Salt, Bread, and Silver

Happy New Year!

As per my family’s tradition, I sent my husband out in the sub-zero temperatures just after midnight to retrieve the “New Year’s Bucket,” a container holding salt, silver, and bread, which I set out on the back stoop on New Year’s Eve.

Did I mention that my husband is a good sport?

The “New Year’s Bucket” is a tradition that, according to family lore, my Great-great Grandmother, Hannah Phillips, brought with her when she emigrated from Wales ca. 1881. According to custom, the members of the household collect salt, silver, and bread in a bucket and place it outside on New Year’s Eve; at the stroke of midnight, or shortly thereafter, the ‘head-of-house’ brings in the bucket. The coins are gathered and donated to charity; the salt and bread is spread on the ground—salt to the earth, bread to her wildlife. The whole process is about giving—showing appreciation for community, respect for nature, and reciprocity with the earth.

Of course, it is also suggested that the reward for this first act of the New Year is the blessing of a plentiful and prosperous year: that the family will always have enough yet will be free from avarice and that they will enjoy good health, plentiful crops, and great joy.

I have celebrated nearly every New Year with this tradition. This year, I didn’t have a satisfactory bucket, so we placed the salt, silver, and coin in a wooden bowl made by my grandfather—a gifted woodcrafter—from Pennsylvania cherry grown and harvested on our family’s land. It seemed an appropriate vessel for a tradition borne of the same family who tended the tree and crafted the bowl, and it made ‘home’ feel a little closer to home. When I spoke with my Grandmother this morning and told her about carrying on the tradition in this way, she was clearly pleased.

I’d say that’s a pretty good way to start the New Year.

Here’s wishing you plenty of salt, bread, and silver of your own in the coming year!

Do you send Christmas/Holiday Cards to Friends and Family?

Folks, if you do, please consider adding one more to your list:

"Holiday Mail for Heroes"
P.O. Box 5456
Capitol Heights, MD 20791-5456

This program, now in its second year, is sponsored by the American Red Cross. Their goal is to distribute 1 million cards to wounded and active service members, veterans, and their families. You can learn more about the program here.

IMPORTANT NOTE: All cards must be postmarked by December 10, 2008 to reach their destinations.

Its a simple, powerful gesture . . . one that grows with each card sent.

Bradley's been at it again . . .

Over at The Ethical Exhibitionist, my pal Bradley posted a thoughtful and provocative reaction to the election results, which he titled "Lets Not Pat Ourselves On the Back Too Hard." Though I'm sure I'm about to get myself into a heap of trouble, here's my response:

nathan is entirely on the mark when he writes

the problem is that they (and we) haven't respected that there are two things that we're talking about as one. One is a legal contract between two people, upheld by the State that agrees that two people will share life together. The other is a religious symbol that has all sorts of meanings different than what the majority of "marriages" encompass.

I also admire his attempt to engage the ethos of those who vote to deny the rights of their compatriots on moral grounds. This is an important, if extremely difficult, step in working toward consensus—or at the very least, mutual respect. That said, I hold fast to the opinion that it is erroneous in the extreme to attempt to legislate morality.

As you know, I am a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, but on this issue I break with much of my party. To say that I cannot understand the justification for denying people these basic rights understates my stance: doing so undermines, at the most basic level, everything this country stands for. It is our concern with rights and liberties that underscores every US ideology and serves as our common ground. I cannot comprehend why anyone would want to deny their neighbors the full rights and privileges guaranteed (implicitly and explicitly) by the constitution—or to amend a constitution to limit the rights of one’s own citizenry. The only limits to freedom I can embrace are those that reflect the philosophy that one person’s rights extend only as far as another’s begin—that is to say, we cannot justify violating another’s rights in the name of our own. The 1996 Congressional Essays reflect the importance of reasonable limits cogently.

More to the point, allowing same-sex marriage (or, the related hot-button topic of the ‘90s, allowing homosexuals to serve in the US armed forces) does not impede on the rights of the individual; disallowing full rights and privileges does.

One final thought: while it may be 'democratic' to allow the constituency to vote on such an issue, it runs counter to the notion of the 'republic,' which explicitly ties liberty to law. If one considers the notion of law Aristotle advances in the Politics as “reason unaffected by desire” and understands morality as pathos(in the rhetorical sense), then it is worthwhile to note that, perhaps ironically and certainly theoretically, it is my party—with its philosophical concern for definition and law—who should be the most adamant champions of equal rights under the law . . . for every US citizen.

Just One: Number 8

A dear friend and colleague recently posted a MySpace bulletin that included the following question:

8. Thoughts on the presidential campaign?

This is my attempt at answering it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Make no mistake: this election is of monumental importance. Still, I fully appreciate the fact that the executive branch is much larger than the president, and the election is much larger than its primary players.

For my money, I think this election provides an important opportunity for the citizens of this nation to stand up for civility and mutual respect in civic discourse and to become thoughtful practitioners of temperance; to steadfastly engage one another with grace and without malice; and to learn to not only negotiate but embrace ideological difference in order to learn from one another, to act with beneficence, to protect and preserve that which is worthy of such care, and to progress.

When people I value, respect, and just-plain-like make unfounded, disparaging, dismissive, unsupported, vicious comments that attack either ‘side’ through ad hominem and dogmatic arguments, I am greatly saddened. I am saddened by the anger and venom that accompanies almost all of our contemporary public discourse. I am saddened by the far right claiming proprietary rights over faith, and I am sickened by the far left claiming proprietary rights over intelligence. These strategies are unfair, unprincipled, and inaccurate and, to my mind, do not reflect, to borrow an iconic phrase, the state of our union. These practices—not any act of congress nor executive order nor economic crisis—will be our nation’s undoing.

In this election cycle, especially, I pledge to remind myself to think, act, speak, disagree, and compose not without passion but with patience, consideration, and openness. Does anyone care to join me in the attempt?