Saturday, January 24, 2015

Hymns for the OSHC Service of Sunday, January 25, 2015

From: Richard Thomas [mailto:richardathomas@optonline.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 9:40 PM

 

Hi,

 

The opening hymn was written by Isaac Watts, “I Sing the Mighty Power of God,” No. 288, sung to the tune  ELLACOMBE

 

Isaac Watts wrote the words in 1715.  The tune dates from 1784.

 

http://www.hymnary.org/tune/ellacombe


ELLACOMBE
Published in a chapel hymnal for the Duke of W├╝rtemberg (Gesangbuch der Herzogl, 1784), E
LLACOMBE (the name of a village in Devonshire, England) was first set to the words "Ave Maria, klarer und lichter Morgenstern." During the first half of the nineteenth century various German hymnals altered the tune.

 

ELLACOMBE is a rounded bar form (AABA), rather cheerful in character, and easily sung in harmony.

Isaac Watts (1674-1748)

 

Isaac Watts was born in Southampton, UK, on 17 Jul 1674, and died at Stoke Newington, UK, on 25 Nov 1748.  He wrote 750 hymns, many of which are still sung today.  His parents were not members of the Church of England, so, because of the Uniformity Act of 1662, Watts was not allowed to attend Oxford or Cambridge.

 

The father of Isaac Watts was a leader of Protestant dissenters and ran a boarding school in Southampton.  He spent several periods in jail for his non-conformity.

 

Even before Isaac Watts could speak plainly, he loved books.  He began to learn Latin at the age of four.  He also learned Greek and studied Hebrew.  He started writing verses or poems at the age of seven or eight. As he was excluded from the colleges, in 1690, at age 16, he went to London to be educated  by the Rev. Mr. Thomas Rowe.

 

In addition to being a hymn writer, Isaac Watts was a logician, you can read one of his books on that topic on Google books: 

 

The Improvement of the Mind: Or, A Supplement to the Art of Logick: Containing a Variety of Remarks and Rules for the Attainment and Communication of Useful Knowledge, in Religion, in the Sciences, and in Common Life, 2 ed., London, 1743.

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=LMwAAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Isaac+Watts&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xSTEVKmiFMyfggTup4GYAQ&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Isaac%20Watts&f=false

 

We were going to sing this hymn on 28 Aug 2011, but the service was cancelled due to Tropical Storm Irene. 

 

We did sing the hymn on 14 Oct 2013, on 02 Feb 2014, and on 24 Aug 2014.  Earlier, I wrote:

 

The best thing about this hymn is that we get to try to rhyme “food” with “good,” which makes your lips pucker.

 

Here it is sung a cappella by a male trio:

 

                http://youtu.be/uCLCHebTKas  “I Sing the Mighty Power of God” sung by the Ball Brothers

 

                And performed by the McLean Bible Church String Orchestra

 

http://youtu.be/xSH-8f2NKOU  “I Sing the Mighty Power of God” instrumental, string quartet, arranged by Jeff Anderson (exceptionally good)

 

If you prefer a rock version, you can hear one here:

 

                http://youtu.be/fasFvlEH8-E “The Mighty Power of God” by Team Strike Force of the Mars Hill Church in Seattle.  (I actually like the music, but it doesn’t fit the words very well.)

If we could get a guitarist and a drummer, the Old South Haven Choir could try that version.


The second hymn is “There is a Wideness in God’s Mercy,” written by Frederick William Faber in 1854.  The tune is a Dutch melody, IN BABILONE.   In 2008, Danny Coreliussen had us order 10 copies of this hymn as an anthem arrangement by Maurice Bevan, but that’s an entirely different tune.

 

Frederick Faber (b. 28 Jun 1814, Calverley, Yorkshire, England; d. London, 26 Sep 1863) attended Harrow School, then Balliol College, University of Oxford.  He was of Huguenot descent, and was tempted by Calvinism, but ultimately decided to follow the ideas of Newman.  He was ordained in the Church of England in 1839.  During tours of Europe, he began to develop an enthusiasm for Catholic liturgy and rites.

 

Faber was received into the Catholic faith in October 1845.  He established a religious community at Cotton Hall, near Cheadle, Staffordshire, in 1846.  The members of the group were called Wilfridians, for St. Wilfrid was their patron saint.  Faber was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1847.

 

You can learn about the movement here:  http://youtu.be/aOjJhXbYmr8 St. Wilfrid’s Church

 

There was some friction, as Rome wanted to use its funds to start Catholic congregations in the big cities; Birmingham, Manchester, and London, rather than support a small group in the Midlands.  But Lord Shrewsbury, who had already provided a significant amount in support of St. Wilfrid’s, insisted it not be abandoned.

 

Frederick W. Faber

 

Faber’s group began converting the community to Catholicism, and except for “the parson, the pew-opener, and two drunken men,” they succeeded.

 

                http://youtu.be/HQISm1Iu5nk  “There is a Wideness in God’s Mercy,” by Larry Sue and Carla

 

The tune, IN BABILONE, dates from before 1710 and is also used with “Hail, Thou Once-Despis├Ęd Jesus!,” “Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken, Zion, City of Our God,” “Christ, We Climb with You the Mountain,” “See the Conqueror Mounts in Triumph,” “Holy Spirit, Ever Dwelling,” and “Son of God, Eternal Savior.”


 

The closing hymn is “Dear Lord and Father of Mankind” (1872) by the poet John Greenleaf Whittier.  The tune is REST (1887) by Frederick Charles Maker.

 

Whittier was a Quaker and an abolitionist.  When I was in the fourth grade, I had a teacher who believed in the old ways of teaching, where the pupils were to read and memorize poetry.  One of the poems was “The Barefoot Boy” by John Greenleaf Whittier:

 

Blessings on thee, little man,

Barefoot boy, with cheek of tan!

With thy turned-up pantaloons,

And thy merry whistled tunes;

With thy red lip, redder still

Kissed by strawberries on the hill;

With the sunshine on thy face,

Through thy torn brim's jaunty grace;

From my heart I give thee joy, -

I was once a barefoot boy!

 

Prince thou art, - the grown-up man

Only is republican.

Let the million-dollared ride!

Barefoot, trudging at his side,

Thou hast more than he can buy

In the reach of ear and eye, -

Outward sunshine, inward joy:

Blessings on thee, barefoot boy!

. . .

 

He started out life as a farm-boy, so perhaps he was once a barefoot boy himself.  Then he became a shoemaker!  It was later that he went into journalism and poetry.

 

He was the editor of the American Manufacturer (Boston), and the New England Review.  In 1836, he became secretary of the American Anti-Slavery Society.  In 1847, he became corresponding editor of the National Era.

 

The words of “Dear Lord and Father of Mankind” are taken from a much longer poem, “The Brewing of Soma” beginning at the twelfth stanza.

 

His poems were used for many other hymns, including “All Things Are Thine, No Gift Have We,” “O Brother Man, Fold to Thy Heart Thy Brother,” “We May Not Climb the Heavenly Steeps,” “Another Hand Is Beckoning Us,”  “I Ask Not Now for Gold to Gild,” “O Lord and Master of Us All,” “We Faintly Hear, We Dimly See,” “Immortal Love, Forever Full,” “O Pure Reformers, Not in Vain,” and “Shall We Grow Weary in Our Watch?”

 

Here is the hymn:

 

                http://youtu.be/ChwULHU8Asc “Dear Lord and Father of Mankind,” by John Greenleaf Whittier; tune REST (Elton) by Frederick Charles Maker

 

Frederick Charles Maker (b. 16 Aug 1844, Bristol, Gloucestershire, England; d. 01 Jan 1927, Bristol) was the organist for several non-conformist churches in Bristol: the Milk Street Free Methodist Church, Redland Park Free Congregational Church, and Clifton Downs Free Congregational Church  He was also Professor of Music at Clifton College.

 

Frederick C. Maker also composed the tune for “Beneath the Cross of Jesus,”  ST. CHRISTOPHER.

 

Richard

 

Saturday, January 17, 2015

FW: Hiking Fire Island today

From: Martin VanLith

 

 

My high school friend Dennis Fagan and I have hiked Fire Island every year on our birthdays since the late 1960s. Today was really fun. 

Text is above the pictures.

Nope, not a Muslin burka. It's Dennis dressed for a cold day on the ocean beach. Today, Jan 16, is Dennis's 70th birthday 

 

 

 

 25-30 MPH WNW wind -

 

 

 Pretty much the same blowouts still there from Irene (2011) and Sandy (2012), nothing new. Ocean did over-wash these blowouts in a December nor'easter but it seems to have done little damage. Overall the beach seems to be in good shape, slowly rebuilding.

 

 

 We're in the middle of the island in a area that once was a swale but now covered with washed over beach and dune sand -

 

 

 

 There are sections of the island that weren't damaged at all, looks the same as before Irene. - 

 

 


 

 

 The former small oases of scrub pines that used to dot the old Burma Road are all dead.  

 

 


 

 

Pictured is the east side approaching the reopened Smith's Inlet -

 

 

 There is a sand bar now that stretches from near the island northward to Pelican Island -

 

 

 outgoing tide -

 

 

 

 

 

 Didn't see any whales, seals or turtles. They may have been around but the ocean was too rough to see anything in it. -  

 

 

 If you are interested, I also took some video of the inlet.

 

 --Marty

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, October 28, 2014

The Continuing Evolution of the Old Inlet Breach, Charles N. Flagg,, Report 11

From: HamletReporter [mailto:HamletReporter@BrookhavenSouthHaven.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:41 AM

Charlie Flagg, SUNY-Stony Brook,  recently conducted another survey (report #11) of the new inlet at Old Inlet on Fire Island, aka Smith’s Inlet. 

Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Today's New York Timees Science section: Barrier Islands Feeling the Effects of Climate Change

Despite the Dateline of the Times article of “Quogue,” the lead inlet picture is of the new “Smith’s Inlet” on Fire Island opposite Fire Place Neck and Brookhaven Hamlet.  The later before & after picture appears to be the same region of Fire Island.  Quogue is significantly further east on Long Island.  The barrier beach there usually is no longer considered “Fire Island.”  This barrier beach is defined by Moriches inlet at the west and Shinnicock inlet at the east.

H.R.

 

 

SCIENCE

Growing, and Growing Vulnerable

Barrier Islands Feeling the Effects of Climate Change

Photo

QUOGUE, N.Y. — As the president of the Fire Island Association
, Suzy Goldhirsch has a message she says she often offers property owners. “We are living on a sandbar in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean,” she tells them. “We are in a high-risk environment. We on barrier islands are on the front lines of climate change.”

 

QUOGUE, N.Y. — As the president of the Fire Island Association, Suzy Goldhirsch has a message she says she often offers property owners. “We are living on a sandbar in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean,” she tells them. “We are in a high-risk environment. We on barrier islands are on the front lines of climate change.”

 

The same could be said of many coastal areas around the world, which are threatened by rising sea levels as the planet warms. But the barrier islands that line the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, from Cape Cod to the Mexican border, are a special case.

A new report from the National Research Council finds that the effect of climate change is especially harsh on these islands. Population growth in much of this long coast “is nearly twice the national average,” the report said. Meanwhile, “these same coasts are subject to impact by some of the most powerful storms on earth and the destruction potential of these events is increasing due to climate change and relative sea-level rise.”

And so far, the report added, “as a compassionate nation, we rally each time a disaster strikes and provide resources for postdisaster recovery that far exceed those we are willing to provide to manage risk.”

The panel calls for a regional or even national approach to managing coastal hazards — a “proactive” effort to protect life, landscape and property, rather than the “disjointed and largely reactive approach” that has marked coastal protection efforts.

Until relatively recently, barrier islands defended themselves against rising seas by, in a sense, moving to higher ground: Storms washed beach sand to the islands’ inland side; inlets formed and healed, usually leaving sand deposits behind the islands. This process worked well, as geologists noticed after the Ash Wednesday storm in 1962, a nor’easter that battered much of the East Coast through five high tides. Afterward, they reported that beach recovery was fastest and most robust in areas with the least development.

Continue reading the main story

Fire Island, Before and After Sandy

Lidar laser light pulse images showing how Fire Island in New York looked before Hurricane Sandy hit in 2012, left, and how Fire Island looked afterward.

U.S. Geological Survey

(The above is an active link online,  bar can be slid left or right)

But today, Ms. Goldhirsch said, nature can no longer be left to take its course even as sea level rises. On many barrier islands, even federally designated national seashores like Fire Island, inlets are stabilized by rock jetties, beaches are routinely renourished with sand pumped from offshore, and miles of sea walls and other armor protect buildings.

“Let nature take its course — I don’t think that’s good planning,” she said. “That’s not public policy. Public policy is you have to figure out what to do.”

With the rapid development of the past few decades, the economic stakes have escalated drastically. The research council’s report, “Reducing Coastal Risk on the East and Gulf Coasts,” says that from 1980 to 2013, the United States had 33 coastal storms that each caused more than $1 billion in damage, sometimes far more.

While those storms represented about 22 percent of all the nation’s billion-dollar-plus disasters over that period, they caused about 49 percent of the economic losses. Adjusted for inflation, losses from coastal storms have tripled since 1980.

Many losses result from storm surge, the bulge of water that storms push onshore. Even if storms do not increase in frequency or intensity, the sea level’s rising will worsen damage from storm surge, which the report calls “the most destructive aspect of a hurricane.”

Subsidies, emergency relief and ad hoc projects on the East and Gulf Coasts have encouraged development in the face of such danger, the report said. These can be “inappropriate incentives” according to the panel’s head, Richard A. Luettich Jr., a professor of marine sciences at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

The report was commissioned by the Army Corps of Engineers, which, acting on the instructions of Congress, has had a large hand in this work. Among its other projects in response to Hurricane Sandy, the corps plans a Fire Island project that would pump seven million cubic yards of sand from offshore and construct new dunes and beaches along almost 20 miles of beachfront.

Supporters argue that the project will strengthen the island and that, in turn, will protect low-lying shore communities across Great South Bay. But opponents disagree, citing assessments from the United States Geological Survey; Fire Island’s relative stability over time; and other factors. Left alone, they argue, it will eventually recover from the storm. And drawing sand from offshore deposits to build new dunes could actually harm the island, they say.

In September, the National Audubon Society won a temporary restraining order halting the project, saying that pumping sand onto the island would harm nesting sites for endangered shorebirds.

Private and publicly financed shoreline engineering projects are provoking similar arguments in places like Nantucket Island, Mass.; Harvey Cedars, on Long Beach Island, N.J.; and the Outer Banks of North Carolina. On many barrier islands, daily life becomes more complicated as sea level rises. Here in Quogue, east of Fire Island, people use caution when driving on the main beach road when the moon is full (when tides are unusually high) because that’s when salt water from Quantuck Bay can flood across the road.

On the Outer Banks, the main road washes out routinely now, whenever “the tide is high and the wind is blowing,” as some residents put it. And everywhere, people are raising their houses on pilings, sometimes 20 feet or more in the air.

Nevertheless, the expert panel said, it is hard to win support for safety measures that would require communities to “forgo revenue-generating potential by limiting development.”

Robert S. Young, the director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University, said he was glad to see the expert panel emphasize the need for a long-term, large-scale, proactive approach because “managing the coast parcel by parcel is a bad idea.”

“Every single problem we have today is only going to get worse in the future,” he said. “The only uncertainty is how fast they are going to get worse.”

But getting such a message across will be difficult, the panel said, adding that “assessing, communicating and managing risk in coastal areas are very challenging concepts even for a committee of experts in coastal science and engineering.”

Ms. Goldhirsch said Fire Island could be a model for intelligent planning, in part because even though people would bring different interests and goals to the process, “we all love the place.”

Her family has summered on Fire Island for more than 100 years, she said, and she understands its dangers. Hers is a modest house, where she keeps no valuables.

“I tell people, ‘If you don’t have the nervous system to live in a risky situation, it’s O.K. to sell or stormproof your house, or live modestly,’ ” she said. “Don’t try to get the federal government to pay for everything. They don’t have enough money.”

A version of this article appears in print on September 30, 2014, on page D3 of the New York edition with the headline: Growing, and Growing Vulnerable. ||

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Smith's Inlet article in the October 2014 National Geographic Magazine

From: Martin VanLith
Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2014 9:08 PM
Subject: Smith's Inlet article in the October 2014 National Geographic Magazine



Monday, August 25, 2014

ABCO and the NY times Editorial

From: MaryAnn Johnston <mryjhnstn@aol.com>
Date: August 23, 2014 1:07:43 PM EDT
Subject: ABCO and the NY times Editorial

All, 

Subject: ABCO and the NY times Ediotrial
This past spring, ABCO [Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organization, Inc.] submitted lengthy comments regarding our concerns with the superficial scientific analysis and basic  scientific soundness and prospects for success of the Fire Island to Moriches Inlet (FIMI) plan, as well as the flawed scientific basis used for the larger proposed FIMP (Fire Island to Montauk Point)  proposed plan. We clearly understood the all too obvious and compelling reasons for a  knee jerk decision based on the destruction and heartache heaped on the vulnerable Mainland communities of Mastic Beach and Lindenhurst.  More importantly, we had hoped that any solutions proposed to protect these areas would actually be focused on those mainland areas.  We sincerely hoped that the wealth of substantial science now available would be used to comprehensively study impacts and allocated funds would be spent to provide realistic protection measures geared and actually implemented  to protect those mainland communities. 

Unfortunately, those communities were little more than a mere excuse to
 once again recommend an over-the-top knee jerk response. Predictably, one that the Army Corps and politicians have repeatedly employed for decades, with little regard for either Fire Island or the Mainlands' safety.  We understood all too well the political concerns, but advocated strongly that the Army Corps not forego an exhaustive environmental analysis of all alternatives, and protect those most vulnerable areas with more than a plan to place sand on a beach that time after time and year after year just continues to wash away. 

We were  also deeply disturbed and expressed concerns that the recommendations of several other interested agencies were apparently strong-armed  and diluted their dire concerns and  were urged to endorse a project they had previously labeled as ineffective, destructive of flora and fauna, or had no reasonable expectation for any long term success.

We also understood then and now, that  purely political decisions are rarely if ever reached based on any sound science, and the flawed FIMI plan is no exception.  Our comments and concerns were developed over 18 months, and were based on solid science, research,and the belief that the decision to place sand along the barrier island between the Fire Island Lighthouse and Moriches Inlet (FIMI) would end up simply being another enormous waste of valuable resources, and would provide virtually no protection for the Mainland, but would actually create conditions that could place it in real peril.

We believe that the natural processes at work for centuries along our southern coast's barrier islands are still capable of restoring the dunes, if only the ACOE does not continue to deplete the ocean sand deposits necessary for that process through ill advised dredging.  We strongly urged that the breach at Old Inlet remain open to clean our bays, and that the dunes and beaches destroyed in our public recreation areas at Smith Point, Moriches Inlet and the Robert Moses State Park be protected by an expeditious rebuild of those dune areas for protection of the communities on newly vulnerable mainland areas.  However, we expressed our disbelief that the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area (CEHA) line was re-drawn and tailored to skirt around homes in the Fire Island Pines.  Clearly, the best solution was to draw the line based on science, and remove all structures that fell south of the line lying vulnerable to Atlantic seas.  Once again a political decision and massive money influence prevented a solution geared to protect both the barrier island or the Mainland and simply catered  once again to those loud special interest voices.

Yesterdays' NY Times editorial (below) echoes our concerns and speaks to the question all of us should have asked before the plan was approved...Nonetheless we should all now be asking  again..."What and who are we really pretending to protect...and why"

MaryAnn Johnston

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/22/opinion/a-beach-project-built-on-sand.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone
 A Beach Project Built on Sand

By ROBERT S. YOUNG
AUG. 21, 2014

Saturday, August 23, 2014

Your tax money at work - Beach Project Built on Sand

New York Times

 

The Opinion Pages | OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

A Beach Project Built on Sand

Photo

Credit Rob Pybus

EARLIER this month, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo announced a $207 million plan to dredge millions of tons of sand off the south shore of Long Island and spread it along the beaches and dunes. The Army Corps of Engineers, which will direct the federally financed project, says it will stabilize Fire Island and reduce the storm surge hazard for the mainland.

In fact, the project will do neither. It is a colossal waste of money and another consequence of the nation’s failure to develop a coherent plan to address the risks from storms faced by states along the eastern seaboard and gulf coast.

That failure was underscored in a report last month by the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences, which evaluated efforts by the Army Corps and other federal agencies to reduce those risks. The take-away from the National Research Council was alarming: There is no national plan to manage the coast. No plan for storm-damage reduction. No plan for how best to allocate federal funds. And no plan for how to respond to coastal hazards and rising sea levels over the long run.

This leaves governments reactive rather than proactive. Most money is provided only after a disaster occurs, and is to be used in the areas affected by that one storm. In some cases, government officials and politicians want to be seen doing something, anything, to protect valuable coastal properties. Unfortunately, science and reality have been ignored in the plan to rebuild storm-damaged beaches and dunes along 19 miles of Long Island’s South Shore, including Fire Island National Seashore.

Scientists from the United States Geological Survey have been studying the evolution of Fire Island for more than a decade. They have examined how the sediment moves, where it comes from, how the island’s shoreline changes and the way ocean waters move in front of and behind the island during storms. The results of these studies have been published in numerous peer-reviewed journals.

In its evaluation of the Army Corps’ draft Fire Island plan, the Geological Survey pointed out that the project’s justification and benefits were seriously flawed. The project will not reduce storm surge or storm hazards for properties across from Fire Island on the mainland, even though a significant portion of the cost justification for rebuilding the beaches and dunes came from protecting private property and infrastructure on the mainland. Why else would you spend so much to pump all that sand on the island?

The Army Corps’ environmental assessment made a broad assumption that Fire Island had been “damaged” by Hurricane Sandy and required repair and stabilization. But significant work over the years by coastal scientists at the Geological Survey has laid out a very clear picture of the long-term evolution of the island. Fire Island is a barrier island that does not require this project to “stabilize” it. The island and the national seashore have been relatively stable since colonial times.

Significant post-storm recovery of the island’s beaches has already occurred since Sandy. Natural reformation of the sand dunes will take longer, but nature is already repairing the island. Free of charge.

Fire Island is blessed with significant near-shore sand that has maintained shoreline stability over the years. This is the very sand that the Corps plans to dredge to build artificial dunes. The impacts of changing the natural flow of this sediment to the beach are unknown, but surprises are possible.

 

Dredge-and-fill projects like this are not environmentally benign. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service warned that the plan, in the short term, would hurt fish and wildlife and their supporting ecosystems, and would have long-term consequences on habitat and the island itself.

Of particular concern to some scientists and environmentalists is the habitat for piping plovers. These birds are listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened nationally and endangered within the State of New York. Storms like Hurricane Sandy actually create fabulous habitat for these birds in the storm deposits that sweep across Fire Island. But the proposed dune building will interrupt the development of that habitat.

Fire Island National Seashore is a perfect example of a place where storm impacts should be viewed as a natural event. Storms are an important part of barrier island sustainability. The waters that wash over the island also pile sand on top of the barrier, adding to the overall elevation of the island itself. The Corps’ proposed dunes will block that process.

It is hard to understand why this project was allowed to move forward without a more detailed investigation in the form of an environmental impact statement. The Corps relied on old science or no science to build a case for the benefits. The scientific criticism provided by other agencies was overwhelming but went largely unaddressed. Instead, the Corps will bury a national seashore, a state park and a county park in sand under the illusion that some properties in low-lying areas on the mainland might gain a small bit of protection.

This is the new post-Sandy model. We now favor political expediency over science, and action over a thoughtful evaluation of its long-term consequences.

Robert S. Young is a professor of coastal geology and director of the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Western Carolina University.

A version of this op-ed appears in print on August 22, 2014, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: A Beach Project Built on Sand. ||