Pic of the Day

A Nation’s Strength

A Nation’s Strength 

By William Ralph Emerson

What makes a nation’s pillars high
And its foundations strong?
What makes it mighty to defy
The foes that round it throng?

It is not gold. Its kingdoms grand
Go down in battle shock;
Its shafts are laid on sinking sand,
Not on abiding rock.

Is it the sword? Ask the red dust
Of empires passed away;
The blood has turned their stones to rust,
Their glory to decay.

And is it pride? Ah, that bright crown
Has seemed to nations sweet;
But God has struck its luster down
In ashes at his feet.

Not gold but only men can make
A people great and strong;
Men who for truth and honor’s sake
Stand fast and suffer long.

Brave men who work while others sleep,
Who dare while others fly…
They build a nation’s pillars deep
And lift them to the sky.

About the Poem

Today is Election Day in the United States, and as Americans go to the polls to determine the direction of our country, I can think of few poems more appropriate than William Ralph Emerson’s “A Nation’s Strength.” It asks a question that seems particularly relevant today: What truly makes a nation great?

Is it wealth? Military power? National pride? Emerson dismisses each of these as the foundation of a nation’s greatness. History is littered with the ruins of wealthy empires, mighty armies, and nations whose pride blinded them to their own weaknesses. Gold can disappear, armies can be defeated, and national glory can fade into obscurity. None of these things guarantees a nation’s survival, much less its greatness.

Instead, Emerson argues that the true strength of a nation rests with its people, particularly those willing to stand for truth and honor, even when doing so requires sacrifice. It is the courage of ordinary citizens, their integrity, their willingness to work for something greater than themselves, and their determination to defend what is right that provide the foundation upon which a great nation is built.

I have long admired Ralph Waldo Emerson, whose essay Self-Reliance is, in my opinion, one of the great works of American philosophy. Its emphasis on individual conscience, independent thought, and the courage to resist conformity has always spoken to me. Much of my own personal philosophy has been shaped by those ideas. Although “A Nation’s Strength” was written by a different Emerson, I find much of that same spirit in its verses.

Self-reliance does not mean selfishness, nor does independence of thought mean disregarding the welfare of others. Rather, it means having the courage to think for ourselves, to question those in authority, and to stand by our convictions even when doing so is unpopular. A nation cannot remain free if its citizens surrender their consciences to political leaders, blindly accept whatever they are told, or remain silent in the face of injustice.

That is especially important on Election Day. Democracy requires more than simply waving a flag, proclaiming our patriotism, or declaring our country the greatest nation on earth. Patriotism is not blind loyalty to a president, a political party, or an ideology. True patriotism requires us to recognize our country’s shortcomings and work to correct them. It requires us to defend the rights of others, even when their beliefs, identities, or experiences differ from our own.

Throughout American history, some of our greatest achievements have come from people who refused to accept injustice as inevitable. Abolitionists, suffragists, civil rights activists, labor organizers, and LGBTQ+ advocates challenged the prevailing attitudes of their times. Many were condemned as troublemakers, radicals, or threats to the established order. Yet their courage helped move this country closer to the ideals of liberty and equality upon which it claims to have been founded.

Emerson’s final stanza is particularly meaningful:

Brave men who work while others sleep,
Who dare while others fly…
They build a nation’s pillars deep
And lift them to the sky.

Today, we might express those lines more inclusively, recognizing that women and men of every background have helped build and strengthen this nation. But the message remains unchanged. A nation’s greatness depends upon people willing to act when others remain silent, to defend the vulnerable when others turn away, and to stand for truth when lies are more convenient.

As we cast our ballots today, we should remember that the strength of our nation is not measured by the wealth of its billionaires, the size of its military, or the arrogance of its leaders. It is measured by the character of its people, the justice of its laws, and the dignity with which it treats its citizens.

The future of our democracy does not rest solely in the hands of those seeking office. It rests in ours. Our votes are one way we exercise that responsibility, but our obligation to stand for truth, honor, justice, and equality does not end when the polls close.

A nation’s strength is not something we inherit and can take for granted. It is something each generation must have the courage to build, protect, and preserve.

“A Nation’s Strength” is a patriotic poem by William Ralph Emerson that examines the qualities necessary for a nation to achieve lasting greatness. Rather than celebrating military conquest, material prosperity, or national prestige, Emerson argues that a country’s enduring strength comes from the moral character, courage, and perseverance of its people.

The poem consists of six quatrains, each following an ABAB rhyme scheme. Its straightforward language and steady rhythm give it a memorable, almost hymnlike quality. Emerson begins with a series of rhetorical questions, asking what makes a nation’s foundations strong. He then systematically rejects wealth, military force, and pride before revealing his answer in the final two stanzas.

The imagery is particularly effective. Kingdoms built upon wealth rest on “sinking sand,” while the remnants of fallen empires testify to the futility of military conquest. Pride, represented by a glittering crown, eventually becomes ashes. These images reinforce the idea that material power and worldly glory are temporary.

The poem’s central metaphor is architectural: the pillars and foundations of a nation. This imagery is especially fitting given Emerson’s profession as an architect. Just as a building requires a solid foundation to endure, a nation requires citizens whose commitment to truth and honor can withstand adversity.

Although the poem reflects the language and patriotic ideals of its era, its central message remains remarkably relevant. It reminds readers that the strength of a nation is ultimately a moral achievement rather than a material one.

About the Poet

William Ralph Emerson (1833–1917) was an American architect best known for his contributions to the Shingle Style of architecture, which became prominent in the northeastern United States during the late nineteenth century. Born in Alton, Illinois, he established his architectural practice in Boston and became particularly well known for designing distinctive houses and summer residences along the New England coast.

His architectural work emphasized natural materials, harmonious proportions, and buildings that complemented their surrounding landscapes. He was among the architects who helped establish the Shingle Style as a distinctly American form of residential architecture.

Although he shared a surname and family connections with the celebrated essayist and philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson, William Ralph Emerson was a different individual. His reputation rests primarily on his architectural achievements rather than his literary work.

Nevertheless, “A Nation’s Strength” reveals an appreciation for the relationship between moral character and national endurance. Its architectural imagery and emphasis on strong foundations provide a fitting expression of the ideals that Emerson believed could sustain a nation.

More than a century after his death, the poem continues to offer a timely reminder that a country’s greatness is not determined by its riches, its armies, or its declarations of superiority, but by the courage and integrity of the people who call it home.

Pic of the Day

A New Week, A Crucial Election

A new week has begun. It shouldn’t be too busy of a week, but it certainly promises to be an interesting one. With the U.S. midterm elections tomorrow, we’ll soon find out which party will control Congress.

Anyone who looks around and thinks, “I’m better off today than I was two years ago,” is either living in a very different America than I am or is a billionaire profiting from the current administration. If the average American really is better off, I’d love to know what miraculous dream world they’re living in, because it sure as hell doesn’t resemble the reality I see around me.

In my opinion, the Republican Party has turned the United States into a laughingstock on the world stage. I’m hoping that the reports of strong voter turnout translate into a good night for Democrats. Of course, I fully expect that if Republicans lose their congressional majorities or suffer significant defeats in traditionally red states, we’ll hear the familiar cries of voter fraud. We’ve seen how quickly allegations of election fraud can be thrown around when the results aren’t what certain politicians wanted. Allegations, however, are not evidence, and election results should be determined by the votes cast, not by the willingness of politicians to accept them.

What I hope for most is a blue wave large enough to put a meaningful check on this administration and begin making real changes that will help ordinary Americans. We need a government that works for the people, not just the wealthy and powerful.

Tomorrow is an opportunity for Americans to make their voices heard. Whatever happens, I hope every eligible voter understands the importance of participating in our democracy. No vote is insignificant, and no one should take the right to vote for granted.

Pic of the Day

Be Sober, Be Vigilant, Be Steadfast

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour. Resist him, steadfast in the faith, knowing that the same sufferings are experienced by your brotherhood in the world.” 

— 1 Peter 5:8–9 

This Tuesday is Election Day, and while I generally try not to mix religion and politics, I believe there are times when our faith calls us to examine the world around us and speak out against what we believe is wrong. I have long felt that the mixing of religion and politics often does more harm than good, particularly when Christianity is used to justify discrimination, promote political agendas, or claim that one political party has a monopoly on morality. However, there is a difference between using religion as a political weapon and allowing our faith to guide our understanding of justice, compassion, and our responsibilities to one another.

I have always believed, and will always believe, that the Word of God speaks to us in different ways. Scripture was written in particular historical circumstances, but its lessons are not confined to the past. The Bible continues to challenge us, comfort us, and warn us about the dangers we face in our own lives and in the world around us. When I read Peter’s warning to be sober and vigilant, I cannot help but think about the political climate in America today.

Peter describes our adversary as a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. Few political figures in modern American history have roared quite as loudly as Donald Trump. His bombastic rhetoric, personal attacks, and relentless demands for loyalty have become defining characteristics of his political movement. In my opinion, his pursuit of power and wealth, along with policies that I believe disproportionately benefit the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans, represents much of what Jesus warned us against.

I am not suggesting that Donald Trump is literally the devil. However, I do believe that scripture offers warnings about deception that are particularly relevant to his public conduct. In 2 John 1:7, we read, “Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist!” John was addressing a particular form of religious deception in the early church, but I believe his warning has meaning beyond its original circumstances.

When a political leader uses Christianity to strengthen his political identity, promotes Bibles bearing his name and commemorating his political achievements, and repeatedly invokes religion while demonstrating conduct that I find difficult to reconcile with the teachings of Christ, I believe Christians have every reason to question those claims of religious authority. The God Bless the USA Bible, including special editions commemorating Trump’s inauguration and survival of an assassination attempt, is an especially troubling example to me of the blending of religious devotion, political personality, and commercial enterprise.

I cannot know what is in another person’s heart. That judgment belongs to God. But Jesus did not tell us to accept every profession of faith without question. In Matthew 7:16, He tells us, “You will know them by their fruits.” I believe we have a responsibility to examine those fruits, particularly when someone claiming Christian values holds tremendous political power.

For decades, the Republican Party has presented itself as the party of morality and traditional Christian values. I have never accepted that claim. Morality is not the exclusive possession of any political party, and I believe that too many Republican voters have become willing to overlook behavior they would otherwise condemn because they support particular political goals. I have known people who acknowledge serious moral concerns about a candidate yet support that candidate because of a single issue they consider more important than everything else. I understand that people hold deeply felt convictions, but I struggle with the idea that those convictions should excuse conduct that otherwise contradicts their professed values. When we excuse dishonesty, cruelty, greed, or the mistreatment of others because it benefits our preferred political party, we should ask ourselves whether political loyalty has become more important than our Christian convictions.

Jesus repeatedly warned against greed and the corrupting influence of wealth. In Matthew 6:24, He taught, “You cannot serve God and wealth.” Yet I look at an administration whose economic priorities, in my view, favor the accumulation and protection of extraordinary wealth while ordinary Americans struggle with the cost of housing, healthcare, food, and other necessities. I find it difficult to reconcile those priorities with Christ’s concern for the poor, the vulnerable, and those whom society too often overlooks.

When Jesus was questioned about paying taxes to Rome, He answered, “Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). To me, those words remind us that our responsibilities to earthly governments do not supersede our responsibilities to God. We may owe our government taxes and obedience to just laws, but we do not owe any president, political party, or institution unquestioning allegiance. Our conscience must remain guided by something greater than political power.

My concerns extend far beyond economics. As a gay Christian, I am particularly troubled by efforts to weaken the rights and protections LGBTQ+ Americans have fought so hard to achieve. Those victories did not come easily. Generations of LGBTQ+ people endured discrimination, persecution, violence, and rejection to secure greater equality under the law. Yet we continue to see political efforts to restrict transgender rights, challenge protections against discrimination, and undermine the dignity of people who simply want to live honestly and openly as the people God created them to be.

I believe God created us in His image, and I do not believe that being LGBTQ+ makes anyone less worthy of His love and grace. I cannot accept the use of Christianity to justify denying others the freedoms and protections that we would demand for ourselves. I also believe that decisions about our own bodies, our identities, and our healthcare are deeply personal matters that should not be dictated by politicians seeking to impose their religious or ideological beliefs on everyone else. Jesus commanded us to love our neighbors, not merely those who look like us, believe like us, or live as we do.

I am also deeply concerned about the direction of the Supreme Court. Although the judiciary is constitutionally an independent branch of government, I believe the Court’s conservative majority has issued decisions that have weakened fundamental protections. In Shelby County v. Holder, the Court struck down the coverage formula that determined which jurisdictions needed federal approval before changing voting laws. To me, that decision represents a troubling erosion of safeguards intended to protect the right to vote. More broadly, I worry about the Court’s willingness to reconsider long-established constitutional protections and what that could mean for personal liberty and LGBTQ+ equality.

These concerns are not limited to one institution. Republicans currently control the presidency and both chambers of Congress, while a conservative majority sits on the Supreme Court. I believe that concentration of political and ideological influence makes the checks and balances envisioned by our Constitution especially important.

I want to make an important distinction here. An adversary is not necessarily an enemy, and neither word automatically means evil. An adversary is someone who opposes us or works against our interests. I regard political leaders who seek to restrict LGBTQ+ rights and other fundamental freedoms as political adversaries. That does not mean I regard every Republican voter as an enemy, nor does it mean that every disagreement is a battle between good and evil. However, I believe the lines between political opposition, hostility, and moral wrongdoing have become increasingly blurred in our current political climate.

Peter tells us to resist our adversary and remain steadfast in the faith. He also reminds us that others throughout the world share our suffering. That reminder is important because our struggles are not ours alone. When the rights of one group are threatened, others should not assume that their own freedoms will always remain secure. When we see injustice directed toward our neighbors, our faith calls us to care about their suffering, even when we do not share their circumstances.

For me, vigilance means paying attention to what our leaders say and do, questioning claims of moral or religious authority, and refusing to become indifferent to the suffering of others. Steadfastness means holding to our convictions even when doing so is unpopular or uncomfortable. Resistance does not have to mean hatred, and it certainly should not mean abandoning the compassion and mercy that Jesus taught. We can oppose policies and actions without surrendering our own humanity.

This Tuesday, Americans will have an opportunity to participate in the democratic process and determine who represents them in Congress. The House of Representatives and the Senate have important responsibilities in checking executive power, overseeing the government, and shaping the laws under which we live. Even when political disagreements make progress difficult, those institutions matter.

I am deeply troubled by partisan gerrymandering and efforts that make voting more difficult. When electoral boundaries are manipulated to protect political power, voters can understandably feel that their voices matter less. Yet I do not believe discouragement should lead to surrender. Our democratic rights are too important to take for granted, and protecting them requires continued participation and vigilance.

No election will solve every problem. No political party is without fault, and no elected official should be beyond criticism. But I believe we must consider the moral consequences of the choices made by those who govern us. We should ask whether their actions reflect honesty, justice, compassion, and respect for human dignity. We should also be willing to examine our own convictions and recognize when political loyalty threatens to blind us to wrongdoing.

The warning in 1 Peter is not simply about recognizing danger. It is about refusing to allow ourselves to be overcome by it. We are called to remain sober in our judgment, vigilant in our awareness, and steadfast in our faith. Those responsibilities do not disappear when the issues before us become political.

I believe that the teachings of Jesus Christ should challenge us to be better people, not give us permission to mistreat those with whom we disagree. Christianity should never be reduced to a campaign slogan, a political endorsement, or a symbol of allegiance to an earthly leader. Our faith should be evident in the way we treat others, especially those who are vulnerable, marginalized, or suffering.

As we approach Election Day, I encourage everyone to examine their conscience and consider what kind of country they want to live in. Think about the values that matter most to you, the rights and freedoms you believe deserve protection, and the responsibilities we share toward our neighbors. Do not allow political slogans, religious posturing, or the loudest voices in the room to substitute for your own moral judgment.

Be sober. Be vigilant. Be steadfast in the faith.

And on Tuesday, put those convictions into action. Exercise your right to vote, defend the rights of others to do the same, and remember that our responsibilities as Christians and as citizens do not end when the polls close. We must continue to question those in power, stand against injustice, and protect the dignity and freedoms of our neighbors. Our faith calls us to be vigilant, and our democracy depends upon our willingness to remain so.

Pic of the Day 👻

Moment of Zen: Happy Halloween!🎃

He Made It So

He Made It So

It has been a heartbreaking week for Star Trek fans. On Sunday, we lost Walter Koenig, who played Ensign Pavel Chekov in Star Trek: The Original Series. Then, on Wednesday, Sir Patrick Stewart, the beloved Captain Jean-Luc Picard of Star Trek: The Next Generation, passed away at the age of 86. Koenig was 90, which surprised me because I had never realized that he was only four years older than Stewart. For Trekkies everywhere, losing two members of the Star Trek family in the same week is almost too much to bear.

I have been a Star Trek fan for as long as I can remember. I’ve seen every episode of the original series and The Next Generation, watched every live-action Star Trek series, and seen all the movies. As an aside, I’ve watched Deep Space Nine more times than I can count, and The Next Generation nearly as many. I’ve spent countless hours aboard the various starships named Enterprise, traveled to Deep Space Nine, journeyed through the Delta Quadrant aboard Voyager, and explored strange new worlds alongside generations of Starfleet officers.

When Star Trek: The Next Generation premiered in 1987, Patrick Stewart had the unenviable task of following William Shatner’s James T. Kirk. Kirk was bold, charismatic, impulsive, and sometimes reckless. Picard was something different. He was thoughtful, diplomatic, intellectual, and guided by an unwavering moral compass. Stewart brought his considerable Shakespearean training to the role, giving Picard a dignity and gravitas that made him one of television’s most memorable characters. He could command a starship with a quiet word or deliver a stirring speech about justice and humanity.

Perhaps no moment demonstrated how indispensable Stewart had become to The Next Generation more than the cliffhanger at the end of the third season in 1990. In “The Best of Both Worlds,” Captain Picard had been captured and assimilated by the Borg, becoming Locutus. With the fate of the Federation hanging in the balance, Commander Riker gave Worf the order to fire on the Borg ship, knowing that Picard was aboard. The screen went black, and Star Trek fans collectively held their breath for the entire summer. Stewart was reportedly involved in contract negotiations at the time, and there was genuine uncertainty about whether he would return. Would Picard survive? Would Riker become the Enterprise’s new captain? Thankfully, Stewart returned, because Star Trek needed a captain with his gravitas. The resolution became one of the series’ defining moments, and Stewart’s portrayal of Picard’s trauma and recovery demonstrated just how much depth he could bring to a character who might otherwise have been little more than a commanding presence on the bridge.

But Picard was never simply a stern captain. Stewart gave him humanity, vulnerability, humor, and compassion. He showed us a man who could be strong without being cruel, authoritative without being arrogant, and courageous without being fearless. Picard believed in diplomacy, knowledge, and the fundamental dignity of others. In many ways, he represented the very best of what Star Trek has always aspired to be.

A couple of years ago, I read Stewart’s memoir, Making It So, and came away with an even greater appreciation for the man behind the captain. His journey from a working-class childhood in Yorkshire to the Royal Shakespeare Company, and eventually to the bridge of the Enterprise, was remarkable. His life was not without hardship, and his willingness to discuss those experiences made his accomplishments all the more meaningful. He was a gifted actor whose career extended far beyond Star Trek, including his memorable portrayal of Professor Charles Xavier in the X-Men films, but to me, he will always be Captain Picard.

I was especially grateful that Stewart returned to the role in Star Trek: Picard. While the first two seasons had their moments, the third and final season was something truly special. Bringing together the principal cast of The Next Generation was a wonderful tribute not only to that series but to the entire era of Star Trek that flourished during the 1980s and 1990s. Seeing those familiar faces together again, particularly aboard a lovingly recreated Enterprise-D, felt like coming home. It gave those characters, and the fans who had loved them for decades, a proper farewell. Now, with Stewart’s passing, that final season feels even more poignant. I am grateful we got to see him take command one last time.

Of course, Stewart and Koenig are only the latest members of the Star Trek family we have lost. Jeffrey Hunter, who portrayed Captain Christopher Pike in the original pilot episode, The Cage, died in 1969, just days before the final episode of the original series aired. DeForest Kelley, our beloved Dr. Leonard “Bones” McCoy, died in 1999. James Doohan, who played the irreplaceable Montgomery Scott, passed away in 2005. Majel Barrett-Roddenberry, widow of Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, died in 2008. She portrayed Number One, the Enterprise’s first officer in the original pilot, at a time when television executives apparently couldn’t imagine a woman in such a position of command. She later played Nurse Christine Chapel in the original series and the wonderfully flamboyant Lwaxana Troi in The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. Perhaps most fittingly, she was quite literally the voice of the Enterprise, providing the familiar voice of the ship’s computer across multiple generations of Star Trek. Leonard Nimoy, whose portrayal of Spock helped define Star Trek itself, died in 2015. We lost Anton Yelchin, who played Chekov in the rebooted films, far too young in 2016. Nichelle Nichols, whose groundbreaking portrayal of Lieutenant Uhura helped make Star Trek a symbol of a more inclusive future, died in 2022. Each loss has taken away another piece of the universe we have loved for so long.

Walter Koenig’s passing earlier this week was particularly sad. As Chekov, he brought youthful enthusiasm, humor, and a certain Russian pride to the bridge of the original Enterprise. At a time when the United States and the Soviet Union were bitter Cold War adversaries, the presence of a Russian officer aboard an American-created starship was a powerful statement about the future Gene Roddenberry envisioned. Koenig helped make that vision believable. His death leaves William Shatner and George Takei as the last surviving members of the original series’ principal cast.

What makes these losses so difficult is that Star Trek has never been merely entertainment to its most devoted fans. At its heart, the franchise has always been about hope. It imagines a future in which humanity has overcome many of the prejudices, divisions, and petty conflicts that continue to plague our world. It celebrates curiosity, exploration, friendship, diversity, and the belief that we can become better than we are. Its characters have become familiar companions, and the actors who brought them to life have helped shape how generations of fans think about the world.

Patrick Stewart understood that responsibility. Through Jean-Luc Picard, he gave us a leader who believed that principles mattered, that compassion was not weakness, and that the pursuit of knowledge and understanding was among humanity’s noblest endeavors. He made us believe that such a future was possible.

The actors may leave us, but the worlds they helped create remain. We can still hear Dr. McCoy grumble, watch Scotty perform another engineering miracle, smile at Chekov’s insistence that something was invented in Russia, and listen to Spock remind us of the importance of logic. And whenever we need a reminder of what principled leadership looks like, we can return to the bridge of the Enterprise-D and find Captain Picard sitting in his chair, ready to take us on another adventure.

Sir Patrick Stewart gave us so much more than a memorable television character. He gave us someone to admire, someone to learn from, and someone whose example will continue to inspire us.

He made it so.

Rest in peace, Sir Patrick Stewart and Walter Koenig. Thank you for helping us boldly go where no one has gone before.

Pic of the Day