Former Governor Mark Warner, basking in the limelight of having delivered the keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Denver on Tuesday, now refuses to debate his opponents in the race for the open U.S. Senate seat in Virginia.
Consequently, the League of Women Voters has announced it is canceling the televised debate it traditionally sponsors for statewide races. According to a report in C-VILLE Weekly, a Charlottesville tabloid:
In a press release, The League of Women Voters of Virginia says it won’t hold its customary senatorial debate because former Governor Mark Warner has opted not to participate.
“Exposing voters to a rigorous debate of the critical issues facing this nation today is a cornerstone of the democratic election process in America,” said Peter Maroney, vice president of WTVR, a CBS station that would have aired the debate. “It is regrettable that former Governor Warner has chosen to deny Virginians that opportunity by declining this statewide broadcast opportunity.” WCVE, a PBS station, would have also aired the debate.
In response to this news, Bill Redpath, the Libertarian candidate for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Republican John Warner, stated that he will debate former Governor Jim Gilmore even if Mark Warner continues to run away from his opponents. A press release from the Redpath campaign (distributed by email and likely to be posted to the campaign web site tomorrow) said:
Redpath said on Thursday, “I know Mark Warner is leading in the polls, but I find his decision not to debate Jim Gilmore curious. The recent history of politicians who refuse to debate their opponents in Virginia is that of defeat.”
In 2001, when Redpath was the Libertarian candidate for Governor, Mark Warner allowed him into at least one debate, but Republican Mark Earley said ‘No.’ Earley lost. In 2005, when Russ Potts ran as an Independent for Governor, Democrat Tim Kaine debated him, but Republican Jerry Kilgore refused. Kilgore lost.
“There are so many vital issues that need to be fully aired for voters of the Commonwealth, that I ask the League of Women Voters to hold their debate anyway. I would certainly be there and would debate former Governor Gilmore on any topic that is germane to the U.S. Senate race in Virginia this year. The voters of Virginia deserve no less,” said Redpath.
We shall see if former Governor Warner relents and chooses to face his opponents, and the voters, on television or in any other forum.
Just what is he afraid will happen if he appears on the same stage with Gilmore and Redpath?
The two major party candidates for president, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, will not appear on the election ballot in Texas this year.
That is, of course, unless Texas ignores the clear violation of the law by both parties. The relevant section of the Texas code can be found here.
Texas, with 34 electoral college votes, is a dependable Republican state and is crucial to McCain's chances to be elected president. (This may be embarrassing for Obama but it is not nearly so consequential.)
Libertarian candidate Bob Barr is the only presidential candidate whose name will be on Texas ballot this year, according to the Texas secretary of state. His was the only campaign that fully complied with the law by submitting a sufficient number of petition signatures by the statutory filing deadline.
Section 192.031 of the Texas election code says that political parties must certify their presidential and vice-presidential candidates for the November ballot no later than 70 days before the general election. It says, “A political party is entitled to have the names of its nominees for president and vice-president placed on the ballot if before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before presidential election day, the party’s state chair signs and delivers to the secretary of state a written certification of the name’s of the party’s nominees for president and vice-president.”
This year, that deadline is August 26. UPDATE: At 2:30 pm Texas time, August 27, Kim Kizer of the Texas Secretary of State’s elections division says neither major party’s certification has been received in the Elections Division. The Executive Office of the Secretary of State refers all questions back to the Elections Division.
This year, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party obeyed this law. See this link to the Secretary of State’s web page showing a blank for the Republicans and Democrats for president. It does show Bob Barr on the ballot; scroll down a little bit. If the Republicans have indeed filed, one wonders who they listed for vice-president, and why their filing is missing from the state web page.
Since the major parties do not even obey their own rules (Democrats, for example, seated the Florida and Michigan delegations at this year's convention even though both states ostentatiously flouted the party's rules about holding early primaries), they will probably find some compliant judge to allow their candidates on the ballot.
Of course, when a minor party misses a deadline like this, the Democrats and Republicans insist on strict adherence to the law. Republicans and Democrats write the laws, then maneuver themselves into exemption; all others must obey.
Whatever Barack Obama might say in his convention speech tonight in front of a mere 75,000 people at Invesco Field in Denver, it will hardly approach the quality and significance of this speech by the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., delivered 45 years ago today on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.
The Dallas Morning News notes that today marks the 100th anniversary of the birth of Lyndon Baines Johnson, the 36th president of the United States. There will be several events in Texas commemorating LBJ's birthday, including:
AT THE RANCH
The late president's two daughters and others will celebrate his birthday at the LBJ Ranch near Stonewall. LBJ's working office at the ranch, which was the Texas White House from 1963 to 1969, will be open for tours.
AT THE LIBRARY
A party – open to the public – will be held at the library in Austin, which will open a new exhibit, To the Moon, the U.S. space program in the 1960s.
Radio station KLBJ -- naturally -- offers more details on the celebrations in Austin:
Today would have been LBJ's 100th birthday, so the Presidential library here in Austin is throwing a party; complete with bar-b-que, peach ice-cream and Fresca... It *was* President Johnson's favorite soft-drink.
Dr. Betty Sue Flowers - Director of the LBJ Presidential Library says today also has other significance... It was on this date in 1964 he accepted the Democratic nomination for President.
The celebration will be held from 6 to 8 tonight on the lawn in front of the library, and yes, they will have the Democratic Convention on the big screen... just as LBJ would want it.
More information about the centennial celebration can be found at LBJ100.org.
As it happens, almost precisely one year ago, I was in Austin and had the opportunity to tour the LBJ Library and Museum, which is on the campus of the University of Texas.
I posted some video from that visit (which was on August 29, two days too late for LBJ's 99th birthday) on the anniversary of President Johnson's famous announcement of his decision not to seek re-election, but it seemed appropriate to post it again today, given the historical significance of the day and the coincidence of it taking place during the Democratic National Convention.
Part I is largely a montage of images and sounds from the main exhibition area of the museum. It includes some items meant to evoke the pop cultural reference points of Johnson's life, and especially of the turbulent 1960s, when LBJ served as president.
One highlight is a recording of Lady Bird Johnson recalling, in her own words, the events of November 22, 1963, when John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Other images are meant to recall Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civil rights movement, Carol Channing in Hello, Dolly!, and the Vietnam War as reported on television. (One exhibit refers to 1968 as "The Nightmare Year," with its assassinations of Dr. King and Robert Kennedy -- two events we have been remembering this year, forty years on.)
The library displays many letters written by and to President Johnson, including letters from Barry Goldwater (who lost the 1964 election to Johnson but sparked a political revolution in the process) and the Smothers Brothers (whose CBS-TV show was canceled in large part because of their satiric barbs aimed at the President and his Vietnam War policies).
Part II begins with a rather creepy animatronic rendering of President Johnson in a stable at the LBJ Ranch, with recordings of him telling funny stories on various occasions, including an anecdote about Winston Churchill. Part II also includes pictures of the reproduction of the Oval Office that has been installed in the LBJ Library and Museum, which is 0ne-eighth smaller than the real one in the West Wing of the White House. (For a look at the Reagan-era Oval Office, check out the video I posted of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, California. I visited the Reagan Library just about one month before my trip to Austin last year.)
This part also features more Carol Channing memorabilia. (Hello, Dolly! had its pre-Broadway try-out at the National Theatre in Washington, and its title number was transformed into the campaign song, "Hello, Lyndon!")
I happened upon a YouTube video of Walter Cronkite learning of President Johnson's death at the age of 64 on January 22, 1973, and breaking the news live on the air, which I have added as a bonus.
Cronkite's skills as a journalist are demonstrated by the way he segues from this unexpected news to a pre-written story about negotiations to end the Vietnam War. It's also interesting, by the way, given current global petroleum prices, how Cronkite ends the segment by saying "I'll be back in a minute with our report on the energy crisis." This was about ten months before the OPEC oil embargo precipitated what was the first energy crisis of the 1970s, with the second one due largely to misguided policies of the Carter administration, policies which are likely to be emulated by the Obama administration.
I wonder whether the LBJ centenary will be commemorated in any significant way at the Democrats' convention in Denver. Is it something worthy of prime-time, or would mention of a stubborn and unpopular leader who presided over an ill-conceived and unpopular war bring to mind undesirable parallels to the present day?
True to its mission, the American Century Theater in Arlington opens its 2008-09 season with a rarely-produced American play of the 20th century, Dr. Cook's Garden.
Based on the press release I just received, this could prove to be an intriguing choice.
Here's the text of the news release:
American Century Theater 2008-2009 Season Opens September 9 With Ira Levin Thriller Dr. Cook’s Garden Press Night is Wed., September 10.
The American Century Theater’s 2008-2009 season opens with a seldom-seen 1968 Broadway thriller, Dr. Cook’s Garden, by Ira Levin. Levin is best known for his later Broadway hit, Deathtrap, and such best-selling novels as Rosemary’s Baby and The Stepford Wives, both of which also became successful films.
Why Dr. Cook’s Garden? “First, we try to salute under-appreciated American playwrights who have recently died; Levin passed away earlier this year,” says Artistic Director Jack Marshall. “And Dr. Cook’s Garden holds interest for several reasons. It is about a subject that is more controversial today than when the play was written. It has elements of the horror genre, something The American Century Theater seldom gets to explore. And the play never really had a chance on Broadway. It was miscast, I think, and the director, George C. Scott, essentially abandoned the production at a critical point. Most of all, we think our audiences will enjoy it.”
Without spoiling the fun of discovering the dark secret at the center of the plot, it can be noted that the play has common elements with both Deathtrap and The Stepford Wives. Like Stepford, it involves an outsider moving into an idyllic New England town that is not quite as perfect as it seems. And like Deathtrap, the play involves a complex and betrayal-filled relationship between an older man and his younger protégé. “I think the play may have been a trial run for Deathtrap,” says Ellen Dempsey, who is directing. “There are a lot of structural similarities. But it’s a darker, scarier play.”
She has assembled an ensemble of actors new to TACT to bring it to disturbing life (and death) on stage. David Schmidt plays the title role created by Burl Ives on Broadway and Bing Crosby in the film version. His young protégé is played by J.B. Bissex. Kathryn Cocroft, Bob Lavery, and Carol McCaffrey complete the cast.
Producer Karen Currie has turned to several TACT regulars for the design and construction of the show, including Trena Null, set design; Rip Claassen, costumes; AnnMarie Castrigno, lighting design; Steve Lada, who is choreographing a key fight sequence. Christopher Baine, whose work for The Source’s recent One Act Play Festival was extraordinary, makes his TACT debut as sound designer, as does David Olmsted on props. The Tech Director for Dr. Cook’s Garden is Michael Null, and Zoia Wiseman is the stage manager.
The American Century Theater is performing on a different schedule in 2008-2009, with more weekday performances. Dr. Cook’s Garden will have its opening on Tuesday, September 9, with the Press performance the next night, on Wednesday, September 10. Dr. Cook’s Garden will continue its run until Saturday, October 4, 2008.
The American Century Theater performs at Theater II, Gunston Arts Center, 2700 S. Lang Street, Arlington, Virginia 22206. Subscription season packages are available. Friday or Saturday evening ticket subscriptions are $130 each ($170 value). Tuesday-Thursday evening, or weekend matinee subscriptions are $115 each ($145 value).
The American Century Theater is a 501(c)(3) professional nonprofit theater company dedicated to producing, great, important, and neglected 20th Century American playwrights. TACT is funded in part by the Arlington County Cultural Affairs Division of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Community Services, the Virginia Commission for the Arts, numerous foundations and many generous donors.
# # #
One fact about Dr. Cook's Garden really piques my interest: That the role played by Burl Ives for six previews and eight performances on Broadway was played by Bing Crosby in the made-for-TV film. How did that happen? (It's puckish to imagine what Cat on a Hot Tin Roof would have been like with Der Bingle as Big Daddy.)
No matter which political party or presidential candidate one supports, it is impossible to ignore the likelihood that this November's election will have one of the highest voter turnouts in recent memory. Both Republicans and Democrats are registering new voters and, judging from the heavy interest in the Democratic primaries, many of these new voters will be coming to the polls this fall.
Across the country, election administrators are scrambling to recruit and train new poll workers to serve the voters on election day. The anticipated long queues of voters will move much faster if there are sufficient numbers of poll workers to process them, answer their questions, solve any problems that might arise, and count the votes at the end of the day.
In Virginia, the term of art we use for "poll worker" is "election officer," (or "EO"). Each precinct is required to have at least three EOs, including at least one from each of the two legally recognized political parties (Republicans and Democrats). Election officials work a long day, since polls open at 6:00 a.m. and close at 7:00 p.m. (Their tasks begin earlier than 6:00 o'clock and do not end at 7:00 o'clock, however, since there are detailed procedures for opening and closing the polls to assure that votes are accurately counted and all the various forms documenting the day's activities are fully and correctly filled out.)
Last week Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia (who will not, it turns out, be a candidate for vice president this year) acknowledged the need for additional election officials in Virginia in a news release. Here is the text of what he distributed to the press on August 20:
LOCALITIES STEADILY FILLING OFFICER OF ELECTION VACANCIES
~ Outreach efforts include partnering with businesses ~
RICHMOND - General Registrars and Electoral Boards around the Commonwealth are beginning to realize their goal of fully staffing their election precincts for the November presidential election. Localities are continuing to recruit people to serve as Officers of Election to help voters at the polling places on Election Day, November 4.
"In every election there is an opportunity for citizens to be part of the process," Governor Timothy M. Kaine said. "This year, we launched the 'Ensure the Vote' campaign to inform voters of the opportunity to help with elections in their communities. We are appreciative that employers throughout the Commonwealth are embracing this opportunity for community participation and encouraging their employees to get involved in their community on Election Day. State Farm Insurance, for example, has provided nearly 300 people ready to act as Officers of Election. "
Officers of Election assist the voter on Election Day. An individual must apply to become an Officer of Election and must be a qualified voter.
Virginia still needs more than 2,000 people to help on Election Day. Originally, 10,000 people were needed, but through community outreach efforts and business partnerships that number has been reduced. The increased need stemmed from the creation of 300 new precincts since 2004 and the projected increase in voter turnout for the November election.
In order to further focus the recruitment process, areas around the state have been designated as "hot spots" or places with substantial vacancies. These areas have recruited a large number of Officers of Election, but need more. These areas include: City of Fairfax, City of Richmond, Alexandria, Chesterfield County, Henrico County, Loudoun County, Virginia Beach, Frederick County, Norfolk and Pittsylvania County.
Earlier this spring, the Virginia State Board of Elections, in partnership with the Virginia Electoral Board Association (VEBA) and the Voter Registrars Association of Virginia(VRAV), launched a statewide campaign called "Ensure the Vote" to encourage individuals to become Officers of Election. The State Board of Elections has subsequently developed community partnerships with numerous businesses such as: State Farm, Bank of America, Erie Insurance, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Virginia Automobile Dealers Association, Virginia Chamber of Commerce, Ukrops Grocery, League of Women Voters, US Investigation Services, Rockingham Group, LandAmerica, State Employees of Virginia and Phillip Morris: an Altria Company. These partnerships provide an opportunity for their employees to work the polls in their respective communities.
Applications to become an Officer of Election are available online and can be submitted through the web site. For more information on applying to become an Officer of Election visit the Virginia State Board of Elections web site at www.sbe.virginia.gov or contact your local registrar.
# # #
In the City of Charlottesville, we have about 150 election officers ready to go on November 4. Fifteen of them (or about 10 percent) work for State Farm in their daily lives. Others work for the University of Virginia, Martha Jefferson Hospital, SNL Financial, and various local businesses. Many are retirees. (The average age of pollworkers in the United States is 72.) We also have high-school student pages drawn from the ranks of future voters who are not yet eligible to vote by dint of their age.
One hundred and fifty election officers is sufficient for most elections, but we could easily use 50 or so more. We have scheduled several training sessions during the month of October, so nobody should be afraid to offer themselves for the job out of fear that they will not have time to learn how to do it right. Pollworkers are also paid for their time and provided with lunch on election day.
Any registered voter is qualified to work as an officer of election. There is no requirement that he work in his own precinct, or even in her own voting jurisdiction. (Some of the EOs in Charlottesville live in Albemarle, Fluvanna, and Greene counties; they choose to work in Charlottesville for convenience or other reasons.)
Those interested in working as an election officer in Charlottesville can get more information through the Office of Voter Registration and Elections on the city's web site.
Democrats from across the country (and from overseas U.S. territories, as well) are gathering in Denver this weekend for their party's national convention, which opens tomorrow at the Pepsi Center.
Twelve years ago, I attended the Democratic National Convention in Chicago as a correspondent for the Metro Herald, a weekly newspaper published in Alexandria, Virginia. I eventually filed four stories that ran consecutively in September and October, each with photographic illustrations. (The 1996 Democratic convention ended the Friday before Labor Day, rather late in the season, much like this year's Republican convention in St. Paul, which begins on Labor Day itself.)
Here is the third, a look at the delegates from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia who participated in the 1996 Democratic National Convention, as it appeared in The Metro Herald in October of that year. (Click on the photos to embiggen and make the captions legible.)
Doing the Macarena: The Democratic Convention's Delegates Richard E. Sincere, Jr. Exclusive to the Metro Herald
Democratic Party officials were proud of what they called the "diversity" of their convention's delegates. Certainly in racial and ethnic terms, the 1996 Democratic National Convention was diverse. According to a survey by the Chicago Sun-Times, of the 4,320 delegates, 67 percent of delegates were white, 18 percent were black, 9 percent were Hispanic, 3 percent were Asian, and 1 percent were native American. If the convention was trying to "look like America," it came close in these terms -- although blacks and Hispanics were somewhat overrepresented while whites were underrepresented in comparison to the general population.
If one looks at professions, however, the Democratic delegates looked far different from America. Fully 27 percent of delegates were members of labor unions (largely public employees or teachers unions), 24 percent were elected officials, only 13 percent were business people (with the same percentage of attorneys), and 12 percent were teachers. Since fewer than 10 percent of American workers now belong to a labor union, the percentage of union members at the Democratic convention is quite astounding. It explains in large measure how the Democratic Party approaches issues of employment, including minimum wage laws and requirements for paid leave and insurance coverage.
What was not mentioned much during the convention was the fact that a large fraction of delegates -- perhaps more than one-third -- earn over $100,000 a year. When it came to light that many delegates at the Republican convention fell into that tax bracket, the GOP was criticized for not "looking like America." The Democrats somehow escaped such criticism.
The delegates also spanned a large age range. The Sun-Times reported that the convention's oldest delegate (at 93) was former Senator Mike Mansfield of Montana, who served both as Senate Majority Leader and as U.S. Ambassador to Japan in his long career. Two 17-year-olds were the convention's youngest delegates, Paul Kraus of Dubuque, Iowa, and Ida Rukavina of Virginia, Minnesota.
Diversity in age, race, and career did not, however, translate into diversity of ideas. Most observers agreed that the delegates represented the left-wing activists of the Party far more than the moderates in the Democratic grassroots or the moderate image presented by the Party's standardbearers, Bill Clinton and Al Gore. The platform was not subject to debate, and delegates rubberstamped the document even after an unannounced change was inserted in the published version, modifying the party's stance on welfare reform from opposition to the Republican welfare bill (as the platform stated before the bill was passed) to support for the bill (as the platform stated, on orders from the White House, after President Clinton signed the bill into law). Few dissident voices were heard on any issue.
This subject came up in a conversation with Virginia delegate Adam Ebbin, who lives in Alexandria. Asked for his impressions of the convention, Ebbin answered: "Spirited, a lot of energy, a lot of fun but people are pretty serious about re-electing the President. We've got unity, but we're not silencing different points of view." This seemed an interesting statement, given the Democrats' record for denying opportunities to anti-abortion proponents to speak from the podium or convention floor, so I inquired further: "Have there been any pro-life speakers?" Ebbin paused and said: "None that I've heard yet." I pressed him: "So there are some points of view that are not completely represented?" Ebbin's response: "That's not true. See you later." At that, he cut the interview off and left the floor.
Since the delegates had no real responsibilities during the convention -- as reported in these pages earlier (Metro Herald, September 27), U.S. political conventions have forsaken their roles as forums for debate, discussion, and decisionmaking -- they relieved the boredom by repeated renditions of the dance craze the Macarena, various stretching exercises, and feeble attempts at "the Wave." When Vice President Al Gore came to speak on Wednesday night, he joked about his own reputation for stiffness and the convention's ad nauseum macarena-izing by saying he wanted to demonstrate the dance, then standing perfectly still. The audience laughed, on cue.
"On cue" may be the operative phrase for the entire convention so far as the delegates were concerned. For the Democratic Party, the delegates were mostly props for a four-day television event.
Through subtle manipulation of lights and sound, the delegates laughed, applauded, sobbed, and sat in stone silence according to the needs of the organizers. Convention runners were tasked with distributing signs ("Welcome Home Hillary" or "Gore" or "Clinton" -- all in variations of red, white, or blue, of course) at sharply defined times in a strict schedule, so that when the order was given, the delegate-automatons waved the signs, cheered, whistled, or stomped their feet. Discipline was strong, but coercion was invisible. Discipline was achieved through clever psychological ploys rather than through threats of punishment or promises of reward.
Some of the delegates, of course, had real roles to play, but that was mostly "off-stage" -- that is, during the hours that the convention was not in session. These delegates were primarily elected officials or candidates who used the gathering of some 10,000 Democrats to raise money, collect friends, and influence people. Among the prominent candidates were former Charlotte Mayor Harvey Gantt, who faces a tough but close race in his attempt to unseat longtime Republican Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina. Gantt's broad smile and friendly handshake was much in evidence throughout Chicago, but particularly on the convention floor.
Each day, in the hours before the official convention "business" opened, delegates met in state caucuses at various hotels around Chicago. These caucuses provided opportunities to discuss political events back home and also to receive visits from high-profile Democrats, such as Jesse Jackson, House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, or Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Favored delegations also met with Vice President Gore or his wife.
Some of the delegates were worried about the upcoming elections back home. Eve Wilson of McLean, Democratic chairwoman for Virginia's 10th Congressional District, expressed her views about the three-way race for the House of Representatives in her district, where incumbent Republican Frank Wolf faces Libertarian challenger Gary Reams and second-time Democratic challenger Stanley Weinberg.
"We have 10 counties and three cities in the 10th District," she said. "It's the fastest growth area in Virginia and a very exciting area to be in." The Metro Herald asked her what she thought of the Democratic Party's prospects in the November election. "I don't think the prospects are very good," she said, adding: "I think it's a very tough district. You've got an incumbent who's been there a very long time, even though he himself had promised to serve only 12 years," and of course that was 16 years ago. "I think he's running now on publicity, okay? People are really questioning what he does and he's actually as far right as you can go."
Wilson was asked whether 10th District Democrats have a "groundswell of support for term limits." She replied: "No, not necessarily. I think we're divided on it."
In comparison to the Republican convention, which had only about half as many delegates, there were far more elected officials of prominence attending the Chicago celebration. For instance, Virginia Senator John Warner chose not to go to San Diego, but his counterpart from the Democratic side of the aisle, Chuck Robb, was very much in evidence. Local elected officials seen enjoying themselves in Chicago included D.C. Mayor Marion Barry, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C. Councilmembers Jack Evans and Harry Thomas, and Maryland officials ranging from Senators Paul Sarbanes and Barbara Mikulski to Governor Parris Glendening and U.S. Representative Al Wynn. Virginia's 8th District Representative, Jim Moran, dutifully sat through the proceedings on the convention floor, joined -- no doubt -- by over a hundred of his congressional colleagues.
As Chicago conventions go, this one was small -- only the 17th largest of conventions meeting in the Windy City in 1996. With 35,000 attendees (10,000 delegates and guests plus 15,000 media representatives), the Democratic convention is dwarfed by a high-technology gathering planned for November, which expects to attract over 125,000 people. Yet because of the high profile of political conventions, Chicago pulled out all the stops -- and rolled out the red carpet -- so that these influential attendees went home with positive impressions and words of encouragement to friends and neighbors to visit the city on Lake Michigan. Millions of dollars were spent to encourage good feelings, but in return, Chicago received tens of millions of dollars of tourism revenue. Mayor Richard Daley no doubt felt both exhausted and elated when the convention closed on August 29. So, I'm sure, did the thousands of delegates from around the country.
It's interesting how some things change, but others remain the same:
Eleanor Holmes Norton is still the congressional delegate from D.C., and Marion Barry and Jack Evans still serve on the District Council. Chuck Robb is no longer in the U.S. Senate, however, having been defeated by George Allen in 2000, who was in turn defeated by Jim Webb in 2006. Paul Sarbanes retired from the Senate, but Barbara Mikulski still represents Maryland there. Adam Ebbin is now a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, and Jim Moran still represents Virginia's 8th Congressional District.
Even in 1996, opponents of Frank Wolf were reminding voters that he had pledged to serve no more than 12 years in Congress, something his opponents are still doing today, nearly 28 years after he was first elected.
As much as I hate to admit it, I had a pile of newspapers accumulate over the weekend while I was entertaining out-of-town guests, so I am just catching up on my reading tonight.
To my surprise, Monday's Washington Post carried a Style section feature on Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr. The story was placed well above the fold on page one of the section, and continued for a full broadsheet page on the inside.
Written by Libby Copeland (who, curiously, had another piece on the same page, this one on soap opera actors posing as Presidents and First Ladies for a magazine scheduled to be published coincident to next year's inaugural festivities), the article emphasized Barr's human side, with little attention to policy positions.
For instance:
Is there any human being on the planet more committed to his seriousness than Bob Barr? The 59-year-old Barr is so into the Founding Fathers that most of his phone numbers, including his cellphone, end in "1-7-7-6." He only reads weighty books, his wife says, like "George Washington on Leadership." He talks about himself in the third person. In his office, he keeps a photo of himself as a Republican congressman -- calling for the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Even Bob Barr's mustache is serious.
Bob Barr's law: "Never run a 100-yard dash in a 90-yard room."
What does that mean?
"It doesn't mean anything," he says, and then adds, sternly, "It's a joke."
And yet, every once in a while, the strangest thing happens. He does something surprising, like announces he really likes Bob Marley. Or says he kind of liked that Borat movie, except for the part where he was unwittingly in it as the butt of a joke, eating cheese purportedly made from human breast milk. He's still Bob Barr the bulldog, but in person he can be quite solicitous. And every so often, he smiles.
I have been following libertarian presidential candidates since the 1992 campaign, when Andre Marrou was running, and I never remember seeing such a big article about one of them placed so prominently in a newspaper of record. (Marrou was able to snag a column by George F. Will, published in the dog days of July and thus earlier than election day than even this piece, but that was also the year that Ross Perot stole the bulk of third-party thunder, so any coverage at all, at any time, was gratifying.)
Despite the lack of attention in Copeland's article to policy issues, I can appreciate any attempt to humanize (and therefore make more familiar) a Libertarian candidate. As political consultants know, voters care less about issues than they do about their inchoate feelings about candidates. Remember the contest in 2000 about which candidate voters would rather drink a beer with at a backyard barbecue? Al Gore came out short on that one. So did John Kerry four years later, though he did win the brie-and-chardonnay vote.
I hope that this Style section piece will reassure editors of other newspapers that it is acceptable to publish features about Barr.
Just for the heck of it, I pulled out my cellphone and snapped a few shots of messages left on the chalkboard section of the monument. (The other section is a podium for public speakers, with the intention that the monument might become Charlottesville's counterpart to Hyde Park Corner.)
What was odd was there was no chalk (nor were there any erasers) anywhere near the slate surfaces of the monument. Consequently, it was hard to know how old (or new) the messages were. That didn't diminish their capacity to amuse.
Most of the images are self-explanatory, but I've added captions for clarification.
"McCain '08: 'Old Enough to Know Better'"
"I Belive in [anarchy symbol]" (sic)
And another angle:
"My dream is that you will travel the road ahead with liberty's lamp guiding your steps and opportunity's arm steadying your way. -- Ronald Reagan"
Another Reagan quotation: "Tear Down This Wall!" plus "Billy Sux"
"Pray for lower beer prices!" and "Life's a Witch and Then U Fly"
Monkeys snuggle under a coconut tree, topped with "Bob Barr '08"
VCU math major Steven Latimer stands next to some untranslated Chinese (or Japanese) characters and the incomplete definition of a derivative (which he later corrected after we found some chalk)
The outgoing members of the U.S. Federal Election Commission (FEC) have affirmed the rights of bloggers to comment upon and participate in politics. While the language of the ruling is both straightforward and logical, knowing that new FEC commissioners will be appointed by either John McCain, who views the First Amendment as an impediment to political progress, or Barack Obama, whose party wants to reinstate the Orwellian-sounding "Fairness Doctrine," means that doubts about the ruling's permanence are not unfounded.
Bloggers and web site operators may support, oppose, link to, and work cooperatively with federal political candidates. This freedom was reaffirmed when the newly re-constituted Federal Election Commission released its first two enforcement cases August 12.
The Commission’s refusal to regulate blogging and internet sites is not new, but it is notable is that the pro-blogger decision was made within a week or two of the new Commission taking office. Of the scores of items on its docket, the new Commission chose to address this one first: quite likely because they wanted to send a signal to that bloggers are free to engage in politics
Mason continues:
Bottom line: by making this case one of the first two it released, the Federal Election Commission reaffirms that bloggers and web site operators may support and oppose political candidates, republish or link to campaign material, and work as closely as they wish with campaigns in doing so.
The one activity that remains subject to FEC regulation is paying for an ad on someone else’s web site supporting or opposing a Federal candidate.
(Thanks to Leslie Carbone for alerting me to this news.)
At the end of a long, informative, and amusing discussion of Yiddish words and phrases used in relation to alcoholic beverages, Daily Forwardcolumnist Michael Wex adds an unusual cocktail recipe, which I have not previously encountered:
The Yiddish Mixed Drink
The single most Jewish liqueur ever known — at least back in my youth, when it was all the rage with the ladies who bar mitzvah — is Cherry Heering, a brandy-based cherry liqueur with a name that inspires confidence at any event at which Yiddish might conceivably be or have been spoken. Real cocktails, though, have never been developed. There is but one:
Alter Kaker(invented by Paul Lewis of the Joffrey Ballet)
1.5 oz. Old Grand-Dad 5 oz. Prune Juice
Pour into highball glass over ice cubes.
Stir well.
Enjoy.
I don't think I'll be the first to belly up to the bar to order that one, but I'd be curious to learn if any of my readers have tried it. If so, how was it?
Setting the Alter Kaker down on a cocktail napkin, I should at least mention a potentially useful phrase that Wex drops into his article:
Mevisem can also be used of other intoxicating substances. As Ray Charles would have sung on “Modern Sounds in Yiddish and Western”:
Leave it to the Washington Post's Al Kamen, who presides over the "In the Loop" column, to dig up an old item that, with the perspective of almost a decade, rings with delicious irony.
Bipartisanship Never Sleeps Quote of the Week: Sure, it's only Friday, but we're confident this one can't be topped. It's from Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), remarking Tuesday on how he and Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) were in sync on some mining issues.
"Politics makes strange bedpersons," Craig said, according to the New York Times. "I would not be uncomfortable in Bob Byrd's bed."
But Byrd might be.
"Bedpersons"? I always thought the term was "bedfellows." Odd fellows, I'd say.
A definitive survey has predicted who will be the winner of the U.S. presidential election this year, so we might as well pack it up and go home. Why bother with the campaign, the conventions, and the commercials if the decision has already been made?
Minor league teams in six cities handed out bobbleheads of the two Presidential candidates during special promotions last week, with each fan choosing either a Barack Obama or John McCain model, each of which represented a Presidential vote. (In 2004, the same promotion predicted a narrow GW Bush victory). And when the dust had cleared on Monday, one candidate emerged with a clean sweep of all venues. So please nod your head comically and whistle Hail to the Chief for ...
Barack Obama.
If presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama wins the election in November, he will look back at the Goldklang Group’s “Bobblection 2008” as his springboard to the White House. Obama finished a clean sweep taking the Fort Myers vote on Monday night, to complete a six-city blanking of John McCain. Obama garnered 54.4% of the vote (500 bobbleheads), while McCain notched 45.6% of the vote (419 bobbleheads). The six cities represent the homes of Goldklang Group teams.
The junior United States Senator from Illinois started strong at Hammond Stadium and never looked back. The first 10 voters marked their ballot for Obama. McCain tried to rally late, but came up short for the sixth straight day. Four years ago, George Bush defeated John Kerry 53% to 47% in Fort Myers. The tally was nearly identical to the final national percentages.
"Barack the Bobblehead": Does that have the same resonance as, say, "The Great Communicator" or "The Rail Splitter"?
Circumstances prevented me from attending the Tuesday Morning Group Coalition meeting in Richmond this morning. The Tuesday Morning Group is hosted by John Taylor and Tertium Quids. It meets generally on the second Tuesday of each month so that Virginia political activists can hear from prominent speakers on the issues of the day and compare notes with each other about current events.
Today was quite a program and I had looked forward to it. (As recently as late yesterday afternoon, I had exchanged emails with John Taylor about my plans to record part of the meeting on video.) The speakers included Paul Jacob of the Sam Adams Alliance and the new chairman of the Republican Party of Virginia, Delegate Jeff Frederick.
The star of the show, however, was to be former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr, who is currently running for president as the nominee of the Libertarian Party. I have not previously met Congressman Barr and I hope today's missed opportunity does not mean I will not have a chance to do so before the election campaign is over. (I am counting on the University Libertarians to invite the candidate to Charlottesville in September or October.)
Fortunately, I knew that Steven Latimer would be attending the meeting and I implored him to get Congressman Barr's remarks on video so that they could be posted to YouTube (and, by implication, here).
Steven was more than willing to take up the task.
(For those who might be interested, Norm Leahy has a full report of the press lunch Barr had after the meeting.)
"Neither of the two major parties has any vision or leadership whatsoever. It seems as if they not only have no leadership or vision or agenda for the American people, but they go out of their way to avoid it."
Here's the whole segment:
The expected third and fourth parts have not yet been uploaded to YouTube. When they are, I will post them here, too. Watch for an update soon.
Update #2:Part 3 of the video of Barr's remarks, in which he talks about ballot access challenges (especially Oklahoma and West Virginia, the hardest nuts to crack).
In this segment, Barr proposes a "new Grace Commission ... one on steroids" that would focus not just on government waste "but wasteful government," not just the "bad aspects of what government is doing, but the bad aspects of government itself."
He said we need to educate the American public about the tremendous waste, "not just in the money involved, but the power involved" and we need to characterize every government program according to three criteria: (1) "Is there a basis, explicit or reasonably implied, in the Constitution for that federal agency or program?" (2) "Even if there is, is it a program or a function that is best performed by the federal government ... as opposed to state or local government?" (3) "Do the benefits outweigh the cost?"
Waste in government, Barr said, represents a "loss of freedom."
See the rest here:
Update #3: Chelyen Davis has the story in the Free Lance-Star.
Update #4: This is the third and final part of the four-part Bob Barr video, in which the former Congressman says, "I didn't leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me."
Asked by a member of the audience whether he is concerned that votes for himself might contribute to a victory in November by Barack Obama, Barr replies:
"Standing up for principle should never be something that any American shies away from or feels guilty about. It would be a sad state of affairs if we ever reached a point in this country where somebody stands up and stands for principle, does the right thing for the right reason, but is criticized because that gets in the way of practical politics.
"In point of fact ... it's not an accurate scenario. The fact of the matter is that individuals who would go to the polling booth on November 4th and vote for a Big-Government Republican, that is, Senator McCain ... it would be very difficult for us to pull them away, even if we were trying to, to vote for a small-government Libertarian.
"The voters on that side of the ideological spectrum, or political spectrum, that we are targeting and tend to reach and, I think, will reach, are not voters that McCain has or is likely to have, but are sort of libertarian or true-conservative Republican voters who would not vote for McCain at any rate. We intend to reach out to them, and I think we'll get an awful lot of them."
Asked about an issue that divides some Libertarian Party members (and other libertarians), Barr responds by saying:
"The Libertarian Party nowadays is a very diverse party, but the one thing that unites virtually all -- not every single, but virtually all -- Libertarians is a strong desire to have a meaningful role in reigniting liberty in America, to really begin the process through a legitimate political party and all the attributes that come with that: paying attention to raising money, paying attention to grassroots organization, selecting good candidates, prioritizing your issues, delivering those issues in language that the average voter can relate to.
"That is very much what the modern Libertarian Party is. There are differences, whether it is on the drug issue, the abortion issue, other issues as well. But I think it's a real sign of maturation of the Libertarian Party that we are able to largely (not entirely, but largely) put aside differences that we have and move forward, particularly in this election year where there is a tremendous opportunity for a party of change, as the Libertarian Party is ... even though our philosophy is not a philosophy of change, it's the core beliefs of our Founding Fathers, and it's a very mainstream message."
Watch the full segment, in which Barr concludes by mentioning the campaign web site, BobBarr2008.com:
Update #5: Hugh Lessig reports on Barr's speech in Richmond in the Daily Press.
Update #6: The Free Lance-Starposted an editorial about Barr's appearance at the Bull & Bear Club on August 14.
Columnist Bryan McKenzie profiles former Charlottesville City Councilor Rob Schilling in this morning's edition of the Daily Progress. McKenzie focuses on Schilling's new role as a talk-show host on WINA-AM:
“I know a lot of people in City Hall are listening — at least they’re monitoring — and I really like that,” said Schilling, chilling in a local coffee shop prior to a live broadcast of “The Schilling Show.” “They may not like what I say or how I say it, but it gives them a chance to hear a viewpoint other than the official party line.”
“The Schilling Show” is one of four locally produced daily talk shows on the station, joining “Morning News with Rick and Jane,” “Charlottesville Right Now with Coy Barefoot” and “The Best Seat in the House” sports show, with Jay James. “The Schilling Show” runs 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. weekdays and for three hours Saturdays, beginning at 6 a.m.
Rick Daniels, WINA’s program director, said Schilling’s sometimes strident advocacy on local issues fits with the station’s mission.
“WINA has always been about news and stimulating talk radio,” Daniels said, standing outside the studio as “The Schilling Show” started. “He stimulates people. He motivates them to listen and call in.”
“The station wanted me to have an opinion and to advocate,” Schilling said. “I think I bring the sense of being an outsider who has been on the inside. Because I have been on the inside, I know where some of the bodies are buried.”
No doubt both fans and detractors of "The Schilling Show" will find something to like -- or something to respond to -- in McKenzie's article. The whole thing can be read here.
Earlier today, I received an email from a correspondent who told me he had heard that George Furth had died yesterday. I was unable to confirm the news through regular media sources, so I chose to forestall blogging about it until now, when I could, in fact, confirm it.
TheaterMania has posted an obituary confirming that Furth, who collaborated with Stephen Sondheim on both Company (which started off as a night of unrelated playlets about marriage by Furth before Sondheim joined the project) and Merrily We Roll Along.
George Furth, who won the Tony Award for writing the book to the Stephen Sondheim musical Company, died on August 11 at age 75 in Santa Monica, California, according to published reports. No cause of death has been announced.
A graduate of Northwestern University, Furth began his career as a performer, appearing on Broadway in A Cook for Mr. General and Hot Spot, and appeared in numerous films and television shows for over 35 years, including Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Blazing Saddles, and Murder, She Wrote.
Furth originally wrote Company as a series of one-act plays. He later collaborated with Sondheim on Merrily We Roll Along, which was adapted from a play by George S. Kaufmann and Moss Hart, and the thriller Getting Away With Murder.
As a character actor, Furth's face was familiar to television audiences for his appearances on Batman, That Girl, The Odd Couple, and Happy Days, among many other shows. (IMDB lists 86 separate television or film credits for Furth as a performer.) According to IBDB, Furth had credits as a performer in two short-lived Broadway plays (the above-named A Cook for Mr. General and Hot Spot) before he became an award-winning playwright.
Furth also collaborated with John Kander and Fred Ebb on the Liza Minnelli vehicle, The Act, in 1977.
While George Furth will no doubt be missed deeply by his friends and family, he left behind a durable legacy that will be enjoyed by theatre audiences for many decades to come.
It was the substance of the article, however, that first drew me to it.
Apparently tourists -- not all of them American -- are asking what the Telegraph politely calls "embarrassing" questions of docents at various English Heritage sites (the stately homes of England, as it were). A British tourism organization has revealed the ten most embarrassing questions posed by visitors to these castles, manors, and estates.
The series of questions were released to mark the start of an English Heritage campaign to encourage shy tourists to ask guides if they have a query about the building they have come to see.
The organisation's hope is that more questions will mean that the buildings make more of an impression, which will encourage the visitors to tell others of what they have experienced and could boost visitor numbers.
It seems to me that by publicizing what are often -- not to be as polite as English Heritage -- stupid questions, the organization might actually stifle inquiries by tourists who are now afraid of embarrassing themselves.
While the questions English Heritage has compiled are not exactly fodder for David Letterman's Top Ten List, a number of them are amusing in a "boy-i'm-glad-that-wasn't-me" sort of way.
"Is this where Sharon and Ozzie actually live?" - a visitor to Osborne House, Isle of Wight
"What time do you switch the mist off?" – a visitor to Dover Castle and the Secret Wartime Tunnels, in Kent
"Where are the monkeys?" – a group of children at Cleeve Abbey in Somerset
"Why did they build so many ruined castles and abbeys in England?" - a tourist at Whitby Abbey, North Yorkshire
"Is it a bouncy castle?" - a little girl at Clifford's Tower, York
"Can you tell me where I can see the Hobbits?" - a visitor to Kenwood House, Hampstead
"Did they all have the same dad?" – a visitor to Osborne House, Isle of White, who learned of Queen Victoria's nine children
"How many bricks are there?" - a visitor to Witley Court and Gardens, Worcestershire
"Does my ferret need to be on a lead in this area?" - a visitor to Kenwood House, Hampstead
"How long does life membership last?" - a visitor to Osborne House, Isle of White
"Did Lady Rachel ever de-bone her fish before eating it?" - a visitor to Witley Court and Gardens, Worcestershire
"Are the tunnels underground?" - a visitor to Dover Castle and Secret Wartime Tunnels, Kent
"Is that a manmade jetty?" - a visitor to Dunstanburgh Castle in Northumberland, pointing at a 300 million-year-old rock formation
"Is this Dracula's Castle?" - a visitor to Whitby Abbey, North Yorkshire.
Embarrassing or not, English Heritage also has a list of Frequently Asked Questions on its own web site.
I do have to admit that asking whether all of Queen Victoria's children had the "same dad" is not as silly as it sounds. As Art Linkletter might remark, "Kids say the darnedest things."
Moscow. A top Russian politician on Monday compared Georgian actions in South Ossetia with Nazi Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union after Prime Minister Vladimir Putin likened them to Saddam Hussein's war crimes, AFP reports.
"I can compare this treacherous attack with the attack by Hitler on the Soviet Union in June 1941," the Speaker of the lower house of Russia's parliament, Boris Gryzlov, was quoted as saying by ITAR-TASS news agency.
Apparently Godwin's Law applies even in international diplomacy.
"I went from being a senator, a young senator to being considered for vice president, running for president, being a vice presidential candidate and becoming a national public figure. All of which fed a self-focus, an egotism, a narcissism that leads you to believe that you can do whatever you want. You're invincible. And there will be no consequences."
The first thought that came to my mind as I watched the Edwards saga unfold was: Isn't it a shame that Saturday Night Live is on summer hiatus?
My second thought was: John Edwards makes Newt Gingrich look like Husband of the Year.
My third thought was: This reminds me of a play I once saw; which one?
"The one" turned out to be The Fix, which premiered in London in 1997 and had its American premiere a year later at Signature Theatre in Arlington.
It's unfortunate that The Fix has not had another life beyond its London and stateside premieres. It deserves another look, and an election year may be just the best time to do it.
With John Edwards adultery still in the headlines and the political conventions just around the corner, what better time to revisit my review of Dempsey and Rowe's The Fix?
This review appeared in The Metro Herald in April 1998.
Signature Scores with 'The Fix' Rick Sincere Metro Herald Entertainment Editor
Arlington's Signature Theatre has another hit on its hands, a welcome antidote to the disappointment of its last production, the flaccid Shooting in Madrid.
With The Fix, however, Signature has produced a rich, raunchy, cynical musical comedy that combines the best of Stephen Sondheim and Andrew Lloyd Webber without being derivative from either. This American premiere of The Fix has been made possible by a grant from megahit producer Cameron Mackintosh, who also underwrote the show's London premiere last year at the Donmar Warehouse, a non-profit theatre that shares many characteristics with Signature.
Director Eric D. Schaeffer, working with librettist John Dempsey and composer Dana P. Rowe, has made some changes -- invariably improvements -- from the London version of The Fix. What remains is a tight, nearly operatic, look at the tragedy that ensues from political ambition, personal weakness, and corruption. Not a moment is wasted.
The plot centers on a prominent political family -- it could be the Kennedys, it could be the Caesars -- whose leading light, Senator Reed Chandler (Jim Walton) collapses and dies in the embrace of his mistress on the eve of his near-certain election to the presidency. Not missing a beat, the Senator's widow, Violet (Linda Balgord), decides to push her young son, Cal (Stephen Bienskie) in the direction her husband was heading, saying "If I can't be the wife of the President, you can bet your ass I'll be his mother!" Cal is none too sure about this course of action, correctly doubting his own abilities, but he cannot withstand the pressure from his mother and his uncle, political strategist Grahame Chandler (Sal Mistretta). After a stint in combat with the Army, Cal is elected to the city council, then the governorship. Along the way he gets married, becomes a father, gets addicted to cocaine and heroin, and takes a mistress of his own, an ex-stripper named Tina McCoy (Natalie Toro). Entangled with the mob, Cal takes hits from the media and law enforcement officials, finally coming clean at a press conference intended to announce his entry into a campaign for the U.S. Senate. True to The Fix's roots in Greek tragedy, Cal comes to an untimely end -- but not before we see his seven-year-old son, Cal Jr. (Joel Carron), emerge as a true heir to his father and grandfather.
In some ways, this play seems torn directly from today's headlines. A philandering politician -- where have we heard that one before? At one point, when Cal announces to the public that he has ties to a prominent mobster, a TV reporter notes that polls show his favorability rating has gone up and continues to rise. Yet the themes outlined here are far more universal than current events would allow. The story could be set today or in the 1830s or in the Roman Empire.
In fact, creators Dempsey and Rowe first conceived The Fix as a play about Caligula and Claudius, the third and fourth Roman emperors and members of the clan founded by Caesar Augustus. Their story -- as anyone familiar with the TV series "I, Claudius" remembers -- involved multiple court intrigues, ambitious mothers and grandmothers whose weapon of choice was poison, sexual and psychological excesses, extramarital affairs, and common murder. Translate that rough story into modern dress, and you get The Fix.
Musically, this show is nothing but a success. The score is a mixture of rock, gospel, blues, Tin Pan Alley, vaudeville, country and western, sweet ballads, inspiring anthems. Each character is defined by the music that he or she sings. One result is that most of the characters get a solo number that allows them to comment on the action and, indeed, on the state of their own souls. An exception is Reed Chandler, who despite a rousing opening number in which he takes a lead, is denied the second-act hit tunes that his wife, brother, son, and son's mistress all get. Sadly, this means that the talents of Jim Walton, who originated the role of Franklin Shepard in Merrily We Roll Along, are underutilized. If the creators plan any future changes in the play, this is one that should be rectified.
The Fix owes much to Merrily We Roll Along, Stephen Sondheim and George Furth's 1980 morality tale that follows the financial rise and spiritual fall of a talented composer. There is one musical phrase, in fact, repeated several times by the chorus in The Fix that is lifted directly from Merrily's score, where it served the same purpose. One speculates as to whether this is due to the influence of director Eric Schaeffer and his longtime collaborator, musical director Jon Kalbfleish, both Sondheim aficionados for many years, since the phrase is not heard on the London cast recording. In any event, this probably represents a tribute to Sondheim rather than anything more sordid.
There are so many brilliant moments in The Fix that it is hard to list them. One song, "I See the Future," is Cal's victory speech on election day. It is completely platitudinous and insubstantial. The brilliance in the number is this: The audience can read the speech on the "teleprompter" used by Cal, complete with stage directions for "spontaneous" gestures. The façade of politics is split wide open.
The Fix is an adult musical, with mature themes and strong language. It is satire in the tradition of Of Thee I Sing, but it is much deeper than that. The Fix deserves wide attention.
Could The Fix be Broadway bound? An earlier Signature production this season, Never the Sinner, arrived in New York to great acclaim. Signature Theatre is already swimming in Helen Hayes awards and nominations -- with The Fix, there could be a Tony within its grasp.
The Fix runs through April 26 at the Signature Theatre, 3806 S. Four Mile Run Drive in Arlington. Tickets are available by calling ProTix at 1-800-955-5566 or 703-218-6500. Multiple sellouts are likely, so call quickly to make reservations.
As we now know, The Fix never made it to Broadway. (If the Wikipedia article on Dempsey and Rowe is correct, there have been no other productions of the show since it played Signature.) Too bad.
Maybe there are some producers out there, reading this article today, who might be inspired to get The Fix back on the boards before Election Day. Timing is everything -- in politics as in comedy.
In Tuesday's Republican primary election for local offices in Michigan, Tyler won a sufficient number of votes to proceed to the general election for Bath Township Trustee.
According to unofficial results posted by the Clinton County clerk, the four GOP nominees are: Clark E. Losey (381 votes), Terrie Wood (322 votes), Harold Buck Kuisel (312 votes), and Tyler Whitney (251 votes). Garrett Slater came in fifth (with 218 votes) in this vote-for-up-to-four race.
The four Republican nominees will face these Democratic counterparts on November 4: Paula L. Clark (432 votes), Rick Curtis (367 votes), Leon Puttler (343 votes), and Walter Pett (302 votes). Michael Creed, Joel Gutzki, Kathleen Topp Jubb, and Robert L. Leiby failed to make the cut.
I have been unable to locate an official campaign web site, but there is a Facebook group called "Tyler Whitney for Bath County Trustee" with some information about the campaign. Campaign contributions can be sent to:
Friends of Tyler Whitney 15375 Club Course Drive Bath, MI 48808
There will no doubt be more information about Tyler and the rest of the candidates on his slate available on the Clinton County Republican party's web site. Those who want to vote in the November election in Michigan but who are not yet registered can download a voter registration form here.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the towering literary figure who gave us the phrase "Gulag Archipelago" and whose life spanned from Lenin to Putin, died on Sunday at the age of 89.
Solzhenitsyn cut an imposing figure. With his curled beard and high forehead, he resembled a cross between a Biblical patriarch and a 19th-century Mormon pioneer.
While he led a brave life, unbowed by the pressures of totalitarianism, he was, apparently, meanspirited personally and loathe to keep friendships alive and active. If there is a photograph of him smiling, I have not seen it -- unless it was taken upon his return to Russia in 1994 after 20 years in exile in decadent Vermont.
In 1978, Solzhenitsyn delivered a commencement speech at Harvard University that was highly critical of Western culture. He condemned freedom and democracy and accused the West of soullessness.
His rare public appearances could turn into hectoring jeremiads. Delivering the commencement address at Harvard in 1978, he called the country of his sanctuary spiritually weak and mired in vulgar materialism. Americans, he said, speaking in Russian through a translator, were cowardly. Few were willing to die for their ideals, he said. He condemned both the United States government and American society for its “hasty” capitulation in Vietnam. And he criticized the country’s music as intolerable and attacked its unfettered press, accusing it of violations of privacy.
Living in this country confirmed Solzhenitsyn's worst fears about the West. He deplored the American way of life, and was not reluctant to say so. At Harvard in 1978, he gave a remarkable speech to the graduating seniors with a clear warning that Western civilization was in grave jeopardy. "The fight for our planet, physical and spiritual, a fight of cosmic proportions, is not a vague matter of the future," he said. "It has already started. . . . A fact which cannot be disputed is the weakening of human beings in the West while in the East they are becoming firmer and stronger." He criticized the reliance on law; he criticized the idea of freedom: "Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space" by Western civilization, he said.
In his tirade against Western culture, Solzhenitsyn lamented:
The defense of individual rights has reached such extremes as to make society as a whole defenseless against certain individuals. It is time, in the West, to defend not so much human rights as human obligations.
Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people, motion pictures full of pornography, crime and horror. It is considered to be part of freedom and theoretically counter-balanced by the young people's right not to look or not to accept. Life organized legalistically has thus shown its inability to defend itself against the corrosion of evil.
... the mistake must be at the root, at the very basis of human thinking in the past centuries. I refer to the prevailing Western view of the world which was first born during the Renaissance and found its political expression from the period of the Enlightenment. It became the basis for government and social science and could be defined as rationalistic humanism or humanistic autonomy: the proclaimed and enforced autonomy of man from any higher force above him. It could also be called anthropocentricity, with man seen as the center of everything that exists.
The turn introduced by the Renaissance evidently was inevitable historically. The Middle Ages had come to a natural end by exhaustion, becoming an intolerable despotic repression of man's physical nature in favor of the spiritual one. Then, however, we turned our backs upon the Spirit and embraced all that is material with excessive and unwarranted zeal. This new way of thinking, which had imposed on us its guidance, did not admit the existence of intrinsic evil in man nor did it see any higher task than the attainment of happiness on earth. It based modern Western civilization on the dangerous trend to worship man and his material needs. Everything beyond physical well-being and accumulation of material goods, all other human requirements and characteristics of a subtler and higher nature, were left outside the area of attention of state and social systems, as if human life did not have any superior sense. That provided access for evil, of which in our days there is a free and constant flow. Merely freedom does not in the least solve all the problems of human life and it even adds a number of new ones.
Harvard graduates, then as now, no doubt listened to Solzhenitsyn's harsh judgment on American society and Western values and nodded their heads in silent agreement. In 1978, remember, Americans were in the midst of a "malaise" that many identified as having its roots in the hypermaterialism of the "Me Decade." (That, and the high inflation, high interest rates, high unemployment, and gasoline shortages exacerbated by misguided Carter administration policies.) Others, however, were not so sanguine and suggested that Solzhenitsyn, a virtual recluse, was personally clueless about America and the West.
Two years after the Harvard speech, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where I was working at the time as a Georgetown undergraduate, published a collection of essays called Solzhenitsyn at Harvard. It included some of the editorials and op-eds that had been published in reaction to Solzhenitsyn's address shortly after he delivered it, plus six specially-commissioned essays.
On September 16, 1980, the book was launched at a dinner in Washington with two speakers commenting on it: newspaper columnist George F. Will and social philosopher Michael Novak. Their speeches were later collected in a slim pamphlet called Solzhenitsyn and American Democracy. (The pamphlet seems to be no longer in print, while the larger volume is still, in theory, available through Amazon.com.)
In his remarks, Novak -- who contributed one of the original essays to the larger volume -- began by noting:
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's commencement address at Harvard might be viewed as a contemporary updating of Pope Pius IX's famous critique of modernity, "The Syllabus of Errors." Solzhenitsyn, like Pius IX, is adept at pointing out the errors, onesidedness, and blind spots in many of the things that we, in a liberal, democratic society, hold most dear. Like Pius IX, he holds up in contrast some of the models of Christian civilization from the past -- their ideals rather than their practices.
Novak suggested that, for all his emphasis on religion and spirituality, Solzhenitsyn failed to see the link between those and liberal democratic values. He continued:
The great novelist, however, in concentrating so singlemindedly on soul, sometimes overlooks its necessary political, economic, and social artifacts. Human soul does not live alone. It is embodied. It is embodied in social, political, and economic systems as well as in its own human skin, tissues, sinews, and organs of feeling and sensibility.
Solzhenitsyn often seems to wish to reject modernity. "Western ideas" -- above all, democracy and all its works and pomps. He sometimes seems to desire a world of soul alone, leaders infused with virtue, peoples astonishingly and simply committed to the evangelical laws of peace, justice, order, and charity. If this were a world of angels, Solzhenitsyn's vision would create a City of Light. Its rulers would be saints, its people willing followers, its constitution the very laws of God. The civilization he envisages would be a heavenly city. The state would wither away. There would be a kind of benevolent dictatorship of, not the proletariat, but the gentle Christian community.
Upon reading that last paragraph, it should come as no surprise that Novak sees a paradox in Solzhenitsyn's thought:
It is stunning, after all, to see how closely the dream of Solzhenitsyn mirrors the dream of his archenemy, Karl Marx, how he has turned Communism inside out as a vision of effortless Christian civilization, populated not by sinners but by the virtuous, organized not by trial and error, checks and balances, separation of powers, and the differentiation of systems (political system, economic system, moral-cultural system, each relatively independent of the other), but by simple righteousness. He guides us to a heavenly city, before we have learned to live in the sinful climes of earth, protecting ourselves against its inevitable tyrannies.
(It may be worth noting that Novak's words in the preceding few sentences foreshadow the central theme of his then-yet-to-be-published book, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism.)
The utopian vision suggested by Novak's interpretation of Solzhenitsyn's thought has another unintended paradox, one often unrecognized by Rockford Institute-type social conservatives who are wary of individual liberty and free enterprise. Novak goes on to say:
Solzhenitsyn does us honor, though he may not think so, by being so affronted by the awful cheapness, vulgarity, and open sinfulness of our way of life. Any system open to human liberty as it actually is must necessarily abound in visible signs of sinfulness. Not even a coercive regime can repress the sinfulness of the human heart. No more can democracy be sinless than can Communism (committed, as Solzhenitsyn sees it, to systemic lies, immorality, and lust for power) drive out all virtue.
One sentence there bears repeating: "Any system open to human liberty as it actually is must necessarily abound in visible signs of sinfulness." That is a profound insight, related to the fundamental truth that virtue must be freely chosen, else it is not virtue.
As Novak approached his conclusion, he proved to be remarkably prescient. Remember, this speech was delivered in September 1980. Ronald Reagan had not yet been elected president, and there was no certainty that he would be. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other "students" still held American diplomats hostage in Iran. Leonid Brezhnev would be General Secretary of the CPSU for another two years, and the collapse of the Soviet Empire lay a decade in the future. The Cold War had every indication of being a perpetual condition. So what does Novak say?
Yet with Solzhenitsyn's basic message we stand in agreement. The world is, sadly, split apart. World War III did begin in 1945, and the "correlation of forces" is less in our favor now than then, less so than at any time in the history of this republic. We are at an hour of maximum peril.
Yet so, also, is our foe. A system based on lies cannot endure. The world cannot survive half slave and half free. The reckoning rumbles in Poland. Events are picking up speed. The great chapter of our age is drawing toward its climax.
Whether Novak was aiming for dramatic effect or was somehow clairvoyant is up to him to reveal; few commentators in 1980 would have suggested an "approaching climax" to the Cold War except in apocalyptic terms, predicting nuclear war rather than an outcome favorable to liberty and democracy. (To be sure, Novak's prediction is ambiguously shaded. Perhaps it can only be read as optimistic in retrospect.)
For his own part, George Will focused less on the spiritual notions than the practical political ones suggested by Solzhenitsyn's critique of the West. He drew on American history, with a focus on James Madison's theory of faction. Will spoke mostly without notes, except for a long excerpt from Crèvecoeur’s Letters from an American Farmer, and the published version of his speech is based on a transcript from the recording.
Will said:
It is essential to the understanding of America to realize that it was founded by men who sought explicitly to tame and submerge passion, to drain it into commercial undertakings and away from the ideological and religious and political divisions that had turned the Old World into a boiling pot and that could ruin a melting pot. James Madison's great breakthrough in the understanding of democracy was the realization that all previous political thinkers had been wrong in one critical particular. All previous political thinkers had said that if -- and it was an enormous hypothesis -- if democracy were possible at all, it would be possible only in a small, face-to-face society, something like Pericles' Athens or Rousseau's Geneva; in such a society, the people, knowing one another and enjoying a relationship of neighborliness, would not be riven by factions, which were assumed to be the enemy and ultimate destroyer of democracy.
Madison's breakthrough was to turn that idea on its head. He began with a progression like this: The problem of any political system is the prevention of tyranny; they tyranny to which democracy is prey is the tyranny of the majority; the way to prevent that is to avoid having a majority, to have only shifting coalitions of minorities that can never become a stable and oppressive majority. Therefore faction is to be celebrated, and the United States is to succeed through a saving multiplicity of factions, made possible by a complex economic system and a continental expanse.
Continuing, this widely-syndicated newspaper columnist went on to explain:
To find American political thought summarized in two short newspaper columns, read two of the Federalist papers: Number Ten, where Madison celebrates factions, and Number Fifty-one, where he says, "You will see throughout our system the process of supplying by opposite and rival interests the defect of better motives." Ours is the first nation founded on the premise that it could get along without anyone having good motives, without anyone being public-spirited; that out of the cheerful maelstrom of factions would emerge something that could be baptized, in a magnificent a priori swoop, "the public interest."
But what of Solzhenitsyn, the reason for this speech in the first place? Will argues that Solzhenitsyn
says that statecraft cannot just be a matter of social control; it must be, to some extent, soulcraft.
(I have to wonder if this was the first time that George Will used the formulation "statecraft as soulcraft," later the title of his 1983 collection of essays.)
Solzhenitsyn, Will says,
is understandably startled by the raucousness of American life. He's not the only one, and it's not just American life. George Orwell made the point, not long before he died, that "all popular entertainments have one thing in common: they seem to aim at the numbing of consciousness." (He said this before recreational drugs, and he never saw American television.)
Recreational drugs, I would note, have been with us since man was still a hunter-gatherer. But I might add that Orwell never saw Grand Theft Auto or World of Warcraft, either -- nor, I suppose, did Solzhenitsyn. Back to George Will:
Solzhenitsyn understands that there is something profoundly disturbing about the sensory blitzkrieg that is part of our social life. He understands the irony of an age in which self-expression is the ultimate -- and some would say the only -- value, yet all the themes of modern literature seem to converge on the fragility of a sense of self.
After quoting historian John Lukacs, who had suggested in his 1978 book 1945: Year Zero that Solzhenitsyn would turn out to be the pivotal figure in the conflict between East and West and (perhaps -- remember, this was 1980) in the collapse of the Communist East, Will concluded by saying:
For two centuries the human race has been assailed by the misconstructions first of physics, then biology, then psychology, more recently sociology, and today biochemistry, all telling us in different ways that man is not free, that he is a creature of vast impersonal forces, and that individuals do not make a difference. Solzhenitsyn's life says, "Not true."
With the perspective of nearly 30 years, we can add a few more individual lives that say "Not true": Lech Wałesa, Pope John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Milton Friedman, and others. None of them singly but all of them interrelatedly through their individual efforts made the difference between liberty and serfdom for millions of human beings.
For all his faults, and for all his shortsightedness with regard to Western values and achievements, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was very much an individual who made a difference that mattered -- even to those he disdained.
Both the Republican and Democratic parties are preparing for protesters at their respective political conventions this year. The Democrats meet first, from August 25 through August 28 in Denver, and they have made provisions for limited demonstrations outside the Pepsi Center, the main convention hall, and near Invesco Field, where Barack Obama will deliver his acceptance speech in the style of the Beatles at Shea Stadium.
Protesters will have ample opportunity to be heard during the Democratic National Convention, from a city-provided stage to a first-of-its-kind system to have information distributed inside the Pepsi Center, attorneys for Denver and the U.S. Secret Service said.
The city will provide two loudspeakers outside the protest zone near the Pepsi Center, according to court documents. Protesters inside the fenced zone may use the amplification system, or bring their own bullhorns.
The Democratic National Convention Committee also will set up a table of leaflets and other information from protest groups "along the main thoroughfare" used by delegates and the media, the documents state.
The DNCC believes this will mark the first time in the history of any political party's convention that such an arrangement will be in place.
The city of Denver on Monday said the public viewing and demonstration area on the last day of the Democratic National Convention will be next to Invesco Field at Mile High.
The city will make available 53,000 square feet in Lot J for a public viewing area, “within sight and sound” of the delegates arriving. Protesters will be allowed to use bullhorns, and a microphone will be set up with at least two speakers pointed toward the arriving delegates.
The city of St. Paul will provide a stage and amplified sound system for people to use near the Xcel Energy Center during the four days of the Republican National Convention.
The stage will be within the public viewing area, a triangle between Fifth St. and the Dorothy Day Center bounded by the westbound lanes of W. 7th St. That area is where people can gather to express their opinions within earshot and sight of the Xcel, news media outlets and delegates.
"It's in the Xcel's field of view," said police spokesman Tom Walsh.
The setting aside of a "free speech" area near a political convention site is not new. Twelve years ago, when I covered the Democratic National Convention in Chicago for the Metro Herald, the protesters outside the United Center provided just about the only colorful story to report, since inside the convention hall the re-nomination of Bill Clinton and Al Gore was never in question, and there were not even any disputes about the platform, credentials, or rules.
Here is the story I filed about the "dissenters" at the Democratic Convention, which appeared in the Metro Herald in September 1996. (This is another in the series of "history lessons" that I promised on May 23.)
Protest and Dissent: The People Speak Richard Sincere
"The American patriot wears many hats and changes clothes often. The extraordinary leaders and great thinkers who helped mold the Republic are not only the figures traditionally highlighted in history textbooks. Equally patriotic were those Americans who fought against the status quo, who agitated for economic and social reform, who championed the rights of those whose rights had not yet been acknowledged, and whose ideas were new and revolutionary in their own times."
Hunt himself chooses a wide variety of dissenters to display in his volume -- from the well-known revolutionary pamphleteers Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine to the quiet thinkers Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau to the social activists Dorothea Dix and Jane Addams to African-American leaders W.E.B. Du Bois, Malcolm X, and Martin Luther King, Jr. This wide variety provides a clue as to the sources and expansiveness of American dissent. It includes the college educated and the street smart, the socialites and the social outcasts, the religious believers and the agnostics. It is, in short, America.
So, too, at both the Republican and Democratic conventions this year, were dissenting voices represented. Alas, this dissent was seldom heard within the convention halls themselves, because party leaders carefully orchestrated their 4-day, made-for-TV rallies to project the illusion (if not the reality) of unity, solidarity, and strength. No, to find true dissent one had to go outside the convention halls -- but not far away at all. And what one found was at once instructive and amusing.
In both San Diego and Chicago, under pressure from political groups and court orders, the political parties set aside outdoor areas near their meeting space in which organized demonstrators, marching protestors, and lonely citizens with an axe to grind could have their say. Few convention delegates, public officials, or party operatives saw or heard what was going on, but the media gathered there every day to see what was going on -- largely because little of consequence was happening inside.
In Chicago, the "official protest area" was designated as Lot E of the United Center parking lot. It really was not far from the entrances to the United Center used by delegates, observers, and journalists, but to find it required some effort. Convention organizers kindly set up a platform for speakers at one end of the lot and another platform for TV cameras a few yards away. There wasn't much need for either one, as few of the demonstrations had as many as 50 participants, and even the large ones were covered (if at all) by only one or two roving TV cameras and a handful of news photographers.
On Monday, the first day of the convention, I arrived at the United Center by shuttle bus and walked directly to the protest area, simply to get my bearings and see what might be on the menu. To my surprise and delight, about two dozen protesters were gathered, carrying banners and placards objecting to the War on Drugs. Several of the protesters were wearing -- or so they said -- clothing made from hemp, and others made the perfectly logical point that ratcheting up the War on Drugs also ratchets up the price of drugs, making it more lucrative and more inviting for new entrants into the drug economy -- and more rewarding to engage in violent, even homicidal, activity to secure sales territory. Speakers compared the current prohibition of marijuana and other "illicit" drugs to the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s and '30s -- the "noble experiment" that was also a dismal failure.
Each day I followed this ritual -- get off the bus, trek to the protest area, and see what's happening. Each day I saw something different, and something the same.
The "something the same" included David Benson, who led his one-man crusade to repeal women's suffrage. I asked Mr. Benson what motivated his campaign, which he began about a year ago: "After a marriage of thirty years which ended suddenly ... I became angry when my wife found a feminist girlfriend who said she could have a whole loaf instead of half a loaf," he explained circuitously in a thick Midwestern accent. I asked him directly: "Do you attribute your divorce to the right of women to vote?" After a pause, Mr. Benson answered, "A by-product, yes." Curious, I continued with my line of questions.
Metro Herald: "Do you also oppose the right of women to own property?" Benson: "I think women should own property, yes." Metro Herald: "Would you be in favor of repealing the amendment that allows for the direct election of U.S. Senators?" Benson:"[long pause] No." Metro Herald: "Do you think there should be a property qualification for people to vote?" Benson: "You're going back about 200 years or so. No, in America nowadays, no, you don't have to own property to vote." Metro Herald: "What about other groups? Are there any other groups that you think should be denied the right to vote?" Benson:"No, only American women." Metro Herald: "Foreign women should be allowed to vote?" Benson:"I just say all females in America should be denied the right to vote." Metro Herald: "Do you also think that women should not be allowed to hold public office?" Benson:"I believe they can, and a lot of them prove themselves to be able to do a good job at it." Metro Herald: "So you would approve of Elizabeth Dole, for instance, serving as a cabinet member, but not allowing her to vote for her husband for President." Benson: "Yes."
Such was the flavor of the many "eccentrics" who populated the protest area day by day. Others complained about lawyers, meat-eaters, homosexuals, and the media. Still others hawked their own books and newspapers -- such as the Socialist Workers' Party. Among the organized groups -- the "something different" -- were a multiracial collection of teenagers calling for more funding for education and a nurses' march demanding passage of several pieces of health-care legislation.
The most anticipated and best-organized protests were those in favor and against abortion.
The anti-abortion demonstrators came first, on Wednesday afternoon, just before sunset. This group attracted the largest crowd of the convention and was about evenly divided between men and women. There were clergymen, laborers, mothers and children, and representatives of many racial and ethnic groups. Altogether there were about 200 to 250 protesters.
The next day, about one-third as many pro-choice demonstrators gathered at approximately the same time. Largely a female crowd, their message was far more in tune with the Democratic platform and the delegates inside the United Center. Perhaps that is why they were unable to muster a crowd as large as their opponents. The comparisons are interesting, however -- both groups were well-behaved, civil, as quiet in their passionate intensity as one would expect them to be loud. Both groups were genuinely devoted to their cause, and there is little reason to believe that common ground can be found for them to stand upon. It is clear -- particularly in the divergent stances of the two major political parties -- that the abortion debate will be with us, unsettled, for many years to come.
It is too bad that those who made use of the protest area were viewed by reporters and TV crews more as curiosities and amusements than they were as activists dedicated to a substantial cause. Despite lapses in logic, tortured syntax, signs drawn in child-like scrawls, and sometimes vacant expressions on their faces, these people obviously felt that their message was as much worth hearing as it was worth giving. As the late Senator J. William Fulbright once said, "In a democracy dissent is an act of faith." It is clear that these protesters were faithful people treading on sacred soil -- as near to the center of the political process as they could bring themselves.
Morgan Freeman is in good spirits and is planning to have surgery after sustaining injuries in a car accident Sunday night, the actor's rep said in a statement Monday afternoon.
"He has a broken arm, broken elbow and minor shoulder damage but he is in good spirits," said Donna Lee. "He is going to have surgery this afternoon or tomorrow to correct the damage. He says he'll be okay and is looking forward to a full recovery."
Freeman seemed genuinely happy to be in Charlottesville. (It was a return visit for him, as he had spent some time in the area filming the sequel to the hit Bruce Almighty, the flop Evan Almighty.) He was engaged and engaging and enjoyed the give-and-take with the audience at the Paramount Theatre. (The photograph on the right shows Freeman during the panel discussion with 10 Items or Less director Brad Silberling; in the photo above and to the left, former WVIR-TV/Channel 29 correspondent David Douglas is interviewing the actor during his brief press availability.)
Prior to his formal appearance on stage at the Paramount, Freeman ran a press gauntlet, where he answered questions from local print and broadcast reporters and flirted with some of the prettier ones. (I think they were correspondents for the Cavalier Daily.)
I caught some of that encounter on video. Unfortunately there is no audio track -- I took this with my digital camera, which has no microphone -- but you can tell by the twinkle in his eye that the man-who-plays-God-in-the-movies has a real down-to-earth touch.
Recently, Charlottesville has been getting more calls of possible coyote sightings within the city limits. Bobby Durrer, the area’s animal control officer, said he’s received two calls in the last couple of weeks — one of which was from Derthick, the other from employees at Foods of All Nations on Ivy Road.
“The ones that called in, [at night] is when they’ve seen them,” Durrer said.
[Martha] Derthick said she thinks it’s possible to mistake a coyote for a fox. But Mike Fies, a wildlife research biologist for the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, said coyotes are much more substantial — possibly weighing up to 45 pounds, as opposed to 12 pounds for a red fox and 8 pounds for an eastern gray fox.
Fies said coyotes first arrived in the southwestern part of Virginia in the 1970s, but they started to migrate into Virginia’s northern valley the following decade.
“They’ve been around for quite a few years,” Fies said.
Now they can be found in every part of the state, and Fies said he estimates they number around 50,000, though populations are difficult to track. Coyotes are extremely adaptable animals, Fies said, adding that he was not surprised that they might have worked their way into Charlottesville’s city limits.
“If there’s a food source, they’ll move into just about anywhere,” he said.
There is a misconception that coyotes are an animal one would only encounter in the arid West, owing primarily (though not entirely) to those wonderful Warner Bros. "Road Runner" cartoons that many of us grew up with. (Western films made in Monument Valley and other stark landscapes probably account for the rest of the incorrect knowledge.)
With this news, however, at least we'll know what might account for any sudden shortage of anvils and rockets in Charlottesville markets. Time to invest in Acme!
About fourteen months ago, I posted video and photographs from my first experience in community theatre, a production of Meredith Willson's The Music Man at St. Bernard's Studio Theatre in my hometown of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin.
After going off to Georgetown University, where I performed in my first college theatre show (Stephen Sondheim and Larry Gelbart's A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum) and working backstage on several other productions, I returned to Milwaukee the following summer and had my first experience of performing in repertory.
In the summer of 1978, St. Bernard's Studio Theatre for the first time (but not the last) produced two shows and performed them on alternate nights. While my expectations at auditions were not particularly high -- I was just looking forward to joining my friends in the joy of putting on a show -- it turned out that I was cast in major roles in both plays. It was the first time in my (short) career on stage that I was able to play the romantic lead, the male ingenue and title role in Sandy Wilson's The Boy Friend, and also the first chance I had to play a character role, The Old Actor in Tom Jones and Harvey Schmidt's long-running off-Broadway gem, The Fantasticks. (Back at Georgetown in subsequent years, this would turn out to be a pattern: playing naive boys and eccentric characters in such shows as Lanford Wilson's The Hot l Baltimore and Neil Simon's The Good Doctor.)
Around the same time that I found and edited the Super-8mm film-to-video transfer of scenes from The Music Man, I also found archival film of The Boy Friend and The Fantasticks. I posted the scenes from The Fantasticksover a year ago on YouTube, where it has had a trickle of traffic, and I posted The Boy Friend footage a few weeks ago.
I recently discovered, however, that I also had a live audio recording of a performance of The Fantasticks. (I also found another audio recording of just Act II from a rehearsal some months later; read on for the explanation. The Act I tape must exist somewhere, but it was not kept with its counterpart.) So I decided to re-edit the old footage, add a few photos, and superimpose the live audio -- as best I could, given the non-professional editing software I use -- onto the video. Considering that I had to digitize excerpts from deteriorated 30-year-old audio cassette tapes without the benefit of high-end hardware, the result is pretty good. In fact, I was able to match the movements to the sound almost precisely in the "Episode" sequence that begins at marker 00:38 on the video playback. (The last few minutes of the audio track have some distortions, but those should not be too distracting -- I hope.)
I wonder if this effort indicates that I have an unseemly fetish for historical preservation of documents and artifacts? Or does it offer justification for my being a lifelong packrat, to the consternation -- and sometimes exasperation -- of my friends?
Here, then, is the newly re-edited video of The Fantasticks, as presented by St. Bernard's Studio Theatre in July 1978. (The audio was recorded at a special performance on Wednesday, July 19, in that year.)
The Boy Friend had more official performances in July 1978 than The Fantasticks (4 vs. 3) and it also had a considerably larger cast, which meant more friends and family enticed to see the show. (This was my sister's first performance on a public stage; those who know her will recognize her, at 7 years of age, in the "Sur la Plage" sequence.) Considering that both shows were performed in the gymnasium of a Catholic parish school, with much of the cast emerging from the same parish's members, drawing an audience from extended families was an easy expectation.
For those who don't know it, The Boy Friend is a pastiche of 1920s musicals. It uses every cliche from that era: an exotic setting (the French Riviera), aristocratic characters (including mine, who was pretending to be working-class to escape his overbearing parents), a lonely rich girl, a randy French maid, a flirtatious secondary female lead, and an older man with an eye for younger ladies. The music echoes Gershwin, Berlin, Rodgers, Porter, and other composers of the era. The lyrics work for what they're meant to do, but none of the songs are particularly memorable in their own right in the way the compositions of those giants being aped were. Wilson later went on to write something of a sequel, a pastiche of 1930s musicals called Divorce Me, Darling!, which did not have the same staying power or appeal that The Boy Friend has enjoyed. (There is, however, a recording that has developed a cult following.)
Perhaps it was unusually precocious discernment on the part of my 19-year-old theatre maven's brain, with the (correct) judgment that The Fantasticks is a superior musical play, or perhaps I was just neglectful, but I failed to make an audio recording of any performance or rehearsal of The Boy Friend that summer. Consequently, this video has as its soundtrack excerpts from the Broadway OCR, featuring Julie Andrews in her first New York role (preceding My Fair Lady by one season).
In any case, here is what may be the only archival video of the 1978 production of The Boy Friend at St. Bernard's Studio Theatre:
Both shows had something of an afterlife.
A couple of weeks after we closed, we had an opportunity to perform a handful of songs from The Boy Friend at an enclosed shopping mall in suburban Milwaukee. (To be truthful, I don't remember which mall it was; perhaps someone from the cast may remember and post the information in the comments section, below.)
What I do remember is how disorienting the experience was. (She wasn't around then, but I imagine it must be how Tiffany must have felt years later.) The acoustics were atrocious; we could barely hear the people singing five feet away from us, much less hear the piano next to the stage. While a few shoppers stopped to see what was happening, most went about their business, chattering more loudly than they usually would in order to be heard above our music.
Still, it was fun to get back together with fellow cast members in August, before people dispersed to go to school or on last-minute vacations. It might have been the last time I wore that red jacket and white Gatsbyish hat.
Months later, St. Bernard's Studio Theatre was given an opportunity to put on a benefit performance for the Wauwatosa Junior Women's Club. Rozeann Campbell, our director, choreographer, and producer, decided that revisiting The Fantasticks would be best.
Although the benefit, to be performed at Wauwatosa West High School, was scheduled for February 24, in the middle of the school year, I could not pass up the opportunity to do a "revival." So I flew home from Washington in time to do one rehearsal and the performance. We had to do some reblocking, because the Tosa West auditorium had a proscenium stage and our original production had been done on a thrust stage, but the adaptation was relatively seamless.
The rest is something of a blur. The auditorium was full, there were friends and family in the audience, and we had a terrific cast party afterwards. And I flew back to Georgetown feeling a bit puffed up and prematurely professional.
A bit of a backtrack here: Over Thanksgiving Weekend in 1978, I made my first-ever trip to New York City. At the top of my list of things to do was to see the original production of The Fantasticks at the Sullivan Street Playhouse. At that time, it had been playing continuously for more than 18 years; there were still more than 22 years left in its original run of 17,162 performances. It was a stirring event for me, as it would be for any musical theatre geek.
Ironically, the other show I saw during that trip was the musical version of the cult movie, King of Hearts, which only managed 48 performances, another flop by Joseph Stein.
Speaking of Joseph Stein, come back a year from now and I'll tell the story of St. Bernard's Fiddler on the Roof. If you can't wait, you can see the video on YouTube now. (It's more of a slide show with authentic performance audio, however.)
The Virginia blogosphere is atwitter over the news that the McCain campaign is vetting Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA7) as a potential vice-presidential running mate.
Consertiva photoshops McCain and Cantor together, saying "Please, oh please, let’s have a McCain-Cantor / Obama-Kaine fight in November." Shaun Kenney points out, quoting Fox News, that Cantor has already raised $10 million for the McCain campaign, adding:
Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less? All Eric Cantor folks. $10 million? That's more than either Virginia Senate candidate has been able to raise thus far (and Cantor does it in one shot).
The Washington Times has also picked up the story, though without a byline it is difficult to determine whether the paper did its own reporting or is just rehashing the AP's earlier report. The Times notes:
The youthful Virginia lawmaker has been a visible McCain surrogate for weeks, appearing frequently on cable news outlets chiefly to promote the Arizona Republican's positions on domestic and economic issues. He has been a forceful critic of Democrat Sen. Barack Obama's resistance to lifting the federal ban on oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.
While the talk of "Cantor for Veep" is exciting to us Virginians -- a state that hasn't seen a vice-presidential candidate on a major-party ticket since John Tyler in 1840 -- I stand by my March 5 prediction that McCain's running mate will be former Ohio congressman Rob Portman.
(For those who want to hear Eric Cantor exhort Americans to "Drill here, drill now, pay less," check out this two-minute video summary of the Virginia Republican convention.)
Here's a tricky question: Is criticism of attempts by Islamic nations to limit free speech around the world itself a form of defamation against religion, and therefore subject to laws that limit speech?
The head spins.
Yet that could, in fact, be the case if current proposals before the United Nations gain a foothold and criticism of religion (any religion, not just Islam, but especially Islam) becomes a global no-no.
Our friends to the North have more experience of these sorts of laws than we do in the United States, so it's no surprise that the Canadian news and opinion magazine, Maclean's, should be interested in reporting on this issue.
Pakistan brought the first "defamation of religions" resolution to the UN Human Rights Council in 1999 — before the attacks of 9/11 and a resulting "backlash" against Muslims. That first resolution was entitled "Defamation of Islam." That title was later changed to include all religions, although the texts of all subsequent resolutions have continued to single out Islam. The resolutions have passed the UN Human Rights Council every year since the first was introduced. In 2005, the delegate from Yemen introduced a similar resolution to the UN General Assembly, and it passed, as it has every year since, with landslide votes. In March, the Islamic nations were successful in introducing a change to the mandate of the UN's special rapporteur on freedom of expression — an official who travels the world investigating and reporting on censorship and violations of free speech — to now "report on instances where the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination." The issue is expected to be a focal point of the UN World Conference Against Racism next year in Geneva (a gathering Canada plans to boycott after the 2001 meeting in Durban devolved into acrimonious exchanges over Israel).
The trend has rights advocates worried for numerous reasons, beginning with the language used. If the notion of "defaming" a religion sounds a little unfamiliar, that's because it is a major departure from the traditional understanding of what defamation means. Defamation laws traditionally protect individual people from being materially harmed by the dissemination of falsehoods. But "defamation of religions" is not about protecting individual believers from damage to their reputations caused by false statements — but rather about protecting a religion, or some interpretation of it, or the feelings of the followers. While a traditional defence in a defamation lawsuit is that the accused was merely telling the truth, religions by definition present competing claims on the truth, and one person's religious truth is easily another's apostasy. "Truth" is no defence in such cases. The subjective perception of insult is what matters, and what puts the whole approach on a collision course with the human rights regime — especially in countries with an official state religion.
Savage cites an issues brief written by Angela Wu of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, an American non-profit whose mission is explained by its name. (I can imagine a number of mullahs exclaiming the equivalent of "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" when confronted by expressions of religious freedom.)
The brief's "executive summary" explains:
The “defamation of religions” issue is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles outlined in the United Nations’ founding and legal documents, but more importantly, it violates the very foundations of the human rights tradition by protecting ideas rather than the individuals who hold ideas. Further, they force the state to determine which religious viewpoints may be expressed. The empowerment of the state (as opposed to protection of individuals against the state) through “defamation of religions” measures is thus unique in the human rights regime. “Defamation of religions” resolutions at the UN operate as international anti-blasphemy laws and provide international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws, which in practice empower ruling majorities against weak minorities and dissenters.
In its concluding "recommendations" section, the brief says:
Religious freedom is best preserved through protection of religious exercise of people of all faiths, not through restricting the speech of people of some faiths. “Defamation of religion” laws claim to protect vulnerable religious communities and the civil dialogue.31 However, there are already laws against assault, false imprisonment, fraud, and even defamation of persons. “Defamation of religion” laws in practice act as a form of thought control and work solely to the advantage of religious majorities that have the power to sanction which ideas should be permitted in the public square.
It is up to the Western liberal democracies to stand up to these attempts to constrain religious freedom and freedom of expression (freedom of speech and of the press). Nobody else will do it for us.
Congratulations are in order, after a fashion, to Virginia Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling. Bolling, who is also a candidate for re-election unless (through a cascade of unlikelihoods) current Governor Tim Kaine becomes Vice President of the United States, has been elected vice chairman of the National Lieutenant Governors Association.
According to a news release from the Bolling re-election campaign:
Virginia Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling has been elected Vice Chairman of the National Lieutenant Governors Association (NLGA). Bolling was elected Vice Chairman of the NLGA at the Association's annual meeting in Buffalo, New York on July 25, 2008. Bolling had previously served as Treasurer of the NLGA and he also serves on the Association's Executive Committee.
"I am honored that my colleagues from across the country have asked me to serve as Vice Chairman of the National Lieutenant Governors Association this year," Lieutenant Governor Bolling said. "I look forward to working with them to continue the good work NLGA has done in the past and help direct the Association's attention toward some of the most important issues currently facing Virginia and other states."
Who knew there was a "National Lieutenant Governors Association"? And why would anybody care?
The office is so infinitesimally important that seven states -- Arizona, Maine, New Hampshire, Oregon, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming -- do not even have the office of lieutenant governor. New Jersey belonged to this group until 2005, when voters approved a referendum creating the post. (Given New Jersey's experience with a revolving door on the governor's office [and bedroom], perhaps this was a prudent thing to do.) New Jersey's first lieutenant governor will be elected next year.
Question: If the office of the vice president isn't worth a bucket of warm spit, what is the lieutenant governor's office worth?
"One of the smarter blogs is the libertarian-leaning collection of Charlottesville posts put up by Rick Sincere..." -- Bob Gibson, The Daily Progress, May 8, 2005
