Applause! Applause! Review of Theatre Time's Twelve Angry Men at the Colonial Church of Bayside by Dr. Thomas Robert Stevens

This review of Theatre Time's production of the play Twelve Angry Men at the Colonial Church of Bayside was written by Dr. Thomas Robert Stevens and published in Volume X, Issue 4 (2014) of the online edition of Applause! Applause!

Twelve Angry Men
Theatre Time Production
Colonial Church of Bayside (54-02 217th Street, Bayside, NY)
Reviewed 6/21/14

Twelve Angry Men is a drama written by Reginald Rose concerning the jury deliberations of twelve men in a homicide trial of a 16-year old inner-city, troubled youth accused of killing his father with a switch-blade knife. It was made for the Studio One anthology television series and aired as a CBS live production on September 20, 1954. In 1955, it was adapted for the stage and in 1957, it was made into a movie directed by Sidney Lumet and starring Henry Fonda as Juror #8. The film received three Academy Award nominations for Best Picture, Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay. In 2004, the Roundabout Theatre Company staged a Broadway production of the play and in November, 2013, a London West End production opened at the Garrick Theatre. This Theatre Time production of Twelve Angry Men is as good as any I have seen. I highly recommend you go to see it.

The play is not about whether the accused is guilty or innocent. The fact is no one knows for sure. The play is more about what constitutes reasonable doubt and the struggle to achieve a just jury verdict. The men deliberating on that verdict bring to the table prejudices, anger, indifference, unreliable judgments, different perspectives, fears and diverse personalities that threaten to taint their rational decision-making abilities. This production is set in a New York County Criminal Court Jury Room (overlooking the Woolworth Building) circa 1957 and successfully evokes the cultural sensitivities of that time. Although we never find out the race or ethnic background of  the 16-year old indigent, minority, slum-dwelling defendant, we do learn his mother died when he was nine years old, that he lived as an orphan for one and a half years while his father spent time in jail for forgery, and that he has a criminal record. 

Just as Juror #10, who has strong racist tendencies, is more than eager to assume the boy is guilty, Juror #8 is inclined to give the boy the benefit of the doubt, concerned that his Court-appointed attorney may not have done the best he could in putting up a defense and cross-examining the prosecution's witnesses. The play remains interesting to the end as a diverse group of twelve jurors (all male, mostly middle-aged, white, and generally middle class status) deliberate after hearing the "facts" in a seemingly open-and-shut case and later, as each piece of evidence is further examined, become less and less certain of those "facts" as jury deliberations continue.

Kevin C. Vincent directed the production and was Juror #8 (the first juror to vote Not Guilty). The play was presented "in the round", which was an excellent choice that allowed audience members to see the actors from all angles as jury deliberations progressed. Kevin C. Vincent played Juror #8 as a soft-spoken, calm, cool-headed, rational truth-seeking architect who simply had doubts about whether the defendant was guilty as charged. Bernard Bosio played the hot-headed, combative Juror #3 (owner of a messenger service called the "Beck & Call" Company), the last hold-out voting Guilty after everyone else had admitted to having some "reasonable doubt". Bosio's final speech was intense and memorable as he recounts feeling as if the defendant had thrust the knife into his own heart, just as his son had figuratively done to him. You could hear a pin drop during Mr. Bosio's final scene when it became increasingly clear that his anger at his estranged son was blinding his judgment. Eric Leeb did a great job portraying Juror #4, the well-educated, well-dressed stockbroker who was cool-headed and rational and the main voice of reason for those arguing in favor of a Guilty verdict. Jim Haines was garage-owner Juror #10, who was more than willing to send the defendant to the electric chair simply because of the racial stereotypes he believed gave him insight into the kind of boy this particular kid was. Mr. Haines did a top-notch job in the role but his shirt was somehow unable to remain tucked-in causing a wardrobe malfunction that was distracting.

Tim Reifschneider was Juror #1, who successfully portrayed the high-school assistant head-coach who didn't want the responsibility of Jury Foreman but who did the best he could to keep the discussions on track. Michael Pichardo convincingly played the relatively simple-minded, meek Juror #2 who was obviously not on the same intellectual level as his fellow jurors but who did have a better memory than Juror #4 in recalling a film title. Paul Robilotto was Juror #5, who grew up in a slum himself, had knowledge about the proper use of switch-blades and who was nick-named Milwaukee by Juror #7 because he liked the Brewers. Mr. Robilotto was so excited to be appearing in this production that he broke out into a hora step during the curtain call, perhaps reflecting the fact that his character may have grown up in a Jewish slum on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. Ray Bendana was perfectly cast as Juror #6, a typical "working man" (probably a manual laborer or a painter) who was respectful and protective of older Juror #9 and was willing to back that up with his fists, if necessary. Juror #9 was brought to life by Johnny Dee Damato. Jef. Lawrence was effective as Juror #7, the baseball obsessed, marmalade salesman, who just wanted to leave as soon as possible so he could attend an evening Yankees game he had tickets to. Marty Edelman was very believable as Juror #11, the watchmaking, refuge from Central Europe with a heavy accent (implied to be Jewish), who expresses reverence and respect for American democracy and its system of justice. Finally, Jim Percival held his own as Juror #12, the business ad man, who was easily swayed and used advertising talk when expressing his ideas.

This Theatre Time production of Twelve Angry Men is a winner in every way. It received an enthusiastic, standing ovation by every member of the audience in a packed house on opening night. I was very pleased to have had the opportunity to catch this production and I suggest you not miss it. General Admission is $17.00 (Seniors $15.00). Purchase your tickets at http://www.theatretime.org 

Applause! Applause! Review of StageLight Entertainment's Die, Mommie, Die! at The BACCA Arts Center by Dr. Thomas Robert Stevens

This review of StageLight Entertainment's production of the play Die, Mommie, Die! at The BACCA Arts Center was written by Dr. Thomas Robert Stevens and published in Volume X, Issue 4 (2014) of the online edition of Applause! Applause!

Die, Mommie, Die!
StageLight Entertainment Production
The BACCA Arts Center (149 Wellwood Avenue, Lindenhurst, NY)
Reviewed 5/31/14

Die, Mommie, Die! was written by Charles Busch. The play was first produced at the Coast Playhouse in Los Angeles, California in 1999 where it won an Ovation Award. A film was made in 2003 and in 2007, it was produced in New York for the first time at New World Stages starring Charles Busch in the lead role of Angela/Barbara Arden. The production won a Lucille Lortel Award and was nominated for Drama Desk, American Theatre Wing and Outer Critics Circle Awards. 

This comic, over-the-top, campy melodrama is meant to evoke faded images of long gone movie divas like Joan Crawford, Barbara Stanwyck, Lana Turner and Bette Davis. The main character in the play is Angela Arden, a former singer and actress from northwest Saskatchewan, Canada who was forced to retire after the death of her twin sister Barbara, when critics and audiences alike concluded she seemed to have lost all her talent. Given her horrible marriage to film producer Sol Sussman, who owes 20 million dollars to the mob, Ms. Arden has taken a young lover, Tony Parker, an out-of-work actor who is also sleeping with her daughter Edie and her son Lance. Sol finds out about the affair but refuses to divorce her keeping her in a living hell with him as the prison warden. What's a girl to do when her husband cuts up her credit cards? Kill him, of course! Angela believes she has accomplished the task by poisoning his suppository. Suddenly Angela goes on an LSD trip, their maid Bootsie Karp appears to have accidentally poisoned herself, scissors get thrown, Edie's hymen breaks, Lance gets a tongue bath, someone tries to kill Angela, FBI agents show up, Jews promise to become Christians and raise money for Richard Nixon, and, incredibly, although all is forgiven, Barbara, who everyone expected was alive from the first minutes of the play, walks off in grande dame style to accept responsibility for her actions.

Chris Rosselli takes on the tough task of playing Angela/Barbara Arden. Chris is a man playing a woman just as Charles Busch played the original role but it is very important he be more than a drag queen. He must transcend all humor potentially obtained solely from the drag element and must play the role "straight". Although Chris Rosselli is far more low key, laid back and less frenetic than Charles Busch in the role, he pulls it off well, gathering sympathy for the character earlier in the play rather than later. I was pleased with his performance even though he didn't milk the diva element as much as he could have. Salvatore Casto was perfectly cast as Lance Sussman, Sol's homosexual son who was thrown out of college for being a bad influence on the faculty. He was allegedly discovered with the eight male professors of the Math Department being spun around nude on a Lazy Susan. Lance is hated by his father, loved by his mother and teased by his sister, all resulting in some undefined "emotional problems" for which he sees a psychiatrist. Salvatore Casto is a very talented actor with great potential and he gave the role of Lance his all, even though it appears he was denied the opportunity to play the part to the fullest effect possible. 

Michael H. Carlin directed the production and did a good job with the exception of two fatal flaws. The first is the excruciatingly slow pace of this show. Most productions of Die, Mommie, Die! run 90 minutes usually without an intermission. This production ran almost three hours. Even given the intermission, it was a full hour longer than it should have been. The dialogue and scenes seemed to drag at times (no pun intended). This is an easily correctable problem but it should have been addressed prior to opening night. The second flaw is that all the passionate, gay intimacy present in the second act between Lance and Tony somehow never made it onto the stage. Whatever hang-ups the director might have about presenting gay intimacy on stage or regarding the difference in ages between Lance and Tony, he should not deny the audience the opportunity to see the play as Charles Busch intended. I am very certain Salvatore Casto could have handled the situation well. I am not that confident that Mike McKasty could have done the same as Tony Parker. I have no idea what the Casting Directors were thinking putting Mike McKasty in this role. Tony Parker is a character that must exude sexuality and it must be believable he would be able to seduce Angela Arden, as well as her two children. Mr. McKasty doesn't have those qualities and is far too old for the part, which is a major problem since he is such a central character in the story. Beyond that, Mr. McKasty was very uncertain delivering his lines, often hesitating and correcting himself when he started to misspeak. Even the sock he stuffed down his pants to make him appear well-endowed was off-center and disturbingly distracting.

Jessie Maldonado was well-suited to play Edie Sussman, an unlikeable, self-absorbed daddy's girl, as was Guy DeMatties, who was Sol Sussman, the egotistic, homophobic film producer husband of Angela Arden. I don't know whether it was the actors or the director who made the very bad decision to encourage the two of them to intimately and passionately embrace in a manner that suggested they were on the verge of sleeping together (if they hadn't already crossed that line), which was buttressed by the presence of their maid Bootsie Karp, competently portrayed by Kerry Quirke, who clearly acted as if she wanted to be part of a threesome with them when she sat next to them on the coach trying to intertwine her arms and legs with theirs. I understand there may be some Freudian interpretation that would support Edie's hidden, subconscious desire to sleep with her father, but it shouldn't have been made so explicitly manifest resulting in some extremely uncomfortable scenes. Bootsie had the funniest line in the show when she turned to Lance, after he was supposed to have handled Tony Parker's eleven inch tool, and said, innocently, "Sometimes you have to face things that are hard to swallow."

I had never been to a StageLight Entertainment production at The BACCA (Babylon Citizens Council on the Arts) Arts Center and I am pleased to report it is a cozy little theater with a friendly staff, reasonably priced concessions and a good, general admission seating policy. Great attention to detail was paid in putting up the set and the company deserves credit for tackling such a challenging production. I had a very enjoyable evening and I highly recommend you see StageLight Entertainment's production of Die, Mommie, Die! while you have the chance. You can obtain more information about StageLight Entertainment productions by visiting their website at http://www.StageLightEnt.com

Applause! Applause! Review of The Compleat Wrks Of Wllm Shkspr (Abridged) at Parkside Players by Dr. Thomas Robert Stevens

This review of the play The Compleat Wrks Of Wllm Shkspr (Abridged)  at Parkside Players was written by Dr. Thomas Robert Stevens and published in Volume X, Issue 4 (2014) of the online edition of Applause! Applause!

The Compleat Wrks Of Wllm Shkspr (Abridged)
Parkside Players
Grace Lutheran Church (103-05 Union Turnpike, Forest Hills, NY)
Reviewed 5/24/14

The Complete Works Of William Shakespeare (Abridged) (also known as The Compleat Wrks Of Wllm Shkspr (Abridged)) was written by Adam Long, Daniel Singer, and Jess Winfield, founding members of the Reduced Shakespeare Company (a three-man comedy troupe that takes long, serious subjects and reduces them to short, sharp comedies). The play was first performed at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in 1987 and later played at the Criterion Theatre in Piccadilly Circus, London, where it ran for nine years. It has become one of the world's most popular shows and is notable for holding the (self-proclaimed) world record for the shortest-ever performance of Hamlet, clocking in at 43 seconds, as well as the fastest performance of Hamlet backwards, at 42 seconds.

The play is a frenetic, fast-paced comedy in which three actors present abridged versions of all of the works of William Shakespeare in one gigantic and entertaining parody with modern cultural and local references, improvisation and audience participation thrown in.  The book does not fully commit to presenting abridged versions of all of William Shakespeare's works but it does give a broad overview of those works dwelling on plays, scenes and characters ripe for parody and satire. All the parts in the production are performed by Kevin Schwab (The Scholar), Nili Resnick (The Aesthete) and Johnny Young (The Third One), who refer to each other by their real names. The play opens with The Third One giving a brief biography of The Bard he took off Wikipedia (not an authoritative reference source, for those who don't know it), which conflates William Shakespeare's life with that of Adolf Hitler. 

The first act starts with an abridged version of Romeo & Juliet. Sometimes the actors perform as if they were Bill & Ted, the 1980s time traveling slackers from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. Other times, they alter a line for comic effect, such as saying "a nose by any other name would still smell" instead of "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". When Romeo swears "by yonder virgin", he looks at an audience member and says "No, I don't think so!" and when Juliet takes Romeo's dagger to kill herself, it is only one-inch long, to which she says, "that's Romeo!". Afterwards, Titus Andronicus is performed as a cooking show, Othello is performed as a Rap Song once The Third One is made aware that Shakespeare's "Moor" refers to a Black Man and not to the mooring of ships, and finally, The Histories are performed as a football game with the Crown replacing the football. The sixteen Comedies are blended together and performed as one play. The Tragedies and Apocrypha are also handled in brief form with emphasis on Macbeth, The Scottish Play.

The second act focused primarily on Hamlet ending with the 43 second version and the 42 second backwards version. The play within a play in Hamlet was performed by The Cherry Danish Puppet Theatre. I don't want to ruin the ending for you, but in the 3 second version of Hamlet, everyone just dies all at once.

I was very impressed with the performance of Kevin Schwab, who wore many hats and is an impressive, talented and charismatic actor. I particularly enjoyed his impersonation of Paul Lyndius (i.e. Paul Lynde). He also had a few other good lines. When The Third One said "He comes before me!", Kevin Schwab responded, "I am sorry to hear that!". When, as Romeo, he kissed a reluctant Third One as Juliet in drag on the lips, he responded, jokingly, "that was totally worth it". Finally, when he couldn't find "a big strapping man" in the audience to play Ego on stage, he said, "that explains a lot!". Mr. Schwab even pulled out his "Little Willie" and showed it to the audience. Nili Resnick and Johnny Young more than held their own throughout the production. Their funniest interaction was when Mr. Young referred to a line in one of Shakespeare's plays where money was borrowed from "an old Jew". Ms. Reznick objected and Mr. Young changed the line to "a young Jew", which apparently satisfied her.

I highly recommend this fun, entertaining show. It can equally please those who love Shakespeare who will appreciate all the erudite references as well as those who have never read Shakespeare and hate serious theatre. My only criticism is that this production seems to have been intentionally cleansed to make it a PG version of the play instead of the R rating presentation this show deserves. Had three men performed the various roles instead of two men and a woman, there would have been more opportunities for cross-dressing and homoerotically charged exchanges between characters in "hetereosexual" relationships, which would have been more faithful to the all-male casts of original Shakespeare productions in which young men played most of the female roles due to the fact that women were forbidden to act on stage. That is simply not possible in a PG version with Ms. Reznick and Mr. Young in the cast. Nevertheless, no audience member will leave without feeling they got their money's worth, which is good since it is made very clear in the beginning of the play that there would be "no refunds".

Applause! Applause! Review of Night Must Fall at Douglaston Community Theatre by Dr. Thomas Robert Stevens

This review of the play Night Must Fall at Douglaston Community Theatre was written by Dr. Thomas Robert Stevens and published in Volume X, Issue 4 (2014) of the online edition of Applause! Applause!

Night Must Fall
Douglaston Community Theatre
Zion Episcopal Church Parish Hall (243-01 Northern Blvd., Douglaston, NY)
Reviewed 5/2/14

Night Must Fall was written by Emlyn Williams (born George Emlyn Williams in Pen-y-Ffordd, Mostyn, Flintshire in northeast Wales). It opened in London with Emlyn Williams in the lead role of Dan in 1935. There were two film adaptations of the play: one in 1937, with Robert Montgomery playing Dan, and one in 1964, with Albert Finney as Dan. There was a National Actors Theatre's revival of the play on Broadway in 1999 at the Lyceum Theatre with Matthew Broderick in the lead role. In this Douglaston Community Theatre production of Night Must Fall, Gary Tifeld successfully portrays the duplicitous nature of Dan, the charming Welsh bellhop who used to work at The Tallboys Hotel, who endears himself to the unbearable, rich and controlling Mrs. Bramson, an apparent invalid convincingly played by Marilyn Welsher. The play is set in 1935 at Forest Corner, Mrs. Bramson's bungalow in Essex.

Within the first two minutes of the play, The Lord Chief Justice informs us in a voiceover that two people have been killed and that the appeal of the murderer from the sentence of death has been denied. The play has been universally advertised as a "psychological thriller" with the implication it is a whodunit. While it is true the identity of the killer is not formally revealed until the end of the play, the audience has little doubt not only who the killer is but also who the second victim is going to be. The first victim is a Mrs. Chalfont, who we never see but who we learn was a guest at The Tallboys Hotel before she went missing. Night Must Fall is not, in my opinion, a "psychological thriller" nor is it a "whodunit" so if you are coming to see this play with that expectation, you will be very disappointed.

Night Must Fall would be more accurately titled Five Foolish Women and Emlyn Williams wrote the female characters in a manner that perpetuates the very worst stereotypes of women. First we have Dora Parkoe, a bumbling, half-witted, simple-minded maid, who allows herself to get impregnated by the charismatic Welsh bellhop Dan. Kelly Schmidt does a good job portraying the innocent nature of Dora and has a strong stage presence. Next we have Mrs. Bramson, whose original plan was to convince Dan to marry Dora but after meeting him, is enchanted with his charm and hires him as her Caretaker, soon confiding in him regarding the whereabouts of her money and treating him as "the son she never had." The con job he is pulling never seems to register on her radar screen and her pride and ego blind her to the fact that Danny is a cool and calculating liar who is totally indifferent to Dora, the future mother of his child. Marilyn Welsher successfully brings out the evil in her character and no one is sorry when she gets her just reward. Mrs. Terence, the plainspoken, feisty housekeeper and cook, is pretty certain there is a murderer in the house but when asked why she just doesn't leave, answers that the villagers are relying on her for the latest gossip. Laurie Dentale does a good job exhibiting the many facets of this character. The first victim, Mrs. Chalfont, is revealed as an older, married woman of stature, who constantly demanded sex from the lower-class Dan when he worked at The Tallboys. The fifth foolish woman was Mrs. Bramson's penniless niece, Olivia Grayne, who almost immediately senses the artificiality of Dan's exaggerated amiability and suspects he is putting on a facade to hide something sinister yet she becomes increasingly attracted to him especially when he exhibits aspects of his darker side. Annette Daiell successfully carries off the challenging task of showing both the intelligent nature of this character and the psychological disorders that cause her to fall in love with a serial killer, even if it means risking her own life. Rounding out this fine ensemble cast was Cathy Cosgrove, who played Nurse Libby; Joe Pepe, who was Inspector Belsize; and Dan Bubbeo, who portrayed Hubert Laurie, Olivia's would be suitor. All handled their roles extremely well.

If you come to see Night Must Fall looking for the psychological complexities of the Five Foolish Women, you will not be disappointed. Dan, on the other hand, was far less interesting to me. He is simply a charismatic con artist and a murderer, who is most likely insane. This production of Night Must Fall features a very talented cast and offers the audience an opportunity to experience this classic play for a reasonable price. You will also learn that not everyone stores hats in hat boxes. Sometimes a glued hat box can prevent you from seeing what it contains and also stop you from seeing what might be looking back at you from inside.  

Upcoming productions of Night Must Fall will be on Sunday, May 4th and Saturday, May 10th at 2:00 p.m., Friday, May 9th & Saturday, May 10th at 8:00 p.m., and Friday, May 16th & Saturday, May 17th at 8:00 p.m.; $17.00 for Adults, $15.00 for Seniors & Students with ID. Call 718-482-3332 to reserve your seats. Douglaston Community Theatre is the oldest active theatre company in Queens County, having been founded in 1950.    

The True Identity, Age & Nationality Of Dallwyn Hamnilton Merck Comes To Light

Dallwyn Hamnilton Merck died on November 10, 2013. His Death Certificate indicates he was 75 years old, having been born on February 11, 1938. He claims to have been a citizen of the United States due to his being born on a ship docked in the territorial waters of American Samoa. At the time of his death, Dallwyn was Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Queens County and served on the Governing Board of the Objectivist Party. He held many other positions in numerous organizations and was considered a dedicated liberty activist.

The reality, which has been recently discovered, is that Dallwyn Hamnilton Merck, was born on February 11, 1928, making him 85 years old at the time of his death, not 75. He was also not born in American Samoa but in Sydney, Australia and his birth name was Allan Robert Hamilton.

Dallwyn married Helen Elizabeth Bundrock on March 29, 1952 when he was 24 years old. Dallwyn (Allan) listed his profession as "Engineer" at the time and Helen's profession was noted as being "Secretary". Dallwyn (Allan) had two children: Ivan Hamilton, who was born on July 8, 1953; and Alexa Jessop nee Hamilton, who was born on February 13, 1955. Dallwyn was raised Catholic because his mother was Catholic but his wife was Protestant and intense interference in Dallwyn's marriage by his mother eventually led to their separation in 1962. They were divorced in 1963 or 1964. Donald Robinson, who later served as the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney from 1982-1993, officiated at Dallwyn's wedding and at the baptism of his first born son, Ivan Trevor Hamilton. Dallwyn's ex-wife, Helen, passed away in August, 1991.

Dallwyn's father was Allan Miller Hamilton (born March 5, 1908; died about October 26, 1993) and his mother was Mary Catherine Hamilton nee Newcombe (born June 20, 1908; died June 3, 1995). They married on September 6, 1927 when they were 19 years old in what could be described as a "shot-gun wedding". Dallwyn was born just over five (5) months later on February 11, 1928. Dallwyn always said his parents died sliding off a cliff on a snowy night in the mountains of South America and that their bodies were never recovered. The glee with which he told this story, which was clearly untrue, shows the depth of anger he maintained toward both of them.

Dallwyn has a younger brother, Brian Andrew Hamilton, and a sister, Jean Mary Machon, who both are alive and reside in Sydney, Australia.

Allan Robert Hamilton came to America in or around 1987 in order to start a new life as Dallwyn Hamnilton Merck. We know he was estranged from his family and perhaps he hoped that with the name change, he could finally cut all ties and "disappear", so to speak. It is also likely he chose to say he was just under 50 years old instead of being just under 60 so he would have more opportunities to obtain work and enter into new relationships here in the United States. Much is still unknown.

Dallwyn Hamnilton Merck was an aviation enthusiast. Alden Link, a pilot, distributed Dallwyn Merck's ashes from his plane over the Mohonk Mountain Preserve on Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at about 3 p.m. (The Mohonk Preserve is located in the Shawangunk Ridge, a section of the Appalachian Mountains, 90 miles north of New York City in Ulster County, New York).

Frederick Cookinham, a member of the Libertarian Party of Queens County and author of the book The Age Of Rand: Imagining An Objectivist Future World, has called Dallwyn Hamnilton Merck an "International Man Of Mystery."

Tom Rossman on Common Law Juries: A Coup By Any Other Name

Thomas Adair Rossman wrote the following article regarding John Darash and the National Liberty Alliance's proposal to form Common Law Juries throughout the United States. Tom Rossman is an emerging global thought leader in improving political and economic decision making. He is the author of The Synthesis Revolution: New Thinking for a New Era of Prosperity, released in November 2012 by Eudaimonia Publishing and currently serves as Vice-Chair of the Libertarian Party of Queens County:

"If I were to tell you that a God-fearing, patriotic American was proposing the single greatest exercise in social engineering since Maoist-Leninist-Marxism became the ruling dogma of China in 1949, your initial instincts would be opposed to such a movement. However, if I wrapped the message in the seemingly beneficial cloak of  ‘liberty’, appeals to amorphous natural law, individual sovereignty, and threw in some ‘Great Awakening’ language, topped off with a biting critique of the current U.S. political system, you might be more amenable to considering it. No?  

The National Liberty Alliance strikes me as a well-meaning group of people who do not fully grasp the last three and a half centuries of political history. I am in complete agreement that our current system of government is in need of serious and deep reform, however, we have a mechanism in place to effect such change that has developed and adapted over the past several centuries called the ballot box and constitutional amendment. It is far from perfect, but it has provided the foundation for the enormous success of the United States. 

The National Liberty Alliance Mission Statement claims that, “To take political power is to control our elected representatives, by bringing them into obedience through fear of the people.” For the last 230 years, we have done exactly that through electing representatives and kicking them out when they failed in their duties. After all, what puts fear in the heart of a politician more than being voted out of office? We can all agree that is a flawed system, but next to the radical tectonic shift the National Liberty Alliance is proposing, it has the benefit of hundreds of years of testing and experiment. Their Mission Statement says: “To take judicial power is to control our courts by understanding jurisdiction and bringing into subjection all government officers and officials using common law courts by opening courts of record and executing "people" authority, it's that simple!” To replace our entire state legal system with an alternate system controlled by the National Liberty Alliance, based on the exceedingly vague “people authority” is to replace something that is known, flawed, but proven by something that is completely unknown and unproven. This smacks of Rousseau and Robespierre in the mission to “force men to be free”.

What they are advocating is a coup! A group of citizens who share the same subjective beliefs they do, taking control from officials elected by the people who do not. Their followers, according to the website, “first seek the blessings from the "GOVERNOR OF THE UNIVERSE" and build our endeavor upon Him and His principles (1) HONOR, (2) JUSTICE, and (3) MERCY. This is the only sure foundation, any other will succumb to tyrants.” What if a citizen doesn’t believe in a ‘governor of the Universe’ or has a different interpretation of the terms honor, justice and mercy? Technically, if these individuals are not willing to take the National Liberty Alliance’s theocratic oath, then they would not qualify to take part in this new and improved world order and do not constitute part of the ‘people authority’. 

Their ideas further collapse in on themselves when one begins to unwind the logistics of their movement.   They claim that, “Only the People can stand up and defend the Constitution because the Constitution cannot defend itself, and bureaucrats will never do it.” But at the same time, in the Common Law jury system, “Each county should eventually find four people (administrators) who will work full time (paid positions) to administrate and orient the jurist.” So a set of state-paid administrators who are essentially “bureaucrats” who will never defend the constitution, according to their own declaration, will now be in charge of the county grand juries across the country. Keep in mind that even though the Alliance claims all of this is universally self-evident, completely obvious, and the true law of the land, no legal scholar or Constitutional thinker of any note has openly advocated for such an alternate system. 

But, aside from the contradictions and the complete lack of basis in anything we know or have experienced in the Modern era, the most flawed aspect of their thinking is their atavistic interpretation of  ‘individual sovereignty’. This cornerstone of modern democracy has been widely debated for centuries and if the National Liberty Alliance has their way, the last 350 years of debate on this issue would be wiped away in one fell swoop. 

It was in the mid-17^th century, in the midst of intense religious wars in England and across Europe, that Thomas Hobbes first effectively made the case that ultimate sovereignty lay with the individual. Prior to that, the dominate form of “natural law” in Europe, held that Kings and the Church were supreme, not individuals. This is why Hobbes’ Leviathan was so revolutionary in inverting the power structure to make the government the servant of the people. At the same time, Hobbes believed that without the strong rule of an absolute monarch, day-to-day life would be so chaotic that it would return to the ‘state of nature’ in which conditions were “continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”

Thankfully, the advancement of political ideas didn’t end with Hobbes and John Locke picked up the torch of liberty with a more positive mission. It was Locke, in providing the ideas behind the Glorious Revolution in England, a model for the American Revolution a century later, who asserted it was not just a right, but an obligation for individuals to work together to improve the way that they were governed. Since that time, the Anglo-American political tradition has been to find the best possible way to govern ourselves in the most effective manner available. Granted, just as many of the men who contributed to this development, often flawed in execution, but were noble in intention.   

You can’t have your cake and eat it too which is why the preamble of the Constitution sets out the recognition that, “In Order to form a more perfect Union.” we must work out our differences through an electoral system with checks and balances, division of powers through the branches of government and the freedom of choice of the individual citizen/voter. For example, before the Constitution was even ratified, it had already been widely agreed that ten new amendments, the Bill of Rights, would be added. 

I suppose if I believed as John Darash, one of the leaders of the National Liberty Alliance, does, that the United States was on the edge of imminent demise, that all diseases can be cured through natural homeopathic remedies, and that the world is controlled by a few, select wealthy families, than I would be more pre-disposed to a radical re-writing of our entire social contract. However, since the leaders of this radical movement can offer no evidence of such things, and appeal purely to a vague assumption that all of these assertions are “proven facts”, I have no choice but to stand with John Locke, the Framers of the Constitution and most of the other Founding Fathers in asserting that the case has not been made for such a revolutionary proposed course of action. 

We must keep in mind that one of the reasons the American Revolution was such a success and the French Revolution a dismal failure, was that Americans had been largely ruling themselves for more than a century when the brave Sons of Liberty began to push for the formalization of self-rule. In fact, it was 1619 when the first elected body in America began the long journey of collecting the experiences to effective self-rule, as a practical matter of survival, not an abstract one of ‘rights’. To push for such a radical departure from the system the Framers established and the changes and adaptations that have evolved to that system over time, is to repeat the mistake of the radicals of the French Revolution, the Communist revolutions of the 20^th century and to make a mockery of one of the core values that the Framers and even the National Liberty Alliance claims to espouse, that of real world experience and change through adaptation and adjustment over time. That is actually one of the core principles of Common Law.  

The bottom-line is that the National Liberty Alliance is very far from making a cogent argument that their Common Law Jury system, animated by the appeal to abstract and non-universal principles would even work, let alone be superior to our current system. That still leaves us with the pressing need to reform our current political system, so let the debate continue, unabated."

Applause! Applause! Review of Ragtime at Cultural Arts Playhouse by Dr. Thomas Robert Stevens

This review of the musical Ragtime at the Cultural Arts Playhouse was written by Dr. Thomas Robert Stevens and published in Volume X, Issue 4 (2014) of the online edition of Applause! Applause!

Ragtime
Cultural Arts Playhouse (625 Old Country Road, Plainview, NY)
Reviewed 3/23/14

Ragtime is a musical with a book by Terrence McNally, lyrics by Lynn Ahrens, and music by Stephen Flaherty. Based on the 1975 novel by E.L. Doctorow, it tells the story of three groups living in the early 20th century: African-Americans, represented by Coalhouse Walker Jr., a Harlem musician; upper-class white suburbanites living in New Rochelle, represented by Mother; and Eastern European immigrants, represented by Tateh, a Jewish immigrant from Latvia. Historical figures appearing in the musical include Harry Houdini, Evelyn Nesbit, Booker T. Washington, J.P. Morgan, Henry Ford, Admiral Perry and Emma Goldman. The music includes marches, cakewalks, gospel and ragtime.

The musical opened on Broadway on January 18, 1998 as the first production in the Ford Center for the Performing Arts. It closed on January 16, 2000 after 834 performances. It was nominated for 13 Tony Awards and won for Best Featured Actress, Original Score, Book and Orchestrations. A 2009 Broadway revival opened to critical acclaim at the Neil Simon Theatre on November 15, 2009 but due to high weekly running costs, it closed on January 10, 2010 after only 65 performances. Nevertheless, it received 7 Tony nominations, including Best Revival of a Musical, Best Direction, Best Actress in a Musical and Best Featured Actor in a Musical.

If you haven't seen Ragtime, I highly recommend you catch this production at the Cultural Arts Playhouse. It is exceptionally well-done with fine performances by talented actors. The message of justice and of changing times is universal and the story, set in the first fourteen years of the 20th century is as relevant today as it was then and for every generation in between. The longer you live, the longer you hear "strange new music" and wonder "when they changed the song." Insightful people also realize "you can never go back to before" nor would you want you. As Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions."

Christopher M. Cooley brought substance and gravitas to the character of Harlem ragtime pianist Coalhouse Walker Jr., who risks everything to obtain the justice he feels he deserves as a man. Steffy Jolin puts in a fine performance as Sarah, his girlfriend and the father of his child, whose sad story results in an even more tragic ending. Carmela Newman plays Mother, an upper-class white woman from a traditional family who undergoes the most radical change in perspective as she decides, while her husband is away on a year-long trip, to take in an abandoned black baby, and later, that baby's mother. In a subtle but powerful performance, Ms. Newman seduces and invites you to join Mother on her journey of discovery and enlightenment. Mike Newman more than holds his own as Tateh, a Latvian Jew seeking the American Dream for his daughter. The unexpected "happy family" that forms in the end will surprise you but reflects the norms bound to have resulted out of the "mosaic" culture that is now our own.

Two additional cast members are worthy of note. Jill Wilson Cohen shines as Emma Goldman. I felt as if I had met Emma Goldman personally after seeing Ms. Cohen's portrayal of her. I was also impressed with Ashley Nicastro in the role of Evelyn Nesbit, the "girl on a swing" who became infamous when her husband shot her lover. There are many excellent, songs in this musical including "Goodbye, My Love", "Henry Ford", "New Music", "The Wheels Of A Dream", "The Night That Goldman Spoke At Union Square", "Till We Reach That Day", "What A Game", "Atlantic City", "He Wanted To Say", "Back To Before" and "Make Them Hear You".

Make an effort to see Ragtime at the Cultural Arts Playhouse. You will not be disappointed. While there, if you run into Harry Houdini, don't forget to tell him to WARN THE DUKE!

Applause! Applause! Review of Her by Andrew P. Clunn

This review of the movie Her was written by Andrew P. Clunn and published in Volume X, Issue 4 (2014) of the online edition of Applause! Applause!

Her
Directed & Written by Spike Jonze
Reviewed 2/17/14

It’s hard to say whether Her (directed and written by Spike Jonze) is a romantic comedy, morality play, or science fiction story. While it deals with the complexities of relationships and marriage of today, it does so safely through an imagined future. It speaks to today’s court battles over same sex marriage seeking to legally define love and relationships, but with a premise of the isolated but deeply thoughtful Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) falling in love with his Artificial Intelligence Operating System Samantha (Scarlett Johansson).

I think anybody who falls in love is a freak. It's a crazy thing to do. It's kind of like a form of socially acceptable insanity. - Amy

For the main character of Theodore, the only real forays into the notion of marriage are a blind date, where a woman presses him for a commitment in a passive aggressive manner that is all too realistic. The other is his clinging to his own failed marriage by constantly delaying signing his divorce papers (much to his ex’s frustration). To him the marriage document is a symbol of their relationship and love, and if he lets it go then he lets her go. Theodore is only able to do so after his relationship with Samantha comes to fill the gap, and though his ex-wife Catherine (Rooney Mara) seems willing to forgive him for delaying their divorce so long, she lashes out at him when she learns that he’s replaced her with a computer program. It’s from this encounter that Theodore comes to question and doubt his relationship and becomes fearful of how others might judge him.

At one point Theodore and his friend Amy (Amy Adams) are discussing their lives since their marriages fell apart (Amy’s somewhat more recently). Both withhold that they’ve found companionship (in Amy’s case platonic friendship) with their OS. Both fear the judgment of their friend, but when they reveal themselves, Amy laments that it took her so long to end her stifling marriage. Fear of others’ judgment, fear of feeling like a failure, had kept her from ending it for so long. When they both come clean about their present relationships, the acceptance and genuine pleasure at each other’s happiness is palpable.

The recently divorced Amy is a video game programmer. In the game she’s working on the player who takes on the role of a traditional mother. The player scores points by doting on her kids, making baked goods for school events, and picking up her children from school on time. The clear contrast within the world of Her between how people actually live their lives and the way that “normal” people are portrayed is one of the many ways in which it feels so real. Of course Amy puts in a hidden glitch where the super mother avatar begins humping the refrigerator, and how Her manages to be both so crude and touching is perhaps its strongest point.

Dear Catherine, I've been sitting here thinking about all the things I wanted to apologize to you for. All the pain we caused each other. Everything I put on you. Everything I needed you to be or needed you to say. I'm sorry for that. I'll always love you 'cause we grew up together and you helped make me who I am. I just wanted you to know there will be a piece of you in me always, and I'm grateful for that. Whatever someone you become, and wherever you are in the world, I'm sending you love. You're my friend to the end. Love, Theodore. - Theodore

While the film’s story is science fiction, the realism makes that a forgettable afterthought. At one point Theodore and Samantha go on a couple’s picnic with a co-worker and his girlfriend. The fact that she isn’t human is incidental, serving as little more than dinner conversation. When a little girl asks why Theodore’s girlfriend is in a computer, Samantha responds, “Because that’s where I live.” No further explanation is needed. The notion that people and relationships come in all forms seems so natural, and the acceptance that how others define love has no bearing on how we define it is made to appear so obvious and intuitive that, by contrast, it’s our dogmatic judgmental society that seems out of place.

Traditional relationships exist in Her, as well as imagined possibilities of relationships that do not yet exist. The new form of relationships don’t mean that the old form go away, and each is left to thrive, fail, or change according to the desires of the participants. It’s so elegant an idea that people should be in relationships with whoever they want to be because they want to be. And best of all, it makes for one hell of a romantic comedy.

You know what, I can over think everything and find a million ways to doubt myself. And since Charles left I've been really thinking about that part of myself and, I've just come to realize that, we're only here briefly. And while I'm here, I wanna allow myself joy. So fuck it. - Amy

Applause! Applause! Review of The Electric Indian at The Invisible Dog Art Center by Dr. Thomas Robert Stevens

This review of The Electric Indian at The Invisible Dog Art Center was written by Dr. Thomas Robert Stevens and published in Volume X, Issue 4 (2014) of the online edition of Applause! Applause!

The Electric Indian
The Invisible Dog Art Center (51 Bergen Street, Brooklyn, NY)
Reviewed 2/16/14

Conceived & directed by JJ Lind, The Electric Indian successfully combines storytelling, ritual, dance and song with 19th century historical texts, 20th century popular media and 21st century technologies to tell the story of the American Indian (and specifically the Cherokee nation) using the life of Elias Cornelius Boudinot, a controversial Cherokee who served as a Confederate Army colonel during the Civil War, as the linchpin. Also appearing in the production were four other characters, the Sculptress, the Missionary, the Surveyor and the Entertainer, who each represent different aspects of White Society during the 19th century. A main source for the script was The Manners, Customs, Traditions and Present Condition of the Civilized Indians of the Indian Territory, an informational lecture for white audiences by Col. Elias C. Boudinot. The Electric Indian was the name of a studio band created in the 1960s that sought to capitalize on the "native sound" used at the time. The title is a metaphor for the American (and capitalist) impulse to fetishize and commoditize an idealized image of native people. The director, JJ Lind, who identifies as a Cherokee, comes from Vinita, Oklahoma, a town founded and named by Elias Cornelius Boudinot. 

I felt the play fairly and objectively depicted the plight of the American Indian during the 19th century as well-intentioned European-Americans and American Indians sought to find policies that would be in the best long-term interests of the Native Nations in an atmosphere where a number of other Whites sought to take every advantage, legal or illegal, of any Indian or Tribe standing in their way. 

Elias Cornelius Boudinot was born on August 1, 1835, the son of Elias Boudinot, a Cherokee National leader who was editor of the Cherokee Phoenix, the first Native American newspaper. His mother, Harriet Ruggies Gold, a woman of English decent from Cornwall, Connecticut, died in 1836, several months after her seventh child was stillborn. His father and some other relatives were assassinated in 1839 as retaliation for signing the Treaty of New Echota, ceding the remainder of Cherokee lands in the Southeast in exchange for removal to Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River. For their safety, Boudinot and his siblings were sent back to Connecticut to their mother's family. The Golds ensured the children received good educations. Boudinot studied engineering, became an attorney, and co-founded The Arkansan, a pro-slavery newspaper that favored railroad construction into Indian Territory. In 1860, he was chosen as the chairman of the Arkansas Democratic State Central Committee and in 1861, he served as Secretary of the Secession Convention as the territory determined whether it would leave the Union. In 1863, Boudinot was elected a delegate to the Congress of the Confederate States of America, representing the majority faction of Cherokee who supported the Confederacy. During the Civil War, he served as a Colonel in the Confederate Army and after the war, he was chairman of the Cherokee Delegation to the Southern Treaty Commission, which negotiated treaties with the United States.

The Electric Indian depicts Boudinot struggling to do what is best for his people. Will civilizing the "savage beast" prevent their extinction? Will learning English and becoming American citizens help? Will embracing development and supporting integration through the presence of railroads make a difference? Will abandonment of communal lands and the granting of parcels to individual households of tribal members teach them to be industrious and responsible? Will making Oklahoma a state dominated by Native American politicians help preserve the future of the Native Nations in this country? All of these efforts were supported in one way or another by Boudinot but the results were disappointing to say the least. Was the outcome for the American Indian predictable from the beginning as The Missionary character in the play observes? Was the death of their culture inevitable? Was the American Indian destined to become as the play suggests - a modern day unicorn - magical, mystical and rarely seen? Perhaps.

The Electric Indian tells an important story in an unusual and entertaining manner. It was produced by Immediate Medium and the performers included James Allerdyce, Max Dana, Brady Jenkins, Julie Stainer-Loehr and Siobhan Gandy. The ensemble cast worked well together and pulled off an unconventional piece of theater that educated its audience while taking them on a wild ride. I was particularly impressed with the stage presence and performance of James Allerdyce, who played the Surveyor, and by the charismatic and talented Brady Jenkins, who was the Entertainer. After Boudinot is transformed on stage into a modern day Unicorn, the final scene of the play is a patriotic red, white and blue light display symbolizing the ultimate triumph of the White Man over the Red Man in America - just a matter of fact by this point in the story. I very much enjoyed the production and if the run is extended, I urge you to see this interesting and creative presentation of a slice of our country's history.  

Philip Seymour Hoffman's Death Should Not Be Used To Fuel The Failed Drug War, Say Libertarians

Andrew P. Clunn, Chair of the Saratoga-Capital District Libertarians, a chartered chapter of Empire State Libertarians, says “the tragic death of Oscar-winning actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, allegedly as a result of a heroin overdose, should not be exploited by local law enforcement officials to perpetuate and expand the failed war on drugs. In the wake of sympathetic news coverage of Hoffman’s substance abuse issues, New York Police Department investigators have aggressively and vindictively arrested several parties possibly connected to Hoffman on drug possession charges. Others have suggested that those who sold illegal drugs to Hoffman should even be held criminally responsible for his death, the way some bars are now being held liable if a patron leaves an establishment drunk and then gets into a car accident. A drug seller should not be responsible for the consequences of a user’s use or abuse, unless what he or she sold was substandard or adulterated in some way. No one is to blame for Hoffman’s death other than himself. I find it abhorrent that Hoffman’s passing and personal tragedy is being used by some media outlets, politicians and law enforcement officials as supposed evidence for staying the course with the increasingly unpopular war on drugs. The emphasis should be on expanding the number of opportunities available for those seeking rehabilitation, not on increasing prosecution rates and creating convicted felons out of those who sell or use drugs.”

“The old authoritarian formula of ‘more bans, more arrests’ for dealing with the drug problem clearly hasn't worked,” says New York State Libertarian Party Political Director John Clifton, a former County Chair of the Libertarian Party of Queens County and a former three-term State Chair of the New York Libertarian Party. “Putting more people in a cage is not the answer. Mr. Hoffman was clearly a very productive person, yet had he been caught with drugs in his possession, he without doubt would have been prosecuted, sent to prison, and labeled a felon. Some people can handle drug use and never get addicted, stopping on their own when it suits them. Others get addicted and seek help and a small minority of drug users, unfortunately, die. But one thing is true of all drug users. They voluntarily chose to engage in that personal behavior and in ours, the most informed society of all time, there should be no laws controlling what people choose to ingest at their own risk or benefit.”

Empire State Libertarians was founded on July 4, 2010 by Thomas Robert Stevens (current Chair of the Libertarian Party of Queens County) to encourage New York State residents who share libertarian ideals and principles to become politically active and to seek out avenues to promote a pro-liberty agenda; to endorse candidates seeking elective office who support smaller government, lower taxes and more individual freedom; to encourage patriotism, respect for our Founding Fathers, and a deep appreciation for the United States Constitution; and to organize and charter chapters of Empire State Libertarians in order to promote local activism. 

Queens Libertarians Call For The Legalization Of Mixed Martial Arts In New York State

On February 2, 2014, the Libertarian Party of Queens County voted unanimously to support the legalization of Mixed Martial Arts in New York State.

Natale Corsi, Liberty Outreach Coordinator for the Libertarian Party of Queens County, speaking in support of the position taken by the Queens Libertarians, commented as follows:

"Liberty is defined in the dictionary as the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. The ban of professional Mixed Martial Arts in New York State is the exact example of taking away liberty from its citizens. New York State feels in its misguided belief that it knows what's best for the citizens of New York and must protect us. New York State is one of only two states in the United States of America that bans professional Mixed Martial Arts. I, as Liberty Outreach Coordinator for the LPQC, feel that this ban is a direct offense against our liberties as citizens and we must support New Yorkers who want to legalize Mixed Martial Arts. The right of two consenting adults to engage in a sport that is less dangerous than already legal sports like Boxing should not be infringed. I am not only a supporter. I am a practitioner of Mixed Martial Arts for 8+ years and have been involved in the fight to legalize Mixed Martial Arts in New York State. I have attended rallies, expos and seminars and participated in the first legally sanctioned Amateur Mixed Martial Arts bout in New York State as a coach. I specifically want to thank Dr. Tom Stevens, the newly elected LPQC Chair, for championing this worthy cause and placing it near the top of his political agenda.

Mixed Martial Arts is the fastest growing sport in the United States of America; it has generated more pay per view sales than any other event. Mixed Martial Arts competitions are hosted nationwide in the country's most iconic arenas. It has even invaded our pop culture with numerous movies, TV shows, and celebrities rising from its ranks. Famous Mixed Martial Artists are staring in movies, visiting troops overseas and headlining as guests on talk shows. You cannot go to a sports bar on Saturday night without seeing crowds of people gathering to watch Mixed Martial Arts. However, despite the overwhelming success and stardom of the sport, New York State is one of only two states in the nation that bans Mixed Martial Arts matches within its borders.

The ban of professional Mixed Martial Arts is a direct attack on the personal liberties of the citizens of New York. The state has deemed the sport too dangerous and prohibits consenting adults from participating in the sport. This ban is another example of a Nanny State deciding for its citizens what is best for them. There is no evidence in support of the allegation that Mixed Martial Arts competitions are dangerous for its participants. Since the first sanctioned Mixed Martial Arts bout in 1993 to the present, there have been only 5 Mixed Martial Arts related deaths with only one being a direct result of injuries sustained during a match. In comparison, Boxing, which is legal in all states including New York, has recorded over 146 deaths since 1990 and over 1,000 since records have been kept. A recent Sienna Poll showed that only 30% of New Yorkers oppose the legalization of Mixed Martial Arts with 45% in favor and 25% without an opinion. Mixed Martial Arts was once illegal in 49 states in 1993 and now is only illegal in two states because of the will of the people. It is time for the New York State legislature to ignore union lobbyists and listen to the will of its citizens and restore one more piece of our freedom that has been taken from us.

Dr. Tom Stevens, LPQC Chair, has made me the point man on this issue. I will continue to fight until millions of participants and fans are restored their freedom to engage in competitions and to watch Professional Mixed Martial Arts bouts in New York State and, specifically, in the most famous arena in the world - Madison Square Garden."

Natale Corsi was appointed Liberty Outreach Coordinator for the Libertarian Party of Queens County on January 21, 2014.

John Clifton Says Using High Profile Individuals As Libertarian Party Candidates Can Be Useful & Effective

John Clifton, former Chair of the New York Libertarian Party and Libertarian Party of Queens County who ran for Governor and for United States Senate against Hillary Clinton, recently commented on the history of using high profile individuals as Libertarian Party Candidates. His statement is as follows:

"The concept of a LP-led 'stunt' candidacy with a high profile person has been seriously considered by the party in past years, and is relevant to our attempting to shake things up (in a precision way) to gain press for the party's agenda. The concept was tried successfully by the New York Green Party in '98 when running 'Grandpa' Al Lewis for Governor, and in Minnesota when outright electing Jesse Ventura Governor there that same year. The LP originally tried the idea with the fabled Howard Stern candidacy in '94.

The idea is that instead of starting from a candidate pool that has zero regular resources (no substantial name recognition, no serious money, no organized base) to run in a major race, we make a temporary alliance with someone who does, while living with the imperfections of the deal. Certain celebrities, retired public figures, or 'notorious' personalities may be situationally motivated at a certain point in their lives to act as candidates or endorsers on issues where we are in alignment, and may fit many of the demographics needed for the cause. They can be open to a wooing process we pursue at that time, should we have the foresight to mount an effort, and not insist on a perfect fit. 

In 2005, I contacted Monica Lewinsky to run for Senate (at the same time I also contacted Cindy Sheehan, and William Weld for Governor), based on the suspicion they might be interested in running with the Libertarian Party based on their individual circumstances. In the case of Weld, this turned out to be correct. With Lewinsky, the theory was she was young enough to perhaps appeal to the youth vote based on a left-libertarian campaign (e.g., to promote personal freedom issues of strong interest to young voters (18-34) and civil liberties topics that the Libertarian Party uniquely addresses, in a campaign that would be largely college-campus oriented). 

I think she was a more moral, more authentic and less scandal-prone woman than the then incumbent United States Senator (Hillary), thus might have had an axe to grind against her, and so could pass as an 'anti-fraud' libertarian candidate. If she had run, the media would have positively ate it up. Alas, she was not interested/did not reply, and suddenly got an all expenses paid gig overseas (as if somebody wanted her out of the way while Hillary was getting re-elected, and preparing to run for President). 

Sometimes approaching high profile people does work if there is a purpose and plan behind it, and this strategy could be useful to the LP, past and present."

Was The Father Of The United States Military A Gay Baron, Who Hosted Underwear Parties For His Low-Ranking Male Friends?

The below article on Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, is a compilation of two columns written by Philadelphia Gay News Publisher Mark Segal, who is the nation's most award-winning commentator in GLBT media.

"After years of studying almost anything available on Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, the material suggesting that von Steuben was gay is so overwhelming that the only thing that can be asked of anyone who doubts it is, "Prove to me he’s not". There is literally not room in this article to list all the facts that point to a practice of homosexuality on the part of von Steuben.

On the other hand, there is only one thing historians can point to that suggests von Steuben was heterosexual, and it comes from the first biography on the baron in 1859, The Life of Frederick William von Steuben by Fredrich Kapp. At the end of the 700-plus-page bio, Kapp writes, "Steuben was never married. It seems, however, that he met with disappointment in early life. While preparing to remove to his farm, the accidental fall of a portrait of a most beautiful young woman from his cabinet, which was picked up by his companion and shown to him, with the request to be told from whom it was taken, produced a most obvious emotion of strong tenderness, and the pathetic exclamation, ‘O, she was a matchless woman!’ He never afterwards alluded to the subject". This flimsy story is one of the few items in the book with no attribution. It has since been attributed to a host of the baron’s acquaintances. But most interesting of all is that each time von Steuben encountered the charge of being “homosexual", he never denied it or defended himself, he just moved on.

There are few historians today who would doubt that Baron Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben was gay. That is the notion this writer has argued for the past two years, and no accredited historian has refuted its main theme that, without von Steuben, there would be no United States of America and that von Steuben, in today’s terms, would be considered a gay man.

To appreciate the contributions von Steuben (1730-94) made to the American Revolution, consider this: Before his arrival in Valley Forge in 1778, the Revolutionary Army had lost several battles to Great Britain and the colonies were on the path to defeat. Without his leadership, the United States of America might still be the British colonies.

Before von Steuben arrived at Valley Forge, the Revolutionary Army was a loosely organized, rag-tag band of men with little military training or discipline. The military fumbled through the beginning of the war for independence lacking training and organization. Gen. George Washington and the Continental Congress knew that without help from additional seasoned military experts, the colonies would clearly lose.

Since Washington himself was the best the colonies had, they looked to Europe for someone who could train the troops. To that end, Washington wrote the colonies’ representatives in Paris, among them Benjamin Franklin, to see what he could come up with. Franklin, a renowned inventor, was treated as a celebrity in the French court. This would be pivotal in achieving his two major objectives in France: winning financial support for the American Revolution and finding military leaders who could bring a semblance of order to the Revolutionary Army.

Franklin learned of a “brilliant” Prussian military genius, Lt. Gen. Baron Friedrich von Steuben, who had a string of successes across Germanic Europe. But there was one problem. He’d been asked to depart many of those states and countries because of his “affections for members of his own sex", according to biographer Paul Lockhart’s The Drillmaster of Valley Forge.

This became urgent in 1777 when he literally escaped imprisonment in what is now Germany and traveled to Paris. In Paris, Franklin was interviewing candidates to assist Washington back in the colonies when his fellow Colonial representative Silas Deane, a former representative to the first Continental Congress and a friend of Franklin, brought von Steuben to his residence for an interview in June. Deane is best known for recruiting the Marquis de Lafayette.

During the interview process, Franklin discovered von Steuben’s reputation for having “affections” with males and the issue became pressing, as members of the French clergy demanded the French court, as in other countries, take action against this sodomite, whom they considered a pedophile. They had decided to make their effort a crusade and run him out of France.

Lockhart’s biography tells of von Steuben’s being summoned from Paris to Karlsrube, at the court of the Margrave of Baden, for a military vacancy. But, Lockhart notes, “what he found waiting for him at Karlsrube was not an officer’s commission but a rumor, a horrible, vicious rumor” that the Baron had “taken familiarities with young boys".

Those allegations were fueled by von Steuben’s close ties to Prince Henry and Frederick the Great, also “widely rumored to be homosexual".

Von Steuben returned to Paris, and Franklin had a choice here – and he decided von Steuben’s expertise was more important to the colonies than his sexuality. While it can be debated how much a part Franklin played in the recruitment of von Steuben, one cannot doubt that one of the most informed people at the French court would know of the allegations against the baron. With that knowledge, and with von Steuben about to be jailed, Franklin, along with Deane, wrote what must be the nation’s first example of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as they mutually signed a recommendation letter to General Washington that embellished von Steuben’s military expertise and titles and suggested he had been recommended by various princes and “other great personages". Most surprisingly, it remarked that “his distinguished character and known abilities were attested to by two judges of military merit in this country".

The judges of character that Franklin referred to were two of the four involved in the plot to bring von Steuben to America, along with Franklin and Deane, and personal friends of the baron: Pierre Beaumarchais, author of the Figaro plays and an arms dealer who supplied arms for the ship von Steuben eventually sailed on, and Claude Louis, Comte de Saint-Germain, the minister of war under Louis XVI.

What the letter didn’t mention was that he was about to be arrested and appear before judges in France.

Franklin, working with Deane, decided von Steuben’s “affections” were less important than what he, Washington and the colonies needed to win the war with England. Deane learned of von Steuben’s indiscretions — and that the French clergy was investigating — as evidenced from a letter to the Prince of Hechingen, his former employer, which read in part:

It has come to me from different sources that M. de Steuben is accused of having taken familiarities with young boys, which the laws forbid and punish severely. I have even been informed that that is the reason why M. de Steuben was obliged to leave Hechingen and that the clergy of your country intend to prosecute him by law as soon as he may establish himself anywhere.

Deane, along with Franklin, acted quickly before the clergy could deport or imprison von Steuben and plotted to send him to the colonies to serve with Washington. The proof of Franklin and Deane’s knowledge lies in the letter to Washington recommending von Steuben and their quick action to secure the baron from France. So, in September 1777, von Steuben boarded a 24-gun ship named Heureux – but, for this voyage, the ship’s name was changed to Le Flamand, and the baron’s name was entered onto the captain’s log as “Frank.” And he was on his way to the colonies. Von Steuben was given an advance for passage to America and began as a volunteer, without pay.

Once the general had arrived in Valley Forge, Washington was concerned about von Steuben’s inability to speak English, so he appointed two of his officers who spoke French to work as his translators. One of those officers was Alexander Hamilton and the other, his close friend John Laurens. Within months, von Steuben gained Washington’s confidence and began to transform the colonial army.

Washington and Franklin’s trust in von Steuben was rewarded. He whipped the rag-tag army of the colonies into a professional fighting force, able to take on the most powerful superpower of the time, England. Some of his accomplishments include instituting a “model company” for training, establishing sanitary standards and organization for the camp, and training soldiers in drills and tactics such as bayonet fighting and musket loading. According to “The Papers of Von Steuben,” the following is a timeline of his achievements.

February 1778: Arrives at Valley Forge to serve under Washington, having informed Congress of his desire for paid service after an initial volunteer trial period, with which request Washington concurs.

March 1778: Begins tenure as inspector general, drilling troops according to established European military precepts.

1778-79: Writes “Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States,” which becomes a fundamental guide for the Continental Army and remains in active use through the War of 1812, being published in over 70 editions.

1780-81: Senior military officer in charge of troop and supply mobilization in Virginia.

1781: Replaced by Marquis de Lafayette as commander in Virginia.

1781-83: Continues to serve as Washington’s inspector general, and is active in improving discipline and streamlining administration in the army.

Spring 1783: Assists in formulating plans for the postwar American military.

Washington rewarded Von Steuben with a house at Valley Forge, which he shared with his aide-de-camps Capt. William North and Gen. Benjamin Walker. Walker lived with him through the remainder of his life, and von Steuben, who neither married nor denied any of the allegations of homosexuality, left his estate to North and Walker. There wasn’t much else to claim, as the baron was in debt at the time of his death, according to both Kapp and Lockhart. His last will and testament has been described as a love letter to Walker and has been purported to describe their “extraordinarily intense emotional relationship", yet that line was not in the Kapp biography of 1859. Both North and Walker are featured in the statue of von Steuben in Lafayette Park across from the White House.

Speculation over who von Steuben slept with abounded from Prussia to France to the United States. Yet he never once denied it. The closest he came to the topic was to ask Washington to speak on behalf of his morals in a letter to Congress so they would authorize the disbursement of his pension. And why did he ask Washington?

Since his arrival in Philadelphia to assist the Revolution, von Steuben had financial issues caused by a Continental Congress that often didn’t keep its funding promises, a challenge compounded by his own personality: Von Steuben at times could be cold and aloof, which was problematic when diplomacy was needed with an important member of Congress. He also had a tendency to live and spend extravagantly, especially on his uniforms, which were often emblazoned with epaulets and medals of his own design.

Due to his financial picture — and misconceptions about his association with Deane, who, along with Franklin, brought him to the Revolution, but who was later disgraced as traitor to the United States — von Steuben had to fight for his pension.

Adding to that were the constant rumors about his sexuality, which by 1790 had reached one of the revolution’s first families, the Adamses of Massachusetts.

Charles, the son of John and Abigail Adams — the second president and First Lady of the new union — was what today would be called the black sheep of the family. Early on, Abigail considered him “not at peace within himself". His biggest problem was alcoholism but, as revealed in letters among the various members of the family, the Adamses had other concerns.

As John Ferling wrote in the biography John Adams: A Life, “There are references to [Charles’] alleged proclivity for consorting with men whom his parents regarded as unsavory". One of these men was von Steuben, who, as Ferling writes, many at the time considered homosexual. Charles had become infatuated with and adored Von Steuben. It is clear in the family letters that the Adamses were concerned about a relationship between Charles and the baron. Von Steuben’s sexuality was an open secret, one that he himself never challenged, other than to ask Washington to defend his moral character.

Washington, always the diplomat, wrote of the general and friend rather than of von Steuben’s personal life, practicing today’s notion of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

It’s hard to question von Steuben’s importance – especially as Washington’s last official act as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army was to write a letter to the baron. Sent from Annapolis and dated Dec. 23, 1783, Washington wrote:

My dear Baron: Altho’ I have taken frequent opportunities, both in public and private, of acknowledging your great zeal, attention and abilities in performing the duties of your office; yet I wish to make use of this last moment of my public life, to signifie (sic) in the strongest terms my entire approbation of your conduct, and to express my sense of the obligations the public is under to you, for your faithful and meritorious services.

I beg you will be convinced, my dear sir, that I should rejoice if it could ever be in my power to serve you more essentially than by expression of regard and affection; but in the meantime, I am persuaded you will not be displeased with this farewell token of my sincere friendship and esteem for you.

This is the last letter I shall ever write while I continue in the service of my country; the hour of my resignation is fixed at 12 this day, after which I shall become a private citizen on the banks of the Potomack, where I shall be glad to embrace you, and to testify the great esteem and consideration with which I am, etc.

The Baron is a puzzle. At first, I really didn’t like him: The man himself was pompous, cold and theatrical, and his uniforms and title were stage props for an officer who didn’t even speak English when he got to Valley Forge. But I respected him for what he did to help Washington’s rag-tag army to defeat the British, eventually leading to the creation of our country. His knowledge created the first sense of military discipline in the colonies. My appreciation for him came from his most recent biographer, Paul Lockhart, whose book The Drillmaster of Valley Forge offers a complete look at von Steuben’s work.

There is one story in the book that could be considered rather scandalous in today’s terms: Von Steuben most likely threw the first underwear party in the United States military, at his house in Valley Forge.

As Lockhart writes, “The Baron hosted a party exclusively for their lower-ranking friends. He insisted, though, that ‘none should be admitted that had on a whole pair of breeches', making light of the shortages that affected the junior officers as they did the enlisted men".

The nation that von Steuben helped found has memorialized him with numerous statues, including those at Lafayette Square near the White House and at Valley Forge and Utica, N.Y. (where he is buried), and German Americans celebrate his birthday each year on Sept. 17, hosting parades in New York City, Philadelphia and Chicago.

It was von Steuben who played a giant role in not only the creation of our military, but the idea of military academies, a standing army and even veterans organizations. If George Washington was the father of the nation, then von Steuben, a gay man, was the father of the United States military."