was Rose? And that her first cousin, Aimee du Buc de Rivery, was captured by Barbary pirates, sent to Constantinople, put in the harem, and was either the actual mother, or guardian of Mahmud II, Turkish Sultan at the time of Napoleon's invasion of Russia? There's a recent novel, "Seraglio," by Janet Wallach, who doesn't explore the possibility— but I've read an earlier book "The Veiled Empress" by Morton, who suggests that Mahmud II secretly broke his treaty with Napoleon soon after the Josephine divorce – the old blood is thicker routine – and that this may have been the critical difference in Napoleon's defeat in 1812. Counterfactual history is fascinating speculation, but, of course, guarantees absolutely nothing. I may write a separate posting on Aimee later.]

Recall that I had spent my first day in Paris, as part of a fortnight holiday in Britain, a year and a half before. So I figured I could do the reverse, and spend a weekend in London to see my friend Jeffrey, as part of my week in Paris. Remember that this was a gift from Mother and Dad – and it came with strings. Mother had wanted me to go along with them to Mont-Saint-Michel that weekend. So I telephoned Jeffrey to say that I wouldn’t be able to make it.

As a result, I was available to have dinner with an ex-girl friend of Boyd Jarrell’s, then baritone soloist and cantor at Grace Cathedral. He had given me Lynn Davis’ phone number. When I called to take her to lunch, she invited me to dinner instead.

Sallie said it was a very good address, and recommended I take a potted plant, rather than cut flowers, since a hostess preparing dinner wouldn’t want to have to deal with them. The florist shop insisted otherwise. And when I got to the door, and was met by a liveried servant, I realized that it was not an issue.

Lynne had invited me to dinner at the home of her friend—whom I later learned was her fiance— Pierre Firmin-Didot, a publisher, and chairman of the Chartres Cathedral Organ Competition. Lynn was a church and concert organist, originally from Michigan, and had met Pierre the year she won the organ competition.

At dinner were several other guests, including an Australian photographer. That turned out to be a very fortunate coincidence. As I related to Dennis many times, this dinner was one of the few occasions in my life that my table manners matched my surroundings. I must have thought of Mother. I think I was actually the last one done. But partly that was due to conversation.

Learning that M. Firmin-Didot was chairman of the Chartres organ competition, I talked about my first day in the Cathedral the previous year. As a preface, I related a story I had read about the Persian Room nightclub at the Plaza Hotel in New York. Evidently the policy had been to overheat the room, and then suddenly drop the temperature several degrees immediately before a performance. That had a tendency to wake up the audience. And the chill down one's spine wasn't entirely a result of the music.

At this point, the conversation came to an abrupt halt. What was this foolish young American talking about? But I managed to pull it out of the fire. I said that when I entered the front door of Chartres Cathedral on a glorious, warm May afternoon, the temperature inside was immediately cooler; but the chill down my spine was due entirely…to the splendor of the stained glass and the magnificence of the architecture within. There was an audible sigh……. then conversation resumed.

M. Firmin-Didot had a wing in the Hotel (townhouse with a courtyard in front) originally built for Louis XV's finance minister. His family owned the building, and he shared it with several relatives. Hearing that a professional photographer was among his guests— and had his camera in the car— M. Firmin-Didot offered to show us his entire section of the house. He had needed to have some photographs taken for insurance purposes.

So I saw Voltaire’s death mask in the library, and an extraordinary marquetry commode given to Madame de Pompadour by Louis XV. I counted at least twenty bergeres and fauteuils in the main salon—with its beautiful boiserie. And with the groupings, the room didn’t look crowded. I think I also recognized several paintings…..which did not appear to be copies.

All in all, it was an extraordinary evening – thanks to Mother’s insistence that I go to Mont-Saint-Michel with them, instead of London to visit Jeffrey.

I regret I thought I couldn’t afford the airfare a few years later, when I was invited to Lynn and Pierre’s wedding in Michigan. I’ve seen her only a few times since.

The weekend in Normandy at Mont-Saint-Michel was indeed glorious. It wasn’t that I hadn’t wanted to go. I had just wanted to wait to go with Gary someday. But it’s a good thing I did then, because I have not yet returned.

I remember Sallie’s eating mussels at every possible occasion at Mont-Saint-Michel. Sheridan says she still has a passion for them. I also have fond memories of playing with Sheridan and Morgan around the cloister, in the turrets, and on the walls.

Lynn and Pierre were married for nearly a quarter century. I understand that Lynn is now a widow. But Pierre was considerably older.

OCTOBER SURPRISE 1980 (1968)

I remember waiting for a bus with my friend Gary Evans Murakami at Van Ness by the Jack Tar Hotel, when word came down that President Carter had made an early concession on election night 1980. I was angry about that—first, that he had been defeated*—but second, that he had conceded before the polls had closed on the West Coast. I felt that his action would almost certainly impact some of the House and Senate seats.

I won’t include it here, but I wrote a five thousand word letter to professor Gary Sick in 1991 about the October Surprise in the 1980 presidential campaign. I know that it’s been discounted by the press, and it’s dropped off the radar screen of general interest; but I’m convinced that there was—and still is—a significant story.

The issue was not Vice Presidential candidate Bush’s going to Paris. That was a straw man—easily demolished—and effective in shutting down the investigative reporting.

What actually happened – and it has to be true, because it was stipulated by all the participants— was a meeting in Washington D.C. at the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel, on October 2, 1980 with Richard Allen, Laurence Silberman and Robert McFarlane. Somebody claiming to represent the Iranian government offered to free the hostages to a President Reagan if the new government would sell arms to Iran to assist them in their war with Iraq. This meeting was never reported to the Secretary of State, though Silberman, as a former ambassador, knew that the law required him to do so. He later asserted the offer had not been credible.

Laurence Silberman is now a senior judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. His was the deciding vote which overturned the conviction of Oliver North for his illegal activities in the Iran-Contra affair (which incidentally did not divert the largest amount of money to the Contras from the sale of arms to Iran, but instead set up secret Swiss bank accounts, whose purpose was to fund a permanent secret plumbers unit without Congressional oversight-- still an unaccounted-for fund).

The person who claimed to represent the government of Iran made offers that were eventually kept— and the hostages were released the actual minute Reagan was sworn in as President on January 20, 1981— 76 days after the election. Former Iranian President Beni Sadr claimed that the Reagan election campaign didn't want the hostages released until Reagan was sworn in, so that Carter would be denied any credit for their release. So were they held another 76 days just for spite? (During the last primary season, Rudy Guiliani citied the Iran hostages’ release on Inauguration Day as a prime example of Reagan’s influence and greatness.)

They were offered a deal— the terms of which were honored by both sides. Yet they claimed they had not accepted the deal. Is that credible? You decide.

It parallels what happened in 1968. And some of the same people were involved. The Paris Peace Conference was boycotted by President Thieu at the request of Madame Chenault, (wife of General Chenault of the "Flying Tigers") who stated on A&E's "Secret Biography of Richard Nixon" aired 2/19/91, that she did so at the behest of the Election Campaign for Richard Nixon. She persuaded President Thieu that he would receive better peace terms under a President Nixon than under a President Humphrey. Had it been reversed, would Republicans call this treason?

This episode was mentioned by Richard Allen on an NPR call-in show 4/17/91, though, he said it was an example of how "you cannot control people who work for campaigns and then go off the transom on their own initiative." That's how he also described the meeting on October 2, 1980. (I happened to call in and ask a question. Have you ever wondered why many people on call-in shows sound rather flustered and stupid when they ask their question? In my case I used my speed dial about 300 times before I got through and had my question screened. I was put on hold for about half an hour. Then without any warning, I was on the air. It sure would have helped if someone had given a five or ten second notice.)

Remember, almost half the names on the Vietnam Memorial in Washington were added after the election of Richard Nixon, who had his "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War. Did Madame Chenault's mission at the behest of Nixon's Campaign Committee actually block an earlier settlement of the war? We will never know. Former Secretary of State Cyrus Vance's obituary in the NY Times cited this episode as one of the major frustrations and disappointments of his life.

####

Tonight is the Vice-Presidential Debate between Senator Biden and Governor Palin. That should be fascinating! They had the first Presidential Debate last week after all. Although there wasn’t a knockout, I think Obama did pretty well.

*Carter has the reputation of being a much better ex-president than president. I contend he was a much better president than people give him credit, certainly in the area of developing alternate fuels. I think he was ahead of any of his successors. One of the first things Reagan did in office was to remove the solar panels from the White House. I’m sure that was because Nancy didn’t like the aesthetics; but think how much further along we’d be if Carter had been reelected in 1980. Carter is blamed for the terrible inflation in the late 1970’s. But he inherited that from Nixon and Ford, especially as a result of the Yom Kippur War of 1973. Inflation was finally whipped (to use Ford’s term) and credit is generally given to Paul Volcker -- appointed by? You guessed it: President Jimmy Carter.

REVERBERATIONS (Excerpt) CONTEMPLATION

 

I'm in the net again. 

Old behavioral patterns reemerge from buried depths

like hollow airtight buoys vainly shoved beneath: 

Nihilism-- 

fills a world devoid of cosmic purpose… 

fits a life estranged from common bonds; 

Self-defeating-deprecation

inflates my masochistic ego…

conflagrates my mental sores.  

* * * * *                                  

But why encourage death's dark forest 

when time's abyss shall gain the final victory 

in its own time? 

Despite feeble grumblings and desperate fears 

the end is certain….yes. 

Yet I deceive myself 

in thinking I will have won                                   

by choosing the time and circumstances of my end. 

Not victory……………………….capitulation. 

And although oblivion might seem preferable to the pain, 

why not experience what is?

--whatever it may be--

the pain at least is memorable.

THERE YOU GO AGAIN!

This Friday was supposed to be the first of three Presidential Debates with the actual candidates. (I forget how many debates there were during the primary season—too many, I think.) But it now looks as if Friday’s debate may be postponed at the request of the McCain campaign because of the current financial crisis (and dare I say, could it be his lack of preparation?) At the moment, Obama and the Presidential Debate Commission still want to go ahead with Friday's debate.

Debates can be critical in determining election results. It certainly was in 1980. There were actually two debates: one between Governor Reagan and Rep. John Anderson * (the Nader-like spoiler candidate in my opinion), and a single debate between President Carter and Governor Reagan on October 28** in Cleveland, Ohio- just days before the election. About the only thing most people remember about that single debate was Reagan’s clever retort: “There you go again.” Curiously, when I printed out the transcript of the complete debate, I couldn’t find the quote anywhere. I thought I recalled that it was in response to President Carter’s comment about health care. But I carefully scanned the complete transcript and could not locate Reagan’s aside. Evidently, whoever prepared the transcript for the Commission on Presidential Debates didn’t consider an aside worthy of inclusion. But again, that is probably the only thing even political junkies remember about the 1980 debate.

“Ironically, the Carter campaign had pursued a debate with Reagan because they thought it would give the president a chance to display his great command of complex issues, and that Reagan might stumble or look confused. Only when the Reagan camp saw how tight the race was did they agree to debate at all.

They were glad they did. Rather than sounding dangerous or overwhelmed, Reagan calmly brushed aside Carter’s attacks, shaking his head and saying, ‘There you go again.’ As Carter speechwriter and journalist Hendrik Hertzberg put it, ‘When people realized that they could get rid of Carter and still not destroy the world, they went ahead and did it.’ ” Quotation from transcript of PBS American Experience on Jimmy Carter

In the paper "Quips, Jokes, and Power: Humor as Weapon in Presidential Campaigns,” Reagan’s comment is featured as a major example. “Near the end of the debate, Carter concluded an answer on Medicare in which he iterated his support for such programs by saying, ‘These are the kind of elements of a national health insurance, important to the American People. Governor Reagan again, typically, is against such a proposal.’ After the moderator called on him, Reagan chuckled briefly as he turned to Carter and delivered the now classic line, ‘There you go again.’ Then Reagan laughed a second time as the audience laughed with him.” Michael A Krasner, Associate Professor Dept. of Political Science, Queens College, City University of New York, September 1, 2004.

The real issue and the scandal, however, is that the Reagan campaign had acquired President Carter’s briefing book. They knew in advance the major points Carter was going to make. So they had the opportunity to prepare reasoned responses to the President’s attacks when they had reasonable answers. And if they didn’t have a reasonable response, well, they had a clever retort all set to go – something that deflected the issue and made Carter sound mean spirited. People don’t remember what Reagan’s aside was in response to, they only remember how calm and friendly he seemed. They don’t know or even care that the Reagan campaign cheated with a stolen briefing book. I think I’ve figured out who might have been able to acquire the briefing book for the Reagan campaign, but I hesitate to name him since I don’t have direct proof. Let me just say I think it was someone on the U.S. National Security Council who had ties to George H.W. Bush going back to his CIA days, and later became an ambassador.

(Think how Mike Dukkakis might have answered Bernard Shaw’s trick question about Kitty Dukkakis as a rape victim, if he had had a similar heads up about the question. He could have dramatically exclaimed that he would want to hammer the guy, strangle him with his bare hands…. but….we live in a society of laws, not men, and that the law would have to take its course. Or something like that – at least better than the perceived cold, unfeeling response he actually delivered, when he was attempting to be measured, calm and probably presidential.)

The possibly treasonous scandal of the 1980 election, however, had already occurred in early October – weeks before the Presidential Debate. I’ll write about that on its 28^th anniversary— this October 2^nd.

* Rand, a colleague at work, mentioned that President Carter declined to attend the first debate in 1980 and that Governor Reagan went ahead anyway and had it with Rep. John Anderson -- but left Carter's empty chair on stage. It will be interesting to see how Friday's debate plays out if McCain stays away and Obama has the stage to himself. Republicans, I'm sure, will be critical of Obama for going ahead, despite the Reagan precedent.

* *Anniversary of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge between Constantine and Maxentius in Rome in 312 C.E., one of the major turning points in world history. Coincidentally, also the anniversary of Mussolini’s March on Rome 1n 1922.

Evolution of Meaning and Two Flip-Flops

The study of history is partly a study of words –or the definitions of words. Over time there have been switches in meanings.  The word ‘revolution’ for example: most people think of it as a violent change, or the overthrow of an existing political order. Unfortunately, I cannot verify my source. I think it was Professor Martin Griffin from my English History course, freshman year. As Dean of Saybrook College, however, he died of a heart attack, while crossing one of the courtyards in the snow. For my 40^th birthday, Dennis and I went to a Yale Alumni Seminar at the R.L. Stevenson School at Pebble Beach, and Yale Professor John Boswell (since then a victim of AIDS) said that my recollection about the word ‘revolution’ could not be right. He contended the word was derived from ‘revolt.’

 

Unless I reached the conclusion myself, I think I recall Martin Griffin’s mentioning that the word ‘revolution’ was first used in a political sense during the so-called “Glorious Revolution” of 1688. That was when Parliament kicked out the King, James II, and replaced him with his daughter Mary, the wife of William of Orange. The legal argument was that the King had violated the terms of the Restoration of the Monarchy, and that Parliament was merely restoring the situation to an already agreed upon compact. In other words, it was not a violent overthrow, instead, it was a righting the ship of state—or a seasonal correction. Martin’s point was that the word was borrowed from astronomy, and when you have a complete revolution of a moon or a planet, you end up exactly where you started.

 

When the American colonies sought independence from England, it was the colonials who called it a ‘revolution.’ The English called it a ‘rebellion.’ Clearly the word had a positive meaning to its adherents, and was a reflection of the political writings after 1688. The revolutionaries claimed that it was the King who had violated the compact. Read Mr. Jefferson’s Declaration (though I would contend that most of the charges against George III would not hold up in a fair court of law.)

 

The meaning of the word changed drastically, when the French adopted it for their own political upheaval, which then became very violent and bloody. Ever since, that’s what people think of as a political revolution.

 

Or take the word ‘comfort.’ Is it a hard word or a soft word? Most people contend that it’s a soft word—to comfort, as to console. But think of the King James version of the 23^rd Psalm. “…Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.” That’s a closer example of the intended meaning. It’s originally from the French: com-fort, or, with strength. The Bayeaux tapestry shows Duke William comforting his troops, at the point of a sword. He is encouraging them— prodding them— as a shepherd does his sheep.

 

So when people today say it’s important to stretch yourself, to get out of your 'comfort zone,' that’s exactly what the original meaning intended.

 

I suppose, if you were being attacked by Vikings, and were protected in a castle keep, you might feel consoled by being protected – but that comfort comes from strength.