Inauguration Day Retrospective

The first presidential inauguration I remember is Richard Nixon's first one, January 20, 1969. I was in fourth grade at St. Agnes Parish School in Butler, Wisconsin. Barely a year before, I had met then-candidate Nixon, together with his wife, Pat, daughters Tricia and Julie, and future first son-in-law David Eisenhower, at a campaign appearance at Milwaukee's Sheraton-Schroeder Hotel. To this day, Richard Nixon remains the only U.S. President I have met. (This may have something to do with my working for presidential candidates who lose their elections.)

Nixon's inauguration is vivid for me because, for some reason, our class went to the principal's office to watch the ceremony on TV. Just before the big moment, my teacher, Sister Mary Floricita, S.S.N.D., took me aside and asked me to perform for the principal, Sister Mary Grace, by reciting the presidential oath of office. I, of course, obliged.

My first inauguration in Washington was Reagan's first in 1981. I watched the ceremony on television, but walked downtown from Georgetown to see the tail-end of the parade near the White House.

As noted below, I was in South Africa at the time of Reagan's second inaugural, but I do remember watching the parade for George H.W. Bush in 1989. For the first Clinton inaugural, I had to work, but was able to listen to his speech on a television in the office.

I was an accredited correspondent in 1997, covering the Clinton second inaugural for The Metro Herald. I was going to reproduce my report from that event here, but when I re-read it, I realized it was quite insipid. (That's probably because the text accompanied a lot of far more interesting photos.) Instead, I am reproducing an article I wrote that ran just before Inauguration Day. It still has some relevance (particularly given Karl Rove's modeling of the Bush presidency on that of William McKinley). If any reader is inordinately curious about my other article, "The 53rd Presidential Inaugural: Tidbits and Highlights," it can be found here.

This article appeared in the Metro Herald in a special Presidential Inauguration issue in January 1997.

Our Quadrennial American Ritual
Richard E. Sincere, Jr.

As a graduate student in England ten years ago, I had the pleasure to watch the parade that preceded (and followed) the State Opening of Parliament in London. Gilded carriages transported Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth and members of the Royal Family between Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament at Westminster. People lined the streets between the two strongholds with people, mostly local commoners (the sort you'd meet at a pub like the Queen Vic on the popular soap opera EastEnders) and tourists (largely Americans and Japanese).

Although the gilded carriages and handsome white horses and colorful soldiers garbed in 18th century costumes were fun to look at, in fact little happened in that parade. As it happens, little happens at the State Opening of Parliament itself, except that the Queen delivers a monotonous speech written for her by the Prime Minister's staff to describe the government's program for the coming year. By tradition, the Queen does little more than read the government's words, with no intonation or expression that would betray her own opinions on the issues of the day. After the speech, the Queen rises, leaves, and Parliament recesses until another day when real work gets done.

The meat of the State Opening of Parliament is the tradition and ritual, repeated each year with few changes -- and what changes do come, come at a glacial pace. The purpose of the ritual is to demonstrate continuity with past generations and a commitment to the future. It is a rite of contract as much as anything else. As Thomas Jefferson once put it, "We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country." Rituals like the State Opening of Parliament and the U.S. Presidential Inauguration are contractual ceremonies binding the generations together.

Ritual and ceremony are fundamental human needs and endeavors. West Indian poet Derek Wolcott put it well when he explained that "Any serious attempt to try to do something worthwhile is ritualistic." As humans, we seek the assurance of tradition, ceremony, and repetition.

When our Republic began more than 200 years ago, the Founders supposed they could rid themselves of the pomp associated with the British monarchy. No parade marked the inauguration until William Henry Harrison took the oath in 1841 -- more than 50 years after George Washington began the tradition of delivering an inaugural address upon swearing to uphold the Constitution. Washington himself almost scuttled that tradition four years later, for in 1793 -- more than 200 years ago! -- he delivered an inaugural address of only 135 words, the shortest in history. Remarkably, Washington at that time promised to uphold his oath and said that he was not so much motivated by fear that he would be punished legally for breaking his word, but that he might be subject to "the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony." He was worried not about punishment, but about social opprobrium and the shame of disappointing his friends and colleagues. If only modern-day politicians were similarly motivated!

As it happens, two years before my trip to England, I was in South Africa doing research at the time of that country's State Opening of Parliament. In Cape Town, I saw a motorcade carrying then-President P. W. Botha to the Parliament Buildings, and some military bands played a few march tunes. My personal reaction to the whole affair was that it was unremittingly boring. In contrast, however, to the Queen's traditionally boring speech, Botha delivered an address that crystallized the crossroads of South Africa's troubled history. He spoke before South Africa's tricameral parliament -- itself a symbol of the country's divisions, as the Parliament had one house for white members, one house of Asians, and one house for people of mixed race (so-called "coloureds"). Blacks were still conspicuously excluded from the political process. Botha's fiery rhetoric that day -- among others -- was typical of the political turmoil that was to dog South Africa even up till now (three years after the first elections under universal suffrage that elected Nelson Mandela to Botha's job as President of South Africa).

My trip to South Africa coincided with Ronald Reagan's second inauguration. Washingtonians will remember that event not for the pomp and ceremony that occurred, but for what didn't occur: Sub-zero, freezing temperatures forced the oath of office ceremony indoors, into the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol. (Luckily for me, it was summertime in South Africa.) The annual parade was canceled -- actually, postponed until a later (summer) date in Disney World. Yet, in the absence of ceremony, the business of the American government went on.

As important as parades and balls are, they are ephemeral in comparison to the words spoken at the inaugural ceremony. Presidents, since Washington's time, have used the occasion to set the tone for their administrations and to make specific policy proposals that they intend to persuade Congress to adopt into law. Some of these speeches have risen to the level of fine oratory. Others are wonkish remarks more similar to the Queen's speech at the opening of Parliament.

One hundred years ago, President William McKinley gave an inaugural address that contains passages that are as relevant today as they were when he spoke them from the steps on the East Front of the Capitol on March 4, 1897. Noting the country's economic problems, McKinley said:

"Economy is demanded in every branch of the Government at all times. . . . The severest economy must be observed in all public expenditures, and extravagance stopped wherever it is found, and prevented wherever in the future it may be developed. . . . It has been our uniform practice to retire, not increase our outstanding obligations, and this policy must again be resumed and vigorously enforced. . . .

"The Government should not be permitted to run behind or increase its debt in times like the present. Suitably to provide against this is the mandate of duty -- the certain and easy remedy for most of our financial difficulties. A deficiency is inevitable so long as the expenditures of the Government exceed its receipts. It can only be met by loans or an increased revenue. While a large annual surplus of revenue may invite waste and extravagance, inadequate revenue creates distrust and undermines public and private credit. Neither should be encouraged."

And who thought the debate over a balanced budget only emerged in the 1980s?

Interestingly, barely a year after the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson ("separate but equal") decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, McKinley thought it important to address the issues of civil rights. It is chilling to think how relevant his words are today:

"The great essential to our happiness and prosperity is that we adhere to the principles upon which the Government was established and insist upon their faithful observance. Equality of rights must prevail, and our laws be always and everywhere respected and obeyed. We may have failed in the discharge of our full duty as citizens of the great Republic, but it is consoling and encouraging to realize that free speech, a free press, free thought, free schools, the free and unmolested right of religious liberty and worship, and free and fair elections are dearer and more universally enjoyed today than ever before. These guaranties must be sacredly preserved and wisely strengthened. The constituted authorities must be cheerfully and vigorously upheld. Lynchings must not be tolerated in a great and civilized country like the United States; courts, not mobs, must execute the penalties of the law. The preservation of public order, the right of discussion, the integrity of courts, and the orderly administration of justice must continue forever the rock of safety upon which our Government securely rests."

These words should give pause to those who would circumscribe the duty of the judiciary to protect the rights of Americans whose views, forms of religion, family structures, or political activities do not fit in perfectly with the "mainstream." Some have even suggested that Congress should remove the judiciary's jurisdiction over sensitive and controversial matters. McKinley understood that the courts are a bulwark of liberty and against unmitigated majoritarianism, a system of government inconsistent with republican principles. Republicanism, as Thomas Jefferson put it, "is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind."

William McKinley is not well-remembered today. He is famous, if at all, for fighting the Spanish-American War and getting assassinated, being succeeded by Theodore Roosevelt. One must wonder whether another William's words -- the words of William Jefferson Clinton next Monday -- will be quoted 100 years from now in a newspaper like this. The chances are good; after all, as Oscar Wilde said (tongue firmly in cheek, one hopes), "In America the President reigns for four years, and Journalism governs for ever and ever."

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

Virginia Enters the Twentieth Century

My friends at The Free Liberal were kind enough to publish this piece, written in response to last week's Virginia Supreme Court decision that declared the state's fornication law unconstitutional. The article is also scheduled to appear in The Hook on Thursday, January 20.

Virginia Enters the Twentieth Century
Richard E. Sincere

(Charlottesville) — When the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in the otherwise obscure case of Martin v. Ziherl on January 14, it belatedly brought the Commonwealth into the 20th century.

How so? The court overturned a law dating to the early 19th century, which had not been enforced since 1847, banning sexual relations between two unmarried, consenting adults. It recognized that human beings living in Virginia have a liberty interest in protecting their private relationships from governmental interference.

While the case at hand addressed "fornication" performed by a heterosexual couple, the court made clear that, should a similar case come before it, involving two persons of the same sex and the state’s sodomy law (also known as the "Crimes Against Nature," or CAN, statute), it would overturn that law, too.

The Virginia court relied almost exclusively in its reasoning on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 case, Lawrence v. Texas, which said a Texas law prohibiting sexual relations between persons of the same gender was unconstitutional.

Referring to the earlier federal case, Justice Elizabeth Lacy, writing for the court, stated: " ... this same liberty interest is invoked in this case when two unmarried adults make the choice to engage in the intimate sexual conduct proscribed by Code [Section] 18.2-344. Thus, as in Lawrence, the Commonwealth’s interests do not warrant such encroachment on personal liberty."

In so doing, the court swept away the rationale for a raft of laws that infringe on the rights of individuals – gay or straight, single or married – to engage in private, consensual, sexual conduct. (The ruling does not affect, the court said, "the Commonwealth’s police power regarding regulation of public fornication, prostitution, or other such crimes.")

The General Assembly has, on numerous occasions, considered legislation that would have had the same effect – repealing archaic laws that have no place in a liberty-loving society. Each time the state legislators had an opportunity to modernize the Virginia code’s sections dealing with sexual conduct, they let it pass by. Thus it was up to the state Supreme Court to act.

Lest certain ideologues accuse the court of "judicial activism" and of being out of synch with public opinion, two points are in order:

First, the Court’s opinion was squarely in line with precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court. Thus, it respected the principle of stare decisis. (According to Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, "stare decisis" means "To abide or adhere to decided cases," adding in explanation, "It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from.")

Second, the Court’s ruling reflects public opinion rather than contradicts it.

In January 2001, Rasmussen Research, an independent polling organization, conducted a statewide survey of Virginia voters to determine knowledge and attitudes about Virginia’s CAN statute and related issues. Among its findings were:

* When asked "Should it be against the law for an unmarried man and an unmarried woman to have sex in the state of Virginia?" 71.1 percent of respondents answered "no", including 67.4 percent of self-identified Republicans (those voters one would most expect to answer "yes.")

* When asked "Should it be against the law for a married couple to have oral sex in the privacy of their own home?" 81.7 percent said "no" (including 78.9 percent of Republicans).

* When asked "Currently, according to Virginia law, it is illegal for consenting adults to have oral sex in the state of Virginia; a proposal has been made to eliminate the Virginia law; should the Virginia law be eliminated?" 65.2 percent answered "yes", including 61.4 percent of Republicans.

General Assembly members have often maintained, off-the-record, that they are wary of changing Virginia’s laws regulating private sexual conduct, because they think they will have hell to pay on election day if they do so. But they have nothing to fear. The Rasmussen poll also asked how voters would cast their ballots for legislators who support repeal of such laws. Overall, 82.9 percent of Virginians said that they would either be more likely to vote for such legislators, or it would have no impact on their vote.

Now, some might argue that a four-year-old opinion survey may not accurately reflect the current attitudes of Virginia voters. That may be true. But it would be up to the naysayers to provide concrete, scientifically valid evidence that proves it wrong.

The court’s decision is cause for celebration by all Virginians, as it has removed one more layer of government intrusiveness from our lives. We are freer today than we were on January 13, unencumbered by unconstitutional laws that strike at the heart of our most personal liberties. At the dawn of the 21st century, Virginia is finally reconciled to the 20th.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Richard Sincere is author of The Politics of Sentiment. His political and cultural commentary can be found at www.RickSincere.com.



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

Political Philosophy 101

Delegate John Cosgrove (R-Chesapeake) said in an interview on "AM Charlottesville" this morning on WCHV Radio in Charlottesville that "rights are granted by government" and are subject to a majority vote of the people. He said this in the context of his proposed state constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriages, civil unions, and domestic partnerships.

For an elected official, Delegate Cosgrove needs a lesson in basic political philosophy.

Let's be clear: Governments cannot and do not "grant" rights. Rights precede government. Governments are created to protect rights. Governments can acknowledge rights, they cannot create them. Governments can violate rights, they cannot destroy them. Rights exist a priori and belong to all human beings by dint of our being human. Rights are not defined or distributed or differentiated by geography, race, ethnic group, religion, age, or gender.

People who don't understand this are unqualified to be public officials.

Especially public officials from Virginia. Remember this passage from Mr. Jefferson's Declaration of Independence?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Or, in a more modern formulation, as stated by constitutional scholar Louis Henkin: "Human rights…are rights against society as represented by government and its officials. One may conclude that the government must protect the individual from neighbors or from wolves, that it must afford legal remedies against a wrongdoer…but at the bottom, the rights claimed are against the state" (The Rights of Man Today, 1978) [emphasis added].

Cosgrove's error is a common one of legal positivism, one that puts too much power into the hands of the state and of raw majoritarianism. This is something the Founders understood and warned against. (Just read The Federalist. Is that too much to expect from elected officials?) The logical outcome of such thinking is totalitarianism.

By the way, happy Martin Luther King Day and Benjamin Franklin's birthday!



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

More on the Virginia Family Values PAC

As expected, Thursday's issue of The Hook arrived in boxes and store lobbies around Charlottesville with a story about the Virginia Family Values PAC. Headlined "Whose values? Lefty PAC fights for families," the article by Courteney Stuart has some precious reactions from two of the PAC's targets, Delegate Dick Black and Delegate David Albo (both from Fairfax County).

Stuart reports that

Black stands behind his positions and his actions, and criticizes the group.

"Essentially they are a homosexual and abortion group that are trying to use a deceptive title," he says. "The problem with liberalism is that it rests on a foundation of sand," he adds. "Liberals are constantly running away from who they are. They don't want to say that they are for unnatural sex acts and the killing of children; they want to say they're for family values. I have no problem with someone who says what they stand for."

At the same time, Albo demonstrated the puzzlement similar to mine about his inclusion among the targets:

Told of the group and its website by a reporter, Delegate Albo expressed shock that he'd be included.

"It's so outrageously ridiculous," says Albo, who says he was aware of criticisms about his massive crime overhaul, HB 1053 but says the bill was reviewed extensively by attorneys at the Crime Commission, the Attorney General's office, Legislative Services, and in the Courts of Justice Committee.

"Not a single one could figure out what they [critics] were talking about," Albo insists.

Further, Albo's bill would retire Virginia's so-called "fornication" statute which has long criminalized non-marital sex. And Albo says he voted in support of the "morning after" pill.

"Either they're confused," says Albo, "or they're really just a front for a Democrat political action committee." After noticing a large photo of Greg Werkheiser, his future Democratic opponent in the 42nd-district on the site, Albo says he believes it's the latter.

Curiously, however, after the Virginia Family Values PAC started to get some press attention, Albo, together with Democratic Delegate Chap Petersen, introduced a bill to clarify last year's Marriage Affirmation Act (known during the last General Assembly as HB 751, a number that lives on in infamy). Here's the key section of the proposed law (HB 2490), with the additions in italics:

A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage is prohibited. Any such civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement entered into by persons of the same sex in another state or jurisdiction shall be void in all respects in Virginia and any contractual rights created thereby shall be void and unenforceable. The provisions of this section shall not abridge the right of any person to enter into a lawful contract that pertains to the ownership or devising of joint property, the maintenance of personal health, or the protection of private assets.

On a related note, Roanoke-based libertarian writer Brian Gottstein published a column on Wednesday called "Bills before the General Assembly that could change your life." He points to several pieces of proposed legislation that will help remove the claws of government from our backs.

Among the bills he cites are:

HB 1016 - ALLOWING GROUP INSURANCE COVERAGE TO INCLUDE NON-SPOUSES - This bill will change the law from excluding to allowing insurance coverage under a group health and accident policy to be extended to any person whom the insured group member elects, provided the extension of coverage is agreed to by the insurer and the group policyholder (Ahh, the free market at work!)

The measure also allows coverage for children who are older than 19. Currently, Virginia insurance regulations forbid insurers from offering coverage to insureds’ dependents other than spouses or children under the age of 19 (or age 25 for full-time students).

Many conservatives are concerned that this is a Domestic Partner Benefits program for homosexual partners in Virginia, but it benefits more than just that group. This bill could help people who have to take care of sick parents, relatives or unrelated children. . . .

SB 736 - REDUCES ESTATE TAXES - Eliminates Virginia’s estate taxes on estates under $10 million, or closely-held businesses and working farms.

The ultimate taxation without (self-) representation, estate taxes are very large taxes that the state and federal governments collect from you after you die and can’t complain about them. Sure, you’ve already paid income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and many other taxes on your money and property during your lifetime, but this is one last grab from government. The taxes are due nine months after your death, and often the family business or family farm has to be sold to pay them, because your survivors don’t have the cash to cover them. Morally, estate taxes should be eliminated completely for any size estate. . . .

SB 477 - SODOMY - Provides that sodomy is not a crime where all persons are consenting adults who are not in a public place and not engaged in prostitution.

These bills have been in front of the General Assembly for years. Finally let’s get the government out of our bedrooms! Although some sexual acts may be distasteful to you, the government shouldn’t be breaking down bedroom doors to make sure consenting adults aren’t engaging in them.

HB 587 - GIVING YOU YOUR MONEY BACK - REFUND OF SURPLUS FUNDS - Requires the state to refund surplus tax revenues to taxpayers when the surplus exceeds the amount required to be deposited in the Revenue Stabilization Fund (a.k.a. “the rainy day fund") by at least $50 million.

To that list I'd add HB 826, patroned by Delegate Terrie Suit, which helps level the playing field between property owners and government "authorities" that use eminent domain to condemn property even when it is not for "public use" as traditionally defined. This bill is intended to strengthen a now-weak Virginia "Landowner's Bill of Rights."

All of these bills are worthy of consideration. If you live in Virginia, be sure to write to your state Senators and Delegates and ask them to vote for the taxpayer's interest, not the tax-absorber's interest.



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

PAC Target McDonnell to Deliver Response to Warner

As noted below, Virginia Beach Delegate Bob McDonnell, a candidate for state Attorney General, has been targeted for defeat by the new Virginia Family Values PAC.

Today I received a news release from McDonnell's AG campaign announcing that he'll be delivering the Republican caucus' response to Governor Mark Warner's State-of-the-Commonwealth Address tonight:

Breaking News: McDonnell to Deliver House GOP Response to Governor’s State of Commonwealth Address Tonight
1/12/2005 11:27:00 AM

Republican members of the House of Delegates have tapped Delegate Bob McDonnell to deliver their televised response to Governor Warner’s State of the Commonwealth Address this evening.

Said McDonnell, “I’m honored that my colleagues have selected me to deliver this important message. I look forward to discussing the many vital Republican initiatives designed to make Virginia safer, stronger and more competitive.”

McDonnell, the leading Republican candidate for Attorney General, who is Assistant Majority Leader and Chairman of the Courts of Justice Committee, will address Republican initiatives on public safety, taxes, and transportation, among other issues.

The Republican response will air immediately following the Governor’s State of the Commonwealth Address, scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. tonight.

Speeches like this are usually hard to find on the broadcast media, but Warner's address is scheduled to be carried by WVPT-TV in Harrisonburg and on Blue Ridge Public Television (WBRA-TV) and WVTF-FM radio in Roanoke. The NBC affiliate in Charlottesville, WVIR-TV (Channel 29) is also carrying the address, followed by an analysis by Virginia political experts. As they say, check your local listings.

There's still one question: Will McDonnell's opponent in the Republican Attorney General's race, Steve Baril, get a chance to respond to the response?



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

Virginia Family Values PAC?

Earlier today, I received a call from a reporter for The Hook (a Charlottesville weekly) to comment on a new organization called the Virginia Family Values PAC. She asked me to look at the group's web site and tell her what I thought. (She was seeking out a "libertarian" opinion, but I explained that I'm a Republican activist as well as a libertarian.)

The organization is not what you think. It's been set up to target for defeat those that the PAC considers to be the farthest right-wing members of the General Assembly.

Here are their targets:

Targeted Races

The below are ranked by asininity, from greatest to least. (With the understanding that these guys are all grade-A nutcases.)

Del. Bob Marshall (R-Loudoun/Prince William)
Bob Marshall is the looniest of the looney tunes in the House of Delegates. "Crazy bastard" is probably the best phrase. He still calls female university students "co-eds." He refers to sex between college-aged adults "frat boy antics." He calls birth control pills "sex pills," and has tried repeatedly to get them banned from colleges. As the Virginian-Pilot wrote in an editorial (05/04/2003), Marshall was a harmless lunatic when he was elected a decade ago. Now he's mainstream, not because he's changed, but, terrifyingly, because he's surrounded himself with more and more fellow loonies.

Del. Dave Albo (R-Springfield)
Albo -- we swear we're not making this up -- introduced a bill in the 2004 session that would reduce raping one's own child from a felony to a mere misdemeanor (HB 1054). What the hell? He's generally opposed to sex, like these other guys, but apparently doesn't mind it quite so much when it's a father sodomizing his toddler.

Del. Dick Black (R-Loudoun)
In a "craziest bastard" race, it'd be a close tie between Marshall and Dick Black. Black thinks that sperm is a child, and should be protected accordingly. He thinks that birth control of all types -- the pill, IUDs, condoms, whatever -- should be illegal. He calls them "baby pesticides." He opposes government spending to promote the use of any birth control.

Del. Bob McDonnell (R-Virginia Beach)
Sen. McDonnell isn't satisfied living a sexless life down in Virginia Beach, or even enforcing his opposition to a healthy sex life in his capacity as the chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee. No, McDonnell would like to be the Virginia Attorney General, and is looking for the Republican nomination to be their candidate. His memory may be a problem though -- after all, he "can't recall" if he's ever engaged in oral or anal sex. Say, Bob? You're not being straight with us, are you?

The reporter had spoken to Dave Albo, who was "baffled" by his inclusion on the list (as was I). Albo was awkward and ineffective in last year's General Assembly session when the legislature considered bills to repeal the Virginia Crimes Against Nature statute in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, but what he did was not malicious, nor was it indicative of an unseemly obsession with other people's sex lives. In the past, Albo has spoken at meetings of Log Cabin Republicans (I know, because I was there, and I asked him a question about Virginia's weak-kneed, toothless charter-schools law). His fumbling of sodomy-law reform is not a reason to put him in the same category as Marshall or Black.

The new Virginia Family Values PAC seems to have taken its cue from South Park in terms of its clever effort at subversion on behalf of authentic family values. (To be fair, South Park uses vulgar language and situations to build an argument for essentially conservative values. This new PAC does not use that strategy but, still, there is no question but that the Virginia Family Foundation will have a cow over this.)

Here's what I mean. Dated January 9, the group's initial press release uses buzzwords that are sure to catch the attention of Goldwater Republicans like myself:

Virginians from across the commonwealth today announced the formation of a non-partisan political action committee to strengthen family values and families' political influence in Richmond and in the November elections. . . .

Virginia Family Values has named four of the candidates that they'll be targeting for removal from office for their anti-family votes: Delegate Bob Marshall (13), Delegate Dave Albo (42), Delegate Dick Black (32), and Delegate Bob McDonnell (84). All four candidates have consistently voted against family and parental rights, and have introduced bills that would increase the size of government while decreasing family freedoms and privacy.

"The family is the foundation of our society," explained PAC founder Waldo Jaquith. "Every time that these legislators have been given the choice between family values and bigger government, they've chosen wrong. They're way out of touch with Virginia values, and we intend to show them the door."

There is little on the PAC's web site that indicates precisely how they are going to target these four Delegates. Will they be supporting Republican primary challengers? (By my estimation, this would be their best strategy, since all four are in safe Republican districts.) If they wait until the general election and support Democratic challengers, will they be able to find other organizations of a common mind to catalyze contributions in sufficient numbers to mount a successful campaign?

I was frank with The Hook's reporter: I said that Bob Marshall is an embarrassment to the Republican Party. As puzzled as I was by David Albo's inclusion in the list, I thought it was unfair, as well, to include Bob McDonnell. McDonnell, despite his famous "Not that I can recall" gaffe, does not seem to be as pathologically sex-obsessed as Black and Marshall.

It's rare to see a group made up of Democratic and liberal activists -- Waldo Jaquith narrowly failed in a bid to get the Charlottesville Democrats' nomination to a City Council seat in 2002, and everyone expects him to return someday and become politically active in city politics once again -- using terms like "RINO" to describe Republicans like Marshall, Black, et al., for whom "RINO" is more accurate than they would be willing to admit. What a pleasure it would be if more Democrats wanted to rid our legislatures of RINOs and replace them with authentic, small-government, Goldwater conservatives.

Will that ever happen? An army of snowmen will reign in Hell before it does.



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

Indonesia and Thailand Establish Funds for Tsunami Victims

These two news items may be of interest. First, from Thailand's embassy in Washington:

ROYAL THAI EMBASSY ESTABLISHES FUND FOR TSUNAMI VICTIMS

(WASHINGTON, JANUARY 11, 2005) On December 26, an earthquake registering 9.0 on the Richter Scale caused a tsunami that devastated the southern part of Thailand. As of January 7, the estimated death toll in Thailand was 5,305, while 3,498 still remained missing and at least 8,457 were injured. Those estimates are expected to rise.

President George W. Bush, with his wife Laura Bush and former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton by his side visited the Royal Thai Embassy on Monday, January 3. Signing the Book of Condolences, President Bush wrote, “We pray for the victims and families of this epic disaster. The American people and government stand with you as you recover and rebuild.” During this visit to the Embassy, George W. Bush called on Americans to aid the Asian tsunami victims. The U.S. government is soliciting private donations to assist relief efforts through http://www.freedomcorp.gov.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Florida Governor Jeb Bush traveled to Asia to show their support for the earthquake and tsunami victims and to observe the aftermath of the disaster. Secretary Powell visited the region to assess recovery needs in the unprecedented disaster.

The Royal Thai Embassy has set up an account for those interested in making a personal donation through the Embassy to a relief fund for the tsunami victims. Donations can be made through Royal Thai Embassy’s donation account information is as follows:

Routing Number: 054001220
Account Number: 2000020745479
Swift Code: PNBPUS33

Wachovia Bank
1300 I Street, NW
11th Floor
Washington, DC 20005

Additionally, personal checks and money orders should be sent directly to:

The Royal Thai Embassy
1024 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20007

For additional information regarding donations please consult the Embassy’s website.

-30-

And this one from the Indonesian Embassy in Washington:

EMBASSY OF INDONESIA ESTABLISHES FUND FOR TSUNAMI VICTIMS

(WASHINGTON, JANUARY 11, 2005) On December 26, a 9.0-level earthquake near Sumatra caused a tsunami that devastated Indonesia. Most of the deaths were in the province of Aceh on the northern tip of Sumatra Island.

President George W. Bush, with his wife Laura Bush and former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, visited the Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia on Monday, January 3, to sign the Book of Condolences. During this visit to the Embassy, George W. Bush called on Americans to aid the Asian tsunami victims. Writing in the Embassy condolence book, he said, “May God bless all who suffer.” The U.S. government is soliciting private donations to assist relief efforts through http://www.freedomcorp.gov.

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and Florida Governor Jeb Bush traveled to Asia to show their support for the earthquake and tsunami victims and to observe the aftermath of the disaster. Secretary Powell visited Indonesia and other countries to assess recovery needs in the unprecedented disaster.

Retired U.S. Ambassador Joseph Melrose, a consultant to International Medical Corps, one of the many humanitarian groups working to alleviate the suffering caused by the disaster, said that “generosity is a longstanding American trait, and millions of dollars have already been raised through private organizations. Unfortunately, this is not yet enough to meet the needs of this crisis. Every dollar counts, and financial contributions can be channeled much more effectively than donations of clothing, food, or other goods.” The IMC sent a 25-person team to Indonesia last weekend.

The Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia has set up an account for those interested in making a personal donation through the Embassy to a relief fund for the earthquake and tsunami victims. Donations can be made through the Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia. The donation account information is as follows:

Account Name: Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia
Routing Number: 054001204
Account Number: 020-874-82-642

Bank of America
730 15th Street, NW
7th Floor
Washington, DC 20005

For additional information regarding donations and for latest news updates, please consult the Embassy’s website.

-30-

Is Hillary in Trouble Because of 'The King of Cons'?

First, I saw an article in Saturday's Washington Times -- in the old days, a story that appeared in a Saturday edition was buried from that point forward; now with the 24-hour news cycle, you can't count on that -- headlined "Hillary ex-aide indicted in false campaign filings," which reported:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's former campaign finance director has been named in a federal grand jury indictment in Los Angeles on charges of filing false campaign finance reports with the Federal Election Commission, the Justice Department said yesterday.

The four-count indictment said the finance director, David Rosen, understated the costs of an Aug. 12, 2000, fund-raising gala in Los Angeles by nearly $500,000, filing fraudulent documents with the FEC to increase the amount of funds available to Mrs. Clinton's "New York Senate 2000" campaign.

Times reporter Jerry Seper goes on to note some of those involved in the event leading to the latest indictment:

The event, staged while the Democratic National Convention was under way in Los Angeles, was billed as the "Hollywood Gala Salute to President William Jefferson Clinton" and was a fund-raiser for Mrs. Clinton's senatorial campaign.

Two of the event's organizers were Hollywood producer Peter F. Paul and charity fund-raiser Aaron Tonken.

Paul is a convicted felon now facing stock fraud charges in New York. He reportedly has been cooperating with federal prosecutors. Tonken pleaded guilty in 2003 to federal charges of diverting hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors and underwriters of Hollywood events he organized — including the August 2000 gala.

A sworn statement by Paul in a pending lawsuit against the Clintons, Mr. Rosen and Tonken said a host of Hollywood celebrities attended the Clinton gala, including Shirley MacLaine, John Travolta, Cher, Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Swayze, Larry King and George Hamilton.

Second, today I received a news release from the publisher of a book by Aaron Tonken, who is now in federal prison. It says (in part):

King of Cons: Exposing the Dirty Rotten Secrets of the Washington Elite and Hollywood Celebrities goes deep inside the event, which was created by Tonken to connect Hollywood’s wealthiest with its most famous celebrities and President Clinton. The guest list that night was a who’s who of entertainment royalty, including John Travolta, Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, Whoopi Goldberg, Ted Danson, Jimmy Smits, Anjelica Huston and Dylan McDermott. The program featured star-studded performances by the likes of Sugar Ray, Toni Braxton, Melissa Etheridge, Michael Bolton, Diana Ross, Patti LaBelle and Cher. No expense was spared, except when it came time to report those expenses to the feds….

The book tells in sordid detail of the relationship between Tonken and Rosen. Tonken writes, "David Rosen, Hillary Clinton's director of finance, worked out of our offices and knew about every dime that was being spent. More than that, he participated in the spending."

And then it gives a juicy laundry-list of political and entertainment celebrities whose misdeeds are included in Tonken's tell-all memoir:

Celebrities whose outrageous behavior is mentioned in the book include Paula Abdul, Roseanne Barr, Tony Bennett (and son, Danny), Milton Berle, Ray Charles, Cher, Natalie Cole, Joan Collins, Bill Cosby, Rodney Dangerfield, Tony Danza, former President Gerald Ford, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Leeza Gibbons, Melanie Griffith, Liza Minnelli, Rosa Parks, Lionel Richie, Diana Ross, Arnold Schwarzenegger, David Schwimmer, Sylvester Stallone, Rod Stewart, Sharon Stone, Suzanne Somers.

Did you ever think you'd see the words "former President Gerald Ford," "Rosa Parks," and "David Schwimmer" in the same sentence?

Now here's some real juicy gossip: The book includes a huge lie by omission. The gist is that, despite a manuscript that included the whole truth, the publisher chose to eliminate all references in the book to the fact that Aaron Tonken is gay, that the "prostitutes" hired by Tonken were all male prostitutes, and that Tonken's homosexuality was well known to the celebrities, fundraisers, lawyers, and law enforcement officials who did business (or otherwise dealt) with him.

Word is that Tonken requested that the publisher, Nelson Current (formerly WND Books) remove all references to his being gay in King of Cons on the eve of his arrival in federal prison. He was afraid that, if word got out among the other convicts that he was gay, he might end up as somebody's bitch -- or worse.

This is the sort of story that gets circulated by John Aravosis or Michael Rogers -- if it involves gay Republicans. Since Aaron Tonken was a Democratic party-boy and fundraiser, his story is unlikely to be highlighted by Aravosis, Rogers, or other famous outers, like Michelangelo Signorile.

Stay tuned. This story could blow up even more. Whether Hillary Clinton or some other VIPs get blown up with it remains to be seen.



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

Folkskunde vs. The Moffatts

To tell the truth, I don't often attend performances of rock bands of any sort. I've been to two stadium shows (both at RFK Stadium in Washington), once for Paul McCartney and once for the Rolling Stones. In addition, I went along for the ride once to see Jackson Browne perform at the Meriwether Post Pavilion outside of D.C. (Fair Warning: As I'm obviously not a rock music critic, anything I say should be taken with a big grain of salt.)

Seeing Folkskunde's reunion performance last Friday night at the Starr Hill Music Hall in Charlottesville brought to mind the last time I attended such an event, almost six years ago at the 9:30 Club in Washington, D.C. On that occasion, I saw The Moffatts, a brother-band from Canada, which was, in some ways, similar to Folkskunde.

Folkskunde's performance last Friday brought out a lot of teenage fans. Many familiar faces from the Live Arts Teenage Theatre Ensemble (LATTE) were in the audience. One difference: the fans in the Moffatts' audience back in 1999 were almost entirely teenage girls. Folkskunde's fandom seems pretty evenly divided between males and females.

It is my understanding that the Moffatts, as a group, have broken up -- due to "artistic differences." The four Moffatt brothers are pursuing solo careers. Similarly, the Folkskunde musicians are also trying out their solo chops. (I picked up a new CD recorded by bassist and guitarist Adam Smith entitled Teenage Girls & Medicine, available from Azurat Productions, PO Box 18, Montebello, VA 24464, as well as a compilation CD that includes Folkskunde numbers and solo performances from Smith and his Folkskunde colleague, Malcolm Perkins, available from rrrp@highstream.net.)

Like the Moffatts, Folkskunde offers performers who combine boyish charm with several varieties of edginess. (My friend, Tim Hulsey, suggested that each of the Folkskunde artists writes songs that represent a different sort of illicit substance: acid, 'shrooms, pot, coke, etc.) Adam Smith has a boy-next-door look belied by his heavy-metal-influenced grooves. Jacob Wolf has a dreamy, bohemian quality one usually encounters among students at small New England liberal arts colleges. Justin Wolf, who seems to be the front man for the group, has a certain Jim Morrison-style gregariousness. Drummer Tucker Duncan reminds one of the intelligent high school jock who plays music on the side. (Is it an accident that Duncan was the first to remove his shirt on stage last Friday, leading to screams of delight from the crowd?) Conner Lacy's propulsive music is counterbalanced by his quiet, intellectual look.

Folkskunde was preceded at Starr Hill by two opening acts. The first, Body for Karate, offers a lot of promise (although we only saw the end of their set). According to their publicity material, "Blind to all precedents, Body For Karate is held back only by natural law. Kazoo, phonograph, drums, bass, and ukulele are a few tools used to interpolate sounds of sixties mod rock, seventies glam rock, and eighties synth-pop. Ross, Cooper, Colin and Wade will deliver you an ever-changing circus of music that is refreshingly human." Body for Karate will be playing at Gravity Lounge in Charlottesville on January 16.

The middle act was truly awful. Luckily the band's name is unpronouncible, so you won't have to worry about hearing it anytime soon: TRMNSPRX. Oddly enough, Adam Smith plays in this band, too. Our advice: get out before it's too late, Adam -- you have too much talent to waste with this nonsense.

As soon as TRMNSPRX finished its set and Folkskunde was announced, you could feel a change in mood in the audience. They knew why they had come, and the moment had arrived.

Unfortunately, the Folkskunde set was far too short -- only about 50 minutes. For a band that does its best when it is jamming, this is a real loss. They tried to fit in as many numbers as they could within the time constraints, but it was clear they left the stage with the audience wanting more.

Let's just hope they have another reunion concert sometime this summer, when the Folkskunde boys return from their neutral corners.

Now, just for fun, let's look at what I wrote about The Moffatts in June 1999:

Meet the Moffatts
Rick Sincere
Metro Herald Entertainment Editor

The Moffatts returned to Washington Tuesday night after an absence of two years. Playing only one show at the 9:30 Club on V Street, N.W., the four brothers offered a set of more than one hour featuring songs from their latest album plus covers of familiar tunes. Big Orange Pop, a local D.C. band, opened the program.

For those not familiar with The Moffatts, the band consists of four siblings from Canada, -- the 15-year-old triplets Bob (drums), Dave (keyboards), and Clint (lead vocals, bass), as well as 16-year-old Scott (lead vocals, guitar). While the brothers have been singing and playing together since their preteen years, over the past four years or so they have transformed themselves from a bubblegum-country novelty act playing county fairs and The Nashville Network to a more hard-edged, rock band seen at adult venues like the 9:30 Club and on MTV.

The difference between the band's 1995 Polydor CD, The Moffatts, and their latest offering from Capitol Records, Chapter 1: A New Beginning, is palpable. The earlier record was cutesy and countrified. The boys' voices had not yet changed, so the lead vocals sounded like Dolly Parton on helium. Attempts to perform well-known songs, like the Lennon-McCartney "This Boy," turned out to be risible. No doubt in live performances, this cuteness -- oh, look at the little boys singing grown-up songs! -- was endearing. On CD, it simply did not work.

Since then, the band has grown up. Chapter 1: A New Beginning has a distinct Nineties sound to it. The new Moffatts have more in common with Nirvana (Scott's favorite band) and Barenaked Ladies (another Canadian band) than with their old, wind-up teddy bear selves. And in concert, The Moffatts prove themselves to be capable, skilled musicians whose voices have matured to the point that songs with an adult theme do not seem out of place.

The Moffatts are part of a long tradition of family acts in the music business, from the Andrews Sisters in the 1940s to the Everly Brothers in the 1950s, to the Cowsills of the 1960s and the Osmonds and Jacksons of the 1970s. (The Partridge Family, contrary to popular belief, was not a real family, although Shirley Jones was, in fact, the stepmother of lead singer David Cassidy.)

Comparisons will no doubt be drawn between the Moffatts and another brother act of the 1990s, Hanson. They will not go far. The Moffatts are the Anti-Hanson. The Moffatts are to Hanson what the Rolling Stones were to the Beatles. While the Hanson brothers play on their Tulsa-bred innocence and sing songs like "Mmmbop," the Moffatt boys conscientiously bring their sensuality right to the surface, ready to erupt, and sing songs with titles like "Misery." The Moffatts are dangerous; Hanson is vulnerable.

Comparisons might also be made to "boy bands" like 'N Sync, the Backstreet Boys, Five, C Note, or 98 Degrees. The Moffatts are not a "boy band." For one thing, they play their own instruments on stage. They were not artificially created, choreographed, and costumed. They write their own music and lyrics. Those other bands are indistinguishable if you hear them on the radio. They have no musical identity. Not so with The Moffatts. The proof is this: You can play air guitar to The Moffatts' music. Who could imagine doing that with a Backstreet Boys number?

In their performance at the 9:30 Club, the Moffatts proved all this and more. They obviously understood their audience, which was made up primarily of middle-school girls. The adults in the room were mostly the girls' parents, although at least a few unrelated music aficionados were also present. The boys acknowledged this mix in at least one number they covered, Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home Alabama," which got both the kids and their parents singing along. (The Baby Boomers in the balcony really swung to this one.) The other covers -- to tunes by Lenny Kravitz and Blur -- were also well-received.

But it was clear that the fans crowded near the stage had already bought and memorized The Moffatts latest CD, because they were singing and swaying along to music that has just barely hit the airwaves. (One song, "Until You Loved Me," comes off the soundtrack of a recent movie, Never Been Kissed.) The best number of the evening by far, though, was the encore rendition of "Misery," in which each Moffatt was allowed to shine in a solo turn. Bob's drum solo was electrifying, and Scott and Clint played "dueling banjos" on guitar and bass to the delight of everyone. The number was considerably longer than it is on the album -- most of their other songs that night were radio-play length, which was somewhat disappointing -- increasing its intensity by a magnitude.

All the boys were obviously having fun on stage. They still seem a bit uncomfortable with between-song patter, but what words they had to say were easily falling on friendly ears. Dave, the keyboardist, was suffering from a cold, so at times he appeared distant and distracted, but his energy level -- like that of his brothers -- seemed undiminished.

This is the Moffatts' first U.S. tour as a serious rock band. They are probably better known overseas and in Canada than they are in this country. (I have seen them on TV in England, but so far not here.) Chances are they will be much better known, and better appreciated, at the end of the summer. The fact that the group has been signed by Capitol Records -- the same label that gave us Frank Sinatra and The Beatles (Clint, Bob, and Dave's favorite band) -- shows that The Moffatts are growing artistically. It will be interesting to see how far they have spread their wings when they next return to Washington -- which, one would hope, will be sooner rather than later.

The Moffatts left Washington for New York, where they were to tape a "Sally Jesse Raphael Show," and their next few concerts will be in Owensburg and Louisville, Kentucky, as well as in Boston and Toronto. They will be singing the Canadian National Anthem at the Major League Baseball All-Star Game in Fenway Park on July 13. Perhaps most exciting, they will be celebrating the turn of the Millennium by performing on a cruise ship in the Antarctic Ocean during the last few days of December 1999 and the first few days of January 2000. For more information on the tour and other appearances, visit http://www.themoffatts.com/ [Editor's note: This URL is no longer valid. -- RS].

Future acts scheduled to play the 9:30 Club include Girls Against Boys, Kula Shaker, Jamiroquai, Ziggy Marley and the Melody Makers, The Cult, Luscious Jackson, and Foxy Brown. For more information, call the concert line at 202-393-0930, or visit the club's web site at http://www.930.com.

Follow-up: Wondering whatever became of the Moffatts -- it's really a shame their act did not take off in the manner of some of the other bands mentioned in the article above, because their talent made them more deserving of attention than many of the others -- I found this article on ChartAttack ("Your Canadian Music Source"), which reported:

We haven't heard much from The Moffatts since they went into hiding in late 2001. While Dave Moffatt has been taking a break from the band circuit, brothers Clint, Bob and Scott have been busy with new musical projects.

Scott has been occupied with his emo-esque band The Boston Post, which recently played an impressive show at the New Music West Festival in Vancouver. Meanwhile, Clint and Bob have been busy with Hidell, the band they've formed with guitarists Paul Cimolini and Christopher Ainsley. Hidell (pronounced "High-dell") is the most significant project to come out of the Moffatt camp since they broke countless female hearts with their 2001 break-up.

So there you go. Perhaps someday we'll read about how Folkskunde "broke countless ... hearts with their 2005 break-up." We'll wait, we'll see.


Further Update: On the night I saw The Moffatts perform in 1999, as I noted above, we were told that Dave Moffatt "had a cold" and thus was unable to meet the group's fans afterwards. (Bob, Clint, and Scott all formed a receiving line at which they signed autographs and chatted with fans. I have all three of their signatures on an 8-by-10 photo of The Moffatts, which sits on top of a shelf in my home.)

Perhaps there's an explanation beyond "having a cold". Perhaps Dave preferred to avoid his overwhelmingly female fans. I found this itemwhen curiosity drove me to it: I couldn't figure out why so many people were finding my blog through Google and Yahoo searches with the terms "dave moffatt gay." (Never "clint moffatt gay" or "bob moffatt gay" or "scott moffatt gay.") So I did a search on my own and here is what turned up (I can't vouch for its authenticity, because the Winnipeg Free Press archives are not easily accessible on line, unless you subscribe to the newspaper):

Ex-teen idol comes out, moves into 'Peg
Thu Aug 19 2004
winnipeg free press

WINNIPEGGERS have another well-known musician living within their midst: Dave Moffatt, former lead singer of teenage brother act The Moffatts.

Originally intending to study at the University of Winnipeg, the 20-year-old former Juno Awards host quietly moved here last month and intends to spend most of his time writing new music.

He also has a gig at downtown gay club Desire, where he hosts a karaoke night for five successive Fridays, beginning Aug. 27.

"I've wanted to do something like this for a while. Karaoke is so much fun," says Moffatt, who is friends with Desire co-owner Sam Colosimo.

He doesn't think any of the teenage girls who erected shrines to his former band will be devastated by the news.

"I don't think so," he laughs. "I'm out and cool with it all. Although it was never said, I think most of our fans knew when I was in the band." Dave says the other Moffatt brothers are continuing to make music on their own. His own plans include becoming a chef and more ambitiously, finding his way around Winnipeg's confusing downtown.

"I'm figuring it out. It's been a month, but I'm still getting lost."

So do many lifelong Winnipeggers, Dave. Welcome to town.

I'd be eager to find out if anyone can confirm this report -- a message from Dave Moffatt himself would be the best way to verify whether it is genuine. (I also found a lengthy discussion on the topic on a message board on GayCanada.com, but it seemed too much like unsubstantiated gossip.) I checked the Club Desire web site, but turned up nothing (though it looks like an interesting place).

In the meantime, the fantasies of thousands of The Moffatts' gay fans are being pushed into overdrive.

Still More (!) News on Dave Moffatt: Someone at the Usenet newsgroup alt.fan.teen.idols posts this item from today's Winnipeg Free Press:

Pop singers join Miss Saigon cast
By Bartley Kives
The Winnipeg Free Press
Sat Jan 22 2005

TWO former teen idols living in Winnipeg are making the jump from the concert arena to a different kind of stage.

Ex-Moffatts singer-keyboardist Dave Moffatt and Rob James of McMaster & James have joined the cast of Rainbow Stage's Miss Saigon, the musical update of Madame Butterfly set in Vietnam. Moffatt and James will play U.S. marines, Viet Cong soldiers and Broadway hoofers as part of the ensemble cast of the Rainbow Stage production, which begins a three-week run at Pantages Playhouse Theatre on Feb. 22.

Both musicians filled a couple of last-minute casting holes, despite the absence of previous experience in theatre. "They're newbies," says director Richard Hurst, who was impressed by their auditions. "It might be a bit of a stretch for them up there, but being in front of an audience is being in front of an audience. They both have terrific voices." Moffatt has been living in Winnipeg since July, originally moving here with the intention of going to school....

Interesting that the director of this production of Miss Saigon has the same name as my long-ago ex-boyfriend, Richard Hurst. Despite that Richard's onetime fascination with things Canadian, I'm certain this is not the same person. (U.S. government lawyers tend not to give up their jobs and leave the country to become musical theatre directors, do they?)

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

Truly Bad Dialogue

Sometimes, if you belong to a Yahoogroups discussion and announcement list long enough, you find a nugget impossible to pass up.

I learned about some truly awful playwriting on one of those groups. Unfortunately, the announcement came from the playwright himself. Either he's steeped himself in Brecht's theatre of alienation or his model for dialogue composition is cross-dressing schlock-film director Ed Wood.

It shouldn't be any surprise that the play (excerpted below -- I've snipped a lot to be kind to my readers) is published by a vanity press. It comes from a volume entitled Making Progress: America's Queer History in 12 Plays by Michael D. Jackson, who is otherwise unknown to me.

Here are just a few lines to entice you -- or not:

RYAN: Do you know that the Oriental custom is for men to kiss and embrace each other when they are good friends?

ROB: Isn’t that the way with most cultures?

RYAN: It’s not intimate in other cultures.

ROB: I suppose not.

RYAN: They are uninhibited and free from worry about it. And no one thinks twice if they see two men kissing out in public.

ROB: Maybe I should move there.

RYAN: You don’t know the language.

ROB: As fascinating as you are, I’ve got to go. It’s getting late, and I have a test.

RYAN: You aren’t going to stay over tonight?

ROB: No. I’d never get anything done. (He suddenly decides to kiss RYAN) Have I shocked you again?

RYAN: Uh...

ROB: Oriental custom. (He exits)

**********

RYAN: (To audience) No one but Rob Luke has ever been able to shock me. But I must confess, I like the Oriental custom of men embracing and kissing each other if they are indeed good friends. Last night, when we went to bed, Rob put his arms around me and lay his head down on my right shoulder in the most loving way. Then I put my arms around his neck, and thus clasped in each other’s arms, we talked for a long time ‘til we were ready to go to sleep. And then we separated as I cannot sleep well with anyone near me, not even a woman. Now in all this, I am certain there is no sexual sentiment on the part of either of us. But although the thought of the least demonstration of homosexual passion is revolting to me, I do love him. I love to hug him, and now I think I don’t mind kissing him either. I have never felt such a tenderness of the human spirit as I felt when Rob kissed me. Christ kissed and embraced those whom he loved, I believe. Why shall I fear to do the same?

Is it just me, or does that sound like the basis for an old Monty Python sketch called "Monstrously Bad Theatre"?

If this is an excerpt from a cycle of plays that purports to tell the history of the gay rights movement, it's likely to set that movement back several generations.

August Wilson has nothing to fear from competitors in the epic play-cycle department.



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

Business-Generated Self-Help for Tsunami Victims

I have hesitated to write anything about the December 26 tsunami and its aftermath, since the news of that disaster has filled newspaper front pages as well as the commentary sections of every publication one can name.

Today, however, I heard a remarkable interview on NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross. The subject of the interview was Geoffrey Dobbs, a businessman who owns several hotels and resorts in Sri Lanka. With other businessmen, he has begun a self-help effort in his section of the island.

In the course of the interview, Gross asked: "Have you ever done anything like this before?" -- to which Dobbs replied:

"I have never done anything like this before at all. I’m a total amateur at it. In some ways, if you don’t know what you’re doing, you just get it done. That is what myself and my colleagues – I have a Belgian colleague here I have a German colleague, I have Sri Lankan colleagues – who all think the same way, totally unselfish, just wanting to get Sri Lanka moving again."

(I like that thought: "In some ways, if you don't know what you're doing, you just get it done." That's spontaneous order if I've ever heard it.)

Dobbs explained that foreign aid was reaching the capital, Columbo, but "to be honest, I have not seen a lot of aid down in the south, particularly in the small villages which are the areas which we have decided to help. Obviously the city of Galle has received a huge amount of publicity for the tragedy they suffered and a lot of aid has gone to them but it still has to trickle down into the villages."

Consequently, Dobbs and his associates have focused their efforts on the villages who have yet to see the aid from abroad. He explained his approach this way:

We are not a charity, we are not an NGO, we are a group of private individuals and companies who sprung up because nothing was happening. We have now spawned a loose coalition of like-minded people spreading [from about 50 km south] of the capital all the way down the coast and all the way up the east coast. We’re swapping information, we’re transferring supplies where supplies are needed. We’re not hoarding, we’re not being squirrels.

We can make instant decisions because we don’t have to make a decision by committee. This is all our own money. Of course we hope people will support us by sending us funds later, but at the moment this is all our own money.

I have a wallet-load of Sri Lankan rupees in my pocket and when I think I see a worthwhile cause,I just pay out the money. I don’t ask for any receipts. I just say to them, I’ll come back tomorrow, if I don’t see any progress, you won’t get any more money.

For instance, there’s a person who sells little boats opposite my island whose livelihood has been ruined because there are no tourists coming. I do have some shops in Columbo, so I say, OK, if you make some boats, I will sell them in my shops.

The village opposite my island is famous for ladies who make lace and I said to them, I gave them just $500 today. You clean up your place, you get back to work, I will buy you instruments for you to make your lace, and if I see improvements, I will front you more money. That is the way I think reconstruction should take. The whole point is to get people back to work. That is my message.

It is clear that Dobbs is no sentimentalist. Responding to Terry Gross's query as to how he decides which businesses or fishermen to help, Dobbs said: "Well we’re trying to help all the fishermen. In the bay [nearby], there are 10 fishing communities. We’ve taken all their numbers and then some have been dishonest and overstated their losses. But those people we’re going to give a black mark to and we’ve told them that if that happens, we will not give them aid. And in fact most of the fishermen, they realize that, and they’re being very responsible about it."

People like Geoffrey Dobbs deserve a lot of credit precisely because they are not treating the tsunami victims like, well, like Victims. He views these people as independent agents who can take responsibility for their own fates, who are willing to work hard to put their lives back together, and who should be respected, not pitied. He demonstrates this heartfelt respect when he tells Gross: "I’m very impressed at the way villagers have cleaned up their villages. Of course there’s still this huge mess around and there is complete devastation in some villages [where] buildings have totally collapsed [but] all the roads are open now [and] you see piles of rubbish that have been neatly collected. The villagers have done the cleaning up themselves."

Dobbs -- who happens to be the brother of Washington Post correspondent Michael Dobbs, whose eyewitness account of the tsunami appeared in the Post and on broadcast news outlets as well, including a separate segment of the same Fresh Air episode -- should be held up as a model for efficacy and compassion in the face of disaster. His experience is a living argument for why grassroots self-help is superior to top-down, committee-driven, bureaucratic foreign "assistance" that serves more to assuage Western guilt than it does to build economies and bring people out of poverty.

Of course, this is not a new argument. I discussed it at length in my 1990 book, Sowing the Seeds of Free Enterprise: The Politics of U.S. Economic Aid in Africa.

Update: Geoffrey Dobbs' efforts are gaining more notice. I just came across this AP article in the Washington Post of January 9, "Hotelier Launches Tsunami Relief Effort," which somehow slipped past my gaze as I was reading the Sunday papers. It notes:

"The reason why we are quite effective is because there's not a lot of red tape," Dobbs said. "We can make instant decisions. It's our own money, so we don't have to account for it."

Still, the band of businesspeople - which includes a Sri Lankan antiques dealer, a German organic farmer and a Belgian owner of a tire manufacturing company - lack the transport and professional expertise available to the government or established aid groups.

Dobbs said their strengths lie in local knowledge and contacts with village headmen. They have set up a Web site to promote their cause and attract funding, and they telephone each other daily to exchange experiences and suggest solutions.

"If a certain area needs something, and a certain area has got it, we then trade our sources of supply," Dobbs said in an interview on the verandah of one of his colonial-era hotels, the Sun House.

The article also points out some of the concrete, if idiosyncratic, accomplishments of Dobbs and his associates:

"Operation Fish and Chips" was one of the group's most high-profile initiatives. Last week, they urged fishermen in the town of Merissa to fix their boats and catch their first fish since the tsunami generated by an undersea earthquake in the Indian Ocean.

The goal was to promote fish-eating because many Sri Lankans had no appetite for seafood, believing fish had feasted on the bodies of tsunami victims and were contaminated. Dobbs organized a fish barbecue after the catch came in, then sent a batch in a refrigerated truck for delivery to the Cabinet and the opposition leader in Colombo, the Sri Lankan capital.

The group also pumped 12 wells in Merissa on Thursday and is providing a daily total of 7,500 lunch packets, including rice and potatoes, to the needy. The town of Weligama is known for its lace, and Dobbs said he is "dripfeeding" money to women to start making it again.

I expect we'll be hearing more from and about Geoffrey Dobbs.



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

Thoughts on Charlottesville's Electoral System

At last night's Charlottesville City Council meeting, Sean O'Brien, chairman of the Elections Study Task Force appointed by City Council last July, made a formal presentation of the task force's final report.

The report, written in a lively style, makes no recommendations. Instead, it offers the pros and cons on a number of issues derived from the charge given to the task force by City Council These include changing from an appointed to elected mayor; changing Council elections from at-large to a mix of at-large and ward seats; expanding the size of City Council; and other "best practices," including but not limited to term limitations and remuneration. There is also a supplementary section in the report to discuss alternative voting systems, such as instant runoff, proportional representation, or weighted voting. A lengthy appendix includes all of the proceedings of the eight public hearings held by the task force, memoranda on legal issues from the City Attorney, maps of the city showing where Council candidates and members have lived at the time of their election, and statistics about campaign spending.

The report (without its substantial appendices) has been posted on the City's web site and can be read here. In addition, John Yellig wrote an article on the City Council meeting which appeared in Tuesday morning's Daily Progress ("Panel evaluates city election plans"). WINA-AM radio, WVIR (Channel 29), and the new CBS-TV affiliate, WCAV, also reported on the issue.

City Council chambers were packed on Monday night. There was hardly an empty seat in the auditorium. I thought this meant a strong interest in the task force's report presentation. Instead, it turned out that over three-quarters of the seats were occupied by members of a government class from Charlottesville High School. In a rather comic turn, at exactly 8:00 p.m. (one hour into the Council meeting), every one of those students got up and left simultaneously -- just as Councilor Rob Schilling was about to make his oral remarks in response to the task force report.

For the benefit of those CHS students and others who may have missed Councilor Schillings remarks, here they are as they were submitted for the minutes of the January 3, 2005, City Council meeting:

In reviewing the Report of the Charlottesville Elections Study Task Force, I am pleased with the information you present us tonight. I’d like to thank Sean O’Brien for doing an admirable job in what was often a thankless and difficult position. I’d also like to thank the members of the task force for their participation in this report, particularly those who did choose to participate substantially.

I’d also like to acknowledge and thank Sheri Iachetta and her staff for the tireless hours spent, above and beyond the call of duty, in assembling this report and in the staffing of this Task Force.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I’d like to thank the members of the public who participated in this process through their many correspondences to and appearances before the Task Force, often in spite of great pressure or duress to remain silent.

Without getting into the specifics of the report, although I urge interested citizens to read the report, and it’s available in its entirety on the city website: www.charlottesville.org; and at City Hall. I would like to comment generally on a few areas of the information presented and then make some concluding remarks:


The History of the Convention of the Elections Task Force:

In the context of a discussion about moving the City’s elections to November in order “to increase our low voter turnout,” I called for a study of three items that I believed would be more effective ways to raise voter turnout, if that was in fact the reason for moving our local elections from May to November. The suggestions for additional areas of study were:

1) Direct election of Mayor
2) Move council to a ward-based system
3) Increase the number of councilors

By a majority vote of the previous council, these ideas were not taken up in the context of the original study to move elections (although they are intricately related to the issue of voter turnout and thus, they should have been), they were, after much discussion and dissention among the previous council, given to this Elections Task Force for exploration and evaluation.

Perceived Problems:

I would like to note that the word “perception” should be considered equally in this report. Just as those people who noted problems are described as “perceiving” them, so should those who noted “no problems” and thus favored the status quo be referenced as “perceiving” their stated positions. If there are “perceived” problems then it is merely the perception on the part of some that our current electoral system is fine just as it is.

Concerns Over Low Turnout:

I attended every public task force hearing, and I do take issue with the report’s description of the turnout as being “low” and statements that there was a “lack of interest” among the citizens of Charlottesville. In fact, when compared to the most recent public hearings held by this body to discuss moving the elections to November (at which 3 or 4 citizens commented at the two opportunities given), the attendance and participation at the Elections Task Force hearings can be considered quite substantial. I would also note that there were more people in attendance for the entire meeting at many of these public hearings than there are in attendance at many of our City Council meetings.

Disenfranchisement of Minority Community:

I was disheartened, but not surprised to read the quote from an African-American citizen explaining the “low” turn-out of African-Americans at the public hearings, as follows: “We’ve tried to change the system so many times; we’ve just grown tired of trying.”

Another section of the report, entitled: “City government is not responsive to the needs and inquiries of the citizens,” goes on to say that many felt there was no point in attending the hearings, that nothing was going to happen—just like the last time (when the City Council disregarded the results of a referendum, which passed in 6 of the city’s 8 precincts, to move to a mixed-ward/at-large system).

The reason that this sentiment did not surprise me is that after I brought the concept of this Task Force forward, I had calls and contacts from several members of Charlottesville’s minority community, encouraging me to continue, but fearing that once again, their desires for fair representation in city government would fall on deaf ears.

This troubling perception of institutionalized disenfranchisement calls for decisive action on behalf of this council, in order to remedy ongoing issues of equity and access.

Opening the System:

In the broad context of the elections discussion, brought forth by former Vice-Mayor Meredith Richards was the idea of non-partisan elections. This idea is discussed at some length in the report. Notably, the report states that while Charlottesville and seven other cities in Virginia allow parties to nominate candidates to the ballot, most cities require candidates to obtain petition signatures as the only means to be listed on the ballot. Although implementation of this practice does not necessarily preclude party involvement in the election process, it will open our Council elections up to far greater competition, thus increasing voter interest and ultimately, voter turnout.

It is interesting to note that no independent candidate has been elected to the Charlottesville City Council since the 1930s, and that no Independent African-American has even attempted to run for a City Council seat since 1984. While there have only been five individual African-Americans ever to serve on Charlottesville’s City Council, it seems unlikely that, with roughly 25% of our voting-eligible population identifying themselves as African-American in the recent census, so few have been elected or even afforded a nomination to run for Council office.

Moving to a solely petition-based system of ballot inclusion for candidates will open up the process to more people in general and will allow for more diverse representation on City Council as opposed to the “engineered appearance” of succession visible over the past 35 years. I call on this council to explore a charter amendment similar to those adopted in Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, and Hampton, as referenced by our City Attorney in the report’s appendix, wherein Charlottesville’s charter, in conformance with State law, can be changed to allow only one method for Council candidates to get on the ballot and that is by collecting enough signatures to do so.

Recommendations:

When I originally proposed the formation of this Task Force, I asked that its charge be structured similarly to the charge of the Citizen’s Committee to Study Council Changes, which had been commissioned by council nearly 25 years earlier, to study similar issues and concerns. As was that prior Task Force, I asked that this current Task Force be charged with making recommendations, so that we, as a council, could act, or choose not to act, upon these recommendations. Unfortunately, the immediately prior council to this one specifically denied my request, and in fact, prohibited this Task Force, by charge, from making any recommendations to Council, presumably because Council did not want to be in the untenable position experienced by the infamous council of 25 years ago, wherein the Task Force’s and the citizens’ expressed will was thwarted.

Nonetheless, the last line of the third paragraph on page 4 of the Task Force’s report states: “we believe that the discussions do reflect important concerns of citizens about City Government that need to be addressed by City Government.”

The final paragraph on the same page goes on to state: “We ask the citizens of the City of Charlottesville and the members of the City Council to explore and evaluate the work of the Task Force and develop recommendations for improvements to City Government.”

Implicit in these statements is a recommendation, although none was called for. Many of the problems of 25 years ago still persist today—no “system of patronage,” no “organizational agreements” between political and demographic groups, and no noble defense of the status quo will remedy the ills of our current system and bring a more fair and representative form of government to Charlottesville.

The wait for justice and equity has been long; the time to act is now.

Shortly after the last of the public hearings held by the task force, Charlottesville restaurateur and political activist Michael Crafaik submitted an article to the Daily Progress taking a broad view of the issues involved. Published in the newspaper on Sunday, October 24, but (owing largely to the Daily Progress's pleistocene web site) it has never, to my knowledge, appeared on-line before -- until now:

The Daily Progress (Charlottesville, Va.)
Sunday, October 24, 2004
page B5 (Commentary section)

At-large city system has questionable roots
By Michael Crafaik

In September and October, the Charlottesville Elections Task Force held a series of eight public forums, one in each voting precinct, to obtain citizen input on the subjects it has been exploring: direct election of the mayor, electing City Council by a ward system, expanding the size of City Council, and other “best practices� for improving participation in city elections.

The forums attracted a wide variety of people: those who have lived in Charlottesville only a few years and those whose great-grandparents settled here; black, white, and Hispanic residents; Democrats, Republicans, and independents; professionals and working-class individuals [Editor's note: one might also add, gay and straight--RS].

Whatever their background, the people who participated in these forums brought with them an equally wide variety of ideas about how to improve the electoral process. Some comments were glib, of course, but the vast majority were thoughtful, comprehensive, and sometimes creative. It was impossible to predict what types of ideas and what opinions would come from any particular speaker.

There was one exception, however. There was one group of participants whose views were as dependable as the sun setting in the west. Every past City Council member (and most current City Council members) who spoke at a forum or publicly voiced an opinion expressed the mantralike view that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The opinions of this group were so monolithic that it appeared they were reading from a common script.

It should come as no surprise that members of the political class that has controlled Charlottesville's politics for the past 45 years or more would oppose changes that might have the effect of undermining this control. Elites are loathe to give up power voluntarily.

Let's look at some of the history of the city's political system.

Until the 1920s, Charlottesville elected its city councilors by ward. At around that time, there was a nationwide movement to replace ward systems by at-large systems of elections. It was no secret that the purpose of this change was to dilute the votes of newly enfranchised African-American voters and new immigrant arrivals in big cities. At-large elections gave more control to centralized political elites from either Democratic or Republican parties (depending on the particular city). Charlottesville's at-large system of electing City Council is part of the legacy of Jim Crow and xenophobia.

Since 1960, the vast majority of council members have been elected from Walker and Recreation precincts. A handful came from Jefferson Park; one from Alumni Hall; one from Tonsler; and not a single councilor from Clark precinct.

While defenders of the status quo argue that at-large elections produce councilors who represent the entire city, tell that to residents of Belmont, the largest neighborhood encompassed by Clark precinct. For more years than most of them can remember, they have been begging the city for sidewalk, drainage, and other infrastructure improvements, with their entreaties falling on deaf ears. Meanwhile, Clark Elementary School has teetered on the brink of failure, a situation unique among city schools.

No independent -- that is, non-party -- candidate to City Council has been elected since the 1930s. When minority candidates have run as independents -- that is, run against the Democratic establishment -- they have been defeated citywide even when they won the majority of votes within their own precincts.

This is one of the problems experienced by any city in which one party enjoys a near-monopoly of power. For better or for worse, the reasons the Republican Party in Charlottesville is weaker than its counterpart are beyond the scope of city politics. Most Charlottesville voters disagree with the Republican Party because of issues decided in Washington and Richmond. Let's face it: people don't get actively involved with a political party because they like the way that party fixes sidewalks, collects trash, or erects traffic signals. But those community-level issues are what motivates people to run for City Council.

This leads to the suggestion, made by many participants in the Election Task Force forums, that city elections in Charlottesville should become non-partisan. There is, after all, no Republican or Democratic way to clean gutters or enforce parking regulations.

In a ward system, independent candidates could run for office without political party involvement, because they would be able to spend the campaign season meeting most, if not all, of the voters in their wards. (Meeting nearly 22,000 voters citywide is a daunting task that many otherwise qualified potential candidates are unwilling to undertake.) Party members who disagree with their parties on one issue or more would be free to seek office without pledging to support the party's nominees. The cost of election campaigns would plummet as television and radio advertising would be replaced by door-to-door campaigning, neighborhood barbecues, and early evening teas at private homes. Such retail, personalized politics manifests the slogan "small is beautiful."

Would replacing Charlottesville's at-large system by a ward system be a panacea for all the city's ills? Of course not. But it would go a long way toward solving the problem of people feeling -- and acting -- disenfranchised by a system that favors party elites and ignores the particular needs of individual neighborhoods.

If nothing else, the changes under consideration by the Elections Task Force deserve a fair hearing by the City Council.
---------

Michael Crafaik is a Charlottesville native, University of Virginia graduate, and owner of Michael's Bistro. He ran for City Council as a Republican in 1996 and 1998, and served on the City Council Task Force last spring that studied and recommended moving council elections to the autumn of odd-numbered years.

A few days later (coincidentally, on Election Day, November 2), a response to Crafaik's article appeared in the form of a letter to the editor from Timothy Hulsey (he of My Stupid Dog):

Michael Crafaik's article ”At-large city system has questionable roots” (October 24, p. B5) should prove an important contribution to the citywide discussion about changing our elections to a ward system.

Yet perhaps Mr. Crafaik was too diplomatic. To his credit, he noted the failure of minority candidates to gain election when they run outside -- or against -- our city's Democratic Party establishment. But he ignores how the Democratic Party in Charlottesville has played a disconcerting game of "tokenism" within the City Council. By assigning only one seat to a minority candidate, and never seeking or nominating a black candidate when there is already a black councillor in office, the Democratic Party has kept Charlottesville’s African-American community underrepresented in city government.

Whether the pattern is deliberate, or merely the result of taking the votes of black citizens for granted is a question for another day. For now, the question of how African-American representation might improve under a ward system is something few seem inclined to discuss.

Clearly, as readable (and reasonable) as the Task Force report has turned out to be, there are still a number of issues that remain to be hashed out.

A Council work session on this issue has been tentatively set for February 10 at 5:00 p.m. in the basement conference room at City Hall. Members of the public will be able to attend but there will be no opportunity for public comment.



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