Production Week

It's going to be hard to find time to add interesting material to this humble blog this week. I am performing in a concert at New Mexico State University this Friday and Saturday, and this week we have rehearsals every night. Composer David Dickau was commissioned to compose two new works for us. Justin Raines' composition "The Raven" is also going to be featured. I had the honor of conducting the world premier of this piece. My own composition for treble choir "Sea Fever," is feature on the concert, sung by the Gadsden School District Honor Choir.

Performing keeps me busy, but it is what I love to do.

In an Arab Country

This satirical poem was written by the reformist Saudi author and journalist Wajeha Al-Huwaider. I thought it was worth sharing. It was also on this site

"When you cannot find a single garden in your city, but there is a mosque on every corner - you know that you are in an Arab country…

"When you see people living in the past with all the trappings of modernity - do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country.

"When religion has control over science - you can be sure that you are in an Arab country.

"When clerics are referred to as 'scholars' - don't be astonished, you are in an Arab country.

"When you see the ruler transformed into a demigod who never dies or relinquishes his power, and whom nobody is permitted to criticize - do not be too upset, you are in an Arab country.

"When you find that the large majority of people oppose freedom and find joy in slavery - do not be too distressed, you are in an Arab country.

"When you hear the clerics saying that democracy is heresy, but [see them] seizing every opportunity provided by democracy to grab high positions [in the government] - do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country…

"When monarchies turn into theocracies, and republics into hybrids of monarchy and republic - do not be taken aback, you are in an Arab country.

"When you find that the members of parliament are nominated [by the ruler], or else that half of them are nominated and the other half have bought their seats through bribery… - you are in an Arab country…

"When you discover that a woman is worth half of what a man is worth, or less - do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country…

"When you see that the authorities chop off a man's hand for stealing a loaf of bread or a penny, but praise and glorify those who steal billions - do not be too surprised, you are in an Arab country…

"When you are forced to worship the Creator in school and your teachers grade you for it - you can be sure that you are in an Arab country…

"When young women students are publicly flogged merely for exposing their eyes - you are in an Arab country…

"When a boy learns about menstruation and childbirth but not about his own [body] and [the changes] it undergoes in puberty - roll out your prayer mat and beseech Allah to help you deal with your crisis, for you are in an Arab country…

"When land is more important than human beings - you are in an Arab country…

"When covering the woman's head is more important than financial and administrative corruption, embezzlement, and betrayal of the homeland - do not be astonished, you are in an Arab country…

"When minorities are persecuted and oppressed, and if they demand their rights, are accused of being a fifth column or a Trojan horse - be upset, you are in an Arab country…

"When women are [seen as] house ornaments which can be replaced at any time - bemoan your fate, you are in an Arab country.

"When birth control and family planning are perceived as a Western plot - place your trust in Allah, you are in an Arab country…

"When at any time, there can be a knock on your door and you will be dragged off and buried in a dark prison - you are in an Arab country…

"When fear constantly lives in the eyes of the people - you can be certain that you are in an Arab country."

Democrats doing the flip flop again

On October 11, 2002, the Democrats voted to go to war with Iraq. They had been given all the intelligence information available. They knew of Saddam Hussein's continued defiance of the UN resolutions against him and his country. There was a list of 23 reasons to come into conflict with Iraq on the Iraq War Resolution. Nobody fooled them into this. Their words and reasons for choosing to do battle with Iraq are very well documented. Reid, Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Biden and the rest of the Donkey Crew all were enthusiastic in their support for the war.

Now, leading Democrats are trying to say they did not mean to vote the way they did.

The enemy is still the same and just as fierce (yeah, yeah, Saddam is out of the way) The threat to our nation is still there, and these politicians think they can run away from a war they approved with a few little non binding resolutions, and the threat of pulling out all the purse strings.

What do the Democrats want? Would they be happy to see us lose? Haven't they the foresight to know that if we lose because of their spite for all things Republican, that they will lose even more? Do the Democrats know they might incite another, worse, conflict at their doorstep. The price for such a temporary victory would be people crying "peace, peace when there is no peace".

My Quandry

This election season is very frustrating for conservatives. I’m disappointed in the choices we have on both sides. It seems the Republicans who are running are really Democrats at heart. Additionally, very few potential candidates have any real experience in statesmanship.

This puts me in the quandary of having to possibly cross party lines to find someone with some experience whom I could trust to do the best for our country. They all say they will, but the only one with the experience necessary to be president is Bill Richardson of New Mexico. As a resident of the state of New Mexico, I’ve seen the progress he’s made in this state in education and economic growth. He has shown he knows how to run a troubled state, and I think he has the skill to run our country.

As a conservative, I know that voting for Richardson will mean a compromise of my social values, but he would do a good job as president while the Republican party finds some real conservative candidates who can communicate well, have proven experience in governance, and who are skilled negotiators who are able to win the trust of those who are of a liberal persuasion.

Should This Be Allowed In a Free Country?

Some disturbing news is coming out of Germany. The UPI reports that a woman who chose not to follow the faith of her parents (who happen to be Muslim) and who helps others who have made the same choice is receiving death threats. According to Shaira law, any Muslim who forsakes their faith is to receive a death sentence. This brave woman, Mina Ahadi, is asking for police protection because of the death threats.

My question is simple:

Should the adherents of a religion who believe that it is right to kill those who forsake their particular faith be allowed to remain in a free country?

The countries of Europe and the United States espouse the freedom of religion. What if the followers of a certain religion choose violent consequences for those who step out of line?

The "honor" killings that have taken place in free countries are an example. Fathers who are also the adherents of a certain religion have become dismayed that their daughters and wives don't want to be as religiously conservative as they are. Their reaction? KILL THEM! And some do!

Nowadays, adherents of a certain religion have become numerous and are emboldened to try to force their ways and laws on the countries in which they reside, demanding special favors....demanding more respect.....and becoming extremely offended when anyone speaks against them.

Should a free country accommodate a faith that aggressively and violently tries to muscle their ways on society?

Personal Update:

This article could lead some to think I am painting with a broad brush, and wish to deport all Muslims from free countries. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the same time, if there is a group that chooses the radicalized side of their faith and choose to act violently in the country which has offered them hospitality, let them be tried to the full extent of the law. Let them be stopped in their tracks and deported if necessary. Free nations cannot show weakness in this.

Still under scrutiny by Kos

The Kos bloggers are not letting go of the Howard Kurtz story, thinking it is an opportunity to bring down a journalist with whom they disagree.

At least this time in quoting me, they are not talking about me in a creepy fashion as they describe my musical specialty. Helping young people get through the voice change during adolescence so they can have a lifetime of singing beautiful music is neither weird nor perverted.

I am of the opinion that you have to do what is best for your blog. If it pleases your readers to focus on small potatoes like Howard Kurtz when there are bigger issues happening - global warming, when the war is going to end, the terrible choices we have for president from both political parties and stuff like that, then I begin to suspect that you are small of mind and heart. I don't care how popular you are on the blog list.

Thanks to Mark of News Corpse for standing up for me

Shortsighted View of History

The Financial Times published an article today titled "History Leaves Bush and Blair Behind".

I don't know if it is because I'm not a 20 something gal, or what, but that title seems awfully shortsighted to me. I believe that ten years from now the worst thing we will have to say about Bush and Blair is that they did too little and too late.

The British would understand the "too little, too late" concept well. Neville Chamberlain did his best to make peace with Hitler and his radical Nazi regime. He even signed a treaty in good faith with Hitler that was supposed to keep Britain out of any conflict with Germany. Didn't do any good.

The Americans have also been bitten even though they tried to isolate themselves from conflict with the radical German Nazi regime. American merchant ships were continually attacked by German Sea Wolf raids, even though the merchant sailors were civillians and America was not at war with Germany. This happened in the 30s years before the official start of WWII. Economic sanctions against the Nazis were tried, but it only gave them more time to perfect their war machine.

Take note that Hitler's "Mein Kampf" is the highest selling book in Iran today under the title "My Jihad". They like it in Egypt, too.

More recently, look at the Vietnamization program under Lyndon Baines Johnson in the late 60s and early 70s during the Vietnam conflict (read "war"). The program was partially successful, but ironically a Republican candidate by the name of Richard Milhouse Nixon won the election in '72 by being the "anti-war" candidate. When Congress finally forced him to keep his campaign promises and pull the troops out of Vietnam, our enemies were immediately emboldened. And not just in Vietnam, either. They learned from us. They learned that if they could make the casualties high enough, and sustain the war long enough, that the Congress would wail like little children and clamor to bring the troops home in order to save their jobs. Sound Familiar?

History will show that there are always consequences for abandoning your allies in the middle of a conflict after you tell them stupid things like "we'll stay the course no matter what."

It is too early to decide that Bush and Blair are on the ash heap of history. The whining children we call our political leaders are reliving history.....again.

A world without America

This site contains a video to counterattack the rise in anti-Americanism. People forget that our country, which is a true superpower, does so much to benefit the world in the realm of foreign aid, research and development, medical advances, the arts, as well as being a defender of democracy and freedom. America is the best country in the world. In a world where we are judged by our wonders, American has produced so many.

18 Doughty Street

Here is another link to the video:

A World Without America

Death of a Power Supply

I find it amazing how we, who blog and use our computers as the storage location of our life's artifacts, are so dependent on these miracle machines that allow us to communicate across the world, learn so many things we never knew, do research in a fraction of the time of what was necessary in the past, and give us so much joy and pleasure (/sarc).

Today I awoke to a startling sight - a black monitor screen! Much perturbed, I tried to switch the computer on to no avail. It did not jump to life with familiar beeping and gentle hum to which I had grown accustomed. It remained deathly silent. Dread crept over me as I considered all that I entrust to this humble grey box, and the possibility that it was lost.......lost forever.

Thankfully, the problem was only a bad power supply which was replaced at no charge since my dear husband purchased the new one less than thirty days ago. My heart is again at rest, but it is now time to implement my plan to back up all my data lest the day of wrath comes and I really lose it all.

It's one of those long days

I managed to finish my trill paper done and turned in. I've finished two rehearsals already and have two more this afternoon - one for my private children's choir and one for church. Then Wednesday night service, and after that I am looking forward to a good night's sleep. I sure need it!

Being a music teacher is hard work but I would not want to do any other type of work (although I am quite skilled in a number of fields) And being a musician is a calling. We tell the students that you only become a music major if you know you would not be happy doing anything else. If a person knows they are a musician, they will do the hard work required to become a professional.

Well, this post is not stellar, but it's a little glimpse into my day.

Why is Richardson Ignored by the Media?

We need a good answer to that question, because it seems that Richardson is the best qualified of the long list of candidates to become President.

People need to take a closer look at him.

Matthew Yglesias has written an informative article in The American Prospect about Richardson:

Fitting the Bill
Why isn't Bill Richardson's presidential candidacy taken seriously?

Astroturf Blogs?

So, now all new bloggers who comment politically are writers of Astroturf blogs?

Does this mean that our views are not important? Does this mean that the things we write are not relevant to the political and social situation in America?

What is an Astroturf blog? Wikipedia's definition is:

In politics and advertising, the term astroturfing describes formal public relations (PR) campaigns that seek to create the impression of being a spontaneous, grassroots behavior. Hence the reference to the "AstroTurf" (artificial grass) is a metaphor to indicate "fake grassroots" support.

I can see cracking down on fake blogs. My blog was quoted with another, probably fake, blog last week in the Washington Post article by Howard Kurtz. The potentially fake blog, "Political Retch", has very little information. At least the creator had the wherewithal to make a second posting - just as inflammatory as the first - to try to legitimize his (Bobby G.'s) place in the blog world. I was not proud to be in the same article with him.

But as for new bloggers like myself, don't brush us off. We see the potential of this medium to reach the millions who wander into cyberspace for up to date information - not really trusting the main stream media. Since we are local entities, our influence may not be national ( unless we get lucky and get national attention like I did). We have strong opinions, and most of us are intelligent and very articulate.

Take heed. New bloggers are real grassroots, not Astroturf.

More Than a Little Presumptuous

An interesting story came across the news wires today. Some top Democratic leaders are already planning a continuing political career for Bill Clinton should his wife, Hillary, become the President of the United States. Paul Begala and Larry Sabato believe Bill would make a wonderful senatorial replacement in New York as Hilary would have to vacate her seat in the middle of a term.

This possibility should raise not a few eyebrows. There are several things to consider:

Isn't this presumptuous of Democratic leadership? What about the will of the people of New York? The governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, is the one who will make the choice - not the DNC or the Clinton machine.

From the article:

So far, speculation about potential successors has focused on New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose father once held the same Senate seat.

The other concern is the compromise of the balance of powers in American government. If Hillary is chosen by the American people to be President, and Bill is appointed to finish her Senate term, there will be the appearance of nepotism. Also, will Bill's fellow senators be afraid of working with him because of the power he may wield as the husband of the President? He will never be treated like a freshman Senator. There is no precedent for this type of situation. Additionally, senators who were involved in the impeachment proceedings are still in office in the Senate. What will his relationship with them be like? In the Senate, it is necessary to work out compromises for legislation to be passed. The rules of the Senate foster a spirit of debate. Senators need a sense of collegiality to work together, and it is likely that giving Bill Clinton a Senate seat would stifle the process because of the fear and awe he would inspire. Mostly fear, unfortunately.

I would not be pleased with this situation if it were happening with a Republican presidential hopeful and spouse.

I would love to know what my readers think about this. Please leave a comment.

When Democrats run as Republicans and Republicans run as Democrats

What would really be political news?

Something most are trying to ignore. Democrats are running on Republican issues to gain votes, and Republicans are running on Democrat issues to gain votes. This causes fusion of the moderates of both political parties, and not a little confusion.

Take the election last November. The Democrats who were successful in taking Republican seats ran on predominately conservative issues - cut taxes, strong on defense, pro-business, and one or two were actually anti-abortion. While Republicans were running on conventional democratic issues - socialized medicine, pro-government entitlements, the raising of the minimum wage and anti-war positions.

Here are two articles from the midterm election season before the election that discuss this:

In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right

Republicans Running As Democrats

Who did this benefit? Well, the Democrats, for sure! And it says a lot about Americans in general. Average Americans are neither far right or far left in their political views. They usually vote for someone who is similar to them and who makes them feel safe. They want someone in elected office who is fair and reasonable and able to meet their personal needs.

Now, who in this presidential race is leaning in which direction? Let's look at the major contenders for the 2008 Presidential race:

On the Republican Side: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani

On the Democrat Side: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson

The rest, discounting the possibility of a dark horse candidate, are small potatoes and will probably be eliminated in the primaries - not because they are bad candidates, but simply because they don't have the money or the political organization behind them.

Let's examine the candidate list more closely based on prior political history.

John McCain, who tags himself as a conservative, is, in fact, politically a Democrat. So much so that John Kerry DID ask him to be his vice-presidential running mate during Kerry's failed bid for the presidency. The likely reason McCain turned Kerry down was not that he was not interested, but that he wanted to run for the presidency himself. His pro-tax and spend attitude, and deliberate votes against the Bush tax cuts (while flip-floppingly voting to extend them) speak for themselves.

Mitt Romney was pro-abortion before he was anti-abortion. What is more confusing is his stance for or against gay marriage. This has him at odds with conservative groups all across the country. How else would a Republican be elected as Governor of Massachusetts! Goodness!!!!
Note, the art of flip-flopping has been honed to perfection in that state!

Rudy Guiliani never saw a tax he didn't like, but we should forgive him since he is from New York and can't help it . He is openly pro-choice and very liberal. Despite his left leaning views, he will probably become the Republican nominee and will probably be elected because we like to choose a president to keep us safe, and Guilani has proven himself as a leader in post-9/11 New York. The man is gifted and articulate in speech craft and is a likable human being. (unlike a nameless former presidential candidate that had a "plan" but no answers!)

Now it's time to skewer the Democratic hopefuls.

Hillary Clinton leaned conservatively in several issues but recently has been leaning more to the left to appease the radical elements of her party. She carefully researched and voted for the Iraq war before she decided to change her mind to please the Cindy Sheehan branch of her party. In the early days of her Senate career, she voted very conservatively on immigration.
If she wants the conservative vote, she is going to have to become even more centrist. (Or start praying in a Baptist Church - no, she just has to be seen praying in a Baptist church.)


Barak Obama - Well, what's to say about him? He's good looking and well spoken. If you are a Democrat, you really should vote for this guy. Not only does he totally toe the social-democrat line, but if he gets in office he will change the United States into a leftist socialist utopia that Hugo Chavez would stand up and salute.

John Edwards is the pretty boy in the bunch. Nice teeth, too. Why is he even running? He could not even carry his own state (then again, neither could Gore). And his repetitive "Two Americas" stump campaign is true - His American ,which is super wealthy,......and the rest of us wage slaves. His only advantage is that he holds the keys of the "plan" of the nameless failed presidential candidate!

Then there's Bill Richardson. He is the only Democratic governor that actually cut taxes. He did this for the people of New Mexico before he decided to run for President because he knew it would be best for his state. He was right. Economically, New Mexico is a pro business and pro growth state, and jobs abound here. He's been pro education, the roads are superior, he has used justice and common sense in the Immigration situation, and would have been a tremendous asset if Bush had not been so stubborn concerning a reliable and compassionate guest worker program. Although he will allow abortion to continue as the established law of the land, there is an aggressive pro abstinence program in New Mexico, and funding so women who choose to keep their babies can have reasonable options.

Richardson is very eloquent, and I believe he would decimate Hillary Clinton in open debate based on his personal integrity, experience and character alone. He is the true moderate of all the candidates, and is more conservative than the top Republican contenders for the office of president. He only lacks the money and the political machinery to have a fair contest against Hilary Clinton. This is a David and Goliath story - the Clinton machine being the Goliath. Richardson can win if he can get his message out. Good thing he has name recognition. Many Christian Conservatives, given a choice between left leaning Republicans Guiliani or Romney vs. right leaning Democrat Richardson, would discover, with chagrin, themselves voting Democrat.

We look forward to the upcoming political contest. What we want is a good man or woman to be President, and the American people would like (not that we are going to get) someone that is honest and effective as a leader.


Here is a Blog that will tell you more about this man. Better than I can tell you, any day.

Americans for Richardson

People should take a careful look at Bill Richardson as the next President of the United States because he is the very best Democrat running as a stealth Republican that we have ever seen.

A mild case of writers block

I've had quite a busy day with my family, and now it is late and the words are not flowing the way I want them too. Pity. I have a great idea for an article, too, and that will have to stay in draft mode until tomorrow. See you then!

Radiant

Christian Bashing and Polarization

An interesting article in today's Opinion Journal - Curse of the Christian Bashers - exposes an underlying problem of the political left, and particularly the Democratic party. The most vocal supporters of the Democratic party are squeaky wheels of the far left. Unfortunately, these people are hardly diplomatic in expressing their opinions about those with whom they disagree - particularly those who carry even the faintest whiff of conservatism, "orthodox" Christian faith, support for the War and/or the President (if only out of respect). The brashness of this part of the Democratic party supporters, as well as their failure to see the benefits of working with those of differing viewpoints to at least find points of agreement has contributed to the polarization of the American political scene.

The current crop of Presidential hopefuls has turned to the blogosphere to get their message out and to hopefully gain support in next year's primary elections. John Edwards made a couple of unfortunate choices in hiring Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan because he did not vet their earlier comments for politically explosive material. In a different article, Bonnie Erbe, writing as a guest columnist for the Seattle Post Intelligencer, addresses the problem as well. Here is part of her article:

"After the Edwards campaign fired and then rehired the bloggers last week, each of the two resigned this week. The whole episode made the campaign look bad. Perhaps worse, it devoured an opportunity to give serious, meaningful consideration to several crucial issues about which the women were writing.

First, let me state for the record the bloggers were woefully out of line to single out Catholics and Christians for attack. Extremists exist in the hierarchy of just about every large scale, organized religious group. Some even claim the right to dictate to followers how to live their lives. It is religious extremists who abuse this power whose behavior should be examined, not the broad swath of all adherents to one particular faith.

But the bloggers allowed themselves to be sidetracked by hurling invectives at all believers, which was unfair not only to those who believe and do not impose their beliefs on others, but also to some of the causes the bloggers espoused."

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/303892_erbe16.html

I hope members of all political parties are are paying attention to this drama, for when we lean to the extremist end of our ideology for support, we lose the middle ground.

Mary Eberstadt is succinct in her analysis in the Opinion Journal:

For what the blogger tempest really illuminates is a fact that could come to haunt the Democrats as they vie for national office: namely, that their past few wilderness years have also been boom years for the church-loathing liberal/left punditry. As a result, anti-Christian invective now graces (or disgraces) many of the books, magazines, Web sites and blogs to which liberals, including the Democratic elite, habitually look for ideas. One motto of this cottage industry is that the most serious threat to the American republic can be found in, no, not those religious fundamentalists, the ones that first leap to mind after 9/11; but, incredibly, certain other believers--our nation's Christians.

Is anybody listening? I hope John Edwards is now. And the other political candidates......?

My Boys!

Well, they are not real boys, but we love them just as much. They are Australian Bearded Dragons. Roughy and Feisty are about a year and a half old and live up to their names.

Here is Roughy. He's a magnificent animal, as you can see. Bearded Dragons are so called for this expanding beard. They look tough, but really they are quite tame. All bluff and bluster until you pick them up... then they melt in your hand!









This is our other Dragon, Feisty. He is feisty by name and feisty by nature. I love the fierce look on his face when his beard puffs out.

We never thought we would become so attached to some silly reptile, but these Beardies did win our hearts.

Giving a Damn

My best friend in Kansas sent this to me. We strain at gnats while swallowing camels, don't we:

Swallowing Camels

Sample of Daily Encounter by Dick Innes

I read the following story about how on one Sunday morning a usually long-winded pastor preached his shortest, but one of his most effective sermons ever.

He said, "My sermon this morning has three points.

"First, over three million people in the world today are homeless.

"Second, most of you don't give a d_ _ _.

"And third, it is a shame that more of you are upset by the fact that I said the word, 'd_ _ _', than by the fact that over three-million people are homeless."

I've heard that a well-known preacher did a similar thing when speaking about the tragedy of abortion in this country, only the four-letter word he used was even stronger!

Seriously, I'm not condoning preachers using these words, but how sad it is that so many of us will get considerably more upset over someone using a bad word than we do about people being homeless, about the problem of abortion, human trafficking, not to mention the lost going to hell.

Jesus said, "Woe upon you, Pharisees, and you other religious leaders—hypocrites! For you tithe down to the last mint leaf in your garden, but ignore the important things—justice and mercy and faith. Yes, you should tithe, but you shouldn't leave the more important things undone. Blind guides! You strain out a gnat and swallow a camel" (Matthew 23:23-24, TLB).

Suggested prayer: "Dear God, please help me not to be guilty of straining out gnats and swallowing camels, and help me to be concerned about the things in life that truly matter. Thank you for hearing and answering my prayer. Gratefully in Jesus' name. Amen."

NOTE: Case in point ... when I sent this article out as a Daily Encounter one subscriber was irate at me over my use of "d_ _ _" used to illustrate the point I was making.

Why the Name Dropping???

Even though I disagree with Hillary Clinton politically, I know she is a formidable presidential candidate. She is highly intelligent, persuasive and influential. My husband and I see her as a shoo-in as the Democratic nominee for the next presidential election. Hillary has so much going for her!

Why does Hillary choose to lean on her husband's name as her campaign is gaining steam? We know Bill Clinton was one of the best in his speech craft and his way of connecting to people.

But Bill has the legacy of being only the second US president in history to be impeached (not threatened with impeachment, but truly impeached) And his impeachment was not for some horrific treasonous act, but for perjury! He lied about his extra-marital affair with that....that.....blue dress wearing dark haired girl!!! (Yes, I know her name!) (If that had been my husband, he would have been out on his ear and I would have gone on with life)

The New York Times has an article about Hillary campaigning in New Hampshire, and all the while mentioning Bill here and there. Does Hillary think Democratic voters will not love her without the fragrance of Bill on her? I think she is strong enough to stand on her own, and so do many others!

Choosing to "Billify" her campaign only confirms my belief that she married him merely to catapult her into political prominence. The Bill perfume she wears may stain what should be a successful campaign for the presidential nomination.

Just a little sore today

We went hiking in the Dripping Springs State Park on Saturday and enjoyably exceeded our technical ability. Now we are incredibly sore, but happy.

Dripping Springs was the location of a Tuberculosis sanatorium in the early part of the 20th century. It's position in the Organ Mountains is superbly beautiful, and the hikes in that area range from very easy to extremely difficult.

Visit there if you can. Here's a good link: