A Hollywood-Broadway Connection

I saw Clint Eastwood's new movie, Flags of Our Fathers, Sunday night.

One of the things that struck me about the film was Eastwood's casting of several distinguished Broadway actors in some of the supporting roles. These were people I recognized because I have seen them on stage, not on TV or in the movies.

Examples include Len Cariou, George Grizzard, George Hearn, John Benjamin Hickey, Judith Ivey, and Harve Presnell.

(Here's a bit of trivia: In which movie musical did Clint Eastwood co-star with Harve Presnell? Answer below.)

I saw Len Cariou in the Kennedy Center's production of Neil Simon's The Dinner Party with Henry Winkler and John Ritter. Cariou is a three-time Tony nominee, winning in 1979 for Sweeney Todd.

I last saw George Grizzard as Big Daddy in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof during the KenCen's Tennessee Williams Festival. Grizzard has also been nominated for three Tony Awards, winning in 1996 for A Delicate Balance.

I ran into George Hearn -- another Sweeney Todd -- at the Kennedy Center's Spring Gala earlier this year. (Funny, I asked him specifically about any new projects he was involved with, and he failed to mention Flags of Our Fathers, instead demurring with, "Oh, I'm retired now." Too modest, too modest.) Hearn is a five-time Tony Award nominee, twice winning (for La Cages Aux Folles and for Sunset Boulevard).

The first time I saw John Benjamin Hickey was in the original Broadway cast of the vibrant play, Love! Valour! Compassion! He played the same role in the dreary film version. (Someone please remind me to post my review of that show.)

Judith Ivey is the recipient of not one, but two, Tony Awards -- for Steaming (1983) and Hurlyburly (1985), with one additional nomination under her belt.

And Harve Presnell, of course, co-starred with both Tammy Grimes and Debbie Reynolds in The Unsinkable Molly Brown. Presnell won a Golden Globe for "Most Promising Newcomer - Male" in 1965, which he shared with George Segal and Topol. (What joint award will never be a Jeopardy answer?)

* * *

What was the movie musical starring Clint Eastwood and Harve Presnell? Why, Paint Your Wagon, of course, which also starred Jean Seberg and Lee Marvin. Keep that in mind the next time you're playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.

This Is a Hit?

I was catching up with the Sunday paper late Sunday night -- actually, early Monday morning -- when I read an article in the Daily Progress by Martha Burk, identified as author of Cult of Power: Sex Discrimination in Corporate America and What Can Be Done About It. (Readers might recognize her as the leader of a vocal group of critics of the Augusta National Golf Club for excluding female members.)

I don't know what Ms. Burk knows about corporate America, but she doesn't seem to know much about television. Here's her first paragraph (excerpted from The Newtown Bee -- because the Daily Progress doesn't put its non-staff-written opinion pieces on its web site):

These days you don't have to try very hard to find material for a column on sex discrimination. From Friday Night Lights, the hit TV series that could more properly be called "Friday Night Stereotypes," to former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina's new book on her career, and Warren Buffett's latest ethics advice, we are served up a wealth of opportunity.

What's that? Friday Night Lights is a "hit" television show? Someone please tell Ms. Burk that her research assistants need some research assistance.

Here's Mark Washburn writing in the Charlotte Observer on Saturday:

Gasping for breath in the ratings are "Friday Night Lights" on NBC and "Men in Trees" on ABC. Both deserve better.

That not clear enough? Try TV critic Austin O'Connor in the Lowell Sun:

NBC's Friday Night Lights is a fine television show, but it's not generating much offense on the Nielsen scoreboard. Ratings for this week's episode improved a bit, though it still finished in fourth place in its Tuesday 8 p.m. time slot, behind the inexplicably popular Dancing with the Stars on ABC, NCIS on CBS, and the baseball playoffs on Fox. Maybe NBC should think about moving the show to - oh, I don't know - Friday night, perhaps? Nah, makes too much sense. I hope it survives, because it would be hard to live without both FNL and Two-a-Days, MTV's addictive reality show about the Hoover (Ala.) High School football team that wrapped up its run Wednesday night. If you missed the finale, MTV is re-airing the final two episodes of Two-a-Days Saturday night at 10:30. Set your TiVos!

People in Texas know about "Friday night lights." Here's what the Beaumont Enterprise has to say about what Martha Burk calls a "hit TV series":

"Friday Night Lights," is a one-hour drama that airs at 7 p.m. Tuesdays, chronicling the ups and downs of the fictional Dillon High School Panthers. The TV show, of course, is based on the movie - which, of course, was based on H.G. Bissinger's bestselling book, an account of the 1988 Odessa Permian team.

But the television version is unique from the screen and print versions in at least one other way: Apparently, it's not successful. In fact, it has tanked in the Nielsen ratings.

Writing in that same article, the Enterprise's Perryn Keys adds:

But evidently, "Friday Night Lights" is getting an audience just barely larger than those reserved for Ron Popeil and other infomercials.

Ouch!

I don't wish to belabor the point, but I've never seen Friday Night Lights (neither the TV series nor the movie), and I don't know or care about football (high school or otherwise). Yet, without paying attention, even I was aware that Friday Night Lights has proven to be a ratings disappointment for the Peacock Network.

There's a lesson here. Others may disagree, but I think what we can learn from this is that out-of-touch elites should not try to make pop-culture references about things they don't truly understand. With this article, Martha Burk made herself look as adept with the TV remote as George H.W. Bush was with a supermarket scanner.

Aliens Among Us

It is a rare occasion when I find myself in accord with Red Ken, the flaming socialist mayor of London.

Yet when I opened up this morning's Washington Times, I read an article in which Ken Livingstone's views are presented as fully in line with mine.

In a Bloomberg News article (which does not, strangely, appear on the Washington Times web site) about the influx of Polish immigrants to Britain since 2004, Livingstone is paraphrased as saying he thinks immigrants are good for London's economy:

Attracted by jobs and higher pay, immigrants are transforming neighborhoods as shops stock Polish goods, jobseekers post notices in their native language and attendance at Catholic churches booms. The new residents are weakening "community cohesion," lobbying group Migration Watch says.

"Londoners are being displaced by the arrival of immigrants, which is changing the makeup of the city," said Andrew Green, the organization's chairman "It simply isn't sustainable."

Mayor Ken Livingstone disagrees, saying immigrants help the economy grow. The city is investing in transportation, housing and police services to keep pace with the inflow, he said.

It is hard to see how Polish immigrants might be taking jobs from British natives: The unemployment rate in the UK is now about 3 percent, compared to 11 percent or more in Central Europe.

The article goes on to note the long history of Polish settlers in London, including novelist Joseph Conrad and refugees from Nazi- and Communist-occupied Poland in the middle of the 20th century. I remember having lunch at a Polish restaurant in Chelsea as long ago as 1987, when one of the habitués asked me if I was Polish. (I had to pause to think about my answer, finally settling on, "No, I'm American. But my ancestors were Polish." He seemed satisfied by that.)

Around that same time, I saw a terrific play at the National Theatre called Coming in to Land, written by Stephen Poliakoff and starring the incomparable Dame Maggie Smith as a Polish refugee -- or not -- trying to gain asylum in Britain. Smith's character's name was Halina Sonya Rodziewizowna. (The play, directed by Sir Peter Hall, also included Anthony Andrews and Tim Pigott-Smith in the cast.)

Althought the political situation was far different then than now -- this was the height of the Cold War, remember -- some of the themes echo from the play today. Here's a speech from Act I; you'll notice the parallels as the speaker catalogues the reasons Halina may not be able to stay in Britain:

Firstly, Halina has waited, which is usually fatal. There is a detestation of casual applications -- unless you arrive screaming at the airport, I can't stand it back home and I'm not safe there, demanding immediate asylum, they are intensely suspicious, they are paranoid about all sorts of odds and sods being dumped on them from Eastern Europe...

Secondly, every attempt to land is made in context -- the context of world events, and that isn't too good at the moment is it. The recent sudden squall of East West tension, the expulsion of five Polish students in the US for industrial and military espionage, and three Russians from here...

Moreover Halina does not wishto get involved in ritual 'hate' propaganda about her homeland, understandably.

(Sharply.) Lastly -- Halina is not unfortunately a famous dissident, or even a member of Solidarity, no fashionable reason here, nor obviously is she something nationally desirable, like a ballerina, olympic athlete, boxer, squash player, or even a film director!

What the critics of Polish (and other East European) immigration to London fail to recognize is that London is the premier cosmopolitan city. It was, in fact, the first truly cosmopolitan metropole to emerge since the fall of Rome, and it did so during the Renaissance. London attracted more and different peoples earlier, and in greater numbers, than any other town or city in Western Europe.

That London was a crossroads is a significant -- if not the most important -- factor in Britain's true claim to be the leader in the Industrial Revolution. London attracted thinkers from both the French and Scottish Enlightenments. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, the dining clubs in London of the 18th century had the most extraordinary collection of talent and of human knowledge gathered in one place -- with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.

London was the destination for many different types of Britons -- Welsh, Scots, Irish, Geordies -- for centuries. French Huguenots and Jews expelled from continental Europe settled there because it was a safe haven. And it had a Chinatown long before New York or San Francisco did. Recent decades have seen many other lands represented among London's population. As the Bloomberg story explains:

Poles are just the latest wave of newcomers to try their luck in London. Migrants from India, Pakistan and Africa boosted the population in the 1990s. Twenty-eight percent of Londoners were born outside the U.K., according to the 2001 census.

The article includes this astonishing tidbit:

London businesses are adapting to their new customers. Nil Kanth Patel said he learned Polish to serve customers better at his newsstand in Hammersmith.

"The neighborhood has gone through lots of change, especially since 2004," said Patel, who is from Uganda and has run the shop for 17 years. "It's been great for my business, as half of my customers are now Polish."

What could be more emblematic of London's cosmopolitanism -- and indeed of the global economy itself -- than an African immigrant with an Indian surname learning Polish in order to build a better business?

A few weeks ago, I read University of Chicago historian William H. McNeill's memoir, The Pursuit of Truth. The book -- which is worth a review all of its own -- describes McNeill's intellectual struggle to create a coherent "world history" and to make that sub-discipline respectable within the community of professional historians.

One insight that McNeill had is so simple that its profundity might be missed: namely, that progress depends on the interactions of strangers, or, as McNeill puts it,

the continual innovative effect of contacts and and exchanges between civilizations and peoples round about, with special attention to technological transfers....

London has for centuries been a nexus of exchange among strangers. It is, and has been, for that reason, a great city -- if not the greatest. In the 21st century, the contributions of Polish immigrants and others from the new member states of the EU will make London even greater.

Subversive Hair Product

While watching Nathan Lane being interviewed by Conan O'Brien on Late Night a few minutes ago, I saw the U.S. version of this UK-originated commercial for a new VO5 hair-care product:

I find it refreshingly subversive. It's a playlet with the same theme as Ayn Rand's Anthem.

You've got to love YouTube, too, for giving me the capability of finding the video within 30 seconds of seeing it on TV. That's Web 2.0 for you.

Funny thing -- in the American ad, the product comes in a long red tube. In the British one, it's in a baby-blue jar. Any significance to that?

Break the mold, indeed! Vive la difference!

Post-Kelo Property Rights

Law student Steve at Eminent Domain has a good synopsis of state initiatives aimed at overturning the most far-reaching aspects of the Supreme Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. New London.

Citing Charlottesville writer Ron Bailey, he notes that a lot of proposals go farther than just restricting the use of eminent domain authority by state and municipal governments. They also attempt to change the way property owners are compensated (or not, as is mostly the case today) when regulations reduce the value of their property. "Regulatory takings" is still a muddled concept in the law, with no clear guidance from SCOTUS or other courts, so legislation -- especially voter-initiated legislation -- may finally clarify its meaning and circumscribe its use.

November 8 will bring a lot more news than just who controls Congress and whether Virginia marriage law becomes incontrovertibly confused.

On an unrelated topic, Steve also has an informative post about a Seventh Circuit oral argument about Indiana's requirement for voters to have a photo ID in order to vote. My own feeling on this subject is that it is not particularly burdensome, in the 21st century, to expect adults to have a photo ID. Perhaps requiring it for voting will provide an impetus for them to acquire the means to cash a check, travel by airplane, and get into an R-rated movie.

Student Pollworkers To Be Sworn In

I knew about this earlier, since last month the City of Charlottesville Electoral Board approved the applications of some 75 University of Virginia and Piedmont Virginia Community College students to be election officials.

But now it looks so much more official, with this press release from the University's Center for Politics arriving in my email box:

Center for Politics Hosts Swearing-In Ceremony for Student Poll Workers from U.Va., PVCC --Center for Politics and Offices of Voter Registration Partner to Help Staff Midterm Elections--

CHARLOTTESVILLE – In a new effort to expand civic activity among young citizens, as well as to provide additional staffing at local polling places, the University of Virginia Center for Politics has partnered with the City of Charlottesville Office of Voter Registration and the Albemarle Country Department of Voter Registration & Elections to announce this fall’s Student Poll Worker Swearing-In Ceremony, to take place at 11:00 a.m. on Monday, October 23, at The Rotunda Dome Room on the grounds of the University of Virginia.

This event is hosted by University Professor Larry J. Sabato and the Center for Politics, with City of Charlottesville General Registrar Sheri Iachetta and Albemarle County Elections Manager Clarice Schermerhorn presiding over the ceremony. Several additional special guests will be on hand for the swearing-in ceremony. Members of the media are encouraged to attend.

Currently over 80 students from the University of Virginia and Piedmont Virginia Community College have registered to participate, with training to be completed in time for them to serve as poll workers in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County during the November 7 elections for U.S. Senate, House and the three statewide ballot issues.

In attendance at the Student Poll Worker Swearing-In Ceremony will be Federal Election Assistance Commissioner Gracia Hillman, Virginia State Board of Elections Secretary Jean Jensen and Charlottesville Mayor David Brown, along with Iachetta, Schermerhorn and Sabato.

* Event: Student Poll Worker Swearing-In Ceremony
* Location: The Rotunda Doom Room, University of Virginia
* Date: Monday, October 23, 2006
* Time: 11:00 a.m.

The Center for Politics and these Offices of Voter Registration have joined together to fight the alarming trend of civic apathy among the younger demographics. As a group, students and young adults are the least likely to turn out to the polls and vote. While this poses a challenge to programs aiming to increase youth participation, the program seeks to overcome this problem by offering students a unique perspective on democracy.

In August 2006, the Center for Politics was awarded a federal grant from the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC), to develop programs to recruit and train college students as non-partisan poll workers on Election Day. The awards are part of the Help America Vote College Program which was established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) to promote college student involvement. The fund will be used to encourage students enrolled at institutions of higher education (including community colleges) to assist in the administration of elections.

“Elections continue to require many more trained poll workers, and these grants will train the next generation,” said EAC Chairman Paul DeGregorio. “We encourage America’s college students to answer the call and provide the critical human resources needed to make democracy happen.”

This funding will allow for the continuation and expansion of the Student Poll Worker Program, begun in early 2006 as a partnership between the Center for Politics and the City of Charlottesville Office of Voter Registration. During the city elections on May 2, 2006, twenty-six University of Virginia students served as poll workers at voting precincts throughout the city, lowering the average age of poll workers in Charlottesville from 55 to 47 years.

According to Center for Politics Director Larry Sabato, “This is a remarkable opportunity for students to participate directly in the American electoral process and become more knowledgeable, engaged citizens. Polling places are the Roman Forums of American politics--they are invaluable opportunities for citizens to come together to support representative democracy, and these students will truly appreciate the uniqueness of our system once they have seen it for themselves.”

I have written before about the need for new and younger election officials. (The average age of pollworkers across the country is over 70.)

The presence of the college students will also be helpful because Charlottesville will be deploying electronic poll books this year for the first time. (As usual, Charlottesville is on the cutting edge in voting technology. We are testing the new e-pollbooks in the full expectation that this will become not just permitted, but required, statewide in the not-too-distant future.) We expect synergy: The student pollworkers will be paired with more experienced election officials, who know the mechanics of election day procedures, and the students can bring their familiarity with electronic devices to the table.

Williamsburg, another college town, has also tested electronic pollbooks, finding that the amount of time voters stand in line waiting their turn has been cut down considerably. As explained by John Yellig in Monday's Daily Progress,

The e-poll books contain the same voter information traditionally found in the heavy paper rosters used by poll workers. But while the paper rosters only contained information for an individual precinct, the e-poll books have information on all of the locality’s voters, which could come in handy for first-time voters who go to the wrong precinct.

In the past, poll workers could only tell voters to call the registrar to find out where to vote. With the e-book, the workers can look up voters and point them in the right direction.

“It has worked wonderfully,” said Dave Andrews, Williamsburg’s voter registrar. “The officers of the election, even folks who have no real computer experience, found it easy to use and were able to find the voters quicker.”

In November 2004, Delegate Robert Marshall (R-Manassas) was upset when the lines at his polling place were unusually long. (You'll remember that the 2004 presidential election had historically high turnout.) To remedy this, he introduced legislation the next year, HB 1808, which "requires the State Board of Elections to provide instructions for the division of pollbooks and voter lists into sections for the efficient processing of voter lines at the polls."

The proposal makes no sense, since local election officials are far more qualified to figure out how best to divide the pollbooks in their jurisdiction than bureaucrats in distant Richmond are. (Should it be A-K and L-Z or A-H, I-Q, and R-Z? A lot depends on local conditions, like the number of Shiffletts registered to vote in a single precinct.) But to my astonishment, the bill passed the General Assembly and is now part of Section 24.2-404 of the Virginia Code.

Having electronic pollbooks eliminates the need for splits. The electronic pollbook can hold the entire, statewide voter registration list, so if a voter from, say, Fluvanna County shows up to vote in Charlottesville, we'll be able to tell him or her where to go to find the appropriate precinct and polling place. (This will really solve problems regarding Alumni Hall Precinct, in the City of Charlottesville, and University Hall Precinct, in Albemarle County, both of which serve UVa populations.) Lines will move faster, and calls from chief election officers to the Office of Voter Registration and Elections will be reduced exponentially.

And having the college pollworkers there, too, beefing up the staff of election officials for the very long day (5:00 a.m. to past 7:00 p.m.), will help a lot in making the whole voting experience more efficient and fun.

Amendment Ads

The Commonwealth Coalition has unveiled a dramatic new 30-second TV spot explaining in clear terms why Virginians should vote "no" on Ballot Question #1 on Election Day:

While looking for the ad on YouTube, I discovered that in Wisconsin, where a similar measure is up for a vote this November, a lot of the same issues are being raised, in terms of how the second paragraph of the amendment generates a great deal of legal uncertainty and doubt in the minds of voters who read the whole thing:

The Wisconsin equivalent of the Commonwealth Coalition is called "Fair Wisconsin" -- not to be confused, I'm sure, with the Wisconsin State Fair in West Allis, where I spent many happy August hours as a child eating cream puffs presented by Alice in Dairyland (I kid you not) and as an adolescent drinking beer and eating fresh-roasted corn on the cob. And let's not forget the cow with a window in its side so you could watch its inner workings. Ah, memories!

Happy Birthday, Miss Lansbury!

Jay Leno reminded us in his monologue tonight that October 16 is Angela Lansbury's birthday. She turned 81 years old today.

Here's a photograph I took of Miss Lansbury at the Kennedy Center's spring gala earlier this year:



My full report on the gala, at which Miss Lansbury performed, is here.

Happy Birthday, Miss Lansbury!

Rubbing Manassas the Wrong Way

The Metro section of Monday's Washington Post offers an illustration of how zoning laws and other business regulations can be used by government to disfavor certain individuals and groups because of characteristics unrelated to merit. In this case, the disfavored individual is gay and black, but he could just as easily be a Republican in a heavily Democratic community (or vice versa) or a Catholic living among Rome-as-Whore-of-Babylon Bible thumpers, or a Jew almost anywhere.

The article, by reporter Nick Miroff, begins:

In the past three years, the Manassas City Council has received two applications for home-based massage therapy businesses, and members have approved both. Then Howard Daniel, who is gay, applied.

The backlash against Daniel's request began last month when nearly two dozen people, many of them members of a local church, spoke in opposition to it at a public hearing. When it came time for the city to decide on Daniel's application the next week, council members balked and voted instead to consider changing the city's zoning laws.

The council's decisions to approve two applications and deny one cannot all be based on merit. After all, as WRC-TV reports,

Howard Daniel is a former Marine Corps reservist who is also a certified massage therapist. He wants to open the business in his home, but almost two-dozen Manassas residents have spoken out against his application.

Daniel already offers his massage therapy services at the local hospital and in the homes of clients.

Neither can the denial stem from opposition of Daniel's neighbors, which would be a legitimate reason to deny an application for any home-based business, even an accountant or a dog groomer. A WRC reporter interviewed some of the neighbors:

Most of Daniel's neighbors seem supportive of his business plan, News4's I.J. Hudson reported.

"If anybody was going to have a service like that here, I think he'd be one of the people who would uphold the integrity of the neighborhood very well," Paul Thomas said.

Daniel's neighbor, Don Quick, said people in the neighborhood are fine with the home practice and that the complaints are coming from people from other parts of town.

It's not difficult to understand that opposition to Daniel's business application is based on raw bigotry. One of his supportive neighbors, according to the Post, found an anti-gay slogan written on his car. It is particularly suspicious that Daniel's supporters come from his own street, while opponents come from other parts of the city and are, in fact, strangers to Daniel and his nearest neighbors.

Council member Jackson Miller, who is running for a vacant seat in the House of Delegates in a special election on November 7, finds himself between a rock and a hard place. Miller, a Republican, had voted to approve the applications of the two other home-based massage therapists, which any pro-free enterprise legislator would be expected to do. But to approve Daniel's application risks offending the anti-gay voters who will make up a significant fraction of his base of supporters. He doesn't want to drive away voters by appearing "soft" on homosexuality, no matter what level of personal tolerance and integrity he possesses.

The fact that the Manassas city council is considering a change to its zoning laws rather than permit a gay man to operate a home-based business reminds me of what happened a few years ago, when the federal Equal Access Act, which was written to assure that religious clubs were treated equally by government school officials and allowed to hold meetings on campus and recruit members, was invoked to permit gay-straight alliances (GSAs) the same access.

In response, a number of school districts around the country simply eliminated all extra-curricular activities (except sports, of course) rather than give gay students a chance to assemble and speak at school.

I don't want to lose sight of my larger point, however.

That is, we should be alert to the fact that zoning ordinances, eminent domain powers, business licensing, and other local regulatory authorities can be used to persecute and punish individuals based on their political beliefs and activities, their religion and sexual orientation, or merely because they are disliked personally by certain public officials.

These powers should be circumscribed as much as possible to prevent their misuse and abuse, and citizens should be watchdogs against cases like Howard Daniel's in Manassas.

Is This Irony or Just Odd?

An article in Monday's Washington Post about "homophily" -- "a somewhat grand word to describe the idea that birds of a feather flock together" -- entitled "Why Everyone You Know Thinks the Same as You" reminded me of the old joke about the Harvard professor who, in 1972, couldn't understand how Richard Nixon won re-election by a landslide because everybody he knew had voted for McGovern. ("Don't Blame Me: I'm from Massachusetts," said the famous bumpersticker.)

The article, by Shankar Vedantam, includes this tidbit (note the last sentence below):

Ever larger numbers of people seem to be sealing themselves off in worlds where everyone thinks the way they do. No Walter Cronkite figure unites audiences today, the sociologist noted. We can now choose cable stations, magazines and blogs that see the world exactly as we do. If the research on homophily is right, those heavily e-mailed partisan screeds from the op-ed pages are largely talking to those who agree with those points of view to begin with.

What's odd -- or ironic, I don't know which -- is that, according to the Post's calculations, Vedantam's page A2 article is number two on the list of the 20 most emailed article from the Post's web site.

Big Brother's Bots

Part of the fallout of the Mark Foley scandal has been increasing (although, I'd wager, temporary) awareness of the Internet as a means for people to talk to each other, largely under a veil of anonymity, about sex.

This comes at the same time that social networking sites -- MySpace, Facebook, and others -- are coming under increased scrutiny because of the role they have played in a handful of criminal cases. Compared to the hundreds of millions of messages sent via these sites each day and the tens of millions of members they have, the criminal presence on them is minuscule. Still, since many people are both tech- and sex-phobic, the headline-grabbing cases emerging from MySpace and other social networking sites tend to generate hysteria beyond what they deserve.

As someone who has been using instant-messaging technology (that is, IMs) for more than 13 years, I was both bemused and befuddled by the reaction to the instant messages that allegedly were sent by then-Congressman Foley to former congressional pages. It's like millions of Americans had never seen "LOL" or "ttyl" before. (And if they think Foley's language or tone was salacious, these people really need to spend some time on line to find out what lewd is.)

The overreaction, however, came not just from the Foley incident(s). Fear of the Internet has already worked its way into the law of several states and the federal criminal code.

What I was not aware of, in this regard, was the Orwellian nature of the laws that have been put on the books already. This point was really brought home to me in an article by William Saletan, who writes about science and technology for Slate, which appeared in Sunday's Washington Post. Saletan's last few paragraphs are really chilling:

Some states pursue adults with underage sex in mind into cyberspace and outlaw dirty messages. Georgia, for instance, forbids any "Internet contact" with minors involving "explicit verbal descriptions or narrative accounts of sexually explicit nudity" or even of "sexual excitement." The recipient doesn't have to be a minor. He can be anyone "believed . . . to be a child residing in this state." Someone could be charged under this law even if he never went to Georgia or wrote to anyone there. All you would have to do is meet him in a chat room, pose as an Atlanta teenager and wait for him to say something gross.

If a pervert won't act on his words, you can criminalize the words. If he won't utter them, you can prosecute him for writing them. If he won't come to your state, you can go get him. If he has no victim, you can invent one. This is no joke. In almost every state, laws specify that you can be convicted of an Internet sex offense against a child even if you contact no child and commit no physical crime. In fact, the most recently analyzed data, published by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, suggest that more people are arrested on suspicion of using the Internet to solicit what turn out to be cops posing as kids than for using it to initiate relationships with real kids. The unnatural has been surpassed by the artificial.

Cybersex is only getting weirder. Most Canadian college students surveyed by a dating Web site say they've already had sex via instant messages. By year's end, more than 100 million people will be playing online games. Fifteen million webcams are in use; hundreds can be viewed for a fee, and many are pornographic. You can even interact with a "virtual girlfriend" on your cellphone. It's a creepy world of imaginary meetings and deeds. The only thing creepier, perhaps, is to prosecute them like the real thing.

Winston Smith, call your office.

Another GOP Opponent to Question No. 1

I just have to stop retrieving the Sunday paper from my front lawn before going to bed on Saturday night. Even though the delivery comes well past midnight, I can't resist checking out the Washington Post Outlook and Style sections.

That is how I discovered yet another prominent Republican's opposition to the Marshall/Newman Amendment, or Ballot Question #1, in this fall's election.

As recently as yesterday I blogged about former GOP Congressman M. Caldwell Butler's recent op-ed piece arguing against the amendment. In August, it was Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson -- a Reagan appointee to the federal bench -- who said the language of proposals like the Marshall/Newman amendment does not belong in state or federal constitutions. And not long before that, I listed a number of Republicans who had opposed parallel proposals to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit marriage rights.

This time, the opponent is Ray Warren, a former Republican member of the North Carolina General Assembly, who now lives in Arlington County.

On the "Close to Home" page of the Post's Outlook section, Warren writes:

On Nov. 7, Virginia will experience a Republican Moment.

The election presents the commonwealth's long-neglected moderate and libertarian Republican voters with a rare opportunity to challenge the party's religious extremists without supporting a Democrat .

Warren then notes that, as everybody already knows, same-sex marriage is already prohibited by Virginia statute. (That has been true for more than 30 years.) He also notes that "There is no prospect of the situation changing through legislative or judicial action," which means that defeating the amendment will not mean that same-sex marriage will become legal. Far from it -- it will remain illegal for the foreseeable future.

He then goes on to argue that the amendment

violates important Republican values.

By prohibiting legal recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships, the amendment would take away the right of the people to consider alternative approaches to a difficult issue -- and vest the final say in the courts.

Whether or not they support such legislation, conservatives should be deeply offended by an amendment that would grant more power to the judiciary.

Warren further develops his argument by showing how, because of the legal uncertainty that would be generated if the amendment passes, it is "bad for business." (These arguments have been made before, and often.)

Warren concludes:

Faced with a proposal that empowers the judiciary and threatens business competitiveness, libertarian and moderate Republicans in Virginia have a chance to reiterate their party's values -- and challenge the kind of intolerance that cost their party the governorship last year. It does not require crossing party lines -- merely the casting of a "no" vote in support of traditional Republican values.

That means that Republican voters can go to the polls on election day and put an X next to the name of George Allen for Senate and for Jo Ann Davis, Thelma Drake, Randy Forbes, Virgil Goode, Bob Goodlatte, Eric Cantor, Tom O'Donoghue, Bill Carrico, Frank Wolf, or Tom Davis for the U.S. House of Representatives. At the same time, those Virginia Republican voters can put an X next to "No" on Ballot Question No. 1. And they can do both with a clear conscience and the knowledge that both choices are in full accord with time-tested, conservative Republican values of limited government and personal responsibility.

It's not either/or. It's both/and. It's win/win.

What Belongs in a 'Bill of Rights'?

According to the Washington Post, the advertisement that shows the Virginia Bill of Rights in flames, which this blog's readers saw weeks ago, is now being shown on television across the state:

An organization that opposes a ballot measure that would constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in Virginia is buying a TV commercial to run statewide, marking an intensifying effort to defeat the amendment.

The 30-second ad, which will begin appearing throughout the state today on CNN, shows an image of Virginia's 230-year-old Bill of Rights slowly being engulfed in flames. A narrator warns gravely that the amendment would "destroy" the spirit of the state's Bill of Rights, which served as the model for the U.S. Bill of Rights. A second ad will appear next week, officials said....

"Read all of Ballot Question One closely," the male narrator says. "Every unmarried couple could lose their rights. Like guardianship rights. And inheritance rights. . . . It goes way too far."

Earlier this week, echoing that TV ad's message, a distinguished former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Republican M. Caldwell Butler, published an article in the Roanoke Times that explained why he is opposing the amendment, which will appear as Ballot Question #1 on the November 7 ballot.

Butler, who voluntarily retired from Congress in 1983 -- unlike our contemporary legislators, the majority of whom retire only when faced with scandal or indictment -- has been practicing law in Roanoke since then. The descendant of another Member of Congress from Virginia (James A. Walker), Butler also served as Republican floor leader in the Virginia House of Delegates.

Here's a synopsis of his long career, as posted in the Biographical Directory of the U.S. Congress:

BUTLER, Manley Caldwell, (great grandson of James A. Walker), a Representative from Virginia; born in Roanoke, Va., June 2, 1925; graduated from Jefferson Senior High School, Roanoke, Va., 1942; A.B., University of Richmond (Va.), 1948; LL.B., University of Virginia Law School, Charlottesville, 1950; ensign, United States Navy, 1943-1946; admitted to the Virginia bar in 1950 and commenced practice in Roanoke; lawyer, private practice; elected to Virginia house of delegates from Roanoke, 1962-1971, serving as chairman of the joint Republican caucus, 1964-1966, and as minority leader, 1966-1971; elected simultaneously as a Republican to the Ninety-second and Ninety-third Congress by special election to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of United States Representative Richard H. Poff, and reelected to the four succeeding Congresses (November 7, 1972- January 3, 1983); was not a candidate for reelection to the Ninety-eighth Congress in 1982; resumed the practice of law in Roanoke; is a resident of Roanoke, Va.

In 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution in tribute to Butler and his service to Virginia. Sponsored by such prominent conservative Republicans as H. Morgan Griffith (who is now the Republican floor leader in the House, the same post held by Butler more than 35 years ago), Kathy J. Byron, Jay K. Katzen (who was the Republican nominee for Lieutenant Governor in 2001), R. Steven Landes, and Glenn M. Weatherholtz, among others, House Joint Resolution No. 895 stated:

WHEREAS, Manley Caldwell Butler of Roanoke has served the citizens of Roanoke and the Commonwealth in a variety of roles for more than 40 years; and

WHEREAS, a native of Roanoke, Caldwell Butler was educated in the Roanoke public schools and is a graduate of the University of Richmond and the University of Virginia Law School; and

WHEREAS, in 1961, running with the encouragement of his friend and former law partner, Linwood Holton, Caldwell Butler won election to the House of Delegates from the 57th House District in Roanoke City; and

WHEREAS, Caldwell Butler became House Minority Leader, leading a small but determined band of Republicans throughout the 1960s; and

WHEREAS, Caldwell Butler won his last term in the House of Delegates in 1969, running as a favor to Linwood Holton, who that year won election as Governor and relied heavily on Caldwell Butler's legislative leadership for the first two years of his term; and

WHEREAS, in 1972 Caldwell Butler won election to the United States House of Representatives from the 6th Congressional District and quickly won acclaim as a member of the House Judiciary Committee during the impeachment proceedings against President Nixon; and

WHEREAS, throughout his legislative career in Richmond and in Washington, Caldwell Butler earned a reputation for independence, choosing to represent his constituents as he saw fit rather than rely on partisan politics or coalition building; and

WHEREAS, Caldwell Butler's independence led him to take often controversial but always principled stands on issues as varied as the Voting Rights Act, abortion, bankruptcy laws and constitutional amendments regarding the federal budget and equal rights; and

WHEREAS, since his retirement from the Congress in 1982, Caldwell Butler has continued to be an active and influential member of the Republican Party and has been an inspiration to a new generation of politicians; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the General Assembly commend Manley Caldwell Butler for his many years of distinguished service to the citizens of Roanoke and the Commonwealth; and, be it

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates prepare a copy of this resolution for presentation to Manley Caldwell Butler as an expression of the General Assembly's admiration and appreciation for his courageous, committed and trailblazing political career.

So it is clear that M. Caldwell Butler was -- and is -- no lightweight. Note how his fellow legislators admire his "reputation for independence" and his "often controversial but always principled stands on issues."

No wonder Butler's opinion has been sought and savored for many years. That is why his op-ed piece in last Thursday's Roanoke Times, headlined "Amendment doesn't belong in Virginia's Bill of Rights," deserves particular attention.

The article itself is evidence for why institutional memory is so important, especially in politics. Butler was active in politics and government when Virginia's constitution was revised and repromulgated in 1971. So he begins his argument by hearkening back to the process that created the fundamental law of the Commonwealth:

A significant guideline to constitution change, set forth in the 542-page Report of the Commission that led to the last major revision of the Virginia constitution in 1971, reads as follows:

"A constitution embodies fundamental law. It follows that a constitution is not a code of laws, and that unnecessary detail, not touching on fundamental matters, ought to be left to the statute books. Once the fundamentals have been provided for, most other matters can safely be left to the political and legislative process."

The proposed constitutional amendment on marriage would do violence to the above stated principle in that it is addressed to a matter that is clearly the province of the legislature alone.

Pointing out that laws defining marriage have already been passed by the General Assembly and are part of the Virginia Code, Butler offers that he he is unaware of "any precedent" for adding to the Constitution something that is already part of the regular code of laws on the books.

He then gives us something of a history lesson, explaining the heritage of Virginia's Bill of Rights (something touched on in the Commonwealth Coalition's ad):

The first constitution of Virginia included a Bill of Rights that is still in the present constitution. Indeed, the only changes in the Bill of Rights in the major revisions in 1971 were largely cosmetic, and the only addition thereto since 1971 was approved in 1996 ("Rights of Victims of Crime").

The General Assembly of Virginia now proposes an amendment to be placed in Article I entitled "Bill of Rights Section 15A Marriage."

The 17 sections of the Bill of Rights have been in our constitution since it was first put together in 1776, beginning with Section 1 ("Equality and Rights of Men") and ending with "Free Exercise of Religion." It was the first of the state bills of rights. The author of our "Declaration of Rights" was George Mason.

The first draft considered by the General Assembly on May 27, 1776, and widely circulated at the time, has been called by one scholar, "The most influential constitutional document in American history." It was incorporated at least in part in many if not most of the constitutions of the original 13 states and many others. It is something of which (in its present form) we can all be proud.

Finally, in language reminiscent of the finely-tuned argument by conservative jurist J. Harvie Wilkinson in the Washington Post a few months ago, Butler concludes:

Simply stated, the proposed language (which is mean-spirited, unwarranted, poorly drafted and already in the code itself) does not belong in the constitution of Virginia, and certainly nowhere in our Bill of Rights.

Vote "no" on Proposed Amendment No. 1 to the constitution of Virginia.

Caldwell Butler is not distinguished simply because he is old. No, in this case the octogenarian is distinguished also because he is right -- and correct. His argument, derived from the experience of decades of service as a Goldwater-Ford-Reagan conservative, is one that resonates with Virginia voters, especially other conservative voters.

Don't be surprised if, within the next week or ten days, many more conservative Republicans "come out of the closet" and announce their well-considered, principled opposition to the Marshall/Newman amendment and add their own admonition to vote "no" on Ballot Question No. 1 on November 7.

Speaking About Blogs ....

"Speaking about blogs" is what I will be doing this coming Tuesday evening in Arlington. Here's how it was announced in the October newsletter of the Log Cabin Republicans of Virginia:

October Meeting – Let’s Blog!

Our guest speaker at our meeting on October 17 will be Rick Sincere. Rick is a longtime libertarian activist, Log Cabin member, and now blogger at Rick Sincere News and Thoughts (http://ricksincerethoughts.blogspot.com/). He will introduce us to the Virginia blogosphere and discuss the major players and how important blogging has become in political campaigning and politics in general. We’ll also get the latest news from the campaign to defeat the Marshall/Newman amendment on November 7. Please join us at 6:30 at the Boulevard Woodgrill at 2901 Wilson Blvd. in Arlington (just two blocks from the Clarendon Metro stop). The meeting will begin promptly at 7:00 and dinner is always available after the meeting.

The charge I have been given by the meeting organizers is to explain which political blogs are important for people to read regularly, with an emphasis on (but not exclusively about) Virginia. Believe it or not, there are people out there -- even politically savvy and active individuals -- who barely know what a blog is. They are not yet participants in the great political conversation on line.

Here's an offer: Any blogger who links to this specific post between now and noon on Tuesday, October 17, will be named as a "must-read" during my presentation on Tuesday evening. Who's up for the challenge?

Hilltopper, Hoya, M.D. ... Ambassador

Today's news includes a story about a high school and college classmate of mine, Mark Dybul, who was sworn in on Tuesday by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as the new U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator.

As the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported last month, putting a local slant on it,

Mark Dybul, a Whitefish Bay native, has been named by the White House to be U.S. global AIDS coordinator and will lead the implementation of President Bush's emergency plan for AIDS relief.
The position comes with a rank of ambassador and will involve travel to the Caribbean, sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia to oversee President Bush's $15 billion program to combat spread of the disease.
"It is humbling and inspiring to be given the chance to serve the American people and to touch the lives of people around the world," said Dybul....
Dybul was confirmed by the Senate on Aug. 3 and will be sworn in at a private ceremony on Oct. 10. His parents, Claire and Richard Dybul of Whitefish Bay, will travel to Washington to attend.
"We wouldn't miss this for the world," said Richard Dybul, 74, who is retired from the construction business.

Technically, I suppose, we were not "classmates," in the sense that we never attended classes together. In fact, Mark was four years behind me at both Marquette University High School in Milwaukee and at Georgetown University. But because we were on the same debate team at Marquette High and I coached at the Georgetown Summer Forensics Institute when Mark was part of the Philodemic Society, we knew each other. (If I were particularly cheeky, I would scan Mark's yearbook photo from his freshman year at MUHS and post it here. But I choose to be kind.) Let's just say we traveled in the same circles.

As an alumnus of Georgetown's debate team, Mark is part of a legacy that includes Democratic political strategist Bob Shrum, Bill Clinton's lawyer Robert S. Bennett, St. John's University law professor John Q. Barrett (also an MUHS alum), space travel entrepreneur Charles Chafer, National War College professor Michael Mazarr, investment banking and derivatives expert Bradley Ziff, and many others.

I actually have not seen Mark in more than a decade -- perhaps much longer than that. It's good to see him rise to a position of such prominence and responsibility. I have to say, however, that the usual route from Georgetown to an ambassadorial appointment is through the School of Foreign Service rather than the College and Medical School.

The swearing-in ceremony was accompanied by remarks by both Secretary Rice and First Lady Laura Bush, who both had kind things to say.

Secretary of State Rice began by noting the presence of Mark's family:

I am truly honored and delighted to have the opportunity to swear in Mark Dybul as our next Global AIDS Coordinator. I am pleased to do that in the presence of Mark's parents, Claire and Richard; his partner, Jason; and his mother-in-law, Marilyn. You have wonderful family to support you, Mark, and I know that's always important to us. Welcome.

She then summed up what his responsibilities will be in his new post:

The fight to eradicate AIDS is really one of the great moral callings of our time. Mark is the right person to carry on this great program and this great cause. He brings of course a deep commitment to the role from his years in public service and in public health. He studied AIDS as a researcher and as a doctor and he's gained a full understanding of the virus.

But it's not enough for Mark to simply have been someone who understood this virus; he wanted to do something about it. And so he's been a policy maker who has confronted the disease's tragic effects on individuals and families and communities.

When we were standing out in the anteroom, Mark said that he misses being a physician and his contact with individual patients. But as the First Lady said to him, he is of course now having an extraordinarily broad impact on the lives of so many. Mark takes the helm at a time when the United States has dedicated enormous resources and enormous energy to combating the scourge of HIV/AIDS. It's not an easy path. It's a path that still in many ways needs to be plowed. But we're making headway through the President's Emergency Plan, and now in its third year PEPFAR is on pace to meet our five-year, $15 billion commitment for prevention, treatment and care. The Emergency Plan is the single largest international initiative by any country for any disease and we're making progress each step along the way; one more orphan, one more patient is taken care of or treated, and one more person can live with the disease.

Then the First Lady offered a few comments:

Mark has already made a huge difference as Acting, Deputy, and Assistant Global AIDS Coordinator. I've seen the results of his work as I've visited PEPFAR projects around the world -- from a program in Russia that helps HIV-positive children lead healthy lives, to South Africa's Mothers to Mothers-to-Be program, which helps HIV-positive pregnant women deliver babies free of HIV.

Secretary Rice mentioned Mark's long career in health policy, and how he brings immense experience and expertise to his new position. Yet what distinguishes Dr. Dybul is his creativity. For PEPFAR to succeed, its resources must be used wisely. And from the initiative's very beginning, Mark's innovation has helped widen PEPFAR's reach. He's ensured that HIV prevention programs are integrated with treatment and orphan care. He works with other federal agencies to streamline our development efforts, combining AIDS relief with economic assistance, food aid, and the work of the President's Malaria Initiative.

PEPFAR works with partner governments and local relief programs to develop effective treatment and prevention. But the challenges presented by HIV and AIDS are too great for governments to address alone. Mark brings together people of all political persuasions, of many nations and backgrounds, from governments and the private sector, to address a challenge that faces all of us. He's committed to working with businesses, foundations and individual philanthropists who have a tremendous interest in aiding the developing world.

In fact, just this year, thanks to Mark's leadership, I've announced two PEPFAR-related public-private partnerships. In March, the federal government joined several pharmaceutical companies to help them improve access to pediatric AIDS medicines, and to develop HIV therapies that are safe for children. Last month, at the Clinton Global Initiative, I announced the PlayPumps alliance, an initiative that will use children's merry-go-rounds to pump clean drinking water for 10 million sub-Saharan Africans by 2010.

Ambassador Dybul's leadership comes at a crucial time. Around the world, nearly 40 million people are infected with HIV or AIDS. But to Mark, those 40 million people are more than a statistic. In addition to his public health expertise, his leadership skills, and his creative policy work, Mark is first and foremost a physician. To Dr. Dybul, these 40 million people are individual patients, each deserving comfort, compassion and care, and a chance to lead healthy and happy lives.

Finally, Dr. Dybul responded:

It is humbling and inspiring to be sworn in to succeed Ambassador Randy Tobias as the second U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator. Randy’s leadership, management capabilities and personal style put the pieces in place to get the initiative off to a rapid start.

But today is not about an individual who fills a position. Today is a time to reflect on the extraordinary fact that there is such a position as U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator at all.

It was only a little more than 3 years ago that President Bush changed the world with the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief. When the history of global public health is written, the launch of the largest international health initiative in history dedicated to a single disease will be remembered as one of the boldest and most important actions – ever.

As Dr. Peter Piot of UNAIDS has said, the commitment of $15 billion across 5 years changed the global landscape from millions of dollars to billions of dollars. More important than the quantum increase in dollars was the insistence that those dollars achieve results – that we meet aggressive prevention, treatment and care goals in a defined period of time....

Individuals, communities and nations are taking ownership of their lives and are beginning to turn the tide against the epidemic. Young men and women are choosing behaviors that protect them against infection or reduce their risk of acquiring it. When accurate information is provided, personal responsibility is taking hold.

We are beginning to see social norms change – a church that taught polygamy now teaches monogamy, young men are teaching their peers that men must respect women.

Health facilities are expanding rapidly to provide medical interventions for prevention, counseling and testing and compassionate care and treatment.

And many lives are being saved.

Notably, earlier this year, when Mark's nomination was announced, The Washington Blade reported that he was to become

the third openly gay person to hold a U.S. ambassadorial position. President Clinton appointed businessman and philanthropist James Hormel as ambassador to Luxemburg. In his first term in office, Bush appointed gay career Foreign Service Officer Michael Guest as ambassador to Romania.

Maybe we really are in the 21st century.

Provenance

It started last Friday, when actor Bradley Whitford (Josh Lyman on The West Wing and now Danny Tripp on the new NBC series, Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip) was a guest on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Asked about news from Washington, Whitford quoted an editorial from The Hill (a newspaper that covers Congress) as saying:

"Hastert and Boehner need to get on the same page or Republican troubles will continue to mount."

In disbelief, I immediately looked it up on the Internet. Sure enough, there was a Hill editorial, dated October 5 and headlined "Hastert and Boehner."

I sent the link to some friends with the comment, "You can't make this kind of thing up."

The quotation got picked up on Saturday by libertarian blogger Tom Palmer (who gave me a hat tip).

Then, on Monday, the Washington Post's "In the Loop" columnist, Al Kamen, used the quotation from The Hill, under the headline: "Say Again? On Second Thought, Don't."

And it all began with a White House staffer from the Jed Bartlet administration.

My, How Things Have Changed!

I came across some retro commercials today, all from the original run of The Flintstones back in the early 1960s.

Anyone born past 1971 may find this hard to believe, but there was a time when cigarettes (and other tobacco products) were advertised openly on television and radio. Not product placements snuck into a movie or TV show, but real, honest-to-goodness commercials that touted the wonderful characteristics of the product.

It turns out that one of the early sponsors of The Flintstones was Winston, with its memorable slogan that drove grammar mavens up the wall, "Winston tastes good like a cigarette should."

Here's the first ad, which shows Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble in character:

Next comes a visit by Fred to the Stone Age equivalent of Quikimart, though instead of Apu we have a clerk who sounds suspiciously like character actor Herb Vigran:

The third ad brings us back into the Flintstone household, with Fred and Barney trying to get the record player to work properly:

Perhaps as penance for all these cigarette ads, we next see Fred and Barney and Wilma and Betty in a PSA for the American Cancer Society:

Finally, we can see how the sponsor's name was embedded in the closing credits to the show. It's funny, but I don't remember The Flintstones ever being in black and white. Are the earliest episodes lost to the ages?

Well, at least thanks to YouTube, we can get a taste of what prehistoric life was like ... in the 1960s.

Paper or Electronic?

Last week the Washington Times ran an article in the local news section that began:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson visited Maryland yesterday to support Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley's bid for governor, but said he agrees with Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.'s views on paper balloting's superiority to electronic voting.

"I believe that the best way is paper ballots, with optical scanners," Mr. Richardson, a Democrat, said during an event in Silver Spring. "We did that in New Mexico, and it should become nationwide."

The article, by Jon Ward, noted:

Mr. Ehrlich has threatened to call a special session of the General Assembly to discard the entire electronic voting system in favor of paper ballots.

I thought the article cried out for a response, so I wrote one. It appeared in today's letters to the editor column in the Times. (Somehow the editor got the section wrong in the reference to the original article.)

The governors of Maryland and New Mexico may belong to different political parties, but they agree that "the best way" to avoid problematic or fraudulent elections "is paper ballots" rather than electronic voting machines ("Democratic governor backs Ehrlich on balloting," Commentary, Wednesday).

Govs. Bill Richardson and Bob Ehrlich may have confidence in paper ballots but they may be sorely disappointed if they count on them to prevent fraud.

In order to disrupt an election or change its results when electronic voting machines are used, a potential perpetrator must have a sophisticated knowledge, not just of computer hardware and software in general, but of particular hardware and software, plus he must gain physical access to the machinery by overcoming simple and widely-practiced security procedures.

In order to disrupt an election or change its results when paper ballots are used, a potential perpetrator must have: a pen. Or a pencil. And nothing more.

Marking a second (or third) candidate in a "vote for one" race invalidates a ballot for that race, with nobody receiving a vote.

Stray marks made on an optical-scan ballot render that ballot unreadable by a machine, and therefore it must be set aside for hand-counting, when it becomes subject to human error.

All it takes is a pen or pencil to make these marks on paper ballots to change the results of an election.

Paper ballots can also be torn, folded, spindled and mutilated, making them unreadable by either machine or human eyes.

In his 2004 book, "Stealing Elections," Wall Street Journal editorial writer John Fund documents dozens of cases of electoral fraud involving paper (either voter registration forms or paper ballots) over the past two decades. At the same time, he notes in regard to electronic voting machines, that "in the twenty-plus years that these machines have been used, in many counties all across the country, there has never been a verified case of tampering."

There are many other problems involving paper ballots, but one thing is clear: They will not stop perceived or actual election fraud.

In the print edition, my letter was placed at the head of the letters column, just below the editorial cartoon by Bill Garner. Sadly, though -- despite the prominent placement -- I don't think this will put an end to the debate.

Virginia Film Festival Announces 2006 Line-Up

The sanctuary of the historic Mt. Zion Baptist Church -- now the non-profit Music Resource Center -- in downtown Charlottesville was the setting on Wednesday morning for a news conference announcing the line-up for this year's Virginia Film Festival. Appropriately so, since the theme of the 2006 festival is Revelations: Finding God at the Movies.

Festival director Richard Herskowitz revealed that the Virginia Film Award will be presented on Friday, October 27, to Oscar recipient (and Virginia resident) Robert Duvall, who will also be on hand to discuss his triple-threat 1997 movie (actor, director, screenwriter) The Apostle with film critic David Edelstein, after the film is screened at The Paramount.

The festival will also be the venue for the premiere of a new documentary by Charlottesville's own Oscar- and Emmy-winning director, Paul Wagner, called God of a Second Chance. Wagner and his crew "spent years getting to know the churches and ministries" in South East Washington, D.C., the poorest neighborhood in the Nation's Capital. (It has, Wagner told me, 65,000 residents, one sit-down restaurant, and 300 churches.) "It took a year to shoot," he said, but "while the film is a finished product, the project is still in process."

Herskowitz credited Wagner with stimulating the idea for the 2006 festival's theme, but Wagner modestly demurred. "If this doesn't work as a theme, I'm not responsible," he said with a smile, adding that "there are a lot of filmmakers noting the importance of religion and spirituality" in the contemporary world.

"What is stimulating to filmmakers," said Herskowitz, "is the growing tensions between religion and secular society." What the festival aims to do, he said, is to "use film as a springboard for discussion and debate," giving the audience an opportunity to "interact with filmmakers." To that end, he said later, "almost every film is accompanied by a speaker. I think we're the only film festival with more speakers than films."

Besides Duvall, whose film debut came in one of the hits of last year's festival, the 1962 version of Harper Lee's novel, To Kill a Mockingbird, the festival will provide a platform for Tony-winning actor Liev Schreiber to screen his directoral debut, Everything Is Illuminated (2005), starring Elijah Wood and based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer.

One of last year's biggest box-office successes, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, will also be featured at the festival, with producer Mark Johnson and actor William Moseley ("Peter Pevensie"). That epic will be screened at the same time as Ingmar Bergman's classic, The Seventh Seal, one of four Scandinavian films in the program.

Herskowitz said that, in programming the festival, there was an attempt to be "as ecumenical and multifaith as possible." There will be films exploring Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity, as well as some "irreverent" entries, including Monty Python's The Life of Brian and the 2005 parody of a 1922 Mormonsploitation film, the silent Trapped by the Mormons.

There will also be several films with gay themes, including Keep Not Silent (about Orthodox Jewish lesbians in Israel) and In My Father's Church (in which a lesbian wants to have a church wedding -- and her father is the pastor of the local United Methodist Church). Another gay-themed film is Camp Out, a documentary about ten teenagers attending the first overnight camp for gay Christian youth. That film's director, Larry Grimaldi, will present the film.

Besides the unconventional Trapped by the Mormons, there will be other silent films as well, including Cecil B. DeMille's King of Kings and the 1925 His People (about Jews on the Lower East Side), both with live musical accompaniment by Donald Sosin and Joanna Seaton.

One of the most anticipated programs in the Virginia Film Festival, the Adrenaline Film Project, will be back this year for the third time, with young filmmakers mentored by Jeff Wadlow and Beau Bauman. The object is to make a movie from scratch within 72 hours. This year the Adrenaline Film Project is sponsored by Volvo. (No relation to the opening night screening at the Paramount of Swedish Auto, which was filmed in Charlottesville last year, with director Derek Sieg and actress January Jones.) The Adrenaline Film Project provides a unique opportunity for aspiring directors, producers, and screenwriters -- most of whom are either Charlottesville residents or University of Virginia students -- and represents the film festival's commitment to nurturing local talent.

In addition to Swedish Auto (directed and produced by UVa alumni) and Paul Wagner's new documentary, there will be several other features on the VFF schedule with Charlottesville ties, including Live from the Hook, a documentary about local musicians Bob Girard and Charlie Pastorfield.

While there are still some "TBAs" on the schedule, I was surprised by a few omissions. Where are the classic Catholic films of the 1940s, like Going My Way and The Song of Bernadette? How about The Exorcist or The Shoes of the Fisherman? A focus on the tension between traditional Jewish culture and modernity could include Hester Street, any of the versions of The Jazz Singer (Al Jolson, Danny Thomas, or Neil Diamond), or even Norman Jewison's ponderous Fiddler on the Roof. And speaking of Norman Jewison musicals, how about Jesus Christ Superstar -- or, for that matter, Godspell or The Sound of Music? (I now feel guilty for not making more suggestions on Richard Herskowitz's film festival blog.)

Later this week, the full schedule of the 2006 Virginia Film Festival should be posted on line. In the meantime, the Daily Progress, WINA-AM, The Hook, and WVIR-TV also have reports. For more information, visit the Virginia Film Festival at www.vafilm.com.

And, for my blog coverage of the 2005 Virginia Film Festival, see these articles: Fever and You Ought to Be in Pictures.