Young Zach Among the Philistines

There is a courageous young man in Tennessee who, as of this writing, is being subjected to psychological torture at the whim of his parents, simply because he was honest with them about his being gay.

I am late in coming to this story, which apparently has swept the blogosphere over the past two weeks or so. Consequently, Zach's blog now contains thousands of messages of sympathy and support. The mainstream media (MSM) are just now catching up to it.

Here is how the Washington Blade describes the story in its edition for Friday, June 17:

A Tennessee teen is claiming in a blog that he was forcibly admitted into an “ex-gay” camp by his parents after coming out as gay, gaining attention from media outlets and gay activists.

Zach, a 16-year-old from Bartlett, Tenn., was sent to the camp Refuge, associated with Love In Action near Memphis June 6 and is to remain there at least until June 20, according to his June 3 blog entry.

Love In Action, an ex-gay ministry, is accredited by the ex-gay group Exodus International and supported by numerous area churches in Memphis. Officials with the ministry on Wednesday would not confirm whether the teen was enrolled. A friend contacted by this newspaper would not confirm Zach’s full name. His parents could also not be identified.

Gay activists tracking the teen’s plight have organized daily protests since June 6 outside Love In Action’s facility in Memphis. The organization scheduled a press conference for June 16, after this publication’s press deadline, to address the growing controversy.

“LIA is calling upon the community to extend open-minded consideration and tolerance towards young people with same-sex attraction who are currently undergoing the organization’s youth program called Refuge,” according to a press statement from the organization.

Wayne Besen, a gay author who tracks the “ex-gay” movement, said the teen is likely to experience psychological damage.

"This is significant child abuse,” said Besen, author of “Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals & Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth."

A local Memphis TV station, WMC-TV, did a report on Love in Action, the organization that tries to brainwash gay teenagers. (If you don't listen to the words, can you tell which of the two interview subjects is openly gay and which one is the "ex-gay"?) The report can be found here.

Protests have been organized and took place at the Love in Action facilities in Memphis over the past several days. The protesters got the word out through their own blog.

According to Zach's blog -- which he has updated despite fear of punishment for doing so by the "counselors" at Refuge -- the organization has rules that seem designed to induce Stockholm Syndrome in its "clients", by cutting them off from the outside world and anyone who cares about their well-being. Zach laments:

What is with these people...? Honestly.. how could you support a program like this? If I do come out straight I'll be so mentally unstable and depressed it wont matter.. I'll be back in therapy again. This is not good--

Some of the rules are downright bizarre. I was struck by this one (in addition to bans on clothing made by Abercrombie & Fitch or Calvin Klein):

6. No television viewing, going to movies, or reading/watching/listening to secular media of any kind, anywhere within the client's and the parent's/guardian's control. This includes listening to classical or instrumental music that is not expressly Christian (Beethoven, Bach, etc. are not considered Christian). The only exception to the media policy is the weekly movie. [emphasis added]

Bach not Christian? What about the cantatas? "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring"? The St. Matthew Passion? Or, for that matter, Beethoven's Missa Solemnis?

These people are philistines, pure and simple. Perhaps young Zach's blog will turn out to be the equivalent of young David's sling.

'All the President's Men'

Earlier this evening, I went to see All the President's Men at the Vinegar Hill Theatre in Charlottesville. The theatre is running the film during the coming week in reaction to the Watergate revival in the news lately, since Mark Felt came out as Deep Throat and Bob Woodward offered his confirmation of that revelation. (According to IMDB, Vinegar Hill is the only cinema in the country showing All the President's Men this week.)

It wasn't until I sat down in my seat that I realized that today was the anniversary of the Watergate break-in of June 17, 1972, the event that led to the discovery of what John Dean called a "cancer growing on the presidency" and the premature resignation of Richard Nixon.

That brought to mind a memory of what I did on August 9, 1974 -- the day Nixon resigned.

I was a 15-year-old high-school student attending the Georgetown University Summer Forensics Institute in Washington, D.C. For those of you who are not familiar with summer debate institutes, they are quite intense. So preoccupied were we with the work we had to do to assemble our evidence, prepare our cases, and get ready for the end-of-institute tournament, we were largely unaware of the history being made virtually in our backyard. With little access to television or radio news broadcasts and little interest in reading newspapers for purposes other than the debate work at hand, we had not realized that the articles of impeachment against Nixon had been filed and that the government was paralyzed by scandal.

A digression: Reader who have not participated in competitive debate or forensics may not comprehend just how intense and insular summer debate institutes can be. Sociologist Gary Alan Fine notes in his 2001 book, Gifted Tongues: High School Debate and Adolescent Culture, that the "summer institutes at Georgetown University and at Northwestern in the late 1960s and early 1970s were particularly influential in forging and fostering the rapid-fire, evidence-intense national circuit style that dominates debate in many regions."

Fine then goes on to explain:

Debate institutes are intense times; participants want to "do debate," with sleep and leisure secondary. According to one participant, fifteen hours a day of debate work was common. One debater at an institute explained that she generally awoke at 5:30 a.m. and worked until breakfast at 7:00. After breakfast she worked on her research until 8:30 a.m., when she attended a general meeting and then a theory class until lunch at noon. From 1:00 to 3:00 she attended a research class, followed by research in the library, then dinner. After dinner, the individual lab groups met. In the evening she worked in the library, and from 10:00 p.m. until midnight she met with friends and worked on her projects. From midnight until 1:00 a.m. she worked in her room. At 1:00 a.m. was lights out but she "found ways to keep lights on, flashlights, to keep working." Given the amount of work and lack of sleep, it is worth noting that when I asked her about her most enjoyable experience, without hesitation she responded "institute" (interview). At institute, participants have nothing to do but "deal with ideas." I do not suggest that every student enjoys the rigors of institute life, or that all are equally successful -- horror stories exist -- however, working eighteen hours a day can be a peak experience, when coupled with a deep and profound sense of community.

The only dispute I have with that paragraph is that I don't recall any of my teammates working as few as 15 or 18 hours a day at the Georgetown institutes of the 1970s (when I was a student) or the early 1980s (when I was a coach).

Digression ends, and back to August 1974:

Still, word reached us that something big was happening, and on the evening of August 8, a large group of us gathered in a dorm lounge in New South Hall to watch Richard Nixon's address to the nation, in which he announced his resignation would take effect at noon the next day.

We may have been teenagers, but we were not unaware of the historical significance of what was happening. So a few of us -- I think there were 11 altogether -- decided that the following day, Friday, we would have dinner at a restaurant in the Watergate Hotel, the place where it all began.

So there we found ourselves, just short of a dozen 15- and 16-year-old boys, dressed in suits and ties and (as is the wont of teenage boys) shoes that did not match the rest of our outfits, gathered around a table at the Watergate. Here's the kicker: At the end of the evening, the bill for all of us came to just over $200, which seemed exorbitantly expensive to my Midwestern eyes. But can you imagine buying dinner for 11 hungry teenagers at a fancy D.C. restaurant today for less than $10 per person. (I'm not certain, but I think our bill included two bottles of red wine -- this was the 1970s, after all, and being a teenager was no obstacle to drinking wine with dinner.)

Now, let's return to the movie:

To my surprise, All the President's Men holds up remarkably well after almost thirty years. I had only seen it once before, not when it first came out (1976), when I was far too busy being a high school senior, but a couple of years later, when it played on campus at Georgetown for a bargain price ($1.50, I think, or perhaps $2.00). So my memories were vague, at best, in terms of the details, although I naturally remembered the basic structure.

What makes the movie work is that it is a mystery despite the fact that we know the outcome. It is simultaneously a political thriller and a demonstration of the plodding nature of investigative journalism without becoming tedious about the latter. What's more, it's a movie about politics without reference to political points of view. Nixon and his 1972 opponent, George McGovern, might as well be off-screen fictional characters. Even the Vietnam War, the major political issue of the day, is mentioned only in passing. Politics is irrelevant to the plot because the plot is about puzzle-solving.

In other words, a viewer would not have to have lived through the Watergate era to enjoy seeing All the President's Men today. In fact, this movie is so well-constructed, it holds its appeal to a wider audience much better than does the farcical satire, Dick, which came out in 1999 and covers some of the same territory. To understand and really enjoy Dick, one really must have either lived through Watergate or have studied it in depth. Such intimate knowledge is not necessary to understand or enjoy All the President's Men. (That said, Dick is a very funny movie; I really like Dick and even own the DVD and soundtrack CD. It would be interesting to see these two films as part of a double bill.)

I may go back to see All the President's Men next week with some friends who are not old enough to remember the times, just to see if their reaction justifies my theory.

Who's Debating? Whose Debates?

Jerry Kilgore, now the official (not just presumed) gubernatorial nominee of the Republican Party of Virginia, has announced flatly that he refuses to participate in any debates that include both independent candidate Russ Potts (a Republican state Senator from Winchester who is breaking with his party with this maverick bid) and Lieutenant Governor Tim Kaine, the Democratic party's nominee.

As he did in the primary campaign, when he refused even to acknowledge that he had an opponent, George Fitch, Kilgore says he is focused solely on Kaine.

Does Kilgore's refusal stem from fear or complacency? Does he lack confidence in his own abilities as a debater? Is he shy or arrogant?

Here's the key question: How many debates featuring Kaine, Potts, and an empty chair will it take before Kilgore relents?

Abolishing Cash: Fantasy or Nightmare?

I am in the middle of doing some home renovations, and it became necessary for me to move around some boxes and files from one room to another. As it happened, I came across a crumpled piece of paper, upon which was glued a newspaper article. It turned out to be an opinion article I wrote in early 1991, shortly after I joined the Libertarian Party and after my first campaign for public office.

Reading the article (which, eerily, appeared in the Charlottesville Daily Progress, years before I ever imagined living in Mr. Jefferson's town), I was struck by how relevant it is given current concerns about the USA PATRIOT Act, the Treasury Department's proposed "Know-Your-Customer" regulations, the government's heavy-handed anti-money-laundering activities, and a wide range of proposals to require uniform identification documents for all Americans.

I had completely forgotten writing this article, which had been prompted by an op-ed piece in the New York Times that was so offensive and frightening that it cried out for an immediate response. Although I do not mention the original piece by title in the article, thanks to Google, I was able to track it down as "Abolish Cash," by Harvey F. Wachsman, published on December 29, 1990. (Does that seem like a century ago rather than a decade and a half?)

I found an excerpt from Wachsman's article on a rather odd web site (but that's easier than paying to use the New York Times archives for such an ephemeral purpose). Here is a key passage:

If all the people who do business in cash were forced to report their incomes accurately — if the underground economy were forced to the surface — the Government could collect an additional $100 billion a year for the national treasury — without raising taxes. States and cities, many in serious financial trouble, would also benefit from collecting previously unpaid income and sales taxes.

How do we create a system to keep cash businesses honest? Eliminate cash. This may sound revolutionary, but the exchange of cash for electronic currency is already used in nearly all legitimate international business transactions...

Here's how it would work. The Government would change the color of the currency and require all old money to be exchanged at the Treasury.

Then, all the new currency would be returned by its owners to the bank of their choice...

We would offer a period of tax amnesty to encourage compliance, but as a practical matter compliance would be assured because after a certain date all currency would be worthless.

In place of the paper money, we would receive new cards — let's call them Americards — each biomechanically impregnated with the owner's hand and retina prints to insure virtually foolproof identification...

Fugitives would be easier to track down, legal judgments easier to enforce, illegal aliens simpler to spot, debtors unable to avoid their responsibilities by skipping town...

Some people might be concerned about possible abuses of civil liberties. But there would be a record of anyone who entered another's account — officials would be granted access only after electronic verification of their hand and retina prints. Civil and criminal penalties for theft of information would be devastatingly severe...

Then, in a paragraph that makes me smile because it both underscores its own intended meaning and simultaneously undermines it by showing how technology has advanced so unpredictably in the subsequent years, Wachsman writes:

Americard may seem like a drastic approach but its advent is inevitable. In the days of the telegraph and the pony express, who could have imagined that one day there would be a phone on every street corner in Manhattan?

(For my younger readers, I should explain that, years ago, most people were unable to carry their telephones with them. For their convenience, there were "pay phones" in public places that accepted coins in return for a few minutes of conversation. These have largely disappeared but they can be seen in museum exhibits and Superman movies.)

Here is my response to Harvey F. Wachsman, published in the Charlottesville Daily Progress on January 20, 1991:

Liberty imperiled by surveillance
By Richard E. Sincere Jr.

Great seer that he was, Benjamin Franklin must have had Harvey F. Wachsman in mind when he wrote: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Wachsman, a neurosurgeon and lawyer, suggested in a recent New York Times article that the U.S. government forbid cash transactions of any kind for, among other reasons, catching tax cheats, stymieing muggers and making life more difficult for drug dealers. To do this, he proposes a central computer system that will track all transactions, from buying a hot dog to trading blue-chip stock.

In place of paper money, he writes, “we would receive new cards – let’s call them Americards – each biomechanically impregnated with the owner’s hand and retina prints to insure virtually foolproof identification.”

This is an intrusive assault on liberty and privacy that creates far more opportunities for state interference in the personal lives of citizens than any of the most draconian measures endured in pre-Gorbachev society. The potential for abuse, despite Wachsman’s lame assurances to “some people ... concerned about ... civil liberties” is limitless.

Wachsman tries to claim that there would be civil and criminal penalties for unauthorized use of information from “Americard” transactions. Such penalties already exist for those who delve into our personal lives today, but did that stop the harassment of Martin Luther King by J. Edgar Hoover? Did it stop the illegal use of Internal Revenue Service files by the Johnson and Nixon administrations in efforts to deal with political enemies? Does it stop the National Enquirer and other salacious tabloids from releasing intimate details about celebrities’ private lives?

Establishing a central computer bank with detailed information about the purchasing habits of every American simply would make easier the jobs of spies, gossip-mongers, and political tricksters.

Imagine: People will shy away from making embarrassing but essential purchases – such as hemorrhoid medicine or condoms – knowing that an accessible record of the transaction will be kept. Republicans who want to contribute to a Democrat’s campaign will demur for fear their colleagues will find out. Closeted homosexuals will be shut up even further, afraid to subscribe to a gay magazine or make a donation to an AIDS charity.

Wachsman brushes aside such objections to his fantasy by saying: “I’d like to ask every parent whose child walks to school through a gauntlet of drug dealers, everyone whose home has been robbed, whether they think their rights are jeopardized by a system that could solve all these problems?”

The gut reaction of many people will, alas, be that it does not harm them or deprive them of fundamental rights. Emotions run high on issues like this, clouding our judgment. Reasonable reflection on Wachsman’s proposal to abolish cash reveals that it is, in a word, chilling. It is undeserving of serious consideration.

Unfortunately, Wachsman’s views are symptomatic of so many in today’s society who fail to heed Ayn Rand’s observation in her novel, The Fountainhead, that “civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.” Wachsman wants to step backward from civilization toward computerized savagery. His proposal, like those of many others who want to solve the deficit or solve the drug problem, sacrifices liberty for safety and subordinates personal freedom to tribal control.

Richard Sincere was recently the Libertarian candidate for the Virginia House of Delegates in Arlington’s 49th District. He is also an issues analyst and writer.

Liberty Film Festival Announced

A news release arrived in my email box with this lede:

The 2005 Liberty Film Festival, Hollywood's premier event for conservative and libertarian film, will be held this October 21-23, 2005 at the Pacific Design Center in West Hollywood. The Liberty Film Festival showcases films that celebrate the traditional American values of free speech, patriotism, and religious freedom.

That's the week before the Virginia Film Festival, so I am unlikely to be able to attend both. Still, the Liberty Film Festival promises some tempting features:

The festival is currently accepting feature and short film submissions (both documentary and narrative). The festival will hold three juried competitions for Best Feature Film, Best Short Film, and Best Screenplay (unproduced). Best Feature Film and Best Short Film winners will each be awarded the Libertas Prize. The Screenplay Competition will have a $1000 prize. The deadline for all entries is August 21, 2005.

The Liberty Film Festival continues its innovative programming this year with a Producers Series, which includes panels on Film Production, TV Production, Screenwriting, and Film Finance & Distribution. The Festival will also feature a debate on the 1950's blacklist. Festival speakers will include Oscar and Emmy-nominated producers, directors, writers and actors. The Festival will also feature a Tribute to John Wayne, and a 100th Birthday Tribute to Ayn Rand.

Just so we don't think this is something completely on the fringe, the festival organizers do some impressive name-dropping:

The Liberty Film Festival is also pleased to announce its Board of Advisors (in alphabetical order): Stephen K. Bannon, Co-Chairman of Genius Products (distributor of films under the Wellspring, AMC & Sundance Channel labels), actress Morgan Brittany ("Dallas," "Melrose Place"), philanthropist Paul Harberger (President, Foundation for Free Markets), film critic and national talk show host Michael Medved ("The Michael Medved Show," "Right Turns"), and award-winning producer Douglas Urbanski ("The Contender," "Nil by Mouth"). Our Board of Advisors bring a wealth of experience to L.A.'s most cutting-edge film festival.

This is apparently the second in the series. I vaguely recall hearing about the festival last year, but the news release reminds us of some substantial media coverage:

The first Liberty Film Festival drew 3000 people in October of 2004 and attracted national media attention in the L.A. Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Times Magazine, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, Newsmax, Weekly Standard, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and NPR.

Four films showcased at the festival -- "In The Face of Evil," "Celsius 41.11," "WMD," and "Impact: The Passion of the Christ," went on to theatrical distribution. The festival also spawned the popular conservative film blog LIBERTAS, which has recently been covered in Variety, USA Today and on CNN.

If I have some other reason to be in La-La Land in October, I may try to get tickets for the Liberty Film Festival. It would be an interesting event to write about.

790 Years of Magna Carta

Today is the 790th anniversary of the promulgation of Magna Carta (the "Great Charter"). This commemorative article has appeared, with minor changes, in various newspapers across the United States since the first version was published in 1991. This particular adaptation, with references to the late playwright Bob Cassler, whom I knew through libertarian circles, appeared in The Metro Herald in June 1995:

Magna Carta's Rich Legacy Endures After 780 Years
Richard E. Sincere, Jr.

Alexandria playwright Robert Cassler's historical drama, Second in the Realm, has its Virginia premiere on June 15 by the FairStage Theatre Company at the Lanier Theatre in Fairfax City. The play tells the story of England's King John and his conflict with Archbishop Stephen Langton, a conflict that led to King John's submission to his barons at Runnymede on June 15, 1215, when he put his seal on Magna Carta ("the Great Charter"). Magna Carta has rightly been called the first great document of freedom in the Anglo-American tradition and its power endures today.

Magna Carta does not have the ringing phrases that every schoolchild knows, such as "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." or "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people...." It is, in fact, a long, pedestrian document written in a sort of medieval bureaucratese. Its importance lies in something other than its prose, even in something other than the meaning it held for the king and barons who composed it.

Winston Churchill summed it up best when he said that Magna Carta tells us that "there is a law which is above the king and which even he must not break." In other words, Magna Carta was the first document to assert that government must be limited and that free men and women have rights that the government cannot take away or violate. As such, Magna Carta is the predecessor of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

Constitutional scholar Bernard Schwartz, in his history of the U.S. Bill of Rights called The Great Rights of Mankind, argues that in Magna Carta "one sees for the first time in English history a written instrument exacted from a sovereign ruler by the bulk of the politically articulate community that purports to lay down binding rules of law that the ruler himself may not violate. In Magna Carta is to be found the germ of the root principle that there are fundamental individual rights that the State -- sovereign though it is -- may not infringe."

The two most important principles, hidden among layers of explanations of feudal rights and responsibilities, are what we have come to know as "no taxation without representation" and "the right to a jury trial," including the first protection against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment and the first guarantees to individuals of the "due process of law."

On taxation, Chapter 12 of the Charter says: "Scutage or aid shall be levied in our kingdom only by the common counsel of our kingdom," a clause that to the barons at Runnymede meant that the king could not arbitrarily and unilaterally change the terms of their feudal relationship, and that the king could not collect new taxes without the advice and consent of his barons.

On due process, Chapter 39 says: "No free man shall be captured or imprisoned or disseised or outlawed or exiled or in any way destroyed ... except by the lawful judgment of his peers and by the law of the land." This means that the rule of law -- with all its transparency, accountability, predictability, and reliability under the wary eye of the people assembled as a jury (or, today, as a congress or parliament) -- shall hold precedence over the arbitrary decisions of the king.

Today, a copy of Magna Carta is enshrined at the National Archives alongside the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Original copies -- sealed at Runnymede -- are displayed in English cathedrals. Another copy was purchased by Ross Perot for his personal collection. These honors underscore what the legal historian Frederic Maitland said: that because of its longevity and influence, Magna Carta "rightly becomes a sacred text."

It is awe-inspiring, this document signed by a puny king (as portrayed by Shakespeare in his play, King John) at the insistence of the barons of his kingdom. After nearly eight centuries, it still plays a vital role in the lives of men and women around the globe. One need only look at the recent revolutions in Eastern Europe and Africa to see Magna Carta's intense, inspiring, innate power.

Magna Carta's enduring legacy of limited government and individual freedom should be gladly and frequently celebrated. To this end, Robert Cassler's new play, Second in the Realm, dramatically illustrates the long-lasting strength of Magna Carta. It reminds audiences -- and all of us -- how the impulse to freedom that beats within the human soul was first set on paper 780 years ago "in that meadow that is called Runnymede."

Flag Day Reflections

In addition to being primary election day in Virginia this year, June 14 is Flag Day, commemorating the adoption by the Continental Congress of what became the Stars and Stripes so familiar to Americans.

Timed for the occasion, the Washington Post ran a review of a new book on the history of the American flag on Sunday, June 12. Historian Richard Ellis reviewed Marc Leepson's Flag: An American Biography. In his Book World review, Ellis wrote:

The many different meanings Americans have attached to their flag are conscientiously explored in Marc Leepson's new "biography" of the American flag. In the early years of the republic, Leepson reminds us, the flag carried little of the emotional freight that it bears today. The Star-Spangled Banner waved over military forts, naval ships and commercial vessels, but ordinary Americans back then would not have dreamed of flying it themselves. Gradually the flag became a more important symbol in American life, but not until the fall of Fort Sumter in 1861 did it become the preeminent patriotic symbol that it has remained to this day.

Leepson's narrative of the development of Americans' flag fetish includes a number of tales well worth telling, especially the late-19th-century fabrication of the myth that a seamstress by the name of Betsy Ross sewed the first American flag. But the story sags at times under the weight of dates and facts, as well as occasionally lifeless prose. In describing an 1865 Civil War victory parade, for instance, Leepson notes that Washington, D.C., "still mourning President Lincoln's assassination, did not go all out during those two days in the flag-display department however."

* * *

Leepson concludes that the "simple fact is that -- despite its changing meaning over the years -- since 1777 the American flag has symbolized the values and ideals upon which this nation was built." He is perhaps guilty of overstating his case here -- it is difficult to reconcile this "simple fact" with his own earlier observation that "in the post-Revolutionary War era, the flag, as a symbol of the nation, played a minor role" -- but he is surely correct that throughout most of American history the flag has represented not only a nation but a set of ideals.

About a year and a half ago, I weighed in on a controversy regarding the American flag: the proper place of the Pledge of Allegiance. This article was published in the Metro Herald on October 17, 2003:

MESSAGE TO SUPREME COURT: PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO WHOM?

To the surprise of many, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider an appeal of a ruling last year by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that said the presence of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance creates an unconstitutional mixing of government and religion. The Ninth Circuit's decision in the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow was met with ridicule and disdain when it was issued, and observers of the judicial scene thought the Supreme Court would want to avoid getting involved in this rather emotional argument, better known for its heat than its light.

Needless to say, conservative groups and their spokesmen weighed in fast with their views. When the appeals court ruled, some called for the impeachment of the judges who voted against the phrase "under God." Others welcomed the Supreme Court's taking on of the case as a sign that an obstacle has been raised to those who would destroy our common culture.

Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission told the Baptist Press: "The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling that the pledge is unconstitutional is outrageous even for the looniest of all the federal appeals courts in the land." Jay Sekulow, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, added: "The Pledge is part of an American tapestry of time-honored and historically significant traditions that has come under attack."

These conservatives might not be so eager in their remarks if they knew the history of the Pledge of Allegiance and its intended purpose. While most of us today view it as benign or sentimentally patriotic, a look at its origins illustrates the sinister -- one could say "un-American" -- features underlying the Pledge.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines "allegiance" as "the obligations of a vassal to a lord." Similarly, Black's Law Dictionary defines it as "obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives."

Writing in the May 2001 issue of the journal The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, published by the Foundation for Economic Education -- one of the oldest pro-freedom think tanks in the United States -- author and activist Jim Peron reports that the author of the Pledge of Allegiance was Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and socialist agitator who was the cousin of Edward Bellamy, author of the socialist utopian novel, Looking Backward (1888).

Francis Bellamy composed the Pledge for a magazine called The Youth's Companion, which first published it on September 8, 1892, and promoted it vigorously. As Peron relates the story, "Bellamy, like his cousin, wanted to use government schools to help promote a socialist agenda. He felt that one way of encouraging this agenda would be the teaching of state loyalty. To this end he wrote a pledge, which students across the country were asked to take. With a few minor changes this pledge is what is now called the Pledge of Allegiance."

Peron goes on to note that "Bellamy attempted to accomplish several goals with his Pledge of Allegiance. He saw it as a means of inculcating support for a centralized national government over the federalist system of the Founding Fathers." Moreover, Peron writes, Bellamy "originally toyed with the idea of making the Pledge more openly socialistic, but decided that if he did so it would never be accepted."

Why not? Because the American republic was founded on constitutional principles that are antithetical to socialism and its parallel, feudalism, in which the citizen is a mere vassal to a superior lord. The Pledge of Allegiance stands on its head the American commitment to universal but individual rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (as Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence). In its place it puts fealty to the will of the state and the subjugation of the individual to an amorphous "society."

Whether or not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in government schools is unconstitutional will be decided soon by the U.S. Supreme Court. But conservatives who view the Pledge as sacrosanct should not be too quick to condemn an "adverse" ruling without first thinking about the implications of the history and the text of the Pledge itself. If they do, they might realize that they are supporting something quite at odds with what they hold dear about America.

While the Supreme Court hears this case and decides how to rule, we citizens have an opportunity to reflect on the Pledge's implications, as well. The unsettling conclusions we draw should lead to deeper wisdom and a better appreciation of individual liberty as promised by the Constitution.

Richard Sincere is author of Sowing the Seeds of Free Enterprise and The Politics of Sentiment, among other works.

We know now that the U.S. Supreme Court decided, precisely a year ago (on June 14, 2004) that it is still permissible for schoolchildren to say the Pledge of Allegiance despite the presence of the phrase "under God." The Court did not rule on the merits of the case, however, noting merely that Michael Newdow, who brought the original lawsuit, lacked standing to do so. Speaking for the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote:

In our view, it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff’s claimed standing. When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law. There is a vast difference between Newdow’s right to communicate with his child–which both California law and the First Amendment recognize–and his claimed right to shield his daughter from influences to which she is exposed in school despite the terms of the custody order. We conclude that, having been deprived under California law of the right to sue as next friend, Newdow lacks prudential standing to bring this suit in federal court.

The issue has gone away -- for the moment. I only wish the conservatives who are the most vociferous proponents of the Pledge would realize how anti-American "pledging allegiance" is.

Because it is a social ritual, I still participate in Pledge ceremonies as a matter of courtesy. This is simply a matter of respect for the people I am with, much the same as bowing one's head when a dinner party host says grace (even if you are a non-believer) or standing for the singing of "O Canada" before a game at which an American baseball team is playing the Montreal Expos -- er, that is, the Toronto Blue Jays. (I guess they don't still sing "O Canada" at RFK Stadium for Washington Nationals games.)

But being polite does not necessarily suggest approbration as much as it does mild toleration and considered resignation.

Doubletake: Best Endowed Organ

Thanks to Jay Leno for alerting me to this item on his weekly "Headlines" segment on Monday's Tonight Show. I had to look it up to see for myself. Seeing is believing.

Here is the portion of the "headline" that Jay showed:

Best Endowed Organ Scholarship

Here is the full headline from the source, the faculty and staff newsletter of Hardin-Simmons University in Abilene, Texas:

The Carl J. Best Endowed Organ Scholarship

The article explains:

The Carl J. Best Endowed Organ Scholarship has been established in loving memory of the late HSU School of Music faculty member by his wife, Mrs. Gladys E. Browning Best and immediate family members.

It does, however, go on to say:

This scholarship is established in loving memory of the late Mr. Best’s passion for the organ and is intended to serve students seeking accomplishment and excellence on the instrument. [Italics added.]

Arched eyebrows are optional.

Jump in the Prediction Pool

I won't hazard to guess who will win the various elections taking place this coming Tuesday.

Still, I will make some predictions about voter turnout.

Given past experience with June primaries, I do not think statewide turnout will rise much above 5 percent. I predict 6.2 percent, tops.

In Charlottesville, because we have a hotly contested Democratic primary for the 57th District seat in the House of Delegates -- a seat that has not been open for almost a quarter-century -- turnout should be about equivalent to what we see in a May City Council election. That's between 25 and 30 percent.

My prediction for Charlottesville turnout: 24.4 percent.

Readers: Feel free to make your own predictions about Tuesday's turnout, both statewide in Virginia and for any local races that concern you. There are no prizes for the winning entry other than the knowledge of a job well-done. Just click on "comments" below.

Murphy Brown and Medical Marijuana

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gonzalez v. Raich last week (the medical marijuana case) caused me to recall that I had written on this topic in the past. I had trouble finding the article but was able to uncover a more-or-less complete reprint that, apparently, is missing a first paragraph.

The article was written exclusively for The Metro Herald while I was on a medical hiatus from my role as entertainment editor for that newspaper. It appeared in November 1997, shortly after an episode of the CBS-TV series Murphy Brown in which the title character uses marijuana for medical purposes.

Recall that, in 1992, Murphy Brown made headlines outside the entertainment world when Vice President Dan Quayle, in a speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco on May 19 of that year, criticized the show (and the character) for condoning out-of-wedlock births and single-motherhood-by-choice. This was one of the defining moments of the culture wars of the early 1990s. (A year later, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead made some headlines of her own with an article entitled, "Dan Quayle Was Right" in The Atlantic.)

So Murphy Brown was no stranger to controversy when, on November 5, 1997, precisely one year since California voters had approved Proposition 215 (the medical marijuana initative, the show's episode focused on Murphy's need, as a breast-cancer patient, for medicinal marijuana.

What follows is (most of) the article I wrote immediately after viewing that episode of Murphy Brown.

According to a wire service story appearing in the Chicago Tribune, "In a statement issued a few hours before Wednesday's broadcast of the situation comedy, DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency] Administrator Thomas Constantine said CBS and the show's creators were 'doing a great disservice' by trivializing drug abuse' and pandering to the libertarian supporters of an "open society" and to the myths of legalization.'"

After years of being ignored, I'm glad that someone is finally pandering to me (and other libertarians). We are the people who are more inclined to agree with the assessment of Ethan Nadelmann, director of The Lindesmith Center, a drug policy think tank based in New York.

Nadelmann called the episode a "cultural breakthrough," adding that "Candice Bergen and the producers of this episode brought a uniquely balanced perspective to the complex and controversial issue of medical marijuana for the first time ever on national, prime time television." Nadelmann, whose center recently published the book Marijuana Myths, Marijuana Facts: A Review of the Scientific Evidence, explained that "Murphy Brown and her associates made it clear that marijuana should be, and can be dealt with honestly and responsibly, without sending the wrong message to our youth. For this, they should be congratulated."

This Murphy Brown episode had a particular poignancy to me, since I am currently going through chemotherapy -- though for a far less severe illness than Murphy's breast cancer. This explains my absence from the pages of The Metro Herald for the past two months, as I have had to cut back on many of my activities during my chemotherapy treatment cycle. (The prognosis is for the treatments to be finished in January with the prospect of a full cure -- so my theatre and music reviews will return soon.)

As it happens, the drugs that my doctor prescribed for nausea work just fine. This is not true for everyone, however, and I would not hesitate to use medicinal marijuana if it were necessary. I am a firm believer in the relegalization of marijuana, not only because it is medically valuable, but because it would reduce the human and monetary costs of the failed "War on Drugs."

Marijuana is one of the oldest medicinal herbs known to man. Around the world, people have used marijuana as medicine for at least five thousand years, with earliest records dating from the rule of Chinese Emperor Shen Nung in about 2737 B.C. In the United States, cannabis tinctures were widely used throughout the 19th century and until 1937 for ailments such as teething pain, arthritis, epilepsy, and insomnia. In recent years, doctors have recommended marijuana for those who need to relieve the intense nausea from cancer and AIDS drugs so they can eat, to stave off blindness from glaucoma, and to reduce the debilitating effects of multiple sclerosis.

The acceptance of the use of marijuana as medicine has been gaining steady momentum across the country. Last year [in 1996] two states passed voter initiatives -- Proposition 215 in California and Proposition 200 in Arizona -- making it legal to prescribe marijuana to patients for medical purposes. Earlier this year [1997], the Virginia General Assembly turned back a spirited effort by conservative legislators to repeal a 1979 law that tentatively allows "medical necessity" as a legal defense against criminal charges of marijuana possession. Spearheaded by AIDS activists and with the support of several members of the D.C. Council, a medicinal marijuana initiative petition is being circulated in Washington for a ballot measure to be presented to voters next year.

Naturally, there is still resistance to this effort to bring compassion into state and national drug laws. Some people are still confused about the issue, unsure what to think; others have never heard any "argument" but government propaganda about the drug war. An article in the New York Times Magazine observed that "California's experiment with medical marijuana could well turn out to be a turning point in the drug war, if for no other reason than it is rapidly transforming what has long been a simplistic monologue about drugs -- Just Say No -- into a complex conversation between the people and their government. So far, the most compelling voices in that conversation belong to the patients, the doctors, the growers and the cops who together are struggling to carve out a place for legal marijuana in the face of fierce opposition from Washington."

Reflecting the fact that the medical use of marijuana is quietly but definitively gaining support among Americans, the most remarkable aspect of the Murphy Brown episode was the fact that stodgy Jim Dial -- Murphy's conservative co-worker -- was the most insistent that liberal Murphy overcome her reluctance to try marijuana as a means to reduce her debilitating nausea.

Indeed, as dramatized on Murphy Brown, the medicinal marijuana issue is one that crosses party and ideological lines. Although libertarians have long been in the forefront of arguing for relegalization, both conservatives and liberals recognize marijuana's therapeutic value, and the large margin of victory for the initiatives in California and Arizona last year suggest that the average voter understands the arguments. "Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man," concluded the DEA's own Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young.

Others who agree that relegalization is necessary -- or at least worth discussing -- include Baltimore Mayor Kurt Schmoke, conservative columnist William F. Buckley, Jr., Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman, and former Secretary of State George Shultz.

Murphy Brown has played a valuable role by bringing the debate about medicinal marijuana into the living rooms of millions of Americans. The debate is bound to continue, and eventually the forces of compassion will win out over the forces of fear.

Virginia Declaration of Rights Anniversary

Today is the anniversary of the adoption of the Virginia Declaration of Rights, an important precursor to the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution. As explained on the National Archives web site:

Virginia's Declaration of Rights was drawn upon by Thomas Jefferson for the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. It was widely copied by the other colonies and became the basis of the Bill of Rights. Written by George Mason, it was adopted by the Virginia Constitutional Convention on June 12, 1776.

In his 1992 history of the American Bill of Rights, The Great Rights of Mankind, Bernard Schwartz notes on page one that, in contrast to the "rudimentary" English Bill of Rights of 1689, "the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 was the first modern bill of rights, since it was the first to use a written constitution to insulate individual rights from the changing winds of legislative fancy."

Schwartz writes at length of Founding Father George Mason's pivotal role in the drafting and adoption of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. (His chronicle of the process leading to the Declaration's adoption can be found on pages 67-72 of his book.)

Schwartz, who died in 1997 after teaching law for a half-century at New York University and the University of Tulsa, writes about Mason:

The Journal of the Virginia Convention consists only of unrevealing formal entries, making it necessary to use other sources for facts on adoption of the 1776 Declaration of Rights. Of these, the most important is the summary contained in Edmund Randolph's Essay [on the Revolutionary History of Virginia], written some thirty-five years after the event. Randolph, who had been the youngest delegate to the convention, tells us that, although "many projects of a bill of rights" were presented to the drafting committee, "that proposed by George Mason swallowed up all the rest." [James] Madison also confirms that "This important and meritorious instrument was drawn up by George Mason." Moreover, there is a copy of the first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights almost all in Mason's handwriting.

If we compare the first draft with the declaration as adopted, we find only four major additions (Articles 9, 10, 13, and 14). At the end of a copy off the first draft, wrtten in 1778, Mason states that "it received few alterations or additions in the Virginia Convention," saying that only "Two more articles were added, viz., the 10th and 14th in the adopted bills -- not of fundamental nature." Mason understates the significance of the changes made. Article 9 concerns excessive bail and unusual punishments, while Article 10 contains the direct antecedent of the Fourth Amendment. Article 13 calls for a militia controlled by civilians; Article 14 deals with a local problem of Virginia's western land holdings. And a change in Article 16, suggested by Madison, contains the term "free exercise of religion" -- thus anticipating Madison's use of the term in the First Amendment. Yet, even with this said, it remains true that the declaration was mainly Mason's work. The extent of Mason's contribution is made even clearer when we compare it with the rudimentary provisions protecting personal rights in the draft constitution Jefferson prepared just before the Virginia Convention.

That a planter without formal legal training could draw up a document like the Virginia Declaration of Rights must remain a constant source of wonder. According to the 1855 account by Hugh Grigsby, "when Mason sat down in his room in the Raleigh Tavern to write that paper, it is probable that no copy of the reply to Sir Robert Filmer or of the Essay on Government . . . was within his reach. The diction, the design, the thoughts, are all his own." He goes on to say that "Mason was a planter, untutored in the schools, whose life . . . had been spent in a thinly settled colony." Nonetheless, Mason knew Locke, Montesquieu, and Sydney -- the trio that gave the Revolution its theoretical underpinnings.

In a letter written to Richard Henry Lee on the very day he took his seat in the convention, Mason declared, "We are no going upon the most important of all Subjects -- Government." In settling the constitutional frame of government, he and his colleagues were at one in the opinion that a declaration of rights had to be an integral part of the new constitution. This explains why so revolutionary an item as the declaration could be drawn up by one man and adopted with few changes. By 1776, a consensus had clearly developed in the former colonies on the fundamental rights the law should protect. In giving specific content to those rights, Mason gave expression to the shared thoughts of the day on individual rights; in doing so he was more the codifier than the transforming innovator.

Here is the complete text of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Consult it often:

A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.

Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

Those who are interested can read the current Constitution of Virginia here. Note that Mason's Declaration of Rights is still the basis for Article I of the constitution, which was revised and amended in 1971 from the 1902 version.

A Lively Art, Indeed!

A most unusual advertisement appeared in the Weekend section of Friday’s Washington Post print edition (not, alas, as far as I can tell, on the Post’s website).

On page 29 of the section, under the general heading “Guide to the Lively Arts” and the subheading “Auditions” is this ad:

DO YOU USE PORNOGRAPHY?

Serious British documentary
seeking appropriate
contributors from the following
groups who are willing to
appear on camera:

- Regular heterosexual
pornography users
- Heterosexual pornography
addicts
- Former pornography addicts
who are now
devout/born-again Christians
- Pro-pornography Christians
- Porn users, former porn
stars/nude models who are
now Senior Citizens

Those with legitimate interest,
please reply to:

documentary.contributors@gmail.com

with your details and a short
summary of your suitability.
Thank you.

One wonders what kind of response this sort of ad elicits.

More Phone Calls from the Candidates

I feel sorry for the postal carrier in my neighborhood. His shoulders must be aching from having to trudge from house to house with so much campaign literature.

Today I received direct-mail pieces from Bob McDonnell, criticizing Steve Baril's lack of experience; from Steve Baril, criticizing Bob McDonnell's lack of ethics; from Bill Bolling, decrying Sean Connaughton's votes to raise taxes; and from Sean Connaughton, decrying Bill Bolling's votes to raise taxes.

That was just today. I had earlier received direct-mail pieces from each of those candidates, at least once every two or three days for the past three weeks. Nothing, however, from the statewide Democratic candidates. (David Toscano has sent me at least two postcards, but I haven't seen anything from Rich Collins or Kim Tingley in my mail yet.)

I also was greeted with more voice-mail messages today. U.S. Representative Virgil Goode, whose Fifth District constituency includes Charlottesville, urged me to vote for Bob McDonnell. Sean Connaughton himself left me a message, urging me to vote for ... well, for Sean Connaughton.

Four more days of this: As Charlie Brown might say to Lucy, "Aaaaaargh!"

Those Gay Tories Again

In the immediate aftermath of the British election last month, I wrote about openly gay Conservative candidates for Parliament.

Now one of those successful candidates, Alan Duncan, who serves as the shadow transport secretary, has announced his intention to seek the leadership of the Conservative party.

An article in the Daily Telegraph reports:

The Conservative Party would, [Duncan] argued, benefit from having an openly gay leader because that would be a visible demonstration that it had become more tolerant.

"If it were me [who became leader] everyone would know the party had changed and I don't think anyone would have an excuse to vote Liberal Democrat," he said. Mr Duncan, who will give a speech on the future of the party to pupils at the City of London School today, is the second senior Tory to give a firm indication of his intentions.

The article continues:

His supporters say he is a good media performer who is untainted by having been a minister in unpopular former Conservative governments. At 48, he is also younger than Sir Malcolm and Mr Clarke.

Mr Duncan, a social and economic liberal, warned that the Tory Party could die if it did not realise the scale of the transformation it required. "If we don't get this right we risk being in terminal decline," he said.

"Marks & Spencer was a fantastic brand in good times but if you have a lousy CEO and lousy knickers you don't do well. Like M & S we need both a good CEO and better frilly knickers."

In his speech today, which will be seen as a pitch for the top job, he will say that a leader "has to be good on TV. He needs endless stamina. He needs a track record of clearly held, and clearly understood, views and he needs to be able to appeal far beyond the core support we currently attract".

The United States has seen a number of openly-gay Republicans elected to public office (former Congressman Steve Gunderson of Wisconsin and Representative Jim Kolbe of Arizona are the two most prominent examples). We have not yet reached the stage of seeing the possibility of an openly-gay Republican party chairman or presidential candidate. But who would have thought of that possibility in Britain 20 years ago?

By the way, Alan Duncan is the author of Saturn's Children: How the State Devours Liberty, Prosperity & Virtue, which I have not read (yet), but I can tell just by the title that I would like it. I simply must add that book to my Amazon wish-list.

This Just In: Danforth Joins RUC

This news release arrived today from Charles Francis at the Republican Unity Coalition:

Washington, D.C., June 10---Senator John C. Danforth has joined the Advisory Board of the Republican Unity Coalition, it was announced today by RUC co-chairs Charles Francis and Donald Capoccia. Senator Danforth will advise the RUC on its continuing efforts to support Republican candidates who reach out to all Americans, including gay and lesbian Republicans.

Charles Francis, RUC co-chair, said: "We are honored to have Jack Danforth join the RUC---a gay/straight Republican alliance---dedicated to strengthening a "Big Tent" for all Republicans. Jack Danforth's life is his message: a life-long Republican conservative and dedicated public servant, an Episcopal Priest, the man who officiated at President Reagan's memorial service--he is a living hero to Republicans who want the GOP to steer to a principled center. We are so proud to have him standing with us.

"Joining with other RUC Advisory Board members including President Gerald R. Ford, David Rockefeller and Honorary Board Chairman Alan K. Simpson, Jack Danforth will help the RUC reach out to GOP conservatives and libertarians whose bedrock principles include everyone," Francis said.

Senator John Danforth is a partner with the international law firm Bryan Cave LLP in St. Louis. He retired from the United States Senate in 1995 after eighteen years of service. More recently, he served as United States Ambassador to the United Nations, after serving as President George W. Bush's Special Envoy to Sudan in 2001. Ordained to the clergy of the Episcopal Church, Reverend Danforth officiated at the memorial service of President Ronald Reagan.

In an opinion article he published on March 30 in the New York Times, Senator Danforth wrote:

During the 18 years I served in the Senate, Republicans often disagreed with each other. But there was much that held us together. We believed in limited government, in keeping light the burden of taxation and regulation. We encouraged the private sector, so that a free economy might thrive. We believed that judges should interpret the law, not legislate. We were internationalists who supported an engaged foreign policy, a strong national defense and free trade. These were principles shared by virtually all Republicans.

But in recent times, we Republicans have allowed this shared agenda to become secondary to the agenda of Christian conservatives. As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around.

The historic principles of the Republican Party offer America its best hope for a prosperous and secure future. Our current fixation on a religious agenda has turned us in the wrong direction. It is time for Republicans to rediscover our roots.

Danforth was a mentor of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and he wrote a book entitled Resurrection: The Confirmation of Clarence Thomas. One wonders what influence he may have on the justice's jurisprudential thought?

VCAP Push-Polling for McDonnell

The Virginia Conservative Action PAC (VCAP) is conducting a push-poll on behalf of Bob McDonnell, one of two candidates for the Republican nomination for Attorney General of Virginia. I know, because I was the recipient of one of the calls.

A push-poll is designed not to elicit information from the survey participant, but to implant ideas or images (generally negative) in the minds of those receiving the call. I know the difference because I have worked on dozens of campaigns and I have designed more than a handful of legitimate, information-gathering polls on behalf of clients as part of my business.

The automated call I received (according to the caller ID, from something called FECR at 571-522-6559, a Northern Virginia number) began innocently enough. It asked if I planned to vote in the primary election on Tuesday and whether I planned to vote for McDonnell or for his opponent, Steve Baril.

When I answered I planned to vote for Baril, the automated voice asked if I would change my mind if I knew that Baril had no experience as a prosecutor and that he had taken campaign contributions from trial lawyers. (I said no, my mind would not be changed.)

The poll also asked if I had heard or seen radio or TV commercials for either candidate, and whether, “other than this call,” I had received telephone calls from either campaign. (The answer was yes, since yesterday I received a call from Jim Gilmore on behalf of McDonnell, and two days ago I received a call from Baril on his own behalf.)

Finally, the automated voice identified the source of the call as the Virginia Conservative Action PAC and gave the PAC’s website address.

I wish that candidates for Attorney General would face the fact that the job they seek is not a prosecutor’s job. It is not “Commonwealth’s Attorney for the whole Commonwealth.” There are two functions of the Attorney General: the legal function is to act as a sort of “corporate lawyer” for the state government; the political function is to run for governor four years after being elected to the post of attorney general.

According to the Code of Virginia, “The Attorney General shall be the chief executive officer of the Department of Law, and shall perform such duties as may be provided by law” (§ 2.2-500). § 2.2-505 limits the scope of the Attorney General’s office considerably:

A. The Attorney General shall give his advice and render official advisory opinions in writing only when requested in writing so to do by one of the following: the Governor; a member of the General Assembly; a judge of a court of record or a judge of a court not of record; the State Corporation Commission; an attorney for the Commonwealth; a county, city or town attorney in those localities in which such office has been created; a clerk of a court of record; a city or county sheriff; a city or county treasurer or similar officer; a commissioner of the revenue or similar officer; a chairman or secretary of an electoral board; or the head of a state department, division, bureau, institution or board.

B. Except in cases where an opinion is requested by the Governor or a member of the General Assembly, the Attorney General shall have no authority to render an official opinion unless the question dealt with is directly related to the discharge of the duties of the official requesting the opinion. Any opinion request to the Attorney General by an attorney for the Commonwealth or county, city or town attorney shall itself be in the form of an opinion embodying a precise statement of all facts together with such attorney's legal conclusions.

§ 2.2-507 says that the Attorney General represents the Commonwealth in “civil matters.” But the kicker is § 2.2-511, which says, “Unless specifically requested by the Governor to do so, the Attorney General shall have no authority to institute or conduct criminal prosecutions in the circuit courts of the Commonwealth except” in certain well-defined areas of the law (emphasis added).

All the candidates for Attorney General – McDonnell, Baril, and to a lesser extent (so far, presumably because he faces no primary opponent) state Senator Creigh Deeds of Bath County – have been misleading the voters by their constant drumming about prosecutorial experience and campaign platforms that focus on how Virginia should deal with criminals.

There are two reasons I plan to vote for Steve Baril on Tuesday: (1) precisely because he has never been a prosecutor and (2) because he is not Bob McDonnell, a man so vapid that he does not remember whether or not he has ever experienced oral sex.