Doubletake: Best Endowed Organ

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

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

Best Endowed Organ Scholarship

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

The Carl J. Best Endowed Organ Scholarship

The article explains:

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

It does, however, go on to say:

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

Arched eyebrows are optional.

Jump in the Prediction Pool

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

Still, I will make some predictions about voter turnout.

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

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

My prediction for Charlottesville turnout: 24.4 percent.

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

Murphy Brown and Medical Marijuana

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virginia Declaration of Rights Anniversary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Lively Art, Indeed!

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

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

DO YOU USE PORNOGRAPHY?

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

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

Those with legitimate interest,
please reply to:

documentary.contributors@gmail.com

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

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

More Phone Calls from the Candidates

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

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

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

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

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

Those Gay Tories Again

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

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

An article in the Daily Telegraph reports:

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

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

The article continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This Just In: Danforth Joins RUC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VCAP Push-Polling for McDonnell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tingley, Toscano Favor More Joblessness

Last week, I criticized Rich Collins, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Virginia House of Delegates in the 57th District, for favoring the doubling of the minimum wage, to over $10 per hour. Such a move, I argued, would lead to increased unemployment among the most vulnerable members of the labor force, primarily minority teenagers looking for their first jobs, single mothers seeking part-time work, and the elderly semi-retired trying to supplement their pensions.

Now I have the pleasure, if you will, of aiming that same criticism at Collins' two opponents in the race, businessman Kim Tingley and attorney David Toscano. (Collins teaches urban planning at the University of Virginia.)

In a report on WCAV-TV's 11 o'clock news on Tuesday, Toscano said on camera, in response to a question about mandating a "living wage" for UVA employees, "why shouldn't we talk about raising minimum wage in the state as a whole[?]" The report did not cite a percentage or amount that Toscano prefers for a statewide minimum-wage increase.

In this morning's Daily Progress, Bob Gibson (who also appeared briefly, though silently, in the WCAV-TV report) quotes Kim Tingley:

Tingley spoke of his “full support for the living wage” and told UVa employees he was “very concerned about outsourcing” of university jobs from the state workforce to private companies.

University wages “need to reflect the high cost of living in this part of the country,” said Tingley, 60, whose wife, Deborah Lawrence, is an environmental science professor at UVa.

I won't bother to repeat all the familiar arguments about how every increase in the minimum wage causes employment dislocations. But I found this summary in an article from The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty by economists Kevin Sohr and Walter Block. (Block is the author of the popular Defending the Undefendable: The Pimp, Prostitute, Scab, Slumlord, Libeler, Moneylender, and Other Scapegoats in the Rogue's Gallery of American Society.)

Moreover, the minimum wage is not an equal opportunity destroyer. Teens in general suffer more from this law than do adults. Each succeeding increase in the minimum wage has negatively impacted teenage unemployment rates. Just as the minimum wage attacks the young more than the old, it also harms blacks more than whites. Observed Milton Friedman more than three decades ago: “Of all the laws on the statute books of this country, I believe the minimum wage law probably does the Negroes the most harm.” Each increase in the minimum wage has been followed by an immediate widening of the unemployment rate gap between black and white teens. Prior to the 1949 increase the two rates were virtually identical; immediately a gap was created. Every subsequent increase led to a dramatic increase in non-white unemployment while the white level stayed relatively stable.

The problem is not racism, but lack of employment skills. Friedman explained that black “youngsters are less productive than white youngsters. They tend to have a lower level of education, a lower level of skill.” This being the case, any given level of mandated wage is likely to trap more black than white youth.

The one advantage low-skilled workers might have over their skilled counterparts is price competition, offering to work for less. But the minimum wage makes such an offer illegal. Thus, the minimum wage hurts those whom it is intended to most help: unskilled laborers.

Given its disastrous consequences, why does the minimum receive so much support? It preys on people’s good intentions. Voters think: Poor people are not making much money. How can we help them? Mandate that their bosses pay more. When a politician opposes an increase, people hear “I want poor people to earn less money.”

It appears that in their understanding of basic economics, the three Democrats seeking to succeed Mitch Van Yahres in the House of Delegates are as different as Tweedledee, Tweedledum, and Tweedledummest. (Your pick as to who is whom.) Whichever candidate gets the nomination, he'll provide a fat, juicy target for Republican nominee Tom McCrystal.

Whither the Charlottesville School Board?

This morning's Daily Progress is reporting that Charlottesville's City Council heard last night from citizens about the candidates they support for appointment to three vacant school board seats. WCAV-TV reported last night on its 11 o'clock newscast that the turnout was rather low, considering that voters have no direct role in selecting school board members and their only influence can be exercised through the open hearing process. On-air correspondent Elizabeth Donatelli reported that only "about twenty-five people took advantage of the public hearing and spoke on behalf of their favorite candidates."

The Daily Progress article also notes that the public hearing was oddly timed, given that Charlottesville High School held its commencement exercises on Monday night, leading to an unavoidable conflict for many teachers, parents, and students who are concerned about the future of the School Board and the city school system.

City Council members also discussed, but did not schedule, a second public hearing after councilor Rob Schilling said Charlottesville High School’s graduation on Monday night likely prevented some people from attending the hearing. Schilling also repeated his call for an elected School Board.

“Why are we appointing School Board members instead of letting the public have a real voice in the process by directly electing School Board via a ward- or district-based election process?” Schilling asked. “We can no longer foster the complete lack of direct accountability to the public, which our appointed School Board members currently enjoy.”

I have obtained a copy of Councilor Schilling's complete remarks. Here is what he said at last night's City Council meeting:

I would like to begin my remarks by acknowledging and thanking all of those who came before us this evening. The purpose of a public hearing is to “hear” the public, and I hope that we as a body have heard you.

I am concerned that for some reason, this public hearing was scheduled on the same night and at roughly the same time as the Charlottesville High School graduation ceremony. This scheduling conflict most likely precluded the participation of many interested citizens who are in some way closely affiliated with a CHS graduate. Even our City Manager, Mr. O’Connell, cannot be present here, due to his son’s graduation tonight. Through this scheduling error, we have potentially denied many members of the public an opportunity for public expression. What an unfortunate oversight. Thankfully there is still time to rectify this situation.

In considering the comments that we did hear tonight, I am not entirely certain how they are received by City Council. Will councilors weigh the number and the persuasiveness of the received comments in order to decide whom to appoint to the board? Or, is this hearing merely a “courtesy” to the public, wherein councilors acknowledge comments with a nod, and then go on to appoint whomever they had previously decided to choose?

If it is the latter, then we should make this clear to the public. But, if it is the former, and this council is sincerely considering whom to appoint to the school board based upon comments received from the public, then we must ask ourselves: “Why are we appointing School Board members instead of letting the public have a real voice in the process by directly electing the school board via a ward- or district-based election process?”

If public input is so valuable and is strongly considered in the school board appointment process, why appoint at all? Do we not trust the citizens of this community, the citizens who elected this very body, with the decision of who should run the city schools, as most localities do across the Commonwealth and across the country? Or do we deem only some of our citizens worthy of trust? We should ask: Why is this council so hesitant to relinquish the power of appointment? Are we five that smart, that good, that intuitive?

It is clear, upon reviewing the many comments I’ve received from residents across the political and socio-economic spectrum, that this council, and previous councils have failed the public, in that we have maintained and supported an appointment process that has left the public dissatisfied and that ultimately has harmed some of our most vulnerable citizens: the children of Charlottesville.

We can no longer afford to allow a $60 million dollar organization, entrusted with the futures of our children, to be run by political appointees who may in fact be placed because of patronage rather than qualification. We can no longer foster the complete lack of direct accountability to the public, which our appointed school board members currently enjoy. We can no longer tolerate a failing “underclass” in our Charlottesville City Schools; we require school board members with a strong and workable vision that is clearly communicated and acceptable to the public whom they hope to serve.

And, thus, we can no longer pretend that one private 15-minute interview with council, and four or five two-minute replies at one public forum adequately reveal the qualification or aptitude of any particular candidate for a position on the Charlottesville City School Board. There is simply too much at stake and the citizens of Charlottesville deserve better than this.

A change here is long overdue, as it has become painfully obvious this year that we as a council, do not “know any better” than you, the citizens of this community. There is nothing “magic” about any of us that would allow us to make a school board appointment superior to that any citizen carefully weighing the issues would make, should you have the opportunity to vote for school board members. If we as a council truly value public input as we say we do, then we should truly value public input by letting the public make the decision regarding who is best suited to direct the education of our children. I trust the public, and, as I have often said, I favor an open process wherein the community elects its school board members.

I want to acknowledge Mr. Jeffrey Rossman, a member of the local Democratic Party, for following the courage of his convictions by certifying and circulating a petition that would allow the citizens of Charlottesville to vote on whether they would like to have an elected or an appointed School Board. This is a nonpartisan effort with bipartisan support.

In conclusion, for Council’s consideration, I will now make two brief motions that I believe will address some of the concerns expressed in my preceding statement:

1) In order to allow a voice for the many who were unable to attend tonight due to a scheduling conflict, I move that City Council establish a 2nd public hearing on School Board Applicants, to be held at the next regularly scheduled Council meeting, June 20.

2) In order that the public may have a greater sense of confidence in the School Board appointments ultimately made by this body, I move that City Council hold all upcoming interviews of current potential School Board appointees in an open session meeting wherein the public would be allowed to observe.

It may be noteworthy that local Democratic activist David RePass, who served recently on the City Council-appointed elections task force, has endorsed the idea of an elected school board, despite virulent opposition from most of the local Democratic party establishment and the four Democrats on City Council. RePass wrote to George Loper:

Simply put, the current system of selecting the Charlottesville School Board violates a fundamental principle of democratic governance. The School Board is not accountable to the people. The only way to make it accountable is to elect it.

The bipartisan group of voters and taxpayers who are circulating a petition to put a measure on the ballot in November to change Charlottesville's school board from an appointed to an elected body will be out in force on primary election day, June 14. I have heard reports that there will be a table outside each polling place with petitions to be signed, and each table will be staffed by at least one Republican and at least one Democrat.

A ‘Brawler,’ Not a Token

In putting forward Tom McCrystal’s name for nomination to be the Republican candidate for the House of Delegates in the 57th District, long-time GOP activist Randolph Byrd related a story about the first time they met, in 1989.

“When I first saw Tom, he was covered with bruises. He had bruises on his legs, on his arms. He even had bruises on his face. ‘What happened to you?’ I asked. It turned out he had been playing lacrosse. I knew then that Tom McCrystal was a brawler – someone who will fight hard for what’s important to him.”

Byrd added that McCrystal has proven, through his civic activism and now through his willingness to run for public office, that he has all the good qualities of a brawler in the public square – not someone who roughs people up for the sport of it, but to demonstrate the strength of his convictions.

McCrystal vice president and chief technology officer at the Charlottesville-based Creative Perspectives, Inc., ran unopposed for the nomination. He was selected by acclamation by the 57th District Republican Committee at its June 6 mass meeting in McIntire Park. Committee chairman Bob Hodous ran a tight meeting; besides the nominating procedure, it only included one resolution, presented under a suspension of the rules, to commemorate the anniversary of the death of President Ronald Reagan.

The highlight of the meeting was McCrystal’s acceptance speech, presented here in full:

Before I begin, I'd like to take a moment and add my voice to the many thanking Mitch Van Yahres for his service to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and to the people of our community.

I think I was part of the first bi-partisan act of Mitch's service in the House. The morning of January 6th, 1981 was brutally cold at six in the morning. I was Tom Albro's driver, and Tom and I, alone with Mitch and his driver, were standing in front of the Rose Hill Drive precinct, waiting to meet voters.

Mitch had made sure that there was an industrial-strength gas heater there, and invited Tom and I to come over and get warm. The four of us still froze our butts off, but that morning I learned from Mitch that you shouldn't let an election stand in the way of being a good neighbor.

If you remember how cold it was that morning, you how thankful we were that morning.

While we may have disagreed politically with him at times, he gave this community many years of his time in public service. So, Mitch, thank you for everything that you've accomplished for Charlottesville and Albemarle County.

With a deep sense of duty and great determination, I am grateful to accept your nomination.

Over the past few months, I have carefully considered whether I should seek a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. During that time, I have consulted with family and friends, Democrats and Republicans, business associates and members of the Virginia Legislature.

Many -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- encouraged me to run, because they believe that I will bring unique qualifications and experience to Richmond.

They have told me that running a business, with experience in creating jobs, meeting payroll, and dealing with regulations and taxes, will help me to understand the need for responsible economic development. Further, they believe that my experience brings knowledge of how to implement solutions that work.

They have told me that my service as the Founding Chairman of the Virginia Piedmont Technology Council, and helping to bring that organization to life, shows leadership that insures that I will represent them well in the Legislature.

They have told me that my time on advisory committees to the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, making real decisions on real legislation, means I understand how the system works. They believe that I will be effective early and that my first year won't be on the job training.

But mostly, they've told me that they want results. They're tired of politicians who confuse studies with solutions and rhetoric with reality.

So, when I go to Richmond in January, I'll focus squarely on results:

I'll work to streamline state government, so we can afford to reduce the increasing burden on taxpayers.

I'll work to protect your privacy, so identity thieves and corporate snoops will get the message: "Not in Virginia".

I'll work to bring sense to transportation policy, so we can spend less time in traffic and more time where we want to be.

I'll work to bring fiscal stability to the Community College System, so every Virginian has access to knowledge and skills and -- most of all -- opportunity.

And, I'll work to transform public education. We will do more than assure that no child is left behind. Every school, and every child in Virginia will lead.

Now, I want to take a moment and talk about the "Conventional Wisdom". Conventional Wisdom says that Republicans in the 57th, no matter how good our ideas, can not win. Conventional Wisdom believes that members of the other party, no matter how ordinary their ideas, can not lose.

Conventional Wisdom is wrong. In fact, Conventional Wisdom has a track record of being wrong around here.

Conventional Wisdom said that a Democrat would win "Mr. Jefferson's seat" a few years ago. Well, Rob Bell proved Conventional Wisdom wrong.

Conventional Wisdom said that no Republican could win a seat on the Charlottesville City Council. Well, Rob Schilling proved Conventional Wisdom wrong.

Conventional Wisdom has some believing that election for this seat is next week -- that no Republican will represent the 57th.

I believe otherwise.

I believe good ideas trump party affiliation. I believe that vision trumps party dogma. I believe that the imperative of the future trumps few political elites that would hand pick a Delegate.

So, when Conventional Wisdom tells you that the election for delegate is next week, and not in November, just smile when you think, "Conventional Wisdom is wrong. Again."

We have a tough campaign ahead. But do not doubt that we can meet that any challenge together.

Speaking about our nation, Robert Kennedy once said: "Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live."

I am running for the Virginia House of Delegates. I run, because I believe in Virginia¹s future. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth and faith.

I believe in the intellect and industry of the people in my community, and I delight in their accomplishments every day. In the end, that's why I decided to run.

I am grateful for your nomination today. In response, I say to you, "I am running for the Virginia House of Delegates, and I am running to win". There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth and faith. In any event, it is the only way I can live.

Thank you for this nomination and this opportunity.

I look forward to representing you in the legislature.

Randolph Byrd's characterization of Tom McCrystal as a "brawler" reminded me immediately of the famous passage from former President Theodore Roosevelt's speech at the Sorbonne in April 1910:

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."

Far from token opposition, McCrystal promises to be a scrappy adversary to whomever comes out on top in the June 14 Democratic primary, whether it's Rich Collins, Kim Tingley, or David Toscano. None of the three will not be able to slide comfortably into office; they'll have to work for it.

Is Charlottesville Connaughton Country?

Driving into McIntire Park earlier this evening to attend a joint meeting of the Albemarle County and Charlottesville Republican parties, it was hard – no, impossible – not to be struck by the huge number of signs along the road promoting Sean Connaughton for Lieutenant Governor.

It turns out there were 150 regular-size yard signs and about 30 oversize billboard-type signs along all the roads entering and exiting the park from the Route 250 Bypass and completely surrounding the pavilion where the meeting (and potluck dinner) was taking place.

By contrast, there were no Bill Bolling signs anywhere to be found. It turns out that Bolling’s field rep, Matt Wells, showed up for the meeting with just a handful of signs. When he saw the overwhelming number of Connaughton signs, he just put his own bunch back into the trunk of his car. Resignation is sometimes, it seems, preferable to being overshadowed and embarrassed. (To be fair, former Delegate Peter Way gave an impassioned speech on Bolling’s behalf, receiving polite applause from the assembled party faithful.)

Quiet conversations with party activists after the meeting’s business was concluded revealed a surprising amount of support for Connaughton’s bid for the nomination. Most approached the question pragmatically, citing Connaughton’s record of successful election and re-election in Northern Virginia, a region of the state critical to the Republican ticket this November.

These are activists with long memories of victory and defeat. How many people do you know who can talk authoritatively about attending the 1978 convention that nominated Richard Obenshain for U.S. Senate? Or about the last dual primary, held in 1949, when fewer than 10,000 Republicans voted in their own party’s primary across the state? Not that there were many to begin with, but most Republican voters crossed party lines to vote in the Democratic primary for John S. Battle, since back in those days the primary was effectively the general election, with the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November just a coronation. (Sort of like most General Assembly districts these days.)

Their argument that Connaughton brings both regional and – for lack of a better word – ideological balance to the ticket is credible and persuasive. Kilgore comes from the far southwestern portion of the state, a region that has been pretty much unrepresented in statewide office in recent years. Whoever gets the Attorney General nomination, whether Steve Baril or Bob McDonnell, will cover the Richmond-Tidewater corridor. (And ideologically? As I pointed out to a new voter tonight, “Baril is endorsed by Jerry Falwell, while McDonnell is endorsed by Pat Robertson.” To which he replied, “That’s like Henry Ford saying you can have a car in any color you want, as long as it’s black.”)

Bill Bolling has roots in Southwest Virginia and represents a Richmond-area district in the state Senate. That means of all the potential statewide candidates for the GOP – aside from maverick George Fitch, who as mayor of Warrenton represents the far exurbs of Northern Virginia – only Connaughton brings with him any ties to the vote-rich Northern Virginia suburbs of D.C. In the general election campaign, he would be smart to admit that Bolling’s attacks – characterizing Connaughton as “less conservative” than himself – were largely true. Moderate and pragmatic voters are frightened by ideologues of both left and right, but these days mostly by hard-right hardliners who seem too concerned about people’s sex lives and not concerned enough about who’s picking up the trash on the curbside. (Do you remember Jay Katzen’s successful campaign for Lieutenant Governor four years ago? ... That’s what I thought.)

As a member of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors, Connaughton has had to deal with those “trash-collection” issues – the pragmatic issues that every county board or city council member faces, the tedious questions of where to put a traffic signal or how bright to shine a light over a city-run basketball court. The deliberations that lead to decisions on these issues are unlikely to win many friends, but they teach officeholders how to balance the wants and needs of different segments of the community while remaining true to their core political values. This is what nuts-and-bolts politics is all about – and having that experience is therefore an asset to anyone on a statewide ticket.

Yard-sign wars are merely surface symbols of who may be winning a campaign. The thought processes of political veterans are not. When you hear them say that Connaughton has an edge with pragmatic voters in the June 14 Republican primary, you have to stop and listen.

Phones Keep Ringing

Within just a few hours today, I received telephone messages on behalf of two candidates for statewide office in Virginia.

Attorney General candidate Steve Baril called personally to respond to the most recent attacks on his character by his opponent, retiring Delegate Bob McDonnell.

And former Governor Jim Gilmore called to inform me of his endorsement of state Senator Bill Bolling for Lieutenant Governor.

I may disconnect my voice mail between now and June 14 and use only my mobile phone for a while.

Listen to This Dissent

Another reason why Clarence Thomas should be the next Chief Justice of the United States, and why George W. Bush will not nominate him -- Justice Thomas’ dissenting opinion in Ashcroft v. Raich, in which the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 (O’Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas, dissenting) that the federal government can prosecute users of medical marijuana even in states that legalize such activity (references and citations omitted):

Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal Government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers.

Respondents' local cultivation and consumption of marijuana is not “Commerce . . . among the several States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3. By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution’s limits on federal power. The majority supports this conclusion by invoking, without explanation, the Necessary and Proper Clause. Regulating respondents’ conduct, however, is not “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution.” Congress. restrictions on the interstate drug trade. Art. I, §8, cl. 18. Thus, neither the Commerce Clause nor the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the power to regulate respondents’ conduct.

* * *

More difficult, however, is whether the [Controlled Substances Act] is a valid exercise of Congress. power to enact laws that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” its power to regulate interstate commerce. Art. I, §8, cl. 18. The Necessary and Proper Clause is not a warrant to Congress to enact any law that bears some conceivable connection to the exercise of an enumerated power. Nor is it, however, a command to Congress to enact only laws that are absolutely indispensable to the exercise of an enumerated power. In McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819), this Court, speaking through Chief Justice Marshall, set forth a test for determining when an Act of Congress is permissible under the Necessary and Proper Clause:

"Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional."

* * *

The majority’s rewriting of the Commerce Clause seems to be rooted in the belief that, unless the Commerce Clause covers the entire web of human activity, Congress will be left powerless to regulate the national economy effectively. The interconnectedness of economic activity is not a modern phenomenon unfamiliar to the Framers. Moreover, the Framers understood what the majority does not appear to fully appreciate: There is a danger to concentrating too much, as well as too little, power in the Federal Government. This Court has carefully avoided stripping Congress of its ability to regulate interstate commerce, but it has casually allowed the Federal Government to strip States of their ability to regulate intrastate commerce--not to mention a host of local activities, like mere drug possession, that are not commercial.

One searches the Court’s opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the States. Yet this Court knows that “‘[t]he Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers.’” That is why today’s decision will add no measure of stability to our Commerce Clause jurisprudence: This Court is willing neither to enforce limits on federal power, nor to declare the Tenth Amendment a dead letter. If stability is possible, it is only by discarding the stand-alone substantial effects test and revisiting our definition of “Commerce among the several States.” Congress may regulate interstate commerce--not things that affect it, even when summed together, unless truly “necessary and proper” to regulating interstate commerce.

* * *

Finally, the majority’s view--that because some of the CSA’s applications are constitutional, they must all be constitutional--undermines its reliance on the substantial effects test. The intrastate conduct swept within a general regulatory scheme may or may not have a substantial effect on the relevant interstate market. “[O]ne always can draw the circle broadly enough to cover an activity that, when taken in isolation, would not have substantial effects on commerce.” The breadth of legislation that Congress enacts says nothing about whether the intrastate activity substantially affects interstate commerce, let alone whether it is necessary to the scheme. Because medical marijuana users in California and elsewhere are not placing substantial amounts of cannabis into the stream of interstate commerce, Congress may not regulate them under the substantial effects test, no matter how broadly it drafts the CSA.

* * *

The majority prevents States like California from devising drug policies that they have concluded provide much-needed respite to the seriously ill. It does so without any serious inquiry into the necessity for federal regulation or the propriety of “displac[ing] state regulation in areas of traditional state concern.” The majority’s rush to embrace federal power ‘is especially unfortunate given the importance of showing respect for the sovereign States that comprise our Federal Union.” Our federalist system, properly understood, allows California and a growing number of other States to decide for themselves how to safeguard the health and welfare of their citizens. I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I respectfully dissent.

If we are ever going to return to a government of limited and enumerated powers, we need more men (and women) like Clarence Thomas leading that government.

Ronald Reagan: 1911-2004

Today, June 5, is the first anniversary of the death of President Ronald Reagan.

His passing came on the eve of the sixtieth anniversary of the D-Day invasion and the twentieth anniversary of his own Pointe du Hoc speech commemorating that event.

Whenever I am asked for the best place to find a summary of Ronald Reagan's political philosophy, I point them to "A Time for Choosing," a speech he delivered on behalf of presidential candidate Barry Goldwater on October 27, 1964. So important was this speech to Reagan and the conservative movement that it became known simply as "The Speech."

"The Speech" can be found in many places on the web, including through the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and the Modern History Sourcebook. I prefer the version found at the American Rhetoric web site, because it includes the text as well as both audio and video versions of The Speech. The text is also available in several books, including Time for Choosing: The Speeches of Ronald Reagan 1961-1982 and an audio recording is included on Speaking My Mind: Selected Speeches With Personal Reflections.

It is remarkable how "The Speech" has remained timely for more than 40 years. There are, of course, references to contemporary events and personalities and issues in it, some that require annotation to understand. Still, aside from those few instances, The Speech could be delivered today with few changes.

Consider, for instance, this passage, in light of the current debate over Social Security reform:

Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth?

How prescient! Imagine how much better off we would be, as individuals, as families, as a society, if Social Security had been transformed in the 1960s rather than 50 years later. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater knew then what had to be done. Reagan, of course, also knew what obstacles he and smart people like him faced. In "A Time for Choosing" he delivered these well-known lines:

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.

The Goldwater campaign mobilized and inspired a generation of political activists. Despite Goldwater's defeat at the polls in November 1964, his partisans went on to launch both the modern conservative and modern libertarian movements. (For in-depth chronicles of these branches of the Goldwater legacy, I recommend The Other Side of the Sixties by John Andrew and Bringing the Market Back in: The Political Revitalization of Market Liberalism by John L. Kelley.)

Reagan himself recognized the inexorable linkage between the libertarian and conservative philosophies (and their respective political manifestations). In an interview with Reason magazine in July 1975, Reagan said:

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.

Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.

* * *

I don’t believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. I have illustrated this many times by saying that I would recognize the right of government to say that someone who rode a motorcycle had to protect the public from himself by making certain provisions about his equipment and the motorcycle–the same as we do with an automobile. I disagree completely when government says that because of the number of head injuries from accidents with motorcycles that he should be forced to wear a helmet. I happen to think he’s stupid if he rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but that’s one of our sacred rights–to be stupid.

But to show you how these grey areas can creep in, the other day I was saying this to a man who happens to be a neurosurgeon, and who has treated many cases of this particular kind of injury and accident, and he disagreed with me on this issue. He disagreed with me on the basis of the individuals who become public charges as a result of permanent damage–he has pointed to an area where it does go over into not just hurting the individuals directly involved but now imposes on others also. I only use this extreme example to show that when we come down to government and what it should or should not do for the good of the people and for protecting us from each other, you do come into some grey areas and I think here there will be disagreements between conservatives and libertarians.

So, I think the government has legitimate functions. But I also think our greatest threat today comes from government’s involvement in things that are not government’s proper province. And in those things government has a magnificent record of failure.

Reagan's greatest accomplishment as a statesman -- setting aside, for the moment, his role in the defeat of Communism and the end of the Cold War -- was the way in which he changed the terms of debate. He entered the presidency at a time in which liberal thinking (in the American sense of left-wing statist liberalism) was received wisdom and conservatives were known as "the stupid party." Twenty-five years later, the liberals are bereft of ideas. The best they can do is perform a holding action as they are besieged by dynamic, progressive ideas from the right (both libertarians and conservatives). They defend the status quo the way William Jennings Bryan defended fundamentalist ideas of Creation against Clarence Darrow's modern science in the Scopes trial. Troglodytes may have stirring rhetoric, but in the end, it proves to be intellectually hollow.

Ronald Reagan proved to us that the troglodytes need not be victorious.

The legacy of Ronald Reagan is one that will define 21st century politics. His vision lives on despite the fact that his current successor in the White House pays little more than lip service to that vision. The ideas of Ronald Reagan will survive the Bush administration and will flourish.

Ken Plum Running Scared in Reston?

Delegate Kenneth Plum, a Democrat who represents the Reston-area 36th District, seems strangely afraid of his Libertarian opponent, political newcomer Donny Ferguson. (There is no declared Republican running against incumbent Plum.)

In a recent letter to the editor, Plum, who was first elected in 1981 and therefore should know better, violated the number one rule of political campaigns: Do not promote your opponent, his party, or his views.

Generally, this rule is interpreted to mean "don't use your opponent's name in a speech or in print unless absolutely necessary." It goes without saying that you wouldn't send out information about your opponent or his positions in a direct-mail piece, and you certainly don't provide voters with a means to give your opponent money or volunteer time.

Yet in a letter to The Observer, a Fairfax/Loudoun newspaper, Plum actually gives readers the addresses of Ferguson's web sites:

I too encourage you to visit my opponent's websites, www.DonnyFerguson.com and http://DonnyFerguson.blogspot.com. He is offering to lead our community; we need to understand behind his no tax rhetoric just what he stands for.

Now, it may be that Plum simply thinks that libertarian ideas are too weird for Northern Virginia voters to stomach. Considering the number of government workers and employees of government contractors who live in the area and feed off the taxpayer's teat, he's probably right: They won't want to hear about shrinking the size and scope of government and giving more responsibility and autonomy to individual citizens.

But there are going to be readers, even in Reston, who will go to Ferguson's web sites and find his ideas intriguing, attractive, refreshing, or persuasive. There will be some who will vote for Ferguson on November 8 and others who will give Ferguson money or volunteer their time and energy for his campaign. And none of them would have learned about Ferguson or about how to contact his campaign except for Plum's drawing them a map to the buried treasure.

Whatever Donny Ferguson is doing to goad Plum into ill-considered reactions like this, he must continue doing it. And he needs to teach other pro-citizen, anti-government candidates his secret recipe.

It's so nice to see an incumbent politician squirming at the prospect of a Libertarian challenger.