Waiting for the Rapture? May 21 Is Just Days Away

The unusually wet and rainy May weather has a lot of us feeling chilly this week.

A good number of our fellow humans are, at the same time, feeling a bit chiliastic, because they have accepted the prediction of radio preacher Harold Camping that the Rapture will begin this Saturday, May 21, with the world itself coming to an end five months later.

Camper is the owner of a network of religious radio stations called Family Radio, based in Oakland, California. As Stephen Cox noted in Liberty magazine in December 2010 (PDF; pp. 19ff), the network has some 100 stations in the United States and an unknown number of other stations elsewhere. He also points out that Camper predicted the world would end in 1994, but turned out to be wrong.

Not that Camper is alone. He's just the latest in a long line of false soothsayers whose predictions prove groundless. (I won't misuse the word "prophet" to describe Harold Camper. In a theological sense, prophecy has nothing to do with predicting future events. It's much more about speaking truth to power, as Nathan did with King David.) In fact, beginning with the Millerites in the 19th century, predicting the end-times has become something of an American religious tradition.

This sort of fascination with the end-times is, in fact, a fairly recent phenomenon. While the early Christians seemed to accept the idea of an imminent return of Jesus Christ, that belief dissipated rather quickly.

E. Ann Matter, a professor of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote in an essay called "Exegesis of the Apocalypse in the Early Middle Ages" (found in The Year 1000: Religious and Social Response to the Turning of the First Millennium, edited by Michael Frassetto):

The last book of Christian Scripture, with its vivid imagery and sweeping promises of the triumph of the faithful over the persecutions of Antichrist, has always captured the imagination of Christians. Some contemporary groups fully expect to see the Last Days soon, and they offer exacting interpretations of the clues hidden in the last book of the New Testament for how this could happen. Sometimes these interpretations take the form of fiction [citing Tim LaHaye's and Jerry B. Jenkins' Left Behind series]. This is a long tradition. In fact, the Apocalypse was among the first biblical texts to be systematically explicated in Latin, even as it was one of the last to be accepted into the canon of the New Testament and given a liturgical role.

That early exegesis was, however, soon rejected by most orthodox Christians, and the Revelation of John took on a more allegorical function, beginning with interpretation of the book by St. Jerome (translator of the Bible into Latin). As Matter notes, "it would seem that at least from the earliest stage, the book appealed especially to those whose theology deviated from the orthodox consensus" [p. 29].

Several pages later, after reviewing the literature from the third century through the ninth and tenth, Matter goes on to point out:

All the Apocalypse commentaries from the Carolingian world thus show the continuing assumption of the text as an allegory of the Church, and a continuing process of filtering specific interpretations from earlier commentaries to support that assumption. There is little in these texts that shares the radical assumption of the imminent end evident in the Apocalypse which was such a subject of fascination to the earliest Christians and now again attracts a following. Instead, early medieval exegesis presents the Apocalypse as a book about the integrity and purity of the Church on earth [p. 36].

Last year, I interviewed Charlottesville writer Kristin Swenson about her widely-reviewed book, Bible Babel: Making Sense of the Most Talked About Book of All Time.

She explained what the book is about in just a few words:

The book is for general readers. It does not take a particular religious perspective. It’s also not dismissive of persons of faith but provides background information about the Bible: what is the Bible, where does it come from, [and] what’s in it, so that folks can make sense of the way the Bible shows up in contemporary culture.

In Bible Babel, Swenson takes a couple of pages to discuss end-times theology and how different branches of Christianity -- not to mention Judaism -- hold very different views on the Rapture and the Second Coming. Let me quote her at length:

The idea that Jesus will return and take the faithful up into heaven at some dramatic moment in the world's last days has captured the imagination of thousands of fundamentalist, evangelical, and nondenominational Christians. "Rapture," the term used to describe this event, is not actually in the Bible. Bible-based Jews, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, and many other Christian denominations do not accept the premise, yet Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins's creative depiction of the rapture in the Left Behind series has clearly struck a chord. Tens of millions of these books have sold since the first was released in 1995, and several have become popular movies.

Ironically, it's the faithful who are described by the term "left behind," in the rapture proponents' central biblical text -- 1 Thess 4:16-17. Paul wrote that passage to assure people that their loved ones who had died before Jesus' return would not be overlooked. Those who were dead, Paul wrote, will rise first, and then the living (the ones who were left behind) will join them, "caught up in the clouds ... to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever." The Greek word arpazo, translated "caught up," is raptus in Latin -- the basis for the English "rapture." Of course, what LaHaye and others mean by the people "left behind" is those who are not caught up at all.

Although the rapture as it's popularly understood has little biblical support, the idea that Jesus will return is prominently represented. Sometimes called the Parousia (reflecting its Greek root in "presence, coming"), the expectation of Jesus' returning to earth to initiate a new age permeates the New Testament, and it is a central feature of Christian doctrine and theology today. Even though the Bible strongly maintains that people cannot predict exactly when Jesus will return, people try anyway. Hal Lindsey wrote The Late Great Planet Earth (1970), fairly certain that his was the end-time (specifically, the 1980s). Not everyone who believes in a coming rapture agrees about its chronological relationship to other end-time events, but they share the certainty that it will happen. Then, as a popular bumper sticker warns, "In case of rapture, this car will be unmanned" -- to which unbelieving humorists respond with the bumper sticker, "Come the rapture, can I have your car?" In a curious twist, the Rapture Ready Index recommends that you "fasten your seatbelts" when the number measuring end-time-like world events indicates the speady approach of the rapture [pp. 215-16].

Stephen Cox concludes his December 2010 Liberty article [PDF; p. 22]:

What will happen next?

One thing is certain: the Rapture will not take place on May 21. Nor will the total destruction of the physical universe occur on the following October 21. But what will happen to Family Radio?

Will the Depart Out movement collapse, like the Millerites? Will the Campingites try to reinterpret their message, as they did after the disappointment of 1994? Will they succeed? Or will there be a palace revolution?

I believe that the last is likeliest. People who have invested their careers in an organization are reluctant to part from it, no matter what happens, and in this instance there has been good reason for dissenters to stay and bide their time. Camping is the sole source of the sect’s peculiar theology, and he is 89 years old. (Not that he is senile — he isn’t. His method of argument is the same that it was 25 years ago, when I first found him on the dial.) It is difficult to imagine that Family Radio’s internal proletariat hasn’t made plans for what happens after his death — or even before it, when May 21 fails to justify his teachings. I look for a battle at Family Radio; and with luck, the battle will be public.

In any case, we are unlikely to see a more informative experiment in what happens when prophecy — definite, ceaselessly emphasized, widely disseminated prophecy — unmistakably and climactically fails. Every student of American civilizationshould plan to tune in to Family Radio on May 21 — not with the possibility of being caught up to heaven, but with the certainty of being caught up in a fascinating event.

In an update ("The End Is Nigh") published on the Liberty web site on May 3 (the magazine converted to web-only earlier this year), Cox makes a suggestion that could make this coming weekend highly entertaining:

Harold Camping is not a politician or a professor of environmentalism, whose prophecies can never be proven wrong because they’re ridiculously non-specific. No, he has said exactly what he means by the end of the world, and he has said exactly when the end of the world will happen. You can check it. I hope you do. Go to Family Radio’s website, find out where its nearest radio station is, and tune in during the evening of May 20 (US time), when, Camping believes, Judgment Day will begin in the Fiji Islands. Then listen through the next few days, as Family Radio responds to the disconfirmation of its prophecies. Or does not respond — until it figures out how to do so (and that should be interesting also).

As for myself, after 16 years of Catholic education (and thus holding a fundamental rejection of newfangled fundamentalism), I think the best way to spend May 21 will be to party like it's 1999 -- perhaps listening to Blondie's classic recording, "Rapture."

Then, we can listen to Harold Camping's explanation for his mistaken calculations.  I have a hint for him:  he forgot to count leap-year days in his meticulous enumeration of the number of days from the Crucifixion to May 21, 2011.


Readers of this blog post may also like:  As the Millennium Turns (Revisited) from December 31, 2004.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

 

PVCC's 2011 Commencement Exercises at UVA's JPJ

After a fast-moving thunderstorm drenched the afterparty of last year's outdoor commencement ceremonies at Piedmont Virginia Community College, a new, indoor venue was sought and found.

It turns out, however, that the first choice -- University Hall -- became unavailable two weeks before the scheduled May 13 (that's Friday the 13th,, by the way) and a back-up plan became necessary.  Fortunately, the John Paul Jones Arena had no bookings that night, and PVCC officials worked quickly to adapt their seating and platform arrangements to the JPJ space.

Strategically placed black curtains set off most of the JPJ, permitting PVCC's 38th annual commencement exercises to be held indoors but without getting lost in the cavernous basketball arena's vastness.

About 400 students were awarded degrees of certificates, cheered on by family, friends, and teachers.  They heard speeches from Fifth District Congressman Robert Hurt (R-Chatham) and from graduating student Shagun Adhikari, who came here from Nepal to earn two degrees, one in computer science and the other in engineering, with plans to continue his studies at the University of Virginia.

PVCC president Frank Friedman, board chair Suzanne Morse Moomaw, and vice presidents John Donnelly and William Jackameit also offered brief remarks, as did Sasha Gong, a member of the State Board for Community Colleges.  Voice student James Tubbs sang the national anthem, as he did last year, and the Charlottesville Municipal Band offered a musical prelude and accompaniment to the processional and recessional.  (Elgar's "Pomp and Circumstance" for the former, naturally.)

After the ceremony, I was able to interview Congressman Hurt for Examiner.com.  His answers to my questions resulted in two articles, "U.S. Representative Robert Hurt discusses eminent domain and redistricting" and "Robert Hurt answers questions on pending legislation and the Constitution."

After I finished, Hurt faced the cameras from Jessica Jaglois of the Newsplex and Derick Waller of NBC29.

The Daily Progress also has a report on the commencement ceremony.

Here are video highlights of the occasion, in four parts.

Part I features the procession of faculty and graduates, plus the singing of "The Star-Spangled Banner."

Part II has PVCC President Frank Friedman's welcome and demographic topology of the graduating class, and Sasha Gong's brief words.

In Part III, Congressman Robert Hurt delivers his commencement address, after an introduction by Suzanne Morse Moomaw.

Part IV starts with vice president for instruction and student services John Donnelly's introduction of student speaker Shagun Adhikari, followed by closing comments by vice president for finance and administrative services William Jackameit, and a final benediction done call-and-repeat style by Mr. Adhikari.

Note:  After last year's ceremony, I interviewed Virginia Secretary of Education Gerard Robinson and Delegate Rob Bell.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

Is There a Litmus Test for Conservative Republicans?

In April, it was announced by the American Conservative Union that Christopher Malagisi had been hired as the new director of CPAC (the annual Conservative Political Action Conference), succeeding Lisa De Pasquale.  Malagisi's appointment was part of a changing of the guard that included the retirement of longtime ACU chairman David Keene and the tapping of his successor, Al Cardenas.

It's no secret that the choice of Cardenas was seen by many as a rebuke to Keene (and perhaps, indirectly, to De Pasquale) for being too open to libertarian and non-social conservative ideas and groups.  (The conflict came to head -- if it wasn't actually a tempest in a teapot -- when several social conservative organizations claimed to boycott CPAC this year because of the presence of GOProud, a gay conservative group.)  The ACU board, it was alleged, wanted to shrink the "big tent" that CPAC had been under Keene's leadership.

Last week, Malagisi stepped into a political tourbillion when, writing an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, he set up a five-stage litmus test for conservative Republican candidates that, by his estimation, disqualified Texas Congressman Ron Paul and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson as contenders for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.  (It's noteworthy that in 2011, Paul and Johnson came in first and third, respectively, in the annual CPAC presidential straw poll.)

In his article, Malagisi asked, not rhetorically:

Why do Republicans let people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson participate in Republican presidential debates? They are obviously trying to win the “Who’s more Libertarian?” or “Who’s the least Republican” debate as opposed to the actual Republican debate taking place.

He argued that the Republican Party rests on five pillars (which he does not define):

The Republican Party as a whole though is based on five fundamental principles – individual freedom, limited government, free markets, a strong national defense, and preserving our traditional values and heritage. The modern Republican Party is based on the foundation of the conservative movement.

The conservative movement is a coalition made up of three disparate, yet amenable groups – classical liberals or libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists – or modernly referred to as fiscal, social, and defense conservatives. While each entity emphasizes different issues, they all work together in a political compact of sorts with a shared sense of reason operating within tradition. They also understand that together, as a fusionist coalition, they have the best chance of winning elections and actually legislating their conservative principles.

Malagisi's exclusionary position immediately came under fire, beginning with 92 comments on the Examiner's web site, nearly all of which were in disagreement with him.

Bloggers also took aim at Malagisi.

First out of the box was The Minority Report's Alex Knepper, who says in a piece called "Yes, Ron Paul Should Be Allowed To Debate" that he is no fan of either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, yet he still called Malagisi's op-ed "misguided," adding:

The term ‘Republican,’ however, refers to party affiliation, not to political philosophy. Anyone whose priorities are right-of-center can find a home in the GOP. This is why Ronald Reagan, who famously stated that libertarianism represents “the heart and soul” of modern conservatism, remains the icon of a party in which Mike Huckabee, who believes that libertarianism is a greater threat to America than liberalism, finds himself leading many presidential polls.

The logic of exclusion would appear to be that candidates who espouse heresy should not be considered legitimate Republican candidates and should hence be shut out from the debates.

Really, now? What to do, then, about Rick Santorum, who has previously stated that he finds “the whole personal autonomy thing,” which Malagisi holds as a hallmark of modern conservatism, to be completely overrated?

Knepper concludes by saying:

As Malagisi probably knows deep-down, there is no such thing as this creature known as the “true conservative.” Conservatism proper is a disposition, not an ideology. It is an attitude toward life, not a checklist of particulars that can be legislated from on-high. It remains, as it always has been, an argument with itself. If Ron Paul is wrong about foreign policy — and I think that he is — then it’s up to others on the stage to demonstrate that he is wrong. I hope that they can do that, rather than take the cowardly route of shutting him down.

Oklahoma blogger Brian Altenhofel goes straight to Malagisi's list of five principles and finds them "exceptional," as you will see:

I would have expected a much better level of rationality from a "President of the Young Conservatives Coalition, a National Review Institute Washington Fellow, and an Adjunct Professor."

The Republican Party has been referred to recently as the The Party of No. But I don't think that's quite accurate the more that I read articles and hear people speak about alleged Republican principles. A more accurate term might be The Party of Buts — "...based on five fundamental principles – individual freedom (BUT only those we approve), limited government (BUT so long as 'limited' means 'slower than Democrats'), free markets (BUT with federal financial support of private companies), a strong national defense (BUT only if it includes nation-building and holding Israel high on a pedestal), and preserving our traditional values (BUT only if those values don't conflict with our personal religious beliefs) and heritage."

Another blogger, The Virginia Conservative, posted a lengthy rebuttal to Malagisi on Sunday, also calling him "misguided":

I believe that Malagisi’s conclusions are just flat out wrong. He starts out claiming that the Republican Party is a three-legged stool, a merging of libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists....

Malagisi’s work devolves into fairly mindless bashing of Paul and Johnson for embracing this libertarian or “classical liberal” wing. He claims that both men are more suited to be Democrats rather than Republicans because they don’t support the war on terror or imposed moral standards coming out of Washington D.C. Doesn’t it seem strange that Malagisi admits there are three legs of the party, while at the same time seeking to saw off one entirely? Although this news may come as a shock to those who lack either common sense or a basic understanding of physics, but this two-legged stool that Malagisi seems to be advocating cannot stand.,,,

Both Paul and Johnson are a welcome change to the current Republican politicians as usual who advocate a blend of fiscal irresponsibility, moral pandering absent any real commitment for meaningful legislation, wars without end, and the shredding of our Constitution. Now, I will admit that Johnson is too libertarian for my tastes, after all, I am a social conservative. However, with the recent debate as a guide, I would support him over Rick Santorum. Although Santorum and I agree on many social issues, his statements in the debate lead me to fear that he would support an agenda more akin to fascism than liberty.

Despite what you may think from this post and others populating this blog, I am not a libertarian. However, as a constitutional or paleo-conservative, I see libertarians as allies as we both seek to rein in the power of the federal government. We can and do disagree on a number of social issues, like abortion and defending our borders, but the party should welcome these folks to counterbalance the Republicans who abandon any notion of limiting the power of government while Republicans reign....

I would wager that either Malagisi is woefully ignorant of Paul and the conservative movement (unlikely) or he is a neoconservative who longs for the return to big government Republicanism. Either way, I encourage my fellow traditional conservatives and libertarians to steer clear of his poisonous rhetoric. Although he is welcome to his opinions, given his current political position, I fear how many other potential allies will become unknowingly tainted by his misguided and baseless words.

One final example.

Pulling no punches, the Northern Virginia Conservative begins like this:

I just can't stop myself...

...from fisking this piece from stereotypical neoconservadouche Chris Malagisi. This guy is one of Newt Gingrich's henchmen, and periodically plugs him, and even started this page on facebook to "draft" Newtie. I, of course, couldn't stop myself back then, either... and this appeared. Whoops.

And he ends like this:

Spare me your smarm, your condescension and your arrogance. No sale. Don't you have a Newtie event to go to?

In addition to the comments on the Washington Examiner's web site and the well-considered rebuttals on blogs, there has also been chatter about Malagisi's commentary piece on Facebook and Twitter. If his ill-considered attack on two solid conservatives -- Ron Paul votes "no" on virtually everything that comes to the floor of the House of Representatives, on the basis that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to do virtually everything it does, and Gary Johnson vetoed 750 pieces of legislation during his eight years as New Mexico governor, arguing that most of it was fiscally irresponsible -- has not already been withdrawn, you can bet that he'll think more carefully about making similar attacks in the future. It would be unseemly, not to say uneconomical, for the new director of CPAC to make enemies of the people who buy about half of the tickets to that annual conservative event.

For other blog posts that discuss disputes and divisions between conservatives and libertarians, check out "Mt. Vernon Is No Sharon" (February 16, 2010); "Rick Santorum's Views on Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan" (October 16, 2010);"Yep, I'm a Mugwump" (March 15, 2006); and "Obsessed with Sex" (February 22, 2010).

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

Friedrich Hayek: 19th-Century-Born Video Star of the 21st Century

Sunday's New York Times featured a book review by Francis Fukuyama of a new edition of Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty, originally published in 1960 by the University of Chicago Press (the same publisher of the new edition, which is edited by historian Ronald Hamowy).

As Fukuyama notes in his first paragraph, Hayek -- who was born in 1899 and who died two decades ago -- is enjoying something of a renaissance of interest:

The publication of the definitive edition of Friedrich A. Hayek’s “Constitution of Liberty” coincides with the unexpected best-seller status of his earlier book “The Road to Serfdom” as a result of its promotion by the conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck. In an age when many on the right are worried that the Obama administration’s reform of health care is leading us toward socialism, Hayek’s warnings from the mid-20th century about society’s slide toward despotism, and his principled defense of a minimal state, have found strong political resonance.

That Glenn Beck is a fan of Friedrich Hayek should not be held against Hayek, because the Austrian-born Nobel laureate -- who also wrote about politics, society, philosophy, and culture -- is admired by far more intellectually solid individuals, not just Lonesome Rhodes types but also university teachers, think-tank scholars, journalists, business executives, and rap-music video producers.

Rap-music video producers?

Indeed, a surprising YouTube hit of recent months has been "'Fear the Boom and Bust' a Hayek vs. Keynes Rap Anthem," produced by George Mason University economist Russell Roberts and video artist John Papola. Since its Internet debut in January 2010, "Fear the Boom and Bust" has racked up 2,212,104 hits (and counting), leading to a sequel that was released on April 27, "Fight of the Century: Keynes vs. Hayek Round Two," which has had 589,253 views in less than two weeks.

That's a lot of fans for two economists who ended up in the long run just as Keynes predicted they would.  Still, their ideas are still alive.

Here are the two videos.  You can judge their intellectual (and entertainment) quality for yourself.

"Fear the Boom and Bust":

"Round Two":

For those interested in diving deeper into the continuing controversy among public intellectuals about Hayek, his ideas, and his legacy, take a look at the Mercatus Center's Peter Boettke's brief response at Coordination Problem to Fukuyama (who has his own new book on store shelves now, part one of The Origins of Political Order).  I'm sure it is just the start of a stimulating conversation.

 

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

Arthur Laurents Remembered

News of the death of Broadway playwright, librettist, director -- and novelist, memoirist, and screenwriter -- Arthur Laurents sent me looking through my archives.

Although I never had the privilege of meeting or interviewing Laurents, his name pops up frequently in my writing about the stage.

First, an introduction to those who might be unfamiliar with Laurents' work, from a Los Angeles Times obituary by Charles McNulty that refers to him in its headline as "prickly":

Arthur Laurents, who died Thursday as an exceptionally young nonagenarian, was one musical theater writer who was impossible to overlook. Dismiss him — and how could you dismiss the man who wrote the books for "West Side Story" and "Gypsy"? — and you'd have your head handed to you, no matter if you were a lowly reviewer or a formidable diva.

Charles Isherwood's obituary in the New York Times hits many of the same notes:

It’s amusing to note that the notoriously pugnacious Mr. Laurents, who never met a score he didn’t want to settle, was involved in two of the most fruitful (if often fraught) collaborations in musical-theater history. From the collisions of artists can arise work that doesn’t just benefit from the tensions of the collaborative process, but somehow embodies them: dance, drama and song are as tightly integrated in both “Gypsy” and “West Side Story” as they are in any major American musical.

NPR, referring to a 1990 interview with Laurents on Fresh Air with Terry Gross, sums things up like this:

Laurents started his career in radio and later wrote Hollywood film scripts. But his big career break came on the Broadway stage in the late 1950s, when both Gypsy and West Side Story premiered. Laurents wrote the script for both musicals and later directed two revivals of Gypsy, with Angela Lansbury and Tyne Daly in the title role.

One anecdote from Laurents' life comes from a blog post I published in June 2007, titled "Judy Garland and Homosexual Identity," which was sort of a mini-review of a coffee-table book called When I Knew. Laurents tells a story in the book from his pre-teen years:

My favorite entry -- perhaps because it emphasizes the value of words and how artifice affects one's reality -- comes from playwright Arthur Laurents, who writes on page 50 about growing up in the 1930s:

When I was twelve, I had sex with one of the kids on the block. We also went to the movies together and one day saw the picture called, Let Us Be Gay. Back then "gay" merely meant bright, lively, merry, but for some unfathomable reason, whenever one of us wanted sex, we used the code phrase "Let Us Be Gay." I think we may have pioneered the use of "gay" to mean homosexual sex. More meaningful than a Tony or Oscar, but not quite worthy of the Nobel.

Arthur Laurents -- librettist and neologist.

Other articles I have written that refer to Arthur Laurents include reviews of various productions of West Side Story and Gypsy, including the most recent revival of the former, which was directed by a nonagenarian Laurents, who also revised the libretto to include Spanish dialogue (and lyrics), but -- bowing to the realities of audience demands and expectations -- later re-revised the book to remove the Spanish passages.

Here's a list of Arthur Laurents-related content on this blog:

Today Stephen Sondheim Is 80 (includes review of Gypsy at Heritage Repertory Theatre in Charlottesville)
Sondheim at 75 (Part Four) (includes review of London revival of West Side Story)
Liveblogging the Tony Awards (from 2008)
Lower East Side Story (about the West Side Story's collaborative team being Jewish and gay)
Interview with Cody Green of 'West Side Story' (from the latest Broadway revival)
Review of 'West Side Story' (from January 10, 2009)

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

A Vote of Confidence

Every two weeks or so, the editors at Examiner.com send out a newsletter to the site's 25,000-plus contributors (known as "Examiners").

Today's newsletter landed in my inbox at about 5:00 p.m. and included this nugget that surprised and pleased me:

Osama bin Laden death coverage

There have been many exceptional articles regarding bin Laden's death, and two Examiners have done a standout job with always-professional, on-topic coverage: Political Buzz Examiner Ryan Witt and Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner Richard Sincere.

My three articles on the reactions to news of Osama bin Laden's execution in Pakistan must have reached the editorial suites in Denver, where Examiner.com is based. Those three had search-engine-friendly headlines, which may have helped bring them attention:

Virginia political leaders react to news of Osama bin Laden’s death

Libertarian reactions to the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces

More Virginia political leaders react to news of Osama bin Laden’s death

Congratulations to fellow Examiner Ryan Witt for sharing in this vote of confidence.

Meanwhile, watch this space. If the place where I am viewing tonight's Republican presidential candidates' debate from Greenville, South Carolina, has a wi-fi connection, I will be liveblogging the proceedings.

May 2, 1945: Harry Truman Confirms Adolf Hitler's Death

Last night, as anyone not living under one of Geico's rocks knows, President Barack Obama announced the killing of al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where he had been living in a luxurious villa belying his claimed ascetic lifestyle.

Bin Laden was actually killed on May 2, Pakistani time, even though the official announcement was made late in the evening of May 1, Washington time.

As it happens, 66 years ago today, President Harry Truman held a press conference in the White House, in which he talked about a number of matters related to the end of World War II -- among others, he announced that Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson had accepted the position as chief prosecutor in what became known as the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals.

Almost as an afterthought, Truman told the gathered reporters that Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler was dead. He had committed suicide on April 30 and rumors of his death had circulated since then, but there had been no confirmation up to that point.

Here is the relevant section of the transcript of Truman's news conference that day:

[20.] Q. The State Department recapitulation of the peace negotiations ends on the note that the
Swedish Count Bernadotte came back from Germany yesterday, after having delivered the last
message to Himmler and had no reply. Has there been a reply since yesterday ?

THE PRESIDENT. There has not been a reply. The release of the State Department
stands just as it is.

[21.] Q. Mr. President, would you care to comment on the death of Adolf Hitler reported, or
Mussolini?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, of course, the two principal war criminals will not have to
come to trial; and I am very happy they are out of the way.

Q. Well, does that mean, sir, that we know officially that Hitler is dead?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

Q. Do we know how he died, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT. No, we do not.

Q. Mr. President, I didn't quite get that. Is it official? This is confirmation that Hitler is dead?

THE PRESIDENT. We have the best--on the best authority possible to obtain at this
time that Hitler is dead. But how he died we are not-we are not familiar with the details as yet.

Q. Could you name the authority, Mr. President?

THE PRESIDENT. I would rather not.

Q. Mr. President, do you mean that the--you are convinced that authority you give is the best
possible, but it is--but that it is true?

THE PRESIDENT. Yes.

[22.] Q. Mr. President, do you care to comment at all on the situation in Germany today; that is,
would you care to make any extension of your remarks on the surrender of the German army in
Italy?

THE PRESIDENT. No, I would not.

Q. Mr. President, do you contemplate a radio broadcast imminently?

THE PRESIDENT. No, I do not.

Q. Mr. President, there have been reports late--later today, following the Italian announcement,
that other groups of Germans are on the point of surrendering in the Dutch pockets?

THE PRESIDENT. I hope that is true. I don't know that it is.

[23.] Q. Mr. President, is there anything you can give us in the way of background, regarding
last Saturday's situation and announcement?

THE PRESIDENT. What was that? [Laughter]

Q. I think that was the one

THE PRESIDENT. I can't give you anything further on it, I am sorry to say.

Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President.

NOTE: President Truman's fifth news conference was held in his office at the White House at
4:02 p.m. on Wednesday, May 2, 1945.

Over at Examiner.com, I have posted three articles about reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden after nearly ten years of searching for him by U.S. and allied forces:

Virginia political leaders react to news of Osama bin Laden’s death

Libertarian reactions to the killing of Osama bin Laden by U.S. forces

More Virginia political leaders react to news of Osama bin Laden’s death

Additional coverage of political issues, from a classical liberal and Virginia point of view, can be found at the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner. The previous article, before the kerfuffle of the weekend, was based on an interview with Swedish classical liberal scholar Johan Norberg about his new documentary, "Free or Equal," which is a follow up to Milton Friedman's 1980 TV series, "Free to Choose." Norberg's film will be shown on PBS stations around the country starting in August 2011.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

Visitor Number 250,000

Another milestone:  Earlier today, someone at Google's headquarters in Mountain View, California, became the 250,000th visitor to this blog (according to Sitemeter, which may, some sources say, underestimate actual visits and page views).

Here's a picture of that notable visitor, from 3:56 a.m. on April 17, 2011, more than six years since this blog was launched.

If that's not exciting enough for you, go over to Examiner.com and check out my report on audience reactions to Atlas Shrugged-Part I, the long-awaited movie version of Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand's 1957 novel.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

 

Lookin' Forward to the Weekend with Legal News About Beer

As the ubiquitous song goes:

It's Friday, Friday
Gotta get down on Friday
Everybody's lookin' forward to the weekend, weekend
Friday, Friday
Gettin' down on Friday
Everybody's lookin' forward to the weekend

Although Rebecca Black and her teenage friends may look forward to "kickin' in the front seat" and "sittin' in the back seat" and "partyin'" as Saturday approaches (followed, of course, by Sunday, which "comes after ... wards") with age-appropriate soft drinks, those a bit older might be mulling over what kinds of adult beverages they'll be consuming this weekend.

Thus it is that a couple of legal cases involving beer come to our attention.

Reported by the law firm of Shook, Hardy, & Bacon (bacon is everywhere nowadays, even in ice cream dishes at Denny's) in its on-line newsletter, Food & Beverage Litigation Update, one case comes from Europe and one from the United States.

The European case involves the use of "Bud" as a brand name for beer, and it is a new ruling on an old dispute.

Czech and U.S. brewers seeking to market their beers under the name “Bud,” have apparently been at odds since the early 1900s. In the latest installment of the dispute, the Court of Justice of the European Communities has set aside a decision of the Court of First Instance which allowed the Czech brewer to oppose Anheuser-Busch’s registration of “Bud” in Europe.  Anheuser-Busch Inc. v. Budějovický Budvar, No. C-96-09 (E.C.J., decided March 29, 2011). While the Court of Justice upheld some of the lower court’s rulings, it determined that the lower court erred (i) in the factors it relied on to decide if a “sign,” or trademark, in opposition to a new registration was used in a sufficiently significant manner, and (ii) in holding that the use of the sign in opposition does not necessarily have to occur before the date of the application for new
registration.

The language may be dry, but the beverage is still just as wet as you might expect.

The American case a bit more racy and it involves a microbrewery. Microbrewers, by their nature, are always more interesting and adventurous.

Flying Dog Brewery has filed a lawsuit under the First Amendment, alleging that the Michigan Liquor Control Commission and its individual members violated its free speech rights by prohibiting the company from selling Raging Bitch Twentieth Anniversary Belgian-Style India Pale Ale. Flying Dog Brewery, LLP v. Mich. Liquor Control Comm’n, No. n/a (U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Mich., filed March 25, 2011). According to the complaint, a British artist, who once worked with journalist Hunter S. Thompson, designed Flying Dog’s beer labels, including the one at issue. The defendants rejected Flying Dog’s application for a license to sell the pale ale in the state, allegedly finding “that the proposed label which includes the brand name ‘Raging Bitch’ contains such language deemed detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the general public.”

If I can find a six-pack of Raging Bitch, I may drink one or two this weekend while reading a new book that arrived from Amazon.com this week: Prohibition in Washington, D.C.: How Dry We Weren't, by my friend, Garrett Peck. If anything shows the residuum of Prohibition remaining in U.S. law, it's a ruling by a regulatory body that says the name of a beer -- even if it's "Raging Bitch" can be "detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare" of anybody.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

Social Media Mischief at The Washington Times?

The Washington Times has an article on its web site about Thursday's Capitol Hill hearing on Don't Ask Don't Tell, the now-repealed policy that prohibits the service of open and honest gay and lesbian Americans in the military.

The headline and subhead read:

Services OK with ending ‘don’t ask’
No ‘push-back,’ brass reports to Capitol Hill

The first paragraph says:

Preparations for repealing the military’s ban on openly homosexual service members have proceeded very well — even among Marines, who have not demonstrated any resistance, the Marine Corps commandant testified Thursday.

If you click to share the story on Facebook, however, the headline reads:

Lawmaker skeptical of repeal of 'don't ask' - Washington Times

And the excerpted first paragraph, designed to appear on Facebook's feed, says:

The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee said on Thursday that he is troubled by the rushed way the Obama administration is moving to repeal the ban on gays and lesbians serving openly in the U.S. military.

Similarly, if you click to share on Twitter, you get this retweet:

RT @washtimes Congress skeptical of repeal of military's gay ban - Washington Times http://bit.ly/i1eqHq

However, if you click on a different Twitter icon, you get this:

Services OK with ending 'don't ask' - Washington Times http://t.co/la0otOW via @AddThis

(Note that the shortened URLs are different in the two different Tweets.)

And if you click on a different Facebook button, you get this:

Services OK with ending 'don't ask' - Washington Times
Preparations for repealing the military's ban on openly homosexual service members have proceeded very well — even among Marines, who have not demonstrated any resistance, the Marine Corps commandant testified Thursday.

Confused? I was.

It looks like somebody at the Washington Times -- I don't know who, but it's certainly not the reporter who wrote the story, Shaun Waterman -- is attempting to put a spin on the story through social media that is not borne out by the actual report itself.

I just noticed this by chance.  An important question to ask is, does the Washington Times do this with other articles, or is this a one-off phenomenon?  What are the ethics of changing the headline and the emphasis of a story when spreading it through social media sites?  Is this worthy of criticism?

Your thoughts are welcome in the comments space, below.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

366 Days at Examiner.com

April 6 marked my first anniversary as a contributor at Examiner.com.

In those 52 weeks, I have published 178 articles --almost one every other day, despite a few dry periods -- most of them interviews with public officials, authors, pundits, and educators.  According to statistics kept by Examiner.com, these articles have generated 25,274 page views.  Last year's page view count of 18,251 compared to a Charlottesville average of 1,617 -- that is, the average number of page views generated by other Charlottesville Examiners.

I became the Charlottesville Libertarian Examiner on something of a lark.  I happened across another local Examiner's page and spotted the "write for us" link and followed it.

I'm glad I did, because it forced me to be a more aggressive reporter than I have been as a blogger.  I can't imagine so aggressively pursuing some of the interviews I did for this blog alone, which lacks the institutional support (and, dare I say it? credibility) that Examiner.com has.

Social Times reported at the end of December:

Local news network Examiner.com is closing out 2010 with two significant milestones: It posted article No. 1 million for the year earlier this month, and it set site records for monthly unique visitors and total page views in November, tallying 22.4 million and 63.1 million, respectively, according to Omniture.

And according to comScore, the site’s traffic rose 19 percent in November compared with October, making Examiner.com the No. 83 domain in the United States and No. 7 in the general news subcategory, ahead of brands including Fox News, BBC News, USA Today, and NBC Local Media.

I've noticed the site has had a makeover in the past few days, which gives it a cleaner look that seems easier to navigate.

Blogging is fine, in its way, and it allows me a more personal take on culture and current affairs, as well as a wide berth in terms of topics and voice.  Examiner.com requires more discipline and a more narrow focus, both of which I can appreciate.

We'll see if, by April 6 of next year, whether that results in more page views and lots of "likes."

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!

Guest Blogger: Tim Hulsey Reviews 'And the Curtain Rises'

Tim Hulsey, who recently completed a quest to see all of Shakespeare's plays performed on stage over a five-year period, accompanied me to the press performance of Signature Theatre's new production, And the Curtain Rises, the third in a series of original musicals commissioned by the American Musical Voices Project.

Here is Tim's review of And the Curtain Rises for The Metro Herald:

Signature Premieres ‘And the Curtain Rises’:

An Honorable Failure with Breathtaking Music

Tim Hulsey

Special to The Metro Herald

The world-premiere musical And the Curtain Rises, playing through April 10 at Signature Theatre in Arlington, is far from a great – or even a good – show. At the moment, it's an immensely promising rough draft, with some amusing knockabout comedy, a sweetly predictable central romance, and an uncommonly good musical score.

Unfortunately, the show also has a leaden, unfocused first act that sinks the story before it can properly begin. Many shows have “second-act trouble,” but And the Curtain Rises may be the only show I've ever seen with “first-act trouble.”

Playwright Michael Slade, composer Joseph Thalken, and lyricist Mark Campbell have combined forces – with varying degrees of success – to tell the story of The Black Crook, the 1866 song-and-dance spectacular that many scholars believe was the forerunner of American musical comedy.

Slade has clearly done his homework researching the period, cramming the book with references to 19th-century cultural arcana. Yet he seems uncertain about the story he wishes to tell. Campbell's lyrics are frequently marred by banality and triteness, as he invokes tried-and-true sentiments that showbiz folks are “family.”

Thalken, however, emerges from this show as a major new presence in American musical theater, providing an innovative, emotionally resonant musical score that invokes the best Broadway traditions while forging ahead with fresh-sounding melodies and compelling harmonies. (It doesn't hurt that Signature Theatre has graced this score with a lush fourteen-piece orchestra, which director Kristin Hanggi shows off at every possible opportunity.)

Thalken's score, glorious as it is, is yoked to the most clichéd of inside-showbiz plots: First-time producer William Wheatley (Nick Dalton) attempting to stage a hopelessly hackneyed drama written by pretentious Civil War army buddy Charles Barras (Sean Thompson). With the help of his over-the-hill leading lady Millicent Cavendish (Rebecca Watson), a ragtag group of actors, and a stranded crew of French ballerinas, Wheatley has less than two weeks to turn a surefire flop into the toast of New York. Anyone who doubts the outcome for even a split second has probably never heard of Mickey, Judy, or the old phrase “let's put on a show.”

This story has been told once before as a musical, in the 1954 Sigmund Romberg flop The Girl in Pink Tights. (The title comes from a theater legend in which French ballet dancers turned The Black Crook into a full-blown succès de scandale by dancing in pink tights that resembled bare skin under the limelight.) Perhaps in an effort to avoid cliché, the creators of And the Curtain Rises have chosen to present the genesis of The Black Crook as an ensemble piece, with several possible storylines vying for attention and no clear protagonist.

The entire first act feels diffuse and unsettled, rather like a Robert Altman film, though without Altman's subtle technique for bringing different scenes and stories into a narrative framework. A gay subplot between an underemployed composer (Brian Sutherland) and an elderly aspiring classical actor (Erick Devine) feels both extraneous and wrong for the period, as do the various entanglements of a scheming, manipulative, sexually promiscuous ballerina (Anna Kate Bocknek).

Although the second act is clearly focused and much tighter than the first, unresolved strands from the first act frequently intrude and distract from the main story. And, as one might expect, budgetary constraints prevent Signature Theatre from displaying Wheatley's most extravagant scenic effects, such as live flames and a waterfall. Even the infamous pink tights get short shrift, as a sort of coda that winks at the earlier musical that told the same story.

As William Wheatley, Nick Dalton is disappointingly bland. His second-act solos “Think ...” and “Stay“ allow him to show off his pleasant baritone, but for the most part, Dalton reacts to more colorful supporting characters instead of steering the action. Rebecca Watson makes a firmer impression as Wheatley's leading lady, and Thalken gives her a doozy of an eleven-o'-clock number with “Enter Love.”

No backstage drama would be complete without a mustache-twirling ham to play the villain, and although And the Curtain Rises breaks with tradition somewhat by assigning the role to a playwright, Sean Thompson fills it marvelously. His comic solo “The Words” is one of the few bright spots in a dismal first act. But supporting actress Alma Cuervo, as the headmistress of a French ballet troupe, seems to find the show's true heart, with her winningly low-key rendition of the show's inspirational anthem, “A Little Pretend.”

At a time when American theaters are overrun with jukebox shows and kitschy spectaculars, any attempt to revive or rejuvenate the Broadway musical is welcome, and a story about the origins of musical comedy might not be such a bad place to begin anew. Unfortunately, And the Curtain Rises is not the right story, nor indeed is it much of a story at all. Although the show must be judged a failure, it is at least an honorable one, with lofty ambitions and some breathtakingly beautiful music.

And the Curtain Rises (directed by Kristin Hanggi; book by Michael Slade; music by Joseph Thalken; lyrics by Mark Campbell) began previews on March 17, with an official opening on March 29. Performances continue through April 10. Show times are Tuesdays and Wednesdays at 7:30 pm, Thursdays and Fridays at 8:00 pm, Saturdays at 2:00 pm and 8:00 pm, and Sundays at 2:00 pm and 7:00 pm.

Tickets range from $55 - $81 and are available by calling Ticketmaster at (703) 573-SEAT (7328) or visiting www.signature-theatre.org. Group discounts are available for parties of ten or more by contacting Bethany Shannon at shannonb@signature-theatre.org or by calling (571) 527-1831. For more information please visit www.signature-theatre.org.

Photographs:

Top left - Erik Altemus (as George C. Boniface) appeals to Rebecca Watson (as Millicent Cavendish) in And the Curtain Rises. At Virginia's Signature Theatre through April 10, 2011.

Center right - Nick Dalton (as William Wheatley) shows his theatre company how to ward off evil demons in And the Curtain Rises. At Virginia's Signature Theatre through April 10, 2011.

Bottom left - Alma Cuervo (as Mme. Grimaud) speaks on behalf of her French Ballet Troupe in And the Curtain Rises. At Virginia's Signature Theatre through April 10, 2011.

All photos by Scott Suchman; courtesy of Signature Theatre: www.signature-theatre.org.

Be sure to visit my CafePress store for gifts and novelty items!
Read my blog on Kindle!
Follow my tweets on Twitter! 

See my articles on Examiner.com!