Milton Friedman and the Pencil

In Free to Choose, the influential 1980 PBS series written and hosted by Milton Friedman and his economist wife, Rose, there is a short (less than three minutes) sequence that has become legendary. In it, Friedman explains that no single person can manufacture something as simple as a pencil:



When I saw this video on YouTube earlier today, it struck me as resonant of Leonard Read's famous essay, "I, Pencil." Read was the founder of the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), which was the first free-market think-tank in the United States -- preceding the creation of the Mont Pelerin Society, American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institution, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, and Future of Freedom Foundation.

On FEE's web site, Dr. Friedman gives credit to Read and "I, Pencil" for inspiring that segment from Free to Choose. He wrote in 1996:

Leonard Read's delightful story, “I, Pencil,” has become a classic, and deservedly so. I know of no other piece of literature that so succinctly, persuasively, and effectively illustrates the meaning of both Adam Smith's invisible hand—the possibility of cooperation without coercion—and Friedrich Hayek's emphasis on the importance of dispersed knowledge and the role of the price system in communicating information that “will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do.”

We used Leonard's story in our television show, “Free to Choose,” and in the accompanying book of the same title to illustrate “the power of the market” (the title of both the first segment of the TV show and of chapter one of the book). We summarized the story and then went on to say:

“None of the thousands of persons involved in producing the pencil performed his task because he wanted a pencil. Some among them never saw a pencil and would not know what it is for. Each saw his work as a way to get the goods and services he wanted—goods and services we produced in order to get the pencil we wanted. Every time we go to the store and buy a pencil, we are exchanging a little bit of our services for the infinitesimal amount of services that each of the thousands contributed toward producing the pencil.

“It is even more astounding that the pencil was ever produced. No one sitting in a central office gave orders to these thousands of people. No military police enforced the orders that were not given. These people live in many lands, speak different languages, practice different religions, may even hate one another—yet none of these differences prevented them from cooperating to produce a pencil. How did it happen? Adam Smith gave us the answer two hundred years ago.”

“I, Pencil” is a typical Leonard Read product: imaginative, simple yet subtle, breathing the love of freedom that imbued everything Leonard wrote or did. As in the rest of his work, he was not trying to tell people what to do or how to conduct themselves. He was simply trying to enhance individuals' understanding of themselves and of the system they live in.

That was his basic credo and one that he stuck to consistently during his long period of service to the public—not public service in the sense of government service. Whatever the pressure, he stuck to his guns, refusing to compromise his principles. That was why he was so effective in keeping alive, in the early days, and then spreading the basic idea that human freedom required private property, free competition, and severely limited government.

If "I, Pencil" is not required reading in high school economics classes, then Milton Friedman's 3-minute summary of it should be shown to students in its place. In just a few words, he explains how and why the worldwide market works, why cooperation is better than autarky, and why freedom is better than centralized planning.

Interview with Tonye Patano

Last week I had the pleasure of spending about half an hour on the telephone with actress Tonye Patano, interviewing her for an article scheduled to appear in Friday's Metro Herald in Alexandria. This is what I wrote; next Wednesday -- the night before Thanksgiving, go figure -- I will see Tonye in Legends! at the National Theatre in Washington.

An Interview with Tonye Patano, Star of ‘Legends!’
Rick Sincere
Metro Herald Entertainment Editor

Tonye Patano, one of the stars of the hit comedy-drama, Weeds, on Showtime, will be appearing at the National Theatre in Washington from November 21 through December 3 in a Broadway-bound revival of Legends!, starring Joan Collins and Linda Evans.

The original production of Legends!, which featured authentic legends of the musical theatre, Carol Channing and Mary Martin, played the National Theatre in 1986, but never made it to Broadway. The show’s circuitous (and bumpy) path was chronicled by playwright James Kirkwood (who was also one of the book writers for A Chorus Line) in his memoir, Diary of a Mad Playwright: Perilous Adventures on the Road with Mary Martin and Carol Channing

.


In an exclusive interview, The Metro Herald spoke with Tonye Patano, who plays “Aretha” in Legends!, by telephone in Hartford, Connecticut, where she is traveling with the show. (It next plays East Lansing, Michigan, before arriving in Washington.)

We began the conversation by noting that I had seen Patano’s movie, Little Manhattan, in a theatre last year – perhaps the only person outside of New York or Los Angeles who had done so.

Writing about Little Manhattan late last year, I said: “A lighthearted companion piece to [Noah Baumbach’s Oscar-nominated] The Squid and the Whale, I can almost guarantee that you haven't seen this movie, which apparently has appeared on only about three dozen screens nationwide. Like The Squid and the Whale, the premise of this movie has divorcing parents (Bradley Whitford and Cynthia Nixon) and a child coming to terms with the new situation (Josh Hutcherson). Here, however, the focus is on the pre-teen's own first love, with an 11-year-old classmate. The best thing about this movie, though, is the way New York City is not just its setting, but a character all its own.”

Patano told me she had not seen the film in a theatre: “I had to wait for the video to come out,” explaining the sparse distribution of the film by saying that “I don’t think they figured out how to market it. You can’t sell to the kids and it’s bittersweet for adults.”

Asked how she came by the role of Heylia James on Weeds, Patano said that she is “one of those people who goes by what comes and what presents itself.

“There was something about the character that spoke to me. I just knew who Heylia was. It’s about her sensibility. She is a strong woman, like the mamas that know how to tell you what they need to tell you, they have a wonderful sense of humor, they rarely cry, they rarely raise their voice. It’s about love.”

In regard to the characters she plays, Patano said, “I like to push the envelope and challenge people. I like to say I’m writing a play called ‘Maids, Whores, and Nurses: May I Help You?’ -- but that’s not who we are. It’s important to tell those stories,” because these women are so much more than the job titles they possess.

“I don’t judge characters,” she said, but “if I can enlighten as I go along, it’s wonderful.”

In regard to Legends!, Patano noted that “the show was written in the 1980s and it’s about its time. The fun is seeing how it holds up or doesn’t hold up. It’s a fluff piece, but it’s about something substantive, too.”

The play, she said, is about impersonations. Like the characters played by Joan Collins and Linda Evans, who are “two down-and-out actresses putting up a false front,” her character, Aretha, “impersonates a maid” so that one of the women can impress the other.

There is a story that, when Legends! first played the National Theatre in 1986, President Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan passed up an opportunity to see it because one of the scenes in the play involves drug use, and this was the middle of the era when Nancy was saying, “Just Say No.” Patano said that James Kirkwood’s book about the making of the play, Diary of a Mad Playwright, has stories like this, but more than that, it provides “insight into the playwright, saying more about the process and making the play even more intriguing.”

The point of Legends! is to offer an evening of entertainment, said Patano: “It’s all of a piece – the idea of acceptability and inviting yourself to have a judgment-free, fun evening in the theatre. If you’re expecting Shakespeare or high art, you’ll be disappointed.”

Patano said the tour so far has been fun for the cast as well as those who come to see the play. “It’s been delightful having the audiences – they are so generous and so wonderful. The people who come, get it.”



Noting that Legends! is a project for her between shooting new episodes of Weeds, Patano admitted, “I miss doing theatre. It’s my first love and what I get the most juice out of.”

Asked if she prefers stage work over movies or television, Patano replied, “I love all of it for different reasons. The main reason is that when you’re doing some television, you get to do several performances and other people get to pick what the audience gets to see. Sometimes it even surprises you. What I see and the reaction I get from another actor is different than what director or editor chooses. It’s a lot more collaborative in that way.

“As a creator of your own work,” she added, “it’s interesting to see how someone else might interpret that for you.”

In contrast, Patano continued, “With stage, it is what it is. If you see it from a different seat in the theatre, it’s a different show. If you see it a different night, it’s a different show. The final character in the show is the audience; what they bring to the table affects the show. There is a freedom of ongoing creativity and energy that only happens in that two hours.”

Patano related a story about how one night before a performance, legendary actress Marian Seldes “grabbed my hand and said, ‘Isn’t it wonderful that we get to do this every night?’ She said it with such joy, I was thrilled. Even if it’s our worst of days, it’s a blessing.”

The different media – film, TV, and the stage – are “just not comparable. The energy you get is just wonderful. I enjoy the work, period. I enjoy doing all of it.”

We finished up our interview with a question of how Tonye Patano discovered she loved performing. She said both her parents were actors, and in fact they met while doing a show together. But if she were to pick one moment in time that made her aware of her desire to be an actress, it was when “I was 5 years old, in kindergarten, standing up in class, reading Green Eggs and Ham, and I remember the faces of the other children, enraptured. That was the feeling I remember having.” It was then she realized what a gift she had, because “It’s one thing for kids to entertain adults, but it’s another to be able to entertain kids.”

And now Tonye Patano is entertaining kids and adults alike.

Legends!, directed by John Bowab and starring Joan Collins, Linda Evans, Joe Farrell, Will Holman, Ethan Matthews, and Tonye Patano opens November 21 and runs through December 3 at the National Theatre in Washington. Tickets, priced $36.25 to $71.25, are on sale now through Telecharge, at Telecharge.com or by calling (800) 447-7400. Tickets are also available at The National Theatre box office. Group tickets are available by calling (800) 432-7780.

The photos above were provided by the National Theatre.

In upper right: Tonye Patano, Ethan Matthews, Linda Evans, Joan Collins © Carol Rosegg

In lower left: Linda Evans, Joan Collins, Joe Farrell, Tonye Patano © Carol Rosegg

The website for the show is www.legendsthecomedy.com.

'Nijinsky's Last Dance' Revisited

Actor Jeremy Davidson was a featured player in Friday night's new episode of Law & Order, NBC's venerable crime drama, now in a new timeslot after years anchoring the Peacock Network's Wednesday night schedule.

Davidson played a distraught father who shoots dead the murderer of his diabetic daughter in a massacre at an elementary school.

Years ago, I had the pleasure of reviewing Jeremy Davidson in a one-man play, Nijinsky's Last Dance, at the Signature Theatre in Arlington. Here is what I wrote for The Metro Herald on December 4, 1998:

Nijinsky One on One
Rick Sincere
Metro Herald Entertainment Editor

An awestruck balletomane once came upon Vaslav Nijinsky, the great Russian dancer, at a Paris cocktail party and asked breathlessly, "How is it, Mr. Nijinsky, that you create such an effective illusion of leaping up, stopping in midair, and drifting gracefully back to earth?" Nijinsky smiled and replied: "It is very simple. I leap up, stop in midair, and drift gracefully back to earth.”

The arrogance and talent of Vaslav Nijinsky are now on display at Signature Theatre in Arlington. In Nijinsky's Last Dance, a new one-man play by Norman Allen, Jeremy Davidson plays the ill-fated dancer, whose career ended before he was 32 years old and who spent his next 30 years in mental institutions.

Yet Davidson portrays more than just Nijinsky. He also effectively portrays -- as Nijinsky might -- the major figures in Nijinsky's life: his first ballet instructor, his lover and impresario (Sergei Diaghilev), his wife, his sister, and others. Davidson gives us a Nijinsky who clearly had strength but who was hopelessly naive (if not innocent) and adrift when his relationship with Diaghilev ended. He shows us a man who practically invented the concept of "celebrity" yet who was unable to purchase a railway ticket onJeux his own.

Nijinsky, as dancer and choreographer, pushed the envelope of dance. He pressed forward even when he was booed off the stage in such works as Jeux ("Games") and Le Sacre du Printemps ("Rite of Spring"), which caused riots in Paris theatres. He was world famous in an era before radio or television, and when movies were just beginning to take hold. He became famous by touring Russia and the United States, Europe and South America.

Allen's play is fairly straightforward. We come upon Nijinsky as he enters the first of the asylums that will be his home until he dies. He begins a monologue that describes his life as a series of flashbacks. There are no props, no furniture.

The wonder of Nijinsky's Last Dance lies in its integrated use of set design, lights, color, and sound. Lou Stancari's minimalist set strips Signature Theatre to the bare walls. (The building's former use as a machine shop becomes clear, and it becomes apparent what a small space Signature has to work in, making its long string of hits all the more remarkable for the constraints in which the theatre has to work.) In the center of the stage is a square, white platform, slightly raked. Davidson, as Nijinsky, never wanders beyond the confines of this platform, which might well be a padded room.

Lighting designer Daniel MacLean Wagner uses the platform as a canvas, upon which he choreographs colors and shapes that press the show forward. Light and color create new locales for the "action" to take place and also reveal the inner workings of Nijinsky's mind. While never quite psychedelic, the lighting design might well be a drug that helps us to better understand what drives a mad genius like Nijinsky.

So, too, the sound design and original sound composition by David Maddox: bits and pieces of the music that Nijinsky made famous -- or that made Nijinsky famous -- drift throughout the play. We hear the applause that affirms Nijinsky's claim on grandeur. We feel ourselves transported to imperial Russia.

All these elements are brought together ably by director Joe Calarco, in his first Washington-area effort after his off-Broadway sensation, Shakespeare's R&J, a new take on the Romeo and Juliet story. Here, he has hit just the right note in every aspect of the show.

Playwright Norman Allen again demonstrates his facility for imagined historic drama. His previous piece, Waiting in Tobolsk, dealt poignantly and humanely with the final months of the family of the last Tsar. That play had its full-scale premiere last summer by the Moonlight Theatre Company, in the same month that the Tsar's family were laid to rest in St. Petersburg, 80 years after their assassination by Bolshevik thugs. He also wrote The Ballad of Lady Jane Grey for the Signature in the Schools program with Wakefield High School last January.

Any actor faces a real challenge in a one-man show, but Jeremy Davidson meets his with particular aplomb. After all, it must be difficult to imitate the movement of the century's greatest dancer and make it believable. In collaboration with Signature's mainstay choreographer Karma Camp, Davidson approximates Nijinsky's moves without actually dancing -- something appropriate for a dancer in decline. One scene (portrayed with full frontal nudity, a warning for the squeamish and the prudish) is particularly moving and erotic at the same time.

Nijinsky's Last Dance is not perfect, but it is a terrific demonstration of how the raw elements of theatre can work in concert -- how theatre is a collaborative art in which the whole is far more than the sum of its parts.

For a review of Davidson in another of his beguiling stage roles, see "'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof' -- Take Two."

Milton Friedman, R.I.P.

Nobel-prize winning economist Milton Friedman is dead at age 94, various news outlets are reporting.

Friedman was a great intellect and great innovator. A monetarist who taught at the University of Chicago from 1946 to 1976, he also worked for the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis, where he did much of his seminal research on monetary policy. Friedman invented tax withholding (a temporary solution to the problem of the government's lack of cash flow during the Second World War), which he regretted years later. He also was the first to suggest ideas like vouchers for housing and education, and that the solution to overbooked airline flights should be to ask for volunteers who would receive vouchers for later travel in return for taking a later flight.

With his wife, Rose Director Friedman, he was the author of Free to Choose, a best-selling book that became a television documentary and set the economic tone for the 1980s. He is also the author of the groundbreaking Capitalism and Freedom (1960), which introduced the general public to classical liberal thought.

This is now breaking news, but I expect it to be a major topic of conversation in the libertarian blogosphere in the hours and days to come.

Updates: Ed Crane, president of the Cato Institute, issued this statement today:

"Here's a guy who won the Nobel Prize in economics for his work in monetary theory and he was a great Chicagoan, a great empiricist and theoretician of economics. But ultimately, what Milton believed in was human liberty and he took great joy in trying to promote that concept... Milton would say, 'Maybe I did well and maybe I led the battle but nobody ever said we were going to win this thing at any point in time. Eternal vigilance is required and there have to be people who step up to the plate, who believe in liberty and who are willing to fight for it.'"

The New York Times offers this extensive obituary. A Reuters story in the Washington Post quotes California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger:

"When I was first exposed to his powerful writings about money, free markets and individual freedom, it was like getting hit by a thunderbolt. I wound up giving copies of his books and 'Free to Choose' videos to hundreds of my friends and acquaintances."

Déjà Lu

What's with the new design at the Charlottesville Daily Progress?

If it weren't for the occasional color photographs on the front pages of each section, I would swear that the paper was designed in the early 1970s and printed with hot type.

Each time I pick up the new Daily Progress, I half-expect to be reading the latest news about the Watergate hearings or Governor Godwin's tax policy, previews of The Poseidon Adventure or The Exorcist, and reviews of the newest songs by The Osmonds and The Partridge Family.

It's a real nostalgia trip. Check it out at your newsstands -- it'll make you believe that "Peanuts" is fresh and funny.

Isn't That Nifty?

There are two organizations that serve teenagers and young adults whose abbreviations are often pronounced "nifty": One, NFTY, is the North American Federation of Temple Youth, which, according to the history section of its web site, "was founded in 1939 as the youth arm of the Union for Reform Judaism (formally known as the Union of American Hebrew Congregations)." I am familiar with NFTY from my time as a member of the Hebrew Choir at Georgetown University, which over three sucessive years placed first, second, and third in Georgetown's annual foreign-language Christmas carol contest. Somewhere among my vinyl record albums is an LP called "Songs NFTY Sings."

The other, NFTE, is the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship, one of the lesser-known organizations in the large family of libertarian movement groups. NFTE's history is summed up like this:

Founded in 1987 by Steve Mariotti (a former business executive and entrepreneur) while he was a public high school teacher in New York City’s South Bronx, NFTE began as a program to prevent dropout and improve academic performance among students who were at risk of failing or quitting school. Combining his business background with his desire to teach at-risk students, Steve discovered that when low-income youth are given the opportunity to learn about entrepreneurship, their innate “street smarts” can easily develop into “academic smarts” and “business smarts.” Through entrepreneurship, youth discover that what they are learning in the classroom is relevant to the real world.

NFTE is widely viewed as a world leader in promoting entrepreneurial literacy among youth. When young people participate in our programs they begin to unlock their unique entrepreneurial creativity, have a greater understanding of the free enterprise system, improve the quality of their lives, and dare to dream for bright futures.

To date, NFTE has worked with over 150,000 young people from low-income communities in programs across the U.S. and around the world.

NFTE came back to my consciousness on Monday when I saw a Washington Times article about a D.C.-area teenager who received one of its awards.

The business-section article describes how Montgomery Blair High School senior Thomas Dant

won a $5,000 prize in a national competition for teen entrepreneurs, taking second place in the Youth Business Plan competition for his proposal to provide fine-art photography as a business.

Thomas stood before a panel of judges and explained his business plan for Fine Foto, exhibiting his "Passion for the Planet" series of photographs featuring Montgomery County firefighters.

Dant, 17, was one of 28 students from across the country who were invited to participate in the competition. He plans to attend business school at the University of Maryland and continue growing his small enterprise.

As for his Fine Foto business, Thomas said, he will focus on selling his works in regional galleries.

"I'm going to invest the money back into the business to make more prints of the artwork for my prospective galleries," he said, adding that several local art retailers have asked him to display his photos in their galleries.

"Thomas is just one of the bright lights that could be out there," [Montgomery Blair teacher] Mr. [Derek] Sontz said. "There's too many kids that get into trouble for doing something wrong, and Thomas is one kid who should get recognition for doing something right."

It's good to learn that NFTE is still out there, promoting free enterprise among high school students.

Predicting the Past Perfect

I received this email today from the conservative movement's direct-mail guru Richard Viguerie, dated November 13 at "4:19:45 A.M. Eastern Standard Time" -- six days after the November 7 general election -- with the subject line, "Predict the November 7th Elections!":

Dear Concerned Citizen,

Regardless of how you’d like the November 7th election to come out, what do you think the results will actually be?

Go to the Conservatives Betrayed website at http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/survey_110106.php and make your predictions on the key races around the country for Senator, House of Representatives, and Governor.

The top five predictors can have their names and pictures on the websites to recognize their abilities and election seers.

While you’re at it, take a look at the many new articles on the Conservatives Betrayed website at http://www.conservativesbetrayed.com/index.php.

By the way, I really believe you’ll enjoy reading the book, which you can purchase on the website or at most bookstores.

Good luck in predicting the outcome of the elections!

Cordially,

Richard A. Viguerie

In politics, as in comedy, timing is everything.

Mr. President

Congratulations and best wishes to President Gerald R. Ford, who today becomes the longest-lived former American president, surpassing the lifespans of Ronald Reagan, John Adams, and Herbert Hoover. He is now 93 years, three months, and 29 days old.

In an editorial-page tribute, the Columbian newspaper of Clark County, Washington, states that the American people have fond memories of Ford, who took office during the dark days of Watergate, adding

when it comes to presidents who had just the right temperament, personality and empathy for the collective mindset of Americans at a crucial moment in history, Gerald Ford was one of the very best.

Ford's current hometown newspaper, The Desert Sun of Palm Springs, California, offers these memories:

In Washington, he's remembered as the great healer, the president confronted with the Herculean task of rebuilding trust in the White House on the heels of Watergate and Richard Nixon's resignation.

In Michigan, they recall the former Big 10 star who spurned a professional football career after graduation from the University of Michigan for a life in public service.

And in the Coachella Valley, he and his wife, Betty, are our neighbors in the desert, a former president and first lady who have contributed richly to the area's civic and social scenes.

As I have written before, Ford -- though much maligned and remembered perhaps too much for physical stumbles and not enough for principle and conviction -- represents an authentic conservative tradition of limited government, a "leave us alone" philosophy in tune with Barry Goldwater's and Ronald Reagan's and in contrast to the Republicans who just got "thumped" in the mid-term elections.

One of Ford's favorite maxims was this: "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."

Despite an undeserved reputation as an amiable if dull thinker, Ford actually had a consistent and well-considered political philosophy, as well as a deep understanding of the meaning of the American experiment. This latter vision was perhaps best expressed in his remarks at Monticello on July 4, 1976, on the dual occasion of the Bicentennial of the United States of America and the annual naturalization ceremony for new citizens held on the lawn of Mr. Jefferson's house.

Addressing the dignitaries present -- Virginia Governor Mills Godwin, Senator Harry F. Byrd, Justice Lewis Powell, and others -- but aiming his words more directly at the new Americans, Ford said:

After two centuries there is still something wonderful about being an American. If we cannot quite express it, we know what it is. You know what it is, or you would not be here today. Why not just call it patriotism?

Thomas Jefferson was a Virginia planter, a politician, a philosopher, a practical problemsolver, a Palladian architect, a poet in prose. With such genius he became a burgess, a delegate, a Governor, an ambassador, a Secretary of State, a Vice President, and President of the United States. But he was first a patriot.

The American patriots of 1776 who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to declare and defend our independence did more than dissolve their ties with another country to protest against abuses of their liberties. Jefferson and his colleagues very deliberately and very daringly set out to construct a new kind of nation. "Men may be trusted," he said, "to govern themselves without a master." This was the most revolutionary idea in the world at that time. It remains the most revolutionary idea in the world today.

Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and all patriots who laid the foundation for freedom in our Declaration and our Constitution carefully studied both contemporary and classic models of government to adapt them to the American climate and our circumstances. Just as Jefferson did in designing Monticello, they wanted to build in this beautiful land a home for equal freedom and opportunity, a haven of safety and happiness, not for themselves alone, but for all who would come to us through centuries.

I have attended several of the naturalization ceremonies at Monticello, and unfortunately on too many occasions, the celebrity speakers seem to offer little more than platitudes. There's nothing wrong with that -- the ceremonies tend to take place under the hot sun in the heavy humidity of Charlottesville's summers, and so keeping it light may be the polite thing to do -- but one wants to have a bit more to sink one's teeth into. Ford gave his audience something to think about.

Perhaps unconsciously, Ford used quite libertarian language to describe the benefits of living in a society made up of immigrants and the sons and daughters of immigrants. In terms that, say, Tyler Cowen might use, Ford continued his address:

To be an American is to subscribe to those principles which the Declaration of Independence proclaims and the Constitution protects -- the political values of self-government, liberty and justice, equal rights, and equal opportunity. These beliefs are the secrets of America's unity from diversity -- in my judgment the most magnificent achievement of our 200 years as a nation.

"Black is beautiful" was a motto of genius which uplifted us far above its intention. Once Americans had thought about it and perceived its truth, we began to realize that so are brown, white, red, and yellow beautiful. When I was young, a Sunday school teacher told us that the beauty of Joseph's coat was its many colors. I believe Americans are beautiful -- individually, in communities, and freely joined together by dedication to the United States of America.

I see a growing danger in this country to conformity of thought and taste and behavior. We need more encouragement and protection for individuality. The wealth we have of culture, ethnic and religious and racial traditions are valuable counterbalances to the overpowering sameness and subordination of totalitarian societies. The sense of belonging to any group that stands for something decent and noble, so long as it does not confine free spirits or cultivate hostility to others, is part of the pride every American should have in the heritage of the past. That heritage is rooted now, not in England alone -- as indebted as we are for the Magna Carta and the common law -- not in Europe alone, or in Africa alone, or Asia, or on the islands of the sea. The American adventure draws from the best of all of mankind's long sojourn here on Earth and now reaches out into the solar system. [Emphasis added]

Ford concluded his remarks on that historic occasion with a reminder about our responsibility to the past and the future:

Remember that none of us are more than caretakers of this great country. Remember that the more freedom you give to others, the more you will have for yourself. Remember that without law there can be no liberty. And remember, as well, the rich treasures you brought from whence you came, and let us share your pride in them. This is the way that we keep our independence as exciting as the day it was declared and keep the United States of America even more beautiful than Joseph's coat.

Historians are rightfully reconsidering the presidency of Gerald R. Ford and finding it better than it may have fared in the assessments of 30 years ago. If this be revisionism, let's have more of it.

Charlottesville Write-Ins

The other results from Tuesday's election will be widely available. We know that George Allen and Jim Webb have a razor-thin difference between them as of now (10:38 p.m.) and that all three ballot questions have passed by comfortable margins.

Of course, Charlottesville is an anomaly. Jim Webb took Charlottesville with more than 77 percent of the vote, while Al Weed beat Virgil Goode in the City of Charlottesville with more than 74 percent.

On Ballot Question No. 1, the Marshall/Newman Amendment, Charlottesville voted "no" by more than 77 percent. In two precincts, Venable and Alumni Hall, the "no" vote was more than 81 percent. Even in the largely African-American precinct, Tonsler, more than 78 percent of voters said "no" to Marshall/Newman.

Voters in Charlottesville took this election quite seriously. Only 38 write-in votes were cast -- 20 in the Senate race and 18 in the House of Representatives race.

Among those who received write-in votes for the U.S. Senate in Charlottesville were Libertarian Party activist James W. Lark (6 votes), former City Councilor Rob Schilling (2 votes), and -- with one vote each -- 2000 and 2004 presidential candidate Ralph Nader, current City Councilor Dave Norris, incumbent Congressman Virgil Goode, basketball legend Michael Air Jordan, one-time City Council candidate Thomas Hill, as well as "None of the Above" and "Fair Tax Plan." (Two names I do not recognize, John Harrison and Robert Hardie, also won write-in votes.)

In the Fifth Congressional District race, no write-in candidate received more than one vote, but Robert Hardie, James Lark, and "Fair Tax Plan" made repeat appearances. Other write-in votes went to libertarian philosopher Loren Lomasky, Grant Hill, Malcolm Randolph, Christopher Grossman, former City Councilor Meredith Richards, "Tomm Albro" (presumably former City Councilor Thomas Albro), and fictional characters Daffy Duck and Marty McFly. God was also on the list, as was this odd entrant, Frozen Peas. The single words "None," "Blank," and "Juanes" also received votes.

The name A D Copeland received one vote for the U.S. House, as did the variant, ADCOPELAND, for the U.S. Senate.

As another indication of the gravity by which Charlottesville voters viewed the election this year, besides the write-in votes, only 126 voters chose to skip the Senate race and only 155 chose to skip the House race. Moreover, there were no write-in votes cast by the 773 absentee voters.

Return of Virginia Patriot

After a long hiatus, George Mason University student-blogger Richard Morrison returns with a set of predictions for Tuesday's elections in Maryland, Missouri, and Virginia.

I see three candidates -- including Gail "for Rail" Parker -- listed in his forecast for the Virginia Senate race, but where is Kevin Zeese, the fusion candidate in Maryland? (Zeese has been nominated, in what is widely seen as a first anywhere in the nation, by the Green, Libertarian, and Populist parties.)

And I would expect one of the signatories to the Republican Pledge against Ballot Question No. 1 to mention the Virginia referenda. (Speaking of Republicans voting "no" tomorrow, check out Jay Hughes' analysis and apologia on Not Larry Sabato.)

Maybe Richard will do an update before the polls open at 6 a.m. in Virginia and 7 a.m. in Maryland.

One final question before going to bed. (I have to wake up in 4 hours.) What does a full moon portend on Election Eve?

Celebrities Are People, Too

Knowing that my sister, a new mother, is far too busy to be attentive to celebrity gossip, I took it upon myself to email her a news story about Neil Patrick Harris, who at 16 years of age gained fame as Doogie Howser, M.D.

The story reported that Harris, now 33, has come out of the closet. As the Washington Post put it today:

Doogie Howser is gay -- and he wants to quash recent reports that he has denied it. Neil Patrick Harris, 33, recently told People magazine: "The public eye has always been kind to me and until recently I have been able to live a pretty normal life. Now it seems there is speculation and interest in my private life and relationships. So, rather than ignore those who choose to publish their opinions without actually talking to me, I am happy to dispel any rumors or misconceptions and am quite proud to say that I am a very content gay man living my life to the fullest and feel most fortunate to be working with wonderful people in the business I love."

The reason I thought she might be interested in the story is that I have in a frame on my wall a photograph my sister sent me about 15 years ago. As I recall the story of how it came to be, Cathy and some of her friends were at a Hollywood-area restaurant when they ran into Neil Patrick Harris and a friend of his in the parking lot. So they all posed for a picture:

(My sister, Cathy, is on the far right in the Mickey Mouse shirt -- a nice touch, considering she now works for Disney. Neil is the tall one, second from right, and a pre-Blade Stephen Dorff is to his left.)

The friend turned out to be Stephen Dorff, who at the time was starring in a syndicated TV show called "What a Dummy". (As explained by TV.com, "The premise of the show was the discovery of a wisecracking ventriloquist dummy named Buzz, who had been locked away in a trunk for 50 years.") Dorff played 16-year-old "Tucker Brannigan" in the short-lived (24-episode) series.

At the time the picture was taken, Neil Patrick Harris was in the middle of his long run (1989-93) as a teenage prodigy physician, but his career was just beginning.

In reply to my email, my sister noted that this was not the last time she encountered young Mr. Harris:

I met Neil again like *gosh* 8 years ago maybe, at Alyssa Milano's house. We played Taboo together or something. He was doing Rent at the time. VERY nice guy. I love love love him on HOW I MET YOUR MOTHER. Now this will be interesting as he is hysterical as the womanizer on that show. Wonder if this news will affect anything.

In a follow-up, she mentioned the sort of trivia that only real fans would want to know -- how Alyssa Milano found her house.

She didn't remember who else had been at the party, but was certain they played board games. As to what she calls "Alyssa's GIANT mansion," it had years earlier belonged to Tyne Daly and her husband, actor-director Georg Stanford Brown. According to Cathy, "my friend Kat" -- their daughter, actress Kathryne Nora Brown -- was Alyssa Milano's roommate at the time and "heard the mansion went on the market so Alyssa bought it." She adds:

Must be nice huh? Alyssa was NOTHING but nice. Hope she still is. Again haven't seen any of them in 8 years.

There's a (possibly apocryphal) story about an exchange between Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald. When Fitzgerald said, "The rich are different than you and me," Hemingway drily retorted: "Yes, they have more money."

It's the same with celebrity. A person might be starring in a Broadway musical and go to parties hosted in a Hollywood Hills mansion owned by a TV star, but everyone ends up playing board games -- just like the rest of us in Middle America do.

That said, the choice of board game may say a lot about the players: Monopoly? Scrabble? Scruples? Taboo? Trivial Pursuit?

Lynchburg Paper Advises Readers: "Vote No"

The newspaper with a circulation area that includes Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University -- that is, Jerry Falwell's backyard -- advises its readers in a lead editorial on Sunday to reject Ballot Question No. 1, the proposed Marshall/Newman amendment, because "it goes far beyond prohibiting same-sex marriages." The editorial in the Lynchburg News & Advance says the amendment is "overkill."

On the same page, the newspaper endorses Senator George F. Allen for re-election, saying that as a "self-described 'common sense Jeffersonian Conservative,' Allen will work for the people of the commonwealth to secure their dreams: free enterprise and free people."

In its lead editorial in its November 5 editions, the News & Advance explains that it understands the motivation behind lawmakers' desire to put the amendment on the ballot, and praises them for doing so:

... while we applaud the effort of the amendment, proposed by Lynchburg’s state Sen. Steve Newman and co-sponsored by Campbell County Del. Kathy Byron for having their fingers on the pulse of the majority of voters, the amendment is simply overkill.

The paper also explains why the proposed amendment is unnecessary, since it incorporates law that already exists even while going too far. It also points out that a "no" votes is not a vote in favor of same-sex marriage:

While the idea of the amendment resonates with many, its core is already law.

Voting “no” on the proposed amendment - as it’s worded - is not voting against traditional marriages; if voters consider how judges throughout the country have been ruling during the past year, they will see that time and time again, the legal definition of marriage remains a contract between one man and one woman.

While the intent is laudable - to translate the majority’s morality into a code of laws - the amendment’s language misses the mark.

Because it goes far beyond prohibiting same-sex marriages, we should be the first state in the country to defeat a same-sex marriage amendment. Not because we don’t adhere to a strict moral code, but because amending the constitution just isn’t necessary.

The News & Advance also reinforces a message of core conservative values -- personal and family responsibility for moral decisionmaking as opposed to the liberal view of government as nanny and nursemaid:

What is necessary is parents sharing their moral values with their children, having open and honest discussions about how they feel and why.

What is necessary is families taking responsibilities - and the consequences, good or bad - for their lifestyles decisions.

The proper role of government is not that of parent - or big brother.

So that is why the Reverend Jerry Falwell's hometown newspaper joins the vast majority of other Virginia dailies in urging its readers to vote "no" on Ballot Question No. 1 on November 7.

Update: I note, belatedly, that Charlottesville-area writer Dahlia Lithwick, who covers legal affairs for the on-line magazine Slate, has an incisive op-ed in the Outlook section of Sunday's Washington Post. I recommend it highly, especially this amusing passage:

Why the terrific urgency to gild the state's anti-gay-marriage lily? The measure's supporters advance a single argument: It's an insurance policy against "activist judges" who might someday strike down the many state laws banning same- sex marriage. Last week, Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling announced that the "amendment is necessary to protect traditional marriage from possible judicial assault." Judicial assault from whom? The hemp-wearing, incense-burning vegetarians who dominate the Virginia bench? The state's judges are extremely conservative, having been selected by the extremely conservative legislature. A Web site is carrying out an enthusiastic search for Virginia's unhinged liberal activist judges. They're proving tough to find.

Read the whole article, "Please Say 'I Don't'," in tomorrow morning's Post. (It is also available on Slate as "Yes, Virginia, This Is a Terrible Amendment: Why the Gay Marriage Ban Is Bad for All Virginians.")

'Useful Idiots' or 'Principled Conservatives'?

James Young, the always amusing and always petulant proprietor of Skeptical Observor, has called the prominent Republicans who participated in Friday morning's "vote no on 1" news conference "useful idiots." He also said we were "pathetic."

Well, everyone's entitled to his own opinion, no matter how demeaning.

So let's set those views aside for a moment and look instead at a far longer list of Republican activists and VIPs who have signed on to a pledge that explains why they are voting no on Ballot Question No. 1 on Election Day.

Here is the text of their pledge:

As a strong supporter of the traditional Republican principles of limited government and individual rights, I oppose adding the text of the proposed Marshall/Newman amendment to Article I of Virginia's Bill of Rights. It would be wrong to officially write discrimination into our Commonwealth's constitution and open our courts to so many legal questions and ambiguities caused by the amendment's language. I further believe that such confusing language would cause significant and largely unpredictable legal consequences, as has happened in other states with such amendments, and that such consequences would threaten the basic rights of both individuals and businesses in Virginia.

I won't list the names of every person who signed the pledge (that can be found by visiting the Commonwealth Coalition's web site) but I want to point out a few of the "useful idiots" and the roles they have played in building the Republican Party in Virginia (and elsewhere) and promoting conservative values over the years:

Former Governor A. Linwood Holton, Jr. (the first Republican elected to that high-ranking post since Reconstruction), and former First Lady of Virginia Jinks Holton;

Former Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Bob Barr, M. Caldwell Butler, and Steve Gunderson;

GOP candidate for state Attorney General and for Governor, Wyatt Durrette;

Former Treasurer of the Commonwealth (under Governor Jim Gilmore), Mary G. Morris;

Former member of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors Joan Girone;

Former member of the Arlington County Board and former 8th Congressional District Chairman Mike Lane;

Tom O'Donoghue, the only GOP congressional candidate this year (8th CD) who is a veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars;

Former State Senator and state Cabinet member Jane Woods;

Former members of the House of Delegates James Dillard and Panny Rhodes;

Former candidate for the State Senate and Arlington County Board Scott Tate;

Mike McMenamin, current candidate for Arlington County Board;

Former candidate for the House of Delegates Steve Sass;

Former Alexandria Young Republicans Vice Chair Peter Atherton;

Beth Wolffe, former candidate for Arlington County School Board;

and

Mary Cheney, author, activist, business executive, and daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney.

I have not included the names of the grassroots Republicans, who work largely behind the scenes on campaigns, manning phone banks, raising money, writing issue briefs, and badgering Democratic officeholders, and who also signed the pledge. Their work far too often goes unmentioned and unappreciated but that does not subtract from its value. Their contribution to the "vote no" campaign is similarly important.

Nietzsche Meets Keane

In his Richmond Times-Dispatch blog this morning, Bart Hinkle has a link to "The Nietzsche Family Circus," which "pairs a randomized Family Circus cartoon with a randomized Friedrich Nietzsche quote."

My favorite (so far) is this one. (The randomization makes for a near-bottomless well of possible combinations.) Try to find your own favorites; feel free to share your discoveries.

It's quite funny, in a nihilistic sort of way.

Prominent Republicans to "Vote No on No. 1"

A news conference via telephone at 10:30 this morning brought together prominent Republicans from around Virginia, urging their fellow party members and other voters to cast a ballot against Ballot Question No. 1 (the Marshall/Newman amendment) on Election Day.

Participants in the teleconference included former sixth district Congressman M. Caldwell Butler; former Delegates James Dillard and Anne G. "Panny" Rhodes; former Arlington County Board Member Mike Lane; Mac Pence, owner of the Pence Auto Group; David Lampo, vice president of the Log Cabin Republicans of Virginia; John Sherman, former CEO and chair, Scott & Stringfellow, and myself.

Mike Lane introduced himself to the group on the line and then said, to my embarrasment, that he would like to "thank Rick Sincere for working so hard on my campaign when he used to be an Arlingtonian."

Former Congressman Butler said that his "own perception of this is that it is not a partisan issue at all, it's just common sense. What is basically wrong with it is that it is poorly conceived. It is even mean-spirited. It is poorly drafted, as well." He added that the second sentence about "approximating marriage" doesn't belong in the Constitution. "The Constitution," he said, "sets up the fundamentals of the law, then you let the legislature work out the details."

Former Delegate Dillard laughed and said, "Can I just put my quotes around Caldwell's comments?" Then he added: "This will be a major embarrassment to Virginia to have this in our Bill of Rights and Constitution."

Mac Pence said that, "from the perspective of a businessman and a lifetime Republican, I would like to see our government and elected officials getting back to the basics. I believe in a limited government that keeps out of the lives of citizens."

Drawing on his experience as a business executive and community leader -- including as chairman of the Chamber of Commerce -- John Sherman commented that "the Statute for Religious Rreedom made Virginia a model of tolerance for not only the country but the world. This amendment will undermine tolerance. It's time to draw a line in the sand and stand up for the rights of all individuals and for tolerance."

Mike Lane said that he would like to "shift gears a little." From his perspective, he said, defeating the amendment would be "good for the [Republican] party. Since the Republicans took over the majority in the General Assembly, we've been on a march toward turning that majority back to the other side." He identified the danger of losing control of the legislature to a worsening rupture between Northern Virginia and the rest of the state. "If we don't understand the values of NoVA," Lane said, "we hasten the day when we lose the majority." What are those values? "Limited government and a smaller footprint on the backs of the citizens of the Commonwealth."

I commented that the amendment is not in tune with the values of Republicans who cut their teeth on the campaigns of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, that it is intrusive and an expansion of government, and that -- because its terms are not otherwise defined in the Code of Virginia -- it will lead to mischief and litigation for decades to come.

David Lampo said that the amendment "represents a repudiation of limited government. It is social engineering run amok. By denying legal rights to couples and relationships [the amendment's drafters] do not approve of, if you follow their rules you have rights, if you don't follow their rules, you don't." He concluded by saying, "That they want to write this into the Bill of Rights section is obscene."

Congressman Butler responded to Lampo by saying that he was "understating the outrage." He continued: "This is an ultimate indignity to try to put this in the Bill of Rights." Pointing out that the Declaration of Rights was written by George Mason in 1776, he said the proposed amendment "is unVirginian."

Former Delegate Panny Rhodes added: "Republicans have always stood for individual rights. This goes against everything we stand for."

The consensus within the group was remarkable, considering that it included conservative, libertarian, moderate, and liberal Republicans, and it also included grassroots activists, former elected officials, business leaders, and at least one blogger.

Later today, the Commonwealth Coalition -- which made arrangements for the news conference -- will be distributing a news release based on the official transcript. I will provide an update if there is any new information available.

Other posts on Republicans and conservatives who oppose the Marshall/Newman amendment, which pretends to ban gay marriage in Virginia but does much more to interfere in the relationships of both same-sex and opposite-sex unmarried couples, can be found here, here, here, here, and here.

Wow! Thanks, Andrew!

I was a guest on Coy Barefoot's radio program from 5:30 to 6:00 this evening. I was preceded by fellow Virginia bloggers Chad Dotson and Kenton Ngo. (A podcast of the program will be available soon at the Charlottesville Podcasting Network.) We discussed the Virginia Senate race, the integrity of electronic voting systems, and the so-called marriage amendment -- it was a very fast half-hour.

After the show, I ran some errands and grabbed some dinner. When I got home, I decided to check my traffic reports to see if an appearance on Charlottesville ... Right Now might bring in any new visitors. (The last time I did a radio program wearing my blogger's hat, two or three people visited during the course of the show. I figured that Coy's afternoon drive-time listenership might bring in more than that.)

Boy, was I surprised! I had to give my computer screen a double-take. (If I had been drinking, the screen would have been drenched by a spit-take.) The numbers had gone through the roof:



Thanks to a link from Andrew Sullivan, this blog has received more visitors in the past five hours than it usually receives in a month.

Apparently, Andrew's readers are particularly interested in the statement by nearly 300 Virginia religious leaders who have announced their principled opposition to the Marshall/Newman amendment.

Welcome, new readers -- I hope you'll come back for more! And don't forget to patronize our advertisers or leave a gratuity in the tip jar.

Update: Sean Tubbs has posted my interview segment from "Charlottesville .... Right Now" right here. Coy's interview with Kenton is here, and his interview with Chad is here. This is how he summarizes my half-hour on the program:

Coy Barefoot continues his series on Virginia bloggers with a conversation with Rick Sincere, a libertarian blogger from Charlottesville. Sincere wonders why the Republicans in government have strayed so far away from their core values while in power.

“When the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, there was a lot of hope they would roll back the federal monstrosity,” says Sincere. “It hasn’t happened.”

Sincere also says dire predictions about electronic voting machines are not warranted. He also explains why he’s voting no on the Marshall-Newman amendment.

Thanks, Sean! And thanks, Coy, too!

Christian, Jewish Leaders Say "Vote No"

An article by Bob Gibson in this morning's Daily Progress begins:

Rabbi Dan Alexander sports a bumper sticker on his car that reads: “My Faith Says Vote ‘No’ on #1.”

He is one of about 20 Charlottesville area Christian and Jewish leaders who gathered Wednesday to discuss why they plan to vote against Question No. 1, a proposed amendment to the Virginia Constitution to add a definition of legal marriage to the Bill of Rights.

“I almost never put bumper stickers on my automobile,” said Alexander, rabbi at Congregation Beth Israel on East Jefferson Street.

In the upcoming election on this question, however, he said he believes strongly that the amendment runs counter to “the core American ideal whereby government is meant to ensure and protect the rights of individuals rather than to impose itself on them.”

Ministers from Westminster Presbyterian Church and Thomas Jefferson Unitarian Universalist Church on Rugby Road, Wesley United Methodist Church on Thomson Road and several other churches applauded Alexander and offered their own objections to the amendment.

“There is no need for this amendment to the Virginia Constitution,” said the Rev. Jim Baker of Westminster Presbyterian. “Obviously, marriage is in trouble, and yet the greatest threat to marriage comes not from homosexuals. It comes from heterosexuals who find it difficult to remain married to one another.”

Those twenty Charlottesville-area clergy are not alone in their concerns. As I indicated earlier today, at a press conference in Richmond this morning, Christian and Jewish religious leaders gathered to announce their opposition to Ballot Question No. 1, the Marshall/Newman amendment.

A statement explaining their reasons for opposing the proposed amendment was signed by 280 priests, ministers, and rabbis from all corners of Virginia.

The statement begins with an epigraph from the prophet Micah (chapter 6, verse 8):

God has told you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?

The text continues:

As Clergy from across Virginia, we oppose Ballot Question #1 and encourage people of faith in this Commonwealth to vote "no" on this amendment on November 7.

We come from many different traditions, faiths and denominations, yet we all agree that Ballot Question #1 violates the call to justice and fairness that is a moral imperative shared by our faith traditions. Ballot Question #1, though called "the marriage amendmnent" by some, will not protect any marriages. It will cause undue hardship and harm to the families of unmarried couples in Virginia.

As religious leaders, we affirm the dignity of all persons and value the welfare of all loving and committed families regardless of their legal status. This amendment undermines those principles. Even those of us who believe that the state should reserve legally sanctioned marriage for unions between a man and a woman agree that this amendment goes too far.

Ballot Question #1 would create two categories of families: one headed by married couples enjoying expansive rights and legal protections and one headed by unmarried individuals banned from any legal recognition. For the latter, the discrimination is severe. Family courts may not be able to protect victims abused by unmarried partners under domestic violence laws. Child custody and visitation agreements between unmarried people may not be enforceable. Medical directives naming a loving partner to make critical healthcare decisions may not be recognized. State agencies, universities, and hospitals may not be able to grant an employee bereavement leave after a life partner dies or offer health benefits to an employee's domestic partner or the partner's children. Family courts may not be able to act in the best interest of a child if her parents are not married. Families in crisis will face the threat of years of legal quagmire while judges sort out their legal rights.

As Clergy, we pray with, counsel, and support families in times of crisis. We know the pain that such crises inflict, and we know that such pain does not discriminate based on whether or not the state has granted a marriage license. Married or not, the anguish of losing a lifelong partner is the same. Married or not, children and loved ones get sick and need medical care. Married or not, the crushing physical and emotional blows from an abusive partner require protection.

Our faith traditions teach us that God desires justice, kindness, and mercy. There is no place within our faith communities or within our Commonwealth for an amendment that punishes unmarried couples and their children. Ballot Question #1 will not protect marriage, but it will harm families. As religious leaders, we urge Virginians to vote "no" on Ballot Question #1. It is the moral choice.

The signatories include members of the clergy from the Baptist, Congregationalist, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Mennonite, and Presbyterian traditions, as well as from Jewish and Unitarian Universalist congregations.

I suspect more news will appear on TV and radio today and at the Commonwealth Coalition web site and Blogging the Amendment.

Update: Andrew Sullivan has linked to this article from his well-read blog, The Daily Dish, leading to a tremendous traffic increase.

Fantasy vs. Reality?

In my brief report on the new documentary film, Jesus Camp, which was screened at the Virginia Film Festival, I pointed out how the pastor in the film warns against imaginary "warlocks" and states that if Harry Potter had been around in Old Testament times, he would have been "put to death."

I saw that movie on Sunday morning, not finding out until later in the day that Parade magazine, the Sunday supplement carried by many U.S. newspapers, reported on efforts to ban Harry Potter books from school libraries:

Now there’s an effort to pull the world’s most popular wizard, Harry Potter, from school libraries in Gwinnett County, Ga. Why? Some parents say kids can’t tell fantasy from reality and will try casting spells on classmates.

"Casting spells on classmates"? Who's having difficulty telling fantasy from reality here? (Hint: It's the parents who believe in magic spells, not the kids who like reading adventure stories.)

Those parents must be the product of government schools, where critical thinking is in short supply.

Letters on the Amendment

Wednesday's Charlottesville Daily Progress carries two letters to the editor that offer reasons to oppose the Marshall/Newman amendment (Ballot Question No. 1), but from very different perspectives.

Nelson County writer Doug Hornig -- author of a terrific book about the 1975 Boston Red Sox, The Boys of October -- says in the first letter:

In all of the conflict over Virginia’s proposed constitutional amendment, a key fact is often getting lost in the shuffle.

This proposal is not about gay marriage.

If it were, it would only be one paragraph long, and would simply prohibit gay marriage and stop there. Unnecessarily, as its supporters well know, because gay marriage is already illegal, and amending the constitution will not make it more illegal.

No, the devil here is in the details, specifically paragraph two, which is a profound anti-conservative, anti-family-values piece of work designed solely to give the state a constitutional right to intrude into a broad range of our personal relationships.

Read it before you vote. If you are a real conservative, you will be shocked and appalled.

Why would a real conservative be appalled? Hornig explains:

Paragraph two gives the state blanket authority to meddle in any and all of our non-marital relationships, whether they be with friends or other family members, and our experience with the government should by now have taught us that once you grant government a power, it will use that power. Probably in ways you won’t like.

Prominent Virginia conservatives are lining up in opposition. Here are comments from just two of them:

John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, writes that "amending a state or federal constitution to ban same-sex marriage not only fails to address the real problems facing America’s families - it also fails the family" (Rutherford.org, Oct. 20).

As an aside, let me point out that, despite his personal opposition to the proposed amendment, Whitehead (a civil rights attorney who often takes on freedom-of-religion issues) took up the case of a Cargill human resources employee who lost his job after he refused to remove a large pro-amendment sign from his truck, which was parked on company property. (Cargill later reinstated the man.)

I disagree that the man's First Amendment rights were violated, since the First Amendment does not extend to private action by employers or other individuals and organizations, but it demonstrates that Whitehead is not hidebound by his political beliefs; neither is the Rutherford Institute itself, which often takes on surprising cases, which means that Rutherford defies easy labeling as "liberal" or "conservative" or "libertarian."

But I digress. Hornig continues in his letter to the Daily Progress:

And former Congressman M. Caldwell Butler, R-Roanoke, writes, "Simply stated, the proposed language (which is mean-spirited, unwarranted, poorly drafted and already in the code itself) does not belong in the constitution of Virginia, and certainly nowhere in our Bill of Rights" (Roanoke.com, Oct. 14).

To enact this naked governmental grab for yet more power would be foolish in the extreme.

I urge all our true fellow conservatives to join us and to support family values in Virginia by voting no on Ballot Question One on Nov. 7.

The second letter comes from the leaders of the congregation at Charlottesville's Sojourners United Church of Christ, which as a body has agreed to oppose Ballot Question No. 1. The writers -- co-moderators Marie Baker and Jim Gibson, and pastor Jim Bundy -- quote the congregation's resolution on the matter:

"Sojourners United Church of Christ seeks to be a place where all God’s children may come together in a safe and loving Christian community. We also believe that we are called to work to make the world around us a safer and more loving place for everyone. Because of that, we believe we must speak out in opposition to the Marshall-Newman Amendment, Virginia’s Ballot Question No. 1.

"We believe everyone who chooses to live in loving, committed relationships should be supported in doing so, and that all such relationships should be honored and celebrated. The Marshall-Newman amendment does much more than define the nature of marriage. It seeks to prevent people who live in loving relationships, but who are not married, from enjoying any rights or privileges that might be associated with marriage. It is harsh and discriminatory and has no place in the Virginia constitution....

"Passage of the Marshall-Newman Amendment will not resolve the debate or ease the pain. It will only add to the pain and be hurtful to individuals. We recognize the need for compassionate conversation and prayerful reflection on the many issues that confront us. In the meantime, we strongly advocate a ‘no’ vote on Ballot Question No. 1 on Nov. 7."

The letter from Sojourners United Church of Christ is particularly timely, in that this morning in Richmond, religious leaders from around the state will gather for a news conference at St. Mark's Episcopal Church to announce their unified opposition to Ballot Question No. 1. These Christian and Jewish leaders (mostly clergy, but some laity among them) call themselves People of Faith for Equality in Virginia, and they plan to release a statement signed by hundreds of clergy from various denominations, all in opposition to the Marshall/Newman amendment.

Watch your local TV stations for reports on the news conference. I'm sure prominent Virginia bloggers will be covering the event as well.

Turn Your Radio On -- Again

At the invitation of local chat-show host Coy Barefoot, I will be a guest on his program, Charlottesville ... Right Now, on WINA-AM (1070 on the dial), on Thursday, November 2, during the 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. segment.

I'm not sure what we'll be talking about -- there is so much in the headlines these days -- but I suggested that one topic of conversation could be electronic voting machines and election security. Since I am invited to appear on the program as a local blogger, however, almost anything you see here could be fair game for discussion.

Tune in on Thursday afternoon and feel free to call in with questions or comments at 434-977-1070.