April 7, 1959

A half century ago this week, Americans were listening to "Come Softly to Me" by The Fleetwoods, "Pink Shoe Laces" by Dodie Stevens, Brook Benton's "It's Just A Matter of Time," and "It's Late" and "Never Be Anyone Else But You" by Ricky Nelson.

On Monday evening, April 6, NBC broadcast the 31st Annual Academy Awards show from the Pantages Theatre in Hollywood. Gigi won the Oscar for Best Picture of the Year, David Niven was named Best Actor for Separate Tables, and Susan Hayward was named Best Actress for I Want to Live! Burl Ives and Wendy Hiller won the awards in the supporting categories for, respectively, The Big Country and Separate Tables.

On Tuesday, April 7, film director Francis Ford Coppola and talk-show host David Frost were celebrating their 20th birthdays. James Garner, then starring on TV's Maverick, blew out 31 candles on his cake. Oscar winner Russell Crowe was five years from being born.

And then, at 12:43 p.m., it was my turn.

The fact of my birth must be true, because it was reported days later in The Milwaukee Journal (look at the top of the middle column):



There is also photographic proof:



But I grew up quickly. Pretty soon I was sitting without assistance:




I eventually met taller people than myself:



And I went to school. I am sure that several of my classmates from St. Agnes in Butler are celebrating milestone birthdays this year:

Then there was my first time in a newspaper (aside from my birth announcement); I'm the one carrying a processional crucifix, and it was heavy:



High school was not far away. I started off as a bedraggled freshman at Marquette University High School:


But joining the debate team was an affirmatively transformational experience:


Participating in the Class of '77's Senior Follies ("Blazing Seniors) was transformative in its own way. Performing live on stage before an audience was a real revelation. It led to a long run of college and community productions:



Eventually, of course, I graduated:





My sister, Cathy, did the same thing (different high school), eleven years later:



Meanwhile, after getting a degree at Georgetown University, I was hanging out with a different crowd than I ever would have expected during my childhood. For instance, Nobel laureate physicist Eugene Wigner...



... and the father of the hydrogen bomb, Edward Teller:



I did some traveling:


Along the way I held several jobs (Ethics and Public Policy Center, Center for Strategic and International Studies, International Freedom Foundation, and my current gig as a consultant) and became a theatre critic.

My theatre life has been rich. I have seen Carol Channing as Dolly Levi at least three times, and on stage twice more in the infamous Legends! (with Mary Martin) and on a panel discussing the 1940s at the Kennedy Center with Dick Cavett, Debbie Reynolds, and the late Kitty Carlisle Hart. I saw Yul Brynner in the title role of The King and I, Rock Hudson and Imogene Coca in On the Twentieth Century, Angela Lansbury and George Hearn in Sweeney Todd, Tony Randall as Harold Hill in The Music Man, Paul Scofield in I'm Not Rappaport, Maggie Smith in Coming in to Land, Frankie Howerd in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, Richard Kiley in Man of La Mancha, and Jason Robards in several O'Neill plays, including The Iceman Cometh. (And that was just the 1970s and 1980s.) I met Barbara Cook outside the stage door of the Albery Theatre in London and asked for her autograph; both she and Wally Harper signed my program.

More recently, I have seen all three of Eric Schaeffer's stagings of Sunday in the Park with George (Arlington Players, Arena Stage/Signature, and Kennedy Center) and both his London and Arlington productions of The Witches of Eastwick. Since 1995, the number of plays and musicals I have attended is impossible to count. Whether in Charlottesville, Washington, London, or New York, there is nothing better than sitting in a dark room with strangers to watch a live performance.

I have also seen Paul McCartney, Madonna, Pet Shop Boys, Jackson Browne, Elton John, and the Rolling Stones in concert, not to mention Joshua Bell (when he was still a wunderkind, as well as on later occasions), Andrés Segovia in his prime (he was about 84 years old), Brian Stokes Mitchell and Audra MacDonald, and -- courtesy of the Kennedy Center's spring galas -- Julie Andrews and Elaine Stritch. Twice (once in Washington, once in Richmond) I sat in the audience and listened as Frank Rich interviewed Stephen Sondheim about his life and career. I saw both Quentin Crisp and Leo Ford perform at the Hippodrome in London -- two very different acts.

In the parallel universe of politics and policy, I wrote two books, edited two others, and I have debated congressmen about U.S. policy toward Africa, appeared on television to discuss nuclear weapons policy, testified before House and Senate committees, and served as the foreign policy advisor to the 1992 Libertarian presidential candidate, Andre Marrou.

I have met presidents, prime ministers, and at least one king. I have attended an inaugural ball, celebrated New Year's Eve in Trafalgar Square, and marked my birthday by dining in an Alsatian restaurant in Paris. I have thrice run for public office but am now satisfied with my role as a member of the Charlottesville Electoral Board. Plus I get to blog.



The first fifty years have been filled with surprises. (These are just highlights.) Who knows what follows?

Read my blog on Kindle!

Hail the Day That Sees Him Rise

If there is any doubt that some people earnestly identify our current president, Barack Obama, with the promised Messiah who saves the world from sin, death, and penury, that doubt was removed by this advertisement in Sunday's Charlottesville Daily Progress (p. B3), among a full page of Easter Worship Services announcements from local churches:


Is any further comment necessary? Even Pepsi's new logo is more subtle than this.

Read my blog on Kindle!

Bob McDonnell's Campaign Rally in Charlottesville

As a follow-up to the video I posted on Tuesday, here is what preceded it. (That sounds rather oxymoronic, doesn't it?)

Before gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell answered questions from the news media on the porch of Jefferson Hall on the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville on March 31, he addressed a group of about 65 (by my rough count) supporters, GOP activists, and curious onlookers. Perhaps due to the rally being held at 1:00 p.m. on a Tuesday afternoon, the audience consisted largely of retirees and college students. (About 10 percent of the crowd were members of the Fourth Estate, including reporters from local TV and radio stations, the Daily Progress, and the Charlottesville weeklies.)

Delegate Rob Bell (R-Albemarle/Greene/Orange) acted as master of ceremonies for the event. In this video segment, he begins by pointing out local dignitaries in the audience, calls on people to lead the group in prayer and in the Pledge of Allegiance, and calls upon Albemarle County Republican Committee chairman Christian Schoenewald to introduce the featured speaker.

Former Attorney General Bob McDonnell then takes to the lectern to give a version of is campaign kick-off tour stump speech. His remarks took about 20 minutes, so I have divided them into two parts.

Part I:

Part II:

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

Bob McDonnell Speaks to News Media in Charlottesville

After addressing supporters at a rally in historic Jefferson Hall on the grounds of the University of Virginia, former Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell, who is traveling around the state this week to kick off his campaign for governor, spoke to print and broadcast journalists. He had time to answer three questions.

The first question was about how he thinks the money allocated to Virginia in the federal stimulus package should be spent.

The second question was about so-called "card check" legislation, under consideration as the Employee Free Choice Act. McDonnell said he opposes the bill and supports Virginia's status as a "right to work" state.

The third question aimed to get McDonnell's assessment about the Republican party's chances for success in 2009. McDonnell noted that Virginia and New Jersey are the only states with significant elections this year, and that his focus is on getting elected as governor of Virginia.

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

Challenging the Climate on Climate Change

Those cheeky folks at the Cato Institute are at it again, speaking truth to power.

Readers will recall how Cato brought together a large number of economists, including Nobel laureates, to challenge President Barack Obama's blanket assertion that "there is no disagreement [among economists] that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy." Over two hundred economic experts disagreed with the President, and signed a statement that Cato published as an advertisement in the New York Times, Washington Post, and other newspapers.

In today's Washington Post is a full-page ad from Cato, this time bringing together climate experts, meteorologists, physicists, and other scientists who take issue with another blanket assertion of the President. This time he said:

"Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change.The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."

My question in regard to these types of generalizations is, if the science is "beyond dispute," then why are Northern Hemisphere temperatures today cooler than they were 1,000 years ago? Was the human-generated carbon footprint greater in the latter part of the first millennium than it is today and, if so, how? Did medieval factories spew more smoke? Were medieval automobiles unequipped with good exhaust systems?

Or could periodic climate change be generated by something larger than human activity, such as the sun?

But I digress.

The scientists gathered by the Cato Institute come from various institutions around the globe. They come from Argentina, Canada, Germany, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and other countries (as well as the United States). The list includes at least one Nobel laureate and several winners of other awards. This is their response to the President (footnotes omitted):

We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated. Surface temperature changes over the past century have been episodic and modest and there has been no net global warming for over a decade now. After controlling for population growth and property values, there has been no increase in damages from severe weather-related events. The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior. Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect.

One of the many the global-warming skeptics who did not sign Cato's statement is the respected Princeton University physicist Freeman Dyson, who was profiled yesterday in the New York Times. In the profile, correspondent Nicholas Dawidoff writes:

Dyson may be an Obama-loving, Bush-loathing liberal who has spent his life opposing American wars and fighting for the protection of natural resources, but he brooks no ideology and has a withering aversion to scientific consensus....

Dyson says he doesn’t want his legacy to be defined by climate change, but his dissension from the orthodoxy of global warming is significant because of his stature and his devotion to the integrity of science. Dyson has said he believes that the truths of science are so profoundly concealed that the only thing we can really be sure of is that much of what we expect to happen won’t come to pass. In “Infinite in All Directions,” he writes that nature’s laws “make the universe as interesting as possible.” This also happens to be a fine description of Dyson’s own relationship to science. In the words of Avishai Margalit, a philosopher at the Institute for Advanced Study, “He’s a consistent reminder of another possibility.” When Dyson joins the public conversation about climate change by expressing concern about the “enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories,” these reservations come from a place of experience. Whatever else he is, Dyson is the good scientist; he asks the hard questions.

Science is not decided by majority votes. Scientific fact is determined through experiment, observation, testing, discussion, and debate. Progress can be slow or it can be rapid. Scientists learn by their mistakes; they do not decide what is true by a show of hands.

That there is a vociferous group of scientists who are willing to challenge faddishness among the chattering classes -- and this includes the White House -- is a good thing to be treasured. These are the scientists who take seriously President Obama's admonition that we should "restore scientific integrity in government decision making."

Read my blog on Kindle!

Mr. Smoot, Meet Mr. Hawley

The Washington Post reports that the threat of trade protectionism is rising again as governments -- even industrial democracies -- retrench in the face of shrinking GDPs.

Egged on by fremescence around the globe, decisions aimed at reducing international trade will have, as they did in the 1930s, counterproductive results. The damage done by policies that restrict or deter trade among businesses and consumers across national boundaries will prolong the current recession.

Annys Shin wrote in the business section of Friday's Post:

In the latest WTO report, Director-General Pascal Lamy said that in just the past two months there has been "significant slippage" among the world's industrialized and developing nations toward protectionism. The report includes a lengthy list of examples.

"The danger today is of an incremental build-up of restrictions that could slowly strangle international trade and undercut the effectiveness of policies to boost aggregate demand and restore sustained growth globally," Lamy said.

A growing number of countries have raised tariffs, imposed import restrictions or reinstated subsidies. They have also been quick to defend home industries by filing complaints with the WTO over dumping -- the practice of flooding another country with goods at below-market prices. The WTO report also portrayed bailouts as potentially bad for trade because propping up operations of uncompetitive or insolvent firms "denies market share to more efficient producers including foreign suppliers."

A news release from the World Trade Organization that was supposed to be issued on March 25 but was prematurely published by a Dutch media outlet on March 23, addressed the issue of how economic decline follows protectionist trade measures:

“For the last 30 years trade has been an ever increasing part of economic activity, with trade growth often outpacing gains in output. Production for many products is sourced around the world so there is a multiplier effect — as demand falls sharply overall, trade will fall even further. The depleted pool of funds available for trade finance has contributed to the significant decline in trade flows, in particular in developing countries,” said Director-General Pascal Lamy.

“As a consequence, many thousands of trade related jobs are being lost. Governments must avoid making this bad situation worse by reverting to protectionist measures which in reality protect no nation and threaten the loss of more jobs. We are carefully monitoring trade policy developments. The use of protectionist measures is on the rise. The risk is increasing of such measures choking off trade as an engine of recovery. We must be vigilant because we know that restricting imports only leads your trade partner to follow suit and hit your exports. Trade can be a potent tool in lifting the world from these economic doldrums. In London G20 leaders will have a unique opportunity to unite in moving from pledges to action and refrain from any further protectionist measure which will render global recovery efforts less effective,” Mr. Lamy said.

Fortunately, some are fighting back against this incipient trend. In an online petition being circulated by the International Policy Network, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation and its Global Initiative for Free Trade, Peace and Prosperity, concerned citizens are speaking out and calling attention to the economic facts.

The petition says, in part:

... the fact that protectionism destroys wealth is not its worst consequence. Protectionism destroys peace. That is justification enough for all people of good will, all friends of civilization, to speak out loudly and forcefully against economic nationalism, an ideology of conflict, based on ignorance and carried into practice by protectionism.

Two hundred and fifty years ago, Montesquieu observed that “Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who differ with each other become reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling; and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities.”

Trade’s most valuable product is peace. Trade promotes peace, in part, by uniting different peoples in a common culture of commerce – a daily process of learning others’ languages, social norms, laws, expectations, wants, and talents.

The petition looks to the lessons of history:

Perhaps the most tragic example of what happens when that insight is ignored is World War II.

International trade collapsed by 70 percent between 1929 and 1932, in no small part because of America’s 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff and the retaliatory tariffs of other nations. Economist Martin Wolf notes that “this collapse in trade was a huge spur to the search for autarky and Lebensraum, most of all for Germany and Japan.”

The most ghastly and deadly wars in human history soon followed.

By reducing war, trade saves lives.

Trade saves lives also by increasing prosperity and extending it to more and more people. The evidence that freer trade promotes prosperity is simply overwhelming. Prosperity enables ordinary men and women to lead longer and healthier lives.

There is more there to read and support, expressed more eloquently and completely than I can do. To sign the petition, go here: http://tinyurl.com/c5vb2l. Do it now.

Peace and prosperity depend on the ability of free people to trade among themselves without interference.

Read my blog on Kindle!

Bet You Can't Eat Just One

For those who find themselves glued to the TV when it is tuned to the Food Network, or for those gourmand tourists who travel to culinary destinations, have I got news for you!

The 28th annual Oakdale Testicle Festival will take place next Monday in Stanislaus County, California, near Modesto.

You read it right. According to the Modesto Bee:

For years, the fete was called the Calf Fry as the largest fundraiser for the town's Rotary Club. But then the group joined forces with the Cowboy Museum and the more direct, more catchy Testicle Festival was launched in 2003. Since then, the festival has gone from fewer than 200 guests to more than 450 a year.

The evening is less a strolling, browsing around festival and more of a sit-down, chow-down dinner. Some 400 pounds of the unique dining experience are fried up in a secret recipe and served to guests for $50 a ticket ($65 if you wait and get it at the door).

The event fills Oakdale's largest hall, the FES Hall. Last year, it raised $28,000.

Bull testicles are also known by the (more?) colorful name, prairie oysters. They are considered a delicacy by some. The Bee's Marijke Rowland asked Christie Camarillo, executive director of the Oakdale Cowboy Museum, how they taste. Camarillo's reply:

"They kind of taste like chicken. I say it's between fried calamari and chicken liver," she said. "I've had them fixed all different ways, but you can't beat how the Rotarians do it."

What unusual fleshy food does not taste like chicken? And just how do the Rotarians do it?

However they do it, the Modesto Bee notes,

The organizers promise that you'll "Have a ball!"

If you're in the neighborhood of Oakdale (is this the town on the long-running daytime drama, As the World Turns? Has ATWT ever featured a testicle festival?), check out the festival and then come back here to leave your own impressions in the comments section (below). No bull.






Read my blog on Kindle!

DADT: Let's Look at the Polling Data

The current issue of C-VILLE Weekly carries a letter from Frederick W. Kahler of Earlysville, who identifies himself as a World War II veteran and Navy pilot.

Mr. Kahler writes:

Cathy Harding: In response to your “Read this First” in the March 17-23 issue, I pose the following, regarding your endorsement of Congressman “MORON’”s campaign to repeal DADT: What branch of the military did “MORON” serve in? What branch of the military did you serve in? Did you ever poll the military to ascertain their feelings about serving side by side with “gays”?

You talk about straining the military as if the repeal of DADT would greatly improve the morale of the “straights” serving.

I’ve got news for you: NO WAY!

Ignoring his undignified references to Representative Jim Moran (D-VA8), who does plenty to undignify himself, let's go directly to the question he poses to C-VILLE's editor about polling the military to find out their attitudes about serving with openly gay comrades.

As a matter of fact, there have already been polls done to find precisely the information that Mr. Kahler desires.

In December 2006, the respected polling organization, Zogby International, surveyed troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. One of its findings was that 73% of military personnel are comfortable with lesbians and gay men. It further found:

Of those in combat units, 21% said they know for certain that someone in their unit is gay or lesbian, slightly less than for those in combat support units (25%) and combat service support units (22%). One in five troops (20%) in other units said they know for certain someone is gay or lesbian in their unit. Overall, nearly half (45%) say there are people in their unit they suspect are gay or lesbian, but they don't know for sure. Slightly more than half (52%) say they have received training on the prevention of anti-gay harassment in the past three years. But 40% say they have not received this type of training, which is mandated by Defense Department policy.

Moreover, Zogby said:

Some troops believe the integration of openly gay and lesbian service members in the military could undermine cohesion, but those who know at least one gay peer are less likely to believe it would negatively impact morale. Of those who know a gay or lesbian peer, 27% said it has a negative impact on the morale of their unit. By contrast, among those who do not know of a gay or lesbian person in their unit, or are unsure of their presence, 58% said it would have a negative impact on their unit.

Prominent supporters of "don't ask, don't tell" have expressed concerns about privacy in the shower, Dr. Belkin said, but nearly three out of four troops said in the Zogby poll that they usually or almost always take showers privately [and] only 8% say they usually or almost always take showers in group stalls.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania reported these findings in its 2004 National Annenberg Election Survey:

* 50% of junior enlisted personnel say that gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, up from 16% in 1992
* 29% of military personnel believe open service is an issue of equal rights.
* Service members surveyed “believe sexual orientation is unrelated to job performance,” Annenberg reported.
* Only 16% of believed lesbian and gay service members were “bad for morale,” while just 12% thought allowing gays to serve openly would be “bad for teamwork.”

If these surveys of active service members are insufficient to satisfy Mr. Kahler's curiosity, perhaps the views of retired military and naval officers would pique his interest.

According to an article at PageOneQ headlined "Admirals, generals call for 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' repeal,"

A coalition of retired military generals and admirals has released a joint call to repeal 10 USC 654, better known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," in order to allow gay and lesbian members of the military to serve openly, without fear of losing one's military career. Over 12,000 people have been discharged under the policy since its inception in 1993.

Among the 104 signatories is retired Admiral Charles Larson, former Superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy and a supporter of "Don't Ask" when it was signed by President Clinton. At the time, he thought that "Don't Ask" was a good step towards lifting a temporary blanket ban on gays in the military. Larson later saw how "Don't Ask" was being used for "witch hunts," depriving the military of talented individuals, and after working with gay people and speaking at length with his lesbian daughter, he now supports an end to the ban altogether.

"I think the time has come to find a way to let talented, young, patriotic Americans who want to serve their country serve," Larson said, "and let's enforce high standards of personal and human behavior for everyone."

(For the skeptical reader, that article includes a list of the names of all the signatories to the statement calling for DADT repeal. The story was also reported by the Associated Press.)

The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) argues that the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is unkind to taxpayers while it is unfair to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines:

* The Pentagon has spent over $200 million taxpayer dollars to replace service men and women discharged under “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” since 1993, according to a 2005 GAO report.
* A 2006 Blue Ribbon Commission Report found that the total cost of implementing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” between fiscal year 1994 and fiscal year 2003 was at least $363.8 million.

Given that information, it is no wonder that the general public, in multiple surveys spread over several years, has become increasingly opposed to excluding patriotic gay Americans from serving in the armed forces.

For example, a Fox News poll in August 2003 discovered that "64% of those polled support allowing gays to serve openly." In another example, a July 2008 poll by the Washington Post and ABC News found:

• 75% of Americans think homosexuals who publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military
• 22% of Americans think homosexuals who publicly disclose their sexual orientation should not be allowed to serve in the military
• 3% had no opinion

Some people might be surprised by these findings. That's why it's useful to do research and to check the data against preconceptions.

Read my blog on Kindle!

China Expands Pro-Abortion Policy

The shocking news from China, courtesy of the BBC:

Chinese authorities are using contraceptive pills to cut down the number of gerbils in a north-western province plagued by the rodents.

Forestry officials are leaving pills by the gerbils' burrows to try to cut back the rodents' exploding numbers....

Authorities are using the pellets - which prevent females getting pregnant and cause abortion in those already pregnant - disguised as bran feed, the state news agency Xinhua said.

There's sure to be more to this story. You don't have to be a Philadephia weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Read my blog on Kindle!

Dead End of the Cul-de-Sac?

Perhaps it was because I live on a cul-de-sac that the article in Sunday's Washington Post caught my eye. After all, it had this subhead: "Targeting Cul-de-Sacs, Rules Now Require Through Streets in New Subdivisions."

Even if I weren't in my current living situation, however, I would have detected something in the article that made me uneasy. Written by Eric M. Weiss, it describes a top-down, one-size-fits-all effort by the Virginia government to dictate zoning and planning requirements for new suburban developments, effectively prohibiting the option for creating cul-de-sac streets anywhere in the state.

Here are the opening paragraphs of Weiss's piece, which was featured on Sunday's front page:

Virginia is taking aim at one of the most enduring symbols of suburbia: the cul-de-sac.

The state has decided that all new subdivisions must have through streets linking them with neighboring subdivisions, schools and shopping areas. State officials say the new regulations will improve safety and accessibility and save money: No more single entrances and exits onto clogged secondary roads. Quicker responses by emergency vehicles. Lower road maintenance costs for governments.

Although cul-de-sacs will remain part of the suburban landscape for years to come, the Virginia regulations attack what the cul-de-sac has come to represent: quasi-private standalone developments around the country that are missing only a fence and a sign that says "Keep Out."

Well, yes. Neighborhoods with cul-de-sacs are much safer -- in terms of being protected against crime -- than other types of suburban (and urban) neighborhoods. They also are safer for children and pets because of the absence of fast-moving, through traffic.

The Virginia government's monolithic emphasis on transportation, which is more salient in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads than in other parts of the state, may have the unintended (or is it intended) consequence of making suburban neighborhoods less attractive to potential homeowners who are seeking refuge from the grime and crime of the cities.

Writing in Reason magazine in 2005, Stephen Town and Randal O'Toole told the story of one cul-de-sac neighborhood in England:

Burras Road was a pleasant cul-de-sac of 21 new homes in Bradford, England. Its residents were blissfully unaware that, just east of the site, approval for a proposed new shopping center required the breaching of their cul-de-sac by a bicycle-pedestrian path.

Planners favored this requirement because, they say, cul-de-sacs do not encourage movement and therefore are "auto-dependent" and "anti-urban." Opening up the site would connect residents to local services, and the path would promote walking and cycling.

The path connecting the shopping center to the cul-de-sac opened in 2000. Although there is no evidence that the path has led residents to drive less, it did have a profound effect on their lives. During the next six months, a neighborhood that had been virtually crime-free saw its burglary rate rise to 14 times the national rate, with matching increases in overall crime, including arson, assault, and antisocial behavior.

Because a secondary school was located west of the cul-de-sac, the pedestrian path opened the neighborhood to a constant stream of students and others going between the school and the shopping center. Crime and vandalism became commonplace. "The path turned our piece of paradise into a living hell," one resident complained.

Moving beyond this single anecdote to more thorough research, O'Toole and Town refer to architect Oscar Newman's 1972 book, Defensible Space,

which showed that the safest neighborhoods maximized private space and minimized common zones. Safe areas also minimized "permeability," that is, the ease of entry to and exit from the neighborhood or housing area. Cul-de-sacs are thus a crime-prevention device, and any breaching of cul-de-sacs will predictably increase crime.

Turning to government reports, Town and O'Toole note:

... the British Crime Survey, regarded by the U.K. government as the most reliable guide to crime, found that houses on main roads were at more than twice the risk of being burgled as those in a cul-de-sac. The Department of Justice's Closing Streets cites numerous studies in the U.S. showing that reducing connectivity reduces crime. It also finds that "most research supports the idea that burglars avoid houses in cul-de-sacs."

They also point to a real-world experiment where the conversion of grid arrangements to more closed systems led to a decline in crime rates:

When Dayton, Ohio, asked Newman to apply defensible-space concepts to a neighborhood suffering high rates of drug-related violence and property crime, his solution was to gate numerous streets--in essence, to turn a traditional street grid into cul-de-sacs. Within two years, violent crime in that neighborhood fell by 50 percent and overall crime by 25 percent, even as crime in Dayton overall increased by 1 percent.

While the chances of local governments in Virginia will destroy current cul-de-sac arrangements as well as prohibit new ones is small, planners should keep this information in mind. Do we want our suburban neighborhoods to become what British police refer to as "crimogenic"?

On the lighter side, it is just a wee bit ironic that "Cul de Sac" is the name of a syndicated comic strip by Richard Thompson, whose home base is the Washington Post (and who lives in Arlington, Virginia, one of D.C.'s inner suburbs). What will Thompson's readers think if the cul-de-sac goes the way of the buggy whip and spats?

Read my blog on Kindle!

Pearls, Swine, and Celluloid

Fans of the comic strip "Pearls Before Swine" (I am one) will be pleased to learn that their favorite animal characters -- Rat, Pig, Goat, Zebra, the Crocs, and others -- may be heading to the big screen.

According to the MediaBistro blog, GalleyCat:

In an exclusive interview, Stephan Pastis told GalleyCat that he is in negotiations with an unnamed studio to create an animated feature about his popular comic strip, Pearls Before Swine....

Pastis explained more about his upcoming projects: "We are currently beginning negotiations with a film studio (which I cannot yet name) for a Pearls animated feature. Also, this month, Aurora is releasing plush versions of Pig, Rat, Larry the Croc and Zebra."

While it may not be everyone's cup of tea, for me "Pearls Before Swine" is one of the funniest things in the funny pages. Pastis' strip is about the only comic that makes me laugh out loud. (For real, not just LOL; sometimes it's more like ROFL.)

I am eager to see how "Pearls Before Swine" makes the transition to cinema.

Read my blog on Kindle!