Read the Card

Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

2011-08-26T10:14:00.001-04:00

From Nicholas Fitzgerald

Associate at Gibraltar Associates

Washington D.C. Metro Area

Read,

I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn.

- Nicholas

Confirm that you know Nicholas

You are receiving Invitation to Connect emails. Unsubscribe

Review: A liberally spectacular take on Bach's Brandenburg Concertos

2009-10-05T23:43:00.003-04:00

JS Bach's six Brandenburg Concertos are, quite probably, some of the most oft-recorded and most enjoyed collections of music in the Western repertoire. We know from history that the concertos were presented to Christian Ludwig, the margrave of Brandenburg, in 1721, which is from where they derive their name. They are regarded as the pinnacle of instrumental composition in the baroque period (1600 - 1750), and are some of the most well-considered works of art in all of Western civilization.

There are literally hundreds of recordings of these works available to the classical music consumer, all of which vary widely in aural aesthetics, artistic quality, historical accuracy, and general enjoyability. As a strong proponent of historical authenticity and traditionalism -- and myself a baroque violinist who performs on an 18th century instrument -- I always find myself deferring to the so-called "period" recordings, which feature old instruments with gut strings and baroque bows, and are directed by performers or musicologists who specialize primarily in baroque performance practice.

But even among this seemingly conservative -- perhaps, some say, even artistically limited -- circle of options, these "old" recordings contain vast opportunities that are actually, and quite ironically, liberal and innovative in their thinking.When people think of the baroque, they often think of powdered wigs and French parlors, which is quite true, but they also ignore the possibility for -- finally -- vast and exciting interpretation of music that has been performed improperly, or at least inaccurately, for so many years.

There are several excellent period recordings available on iTunes, some of which I will catalog with links at the bottom of this post. But across the board, none compare to the level of liberal adventurousness displayed in this latest period-instrument appraisal of works that have been so often performed and recorded -- and so boringly, so conservatively, at that -- they have simply become tired.

So the challenge -- particularly for historically authentic ensembles like the English Baroque Soloists under Sir John Eliot Gardiner -- is to bring new life and vivacity to works which, for better or worse, have a limited shelf life at this stage in our musical-cultural psyche.

And indeed, the EBS has certainly succeeded. (Interestingly, there seems to be a growing consensus within the historically authentic crowd thatperiod performance "is actually quite cutting edge" -- and as it turns out, the EBS has the musically liberal chops to prove it.)

The very opening of the CD -- the Allegro of Concerto No. 1 in F (BWV 1046) -- is simply astounding. I own (now) seven separate period recordings of all six of these concertos, and not one has moved me to the level of pure joy I experienced listening to this interpretation for the first time. While the playing is absolutely superb outright, the two horns in Concerto No. 1 truly steal the show. Their swing-style approach -- downright raucous, and, in the context of the 18th century salon, considered extremely poor taste -- has never before been catalogued on a professional recording. This reading is totally unique and completely unheard of, but utterly sensational. (For a slightly more in-depth and oh-so-very-British explanation -- not to mention, for an opportunity to watch a video excerpt of these exquisite players in action -- I encourage you to watch the video below.)

All classical music -- but particularly all baroque music -- is a combination of elements that exist both on and off the written staff. The Brandenburg Concertos are some of the Western world's most complex and highly celebrated works (the notes on the page) -- but they are augmented and refined by the performers' choices in balance, tempo, ornamentation, and phrasing (what you hear off the page). So while I own seven recordings of the same two and a half hours of music, they are all different in their own way.

And this recording's bright, vivacious, liberal interpretation has earned it a top spot in my book. To quote John Eliot Gardiner from the album's liner notes, "When it comes to hitting a propulsive rhythmic groove, no one is a match for JS Bach."

Nor, I would add, for the English Baroque Soloists.

[NCF]

Further Listening: The Brandenburg Concertos

The Academy of Ancient Music & Richard Egarr
La Stravaganza & Siegbert Rampe
Musica Antiqua Koln & Reinhard Goebel (Disc 1) (Disc 2)
The Swiss Baroque Soloists & Andres Gabetta

In Response: "Why so spurious?"

2009-10-02T23:01:00.000-04:00

Yesterday evening, a fellow William & Mary alum by the name of Alex Kyrios posted an interesting Facebook note on the political and social backlash from both the Left and Right in reaction to the nearby image. The story of Obama photoshopped as The Dark Knight's Joker was, if memory serves, first broken on The Drudge Report, and then picked up by a number of mainstream outlets thereafter. The commentary on the macabre display of the Adobe Creative Suite's abilities poured out over the Internet, and ranged from clever to inane to downright unhinged -- after all, where is Maureen Dowd's self-aggrandizing yet nonexistant post-racialism when you need it? And,as Mr. Kyrios points out, the supremely less-than-obvious racial undertones the poster somehow conveys -- I missed them -- seemed, ironically, to be the only rallying cry for those who claim they are so far beyond them, too intelligent and tolerant to be mired in pre-Obama race baiting reserved solely, it would seem, for conservatives and Republicans.

"[You're / It's / They're / She's / He's [[secretly]] ] racist!" they cry.

So, as Mr. Kyrios aptly points out,

The left is stupid for treating this as a racial matter. What exactly about this picture screams "hatred or prejudice against African Amercans" to you? The only remotely logical explanation is that the person expressing this opinion dislikes the policies of a certain high-profile African American -- who just happens to be probably one of the best known people on earth. [original emphasis]

Quite right.

It's amazing to me that it never occurs to a liberal that I or anyone else could possibly have a legitimate grievance with our president over an actual policy issue. The far less intellectual answer -- but much more emotionally satisfying, I'm sure -- is to name-call, as liberals so often do.

Mr. Kyrios also addresses the word strewn on the poster below Obama's caricatured face, suggesting that

the Joker is a horrible representative of socialism. ... The Joker believes that, put into the right circumstances, any human being can be just as savage, brutal, and chaotic as he is. Socialism pretty much requires a generally positive outlook on human nature; you have to be able to trust your neighbor if you're all going to jointly control everything. If you were starting a little socialistic commune, you would not invite the Joker.

It is with this aspect of Mr. Kyrios' thinking with which I strongly disagree. As I stated in a Facebook comment, this is a completelyerroneous, factually unsupportable, and historically indefensible assertion. Socialism is, indeed, about control -- but not one that is shared between fellow neighbors living in harmony. It believes -- even requires -- that human beings are not good, that they are inherently evil, and that a strong, centralized government which controls all aspects of people's lives and choices is the only way to keep human beings from tearing themselves apart. (As a side note, this is why atheism and socialism -- pseudo-intellectual and self-indulgent exercises in philosophical vapidity both -- make for such great partners [see: Russia, c.1914-1991, which, even then, could still be seen from Sarah Palin's house].)

Mr. Kyrios, in response, quips that I need to be thinking "communal farm...[not] Animal Farm." Touche. But still, this is why I and other conservatives so vehemently oppose socialism or anything that remotely smacks thereof (see: ObamaCare, Cap and Trade, Employee Free Choice Act, the "Stimulus," etc.). While Mr. Kyrios attempts to explain to me the theoretical versus practical applications of the system for which he is (assumedly) advocating, he, and the reader of his Facebook note, may miss a very important point: socialism, at its core, is purely theoretical. It has never been applied in full and in the long term without devastating societal consequences.

So I seriously contend that the Joker is, in fact, an excellent representation of the kind of evil, amorality, and devolution that, historically speaking, has always come from a large, totalitarian regime -- whether under socialism or any other equally destructive and comparably impractical system.

And with that, I close with a rhetorical question directed at the race-baiters and others who attempted to connect the grotesque poster with racially motivated hate speech:

"Why so erroneous?"

[NCF]

AT&T finally employs decade-old technology; the rise of Obama Youth; and other stories from this week...

2009-09-26T01:22:00.019-04:00

On Friday, cellular giant AT&T announced that its no. 1 selling mobile device, and quite possibly the only reason anyone would switch to AT&T in the first place, was (finally) being outfitted with a nearly 10-year-old technology already available for quite some time on those pre-paid phones you buy at WalMart. That's right -- that pricey, state-of-the-art iPhone 3G S can now finally send and receive picture messages, which has prompted some tech experts to wonder whether or not this surge in MMS traffic could actually result in a crash of AT&T's GSM network. As a recent iPhone convert, I can say that AT&T's coverage, in general, has been comparable to Verizon's in the DC Metro area, minus one very important location -- my house. A former dead zone during my VZW days, I am thankfully able to adequately send and receive calls from my own home, which, for the time being, is enough to assuage my other concerns. I have heard a lot of horror stories, though, particularly about AT&T's allegedly abysmal customer service, and a new surge in MMS traffic across their ostensibly shaky GSM network might not be a good thing -- although perhaps they're hoping for a bailout at some point soon. As I keep telling myself and others, it's not the iPhone -- it's the network.

--

Rush Limbaugh was a guest star on The Jay Leno Showthis week, and, as Andrew Breitbart points out quite correctly, the two men had a civil, engaging, and entertaining exchange. What I found so interesting were the responses of the crowd to some of Limbaugh's comments -- arguably a relatively random sample of "average" Americans (whatever that means these days), it seemed the audience supported strongly many of the positions Rush was advocating for. Keeping government out of healthcare was a big one -- check out the video in the Andrew Breitbart link and see for yourself.

--

On a more serious note, a disgusting display surfaced on YouTube this week of elementary school students being forced to sing the praises of America's 44th president. I cannot wait to see who could possibly defend this overt display of brainwashing and blatant indoctrination -- in a public school. What's more, according to a recent news article, the school's principal who was responsible for the Nazi-esque tandem song-and-dance routine remained "unapologetic" according to parents who have spoken to her:

Parents said Elvira James, the teacher of the class that was videotaped, also seemed to be promoting Obama.

"She praised him, she put pictures on the walls," said Jim Pronchick, whose 8-year-old son, Jimmy, was in James' class last year. "When he won (the election) they really went off."

Leslie Gibson, who has two children at the school, said she was "shocked" at the videotape, adding that political beliefs, like religious views, should be kept at home. She also said King made a "big deal" about her attendance at the inauguration.

"Throughout the school, there were signs posted supporting Barack Obama quite a bit," Gibson told FOXNews.com. "I understand it's a historical event, but on the same token, I like politics to be left at home and I think she should follow that as well."

A copy of the song's lyrics can be found here.

Amazingly -- and dishearteningly -- parallels to Hitler Youth programs in the 1930s and 1940s are not overstatements. Of course, Obama was not responsible for the musical display in this New Jersey elementary school, but the intentions and motivations behind both are the same. I'm pretty certain that an eight-year-old can't tell me -- or Barack Obama, for that matter -- what "equal work for equal pay" really means.

--

Lastly, it was revealed on Friday that "Ahmadinejad has enough uranium to go whole way" -- it turns out that Tehran's resident lunatic has been hiding and building not one, but two nuclear power plants. And to quote The Washington Examiner's Chris Stirewalt, "And in other news, water still wet":

Western sources said the plant at Qom, 120 miles south-west of Tehran, is not yet operational. But it is designed to hold about 3,000 centrifuge machines, which would provide the uranium needed to produce one atomic bomb a year. "Iran has enough uranium to go the whole way," one Western diplomat said. A senior US official said that number of centrifuges could not produce enough uranium to make sense commercially for power generation. "But if you want to use the facility to produce a small amount of weapons-grade uranium, enough for a bomb or two a year, it's the right size."

Ahmadinejad's claims that Iran is operating well within the International Atomic Energy Association's guidelines is obviously spurious, and it will be up to Obama to decide on a strategy of how best combat a very real and very dangerous enemy of the United States. But with the specter of healthcare still flailing in the political breeze, in the coming weeks this under-pressure and inexperienced president will have to balance Afghanistan, national healthcare, Ahmadinejad, a worsening economy, and, importantly, plummeting poll numbers.

[NCF]

Bravo to The Flat Hat

2008-04-01T17:47:00.004-04:00

Today's Flat Hat staff editorial is an excellent example of how, it would appear, the student body is now dealing with an editorial board much more reasonable than those in years past. "Nichol snubs students" accurately reflects the nature of former William & Mary President Gene Nichol's interview with Williamsburg''s local PBS station a few days ago. The entirety of the editorial is as follows:

Former College President Gene Nichol ended his near month and a half of silence Friday to talk to the press. But he wasn’t talking to reporters or answering the questions you might expect. Instead of granting repeated interview requests from the student media, Nichol appeared on PBS, talking cozily with WHRO host Cathy Lewis about issues ranging from the strain on his family to the intellectual rigor of students at the College.
While Nichol has a right to privacy, his resignation e-mail raised more questions than it answered. He has yet to justify his accusations against the College’s governing body -- accusations that put Board of Visitors members in the awkward position of having to defend their decision while avoiding further damage to the reputation of Nichol and the College. The BOV faced an interrogation from students, faculty and staff while Nichol shied away from further discussion of his unsubstantiated allegations.
Nichol has snubbed the very students he claims to have championed. It is time for him to answer for his actions in an open, honest dialogue -- the way BOV members answered for theirs.

There isn't much more to say about it than that. Honestly, though, I'm shocked I'm reading this in The Flat Hat. A year ago, an editorial like this would never have been a reality. Cheers.
[NCF]

April Fools!

2008-04-01T16:55:00.008-04:00

At about 4 am today, the dorm room door of Editor in Chief Emeritus of The Virginia Informer Joe Luppino-Esposito ('08) was vandalized with glitter, shaving cream, and the duct-taped affixing of front pages of The Informer. The page in question was from The Informer's February 13 issue, featuring the infamous "NICHOL RESIGNS" headline.

As childish as this is -- after all, it IS April Fools' Day -- it does, I think, speak to the larger issue of intellectual diversity and tolerance of thought that is exhibited -- or, sometimes, not exhibited -- at William & Mary. The Informer put out a press release on this vandalism this morning:

“I’m just worried about what will come next for students who dare to speak up and stand up for what they believe in,” said Andrew B. Blasi, the newly-named editor in chief of The Virginia Informer. Blasi said that the newspaper would be following up on the story in the coming days. “The sixty members of The Virginia Informer and I expect a statement from the university regarding this incident that includes what they plan to do to deter these types of personal attacks against students.”

“Year after year the school talks about diversity,” said Luppino-Esposito. “But what about intellectual diversity? What about getting some protection for students who, after seeing incidents like this, will be intimidated to exercise their rights? It’s time for William and Mary to tackle these issues, because they are becoming enormous problems. Conservatives need a safe haven on campus from radical students who want to silence them....I’m just afraid many will be intimidated enough to stay quiet and refuse to question the environment around them, and that’s very bad for the future of free speech on this campus.”

Slow news day or not, this press release was picked up and reported on by The Daily Press in today's issue:

The former editor of the Virginia Informer, a conservative-leaning campus newspaper that long called for Gene Nichol's ouster as William and Mary's president, had his dormitory room door vandalized early today.

Joe Luppino-Esposito contended the vandalism -- shaving cream and glitter across his door, along with copies of the Informer issue that recapped Nichol's resignation covering the doorway -- was retaliation for his opposition to Nichol.

The bottom line is this: glitter, shaving cream, and duct tape are the products of a high school mind, one still excited by the concept of leaving flaming bags of dog crap on people's front porches and which delights in, say, throwing rotten eggs at old people. Assuming it was a single individual, he should probably get ready for a phone call from campus police in the next day or so. The ID system on campus records each and every swipe of an ID card into dorm buildings. I imagine that there aren't too many people trying to get into Harrison at 4 am on a Tuesday morning, so whoever did this has a very good chance of getting caught. If this person were smarter, he would have realized this.

And the larger issue here, also, is that what Informer haters don't seem to realize -- and I don't know why they don't, because it's happened enough times by now -- is that every time this sort of thing happens, it only benefits the very organization they are trying to belittle. The door of The Informer's former editor in chief gets vandalized, the paper puts out a press release, it gets picked up by the local media, The Informer sends out a letter to its very generous donors -- complete with pictures of the incident -- talking about the miserable state of free expression at William & Mary, and, two weeks later, The Informer has another $1,000 in its checking account.

It's really quite that simple -- just ask the people who started the "Pick up a copy of The Virginia Informer today! THEN BURN IT." Facebook group, because that's exactly what happened.

[NCF]

Flat Hat staff editorial proves unpalatable

2008-03-28T20:33:00.008-04:00

In the March 28 edition of The Flat Hat, a staff editorial entitled "Total traylessness?" advocated, essentially, for a (near) complete removal of trays from campus dining facilities in an effort to reduce food and water waste by William & Mary Dining Services:

...[Because] objective results show that going trayless will indeed reduce waste, Dining Services may have cause to mix things up a bit at the Caf. While we don’t advocate doing away with trays altogether, changing the current tray system might prove more efficient both in food saved and water used.
Every hot dog, eaten or not, costs something. Whether food goes into bellies or bins won’t much matter when it comes to meal plan prices. And in that respect, waste isn’t so different from theft -- everyone pays more in the end because of it.

If Dining Services made trays available by request, we expect excess food consumption would fall as well. Inconvenient though this scheme might seem, a total tray ban would undoubtedly involve greater hardship. This middle way involves some compromise, but in our view, saving more food from the dumpster is a worthier goal than shielding diners from any difficulty.

I understand that the authors of this piece explicitly state that they are not advocating for a complete removal of trays from our current dining "scheme." The problem, however, lies in the fact that they are equating those who waste food -- apparently, easily identifiable by the use of a common dining tray -- with those who commit theft. That seems like a pretty strong indication towards a preference of "total traylessness," as their headline so states. This disparity in logic calls into question either their judgment in headline choice or the sincerity of their sentiments. The editorial claims that

[a] trash bin at the end of the line already brims with the meals no one wanted -- meals many hungrier mouths might gladly have accepted. A trayless initiative, inspired by similar programs around the country, should help diners at the College reflect on that waste.

While I agree that waste is not generally a good thing, the fact remains that students are paying upwards of over $1,000 -- the cheapest plan, Block 60, is $946 -- for all-you-can-eat meals at the Caf and UC. As The Flat Hat editorial board said, the food's final destination is irrelevant in terms of dollars -- it's been paid for already. Of course, I would prefer to see it go into "hungrier mouths," but that is a difficult reality to deal with. A paying customer deserves to have access to a tray on which to place his food when he goes through the line to pick up his selections. Period. A test-run of a trayless system will be tried at the Caf in the upcoming weeks, according to The Flat Hat. Members of the Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC)

plan to examine how the trash from the trayless times measure up against the rest. Even if nothing definitive comes of this trash tabulating, with fewer trays to wash, the College will have (temporarily at least) reduced its water waste.

If reduction of water waste is a goal, I'm sure someone could concoct a "dining scheme" by which we could simply eschew our use of plates, forks, knives, and spoons -- too much to wash, and think about all that water! It would be better to just stick our hands in a vat of mashed potatoes, grab a handful, and go nuts. Let's see what the members of The Flat Hat's editorial board do when they are forced to attempt to balance two plates, a bowl, a plastic cup, a few napkins, a knife, a fork, and possibly a spoon to the wash area on their way out of the Caf or UC, should this program become permanent. The reality is that the institution of this program will do nothing more than anger, frustrate, and inconvenience paying customers of dining services who will demand use of a tray. [NCF]

MWB woos campus media

2008-03-28T20:10:00.006-04:00

As most people know by now, Matt Beato ('09), a student at the College, is running for Williamsburg City Council. The election is May 6. Mr. Beato has been campaigning furiously over the past few weeks, and will continue his push of dorm storming, Swem tabling, speech making, gladhanding, and other general campaign activities until the election arrives. Now that students are no longer being oppressed by a corrupt registrar, Mr. Beato has an excellent shot at a seat on the WCC. In the meantime, the campus media -- namely, The Virginia Informer and The Flat Hat -- have provided excellent coverage of his campaign, as well as some relevant opinions on the matter. It appears, generally, that Mr. Beato has done an excellent job in wooing the two major news publications at the College, and rightly so. (In the interest of full disclosure, allow me to add here that I am not only a senior editor for The Informer, I am also Mr. Beato's content editor. Just wanted to clear the air on that one.) In the March 26 edition of The Informer, for example, Mr. Beato was featured in a below-the-fold front page news story, in the humor column, in the cartoon, and in the major staff editorial for that issue. The staff editorial, entitled "Students reassert voice through student candidate," rightly claims that Mr. Beato's candidacy is important because

[f]irst and foremost, students at the College will have the opportunity to elect a candidate who will actually represent them on a body so out of touch with the concerns of the largest demographic of Williamsburg’s population. Secondly, as students of the College -- and, by default, as Williamsburg residents -- we are governed by laws over which we have no democratic control. The notorious “brothel law,” strict noise ordinance enforcement as well as a glaring lack of student friendly businesses in Williamsburg all indicate the actions, or inactions, of a city council wholly disinterested in dealing with student-relevant issues. Thirdly, the successful ascension of a student to the Williamsburg City Council will set a precedent -- one that the current city council incumbents are scared of, and rightly so -- of the concept of a more permanent student seat on the council. If Mr. Beato runs and wins, he will serve out his three year term; if he decides to run for reelection, his chances of winning are high providing he does an adequate job. If he decides not to run, he will undoubtedly seek out, coach and assist another qualified, ambitious student to take his place. This will create a historically unprecedented and politically unheard-of reality of a student seat on the Williamsburg City Council -- one member in five who will be able to, ideally, adequately represent the concerns of students at the College of William and Mary.

The Flat Hat has also offered up its share of praiseworthy journalistic real estate over the past few weeks. On March 14, a column -- again, in the interests of full disclosure, written by Mr. Beato's volunteer coordinator who is also a regular Flat Hat columnist -- entitled "Stakes are high for students in City Council election"asserted that

Beato is uniquely qualified to run for City Council. Upon entering the College as a freshman, he immediately dove into the Student Assembly, looking to affect change and help successfully govern the student body. Since then, Beato has attended City Council, Neighborhood Council and Planning Commission meetings, worked tirelessly to register students to vote (back when it was nearly impossible) and has continued to improve students’ lives through his efforts in the SA.
Beato has dedicated his college career to promoting students’ rights and making Williamsburg an even better community. It is this amazing passion, combined with Beato’s exhaustive knowledge of city issues (unrivaled by anyone else that I’ve met) that make him an impressive candidate for City Council.
However, in order to win this campaign and serve as a positive voice in Williamsburg government, Beato needs student support. As students of the College, we comprise half of Williamsburg’s population, and yet none of the five members of City Council have shown an interest in supporting students’ rights. We deserve better.

A little over a week later, another column appeared in The Flat Hat, whose author wrote that Mr. Beato

has already begun to receive a warm reception from the rest of the Williamsburg community. On March 12, a Virginia Gazette reader wrote, “I’m happy that William and Mary students are using their newfound voting power responsibly. Putting up one fairly moderate student in Beato is much better than anything I or my neighbors feared.”
There is no question tensions may rise as we students elbow our way into the decision-making of a community that has typically only acknowledged the needs of tourists and retirees. While it may be tempting to leverage our franchise to force our will, righteous though our demands for equal rights may be, we are still only one part of a many-faceted Williamsburg. It is only by working alongside these differing peoples and politics of our city that we may truly progress.

While both The Informer and The Flat Hat have stopped short of officially endorsing Mr. Beato as of yet, the two publications are clearly supporting the idea(ls) of what his candidacy means for students and student rights. It is my hope that, through a judicious use of the power of the pulpit, these papers can help Mr. Beato to mobilize and educate the student body on the efficacy of voting in Williamsburg.

[NCF]

Officially registered

2008-03-28T19:49:00.004-04:00

I checked my CSU today and, inside, I found a particularly exciting piece of correspondence from the City of Williamsburg -- my official Williamsburg voter card had arrived. With this card I will be able to vote in all Williamsburg city elections and, also, now I won't have to go home or vote absentee for national elections -- eg, president of the United States this coming November. There are many who think that the idea of student voting in Williamsburg is a ludicrous idea -- I used to be of this mindset myself. My thinking was thus: students, who are transient residents of this city, have no real vested interest in the concerns of Williamsburg operations, and should not be entrusted to make decisions on taxes, public works, economics, etc., that will affect the greater, more permanent population of which we are not really a part. Rather, the homeowners, employees, full time residents, and community members should be making those decisions. Due to the fact that students comprise a disproportionately large percentage of the Williamsburg population, were we to vote, we would be making decisions on legislation that are either of little true concern to us or that will not really affect us -- after all, many if not most of us don't even work in the city and will be gone within, at most, four years. But, this thinking -- with plenty of holes in it itself -- fails to consider some more obvious ideas about student disenfranchisement. Students -- Williamsburg's largest demographic -- bring in millions of dollars worth of social and economic capital to the City of Williamsburg, we pay sales tax every time we patronize Williamsburg's numerous shops and restaurants, and -- most importantly -- as students who cannot vote, we are subject to laws and city policies over which we have no input. A right to vote -- previously denied to us -- takes care of this problem quite handily. I encourage my fellow students to register to vote in Williamsburg, particularly before the May 6 Williamsburg City Council elections. [NCF]

The home stretch

2008-03-28T17:30:00.004-04:00

The final weeks of the semester are finally upon us. With less than a month left of class, William & Mary students are doing what we often do -- studying, stressing, and lamenting about how quickly our time is passing. For myself and the rest of the class of 2009, the fact that we are nearly seniors is absolutely mindboggling. As cliche as this sounds, it does seem like only yesterday that we were being carted around campus by upperclassmen in yellow t-shirts during the first weeks of the 2005 fall semester, who frequently reminded us that we would not believe just how quickly our time at the College would pass. While today was in the low 80s and absolutely gorgeous, we appear to be in for another stretch of chilly weather. Once spring finally decides to stick around, though, we'll all start to get that truly end-of-the-year feel -- a warm, fuzzy sensation often accompanied or catalyzed by everything from women in sundresses -- my favorite -- to the never ending games of ultimate frisbee on the Sunken. Big upcoming events for the remainder of the semester include the upcoming May 6 Williamsburg City Council elections, in which William & Mary student Matt Beato ('09) is running. I personally encourage all students of the College to REGISTER TO VOTE IN WILLIAMSBURG -- a good idea generally, but particularly so that you can vote for Mr. Beato in this election. And if that weren't enough, let's not forget that the Ying Yang Twins are coming to the College on April 9. If only Mr. Beato could perform with them... [NCF]

The LORD is risen, indeed!

2008-03-23T20:03:00.010-04:00

Today, millions of people around the world are celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As an Orthodox Christian, my celebration is still a while off -- but it is, nevertheless, incredibly heartening to see fellow Christians celebrating what should be the most important day on their calendars. It is the paradoxical nature of Christ's death and resurrection that is so interesting, I think: the Creator taking the form of the created; the King of Glory being mocked and beaten by his own people; the idea that Christ, who makes all things new, puts Death to death through death. It's all very thought provoking material, in my mind, even for those who do not identify themselves as Christians. Earlier this morning, a friend took me to the Williamsburg Community Chapel for Easter service. It was my first time attending, but for anyone who has gone to a service there, it is clearly a chapel only in name. Mega-church is more like it -- nearly 2,000 individuals were there, facing a stage on which sat a choir, a small orchestra, an organ, and a podium for the preacher. Above the stage were two giant video screens projecting ads for church programs and opportunities to get involved. Coming from the Orthodox tradition, going to the chapel was something very new and different for me. No clergy, no incense, no chanting, no ornate vestments, no gorgeous icons, no candles, and, most obviously, no formal liturgy -- none of these things were there to greet me into what I identify with as "church." The preacher's sermon, which lasted about 30 minutes, was excellent. In all honesty, I was not expecting such a good homily. His essential message was that Christianity is much more than a good way to live your life, much more than simply an ethical code to follow -- as stated in the title of this post, Christ IS, indeed, RISEN. Jesus' story is not a metaphor or an allegory, whose message represents a depiction of a moral ethos by which we should live our lives. Christ's resurrection is real and living -- and, the preacher said, if we limit Christianity as merely a set of life guidelines -- eg, "It doesn't really matter if the resurrection really happened or not -- the point is, we should love everyone" -- then we have missed the message completely. Even Paul asserts this in 1 Corinthians 15:13-19 (NKJV) when he said:

But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up -- if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

Pitiable! Pitiful. We are pitiful Christians if we deny that the resurrection was anything but a physical, historical event that defies everything rational and reasonable and logical that we know to be true. A man died, and lived again. Important also is the fact that Jesus' resurrection is not merely an event of the past -- it is constantly renewed and refreshed. The Old Testament name of God -- "I AM who I AM," then simply shortened to "the LORD" -- is in the present tense for a reason. Christ uses this name for himself in the Book of John to the utter anger and dismay of the Jews, who then seek to stone him on charges of blasphemy. So, going to this non-denominational chapel renewed my energy during my Lenten journey. I was not expecting that. God does work, though, in mysterious ways. Christ is risen. He is risen, indeed. [NCF]

A healthy dose of common sense

2008-03-22T23:08:00.007-04:00

The listserv of the Student Assembly Senate, known as "senate-l," is a public e-mail list that anyone with a William & Mary user ID and password can join. The purpose of the listserv is to keep members of the SA Senate, along with any other subscribers, apprised of public Senate business -- this includes minutes, proposed bills, and committee meeting schedules. As executive editor of The Virginia Informer -- and now as editor in chief of The Virginia Informer Online -- I am subscribed to senate-l as a member of the campus media. As a subscriber, I was privy to an incident which occurred last week over senate-l. A particular SA senator not only abused the listserv generally, but -- as a member of the Elections Commission -- expressly violated one of its primary rules governing displays of public interest in a candidate. Senator Matt Skibiak ('08) had this to say over the Senate listserv at 3:17 am:

Hey y'all! Party on and I endorse Val and Zach! Probably shouldn't say that, but whatever. I'm a senior so eff you! Student Life Meeting Sunday at 3pm in the SA house. We're passing (or rejecting) a referendum - just kidding Mullis. See you all there. Peace, Matt

Mr. Skibiak was removed from the Elections Commission as a result of his behavior, and a replacement was selected by then-SA President Zach Pilchen ('09). Apparently, Mr. Skibiak was slightly miffed that his presumably drunken parlance over a public listerv was "leaked" -- read: provided to -- The Flat Hat, which printed his words in an article on March 21:

SA Sen. Matt Skibiak ’08 was recently fired from the elections commission for sending out a self-described “joke” endorsement in an e-mail to SA senators last Sunday morning at 3:17 a.m. ...
Skibiak said that he forgot that he meant the e-mail as a joke and that he often tries to lighten the mood, which he said had a tendency to take itself too seriously.

“Frankly I think the fallout from a little joke has been absolute bullshit and is indicative of the childish nature of the Senate and how seriously they take themselves,” Skibiak said in an e-mail to The Flat Hat. “My endorsement of Valerie and Zach didn’t mean a thing and didn’t change a single mind. Senators and people in the Student Assembly, for the most part, live in a little bubble which they think is a microcosm of the real political world.”

Whether or not Mr. Skibiak's "endorsement of Valerie and Zach didn't mean a thing and didn't change a single mind" is not precisely the point. The bottom line is summed up quite nicely by Alex Kyrios ('09), stated plainly in a comment on this article on The Flat Hat's Web site:

...Skibiak was completely wrong and irresponsible in his justification. It is essential that the Elections Commission treat all candidates fairly; this is so obvious it shouldn’t have to be stated. Commissioners are certainly entitled to their private preferences, but public endorsements are inappropriate, even when they’re “jokes.”

This prompted Mr. Skibiak to send out yet another e-mail over senate-l which ended with a peculiar post script:

And Cheers to all the rats in the senate who love to leak information to the Flat Hat. I sense a great future for some of you.

What Mr. Skibiak apparently forgets was made very clear in a response e-mail written by Deputy Director of SA Internal Affairs Will Angley ('08):

The Flat Hat recently printed exact text of an e-mail that Matt Skibiak sent over the Senate listserv, senate-l@wm.edu, and referenced other specific e-mails over the listserv.

It didn't take a leak for them to get these e-mails. ...
The Flat Hat subscribes to the Senate listserv. They get copies of every e-mail sent over the listserv!
Anyone can subscribe to the Senate listserv, and all e-mails sent over the Senate listserv can be read by any member of the public at any time. ...
Please don't send an e-mail to senate-l...unless you're OK with it being printed in the Flat Hat.

Ah, there it is. This message is relevant for all of us, everyone from former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to an SA senator. Don't put ANYTHING on the Internet in writing unless you are comfortable with it being printed on the front page of your community newspaper. It is a valuable lesson to understand, and I wish that our democratically elected members of the SA were more readily cognizant of this reality.

[NCF]

This should be interesting

2008-03-22T22:12:00.004-04:00

This post will be dedicated to the newest addition to the William & Mary blogosphere: Not David Husband (NDH), "the first blog dedicated to SA punditry." The blog, of course, is a parody of Not Larry Sabato, a Web site featuring a collection of blog posts, videos, and other minutiae regarding national politics. David Husband ('09), after whom the blog is named, was chief of staff for the Pilchen / Hopkins administration. It is my understanding that he will be staying on board in the same capacity for the new Hopkins / Pilchen administration as well. Mr. Husband is a personal friend of mind, and, given the fact that he is the go-to guy for all things SA, I can think of no better a person after whom to name a blog dedicated to the Student Assembly. The blog's creator, Alex Kyrios ('09), is a self-described "outgoing Senator" who "would like to think [he] can give an outsider's perspective." He also self-describes in the blog's introductory post as a "former member and chairman of the Elections Commission," which, in my mind, immediately contradicts any claim to Mr. Kyrios' legitimacy as an SA outsider. His roles as senator, elections commissioner, and Elections Commission chair all seem to point rather obviously to the idea that he is not, in fact, providing a fresh perspective. This is not to say that he can provide no perspective at all, which is surely not the case -- I just take umbrage with the fact that he claims to be an outsider when he is very clearly not. NDH's first post deals, perhaps prematurely, with next year's SA presidential election -- despite the fact that we just finished this year's election last week:

It's never too early to think about next year's general election, even this year's was just yesterday. All the more appropriate since this year's contest offered little to satisfy the taste of true political junkies. Popular incumbents just trounced two relatively unknown transfer students. Yawn. (Some of the lower races were more interesting, but more on that later.) So why not tune your ears to the muted hummings of ambition and start to ponder whose smiling faces you may see staring at you from the top of the ballot when you log onto SIN next year.

Now, those in the SA and others have been clamoring for an SA-related blog for a while -- I just don't know if NDH is quite what they were envisioning, though. Of course, Mr. Kyrios has only posted once, and it would be very premature of me to judge his blog's worth based on a single entry. I do like the name, though -- that should stay. Also, it might be a good idea for Mr. Kyrios to add other admins to the blog, or at least accept guest posts. The SA is a rare, untamed beast, and deserves the coverage of more than a single former senator. If NDH is truly to become the all-encompassing SA blog, more contributors will be key to its success -- all in all, following the development of NDH should certainly be interesting. [NCF]

Because no one less important could be found

2008-03-21T18:32:00.004-04:00

It was announced on March 14 that Pittsburgh Steelers Head Coach Mike Tomlin ('95) would be delivering the commencement speech for the class of 2008. Wow. A rather disgruntled Alec Newman ('07) wrote an excellent letter to the editor in the March 21 edition of The Flat Hat, which really sums up what most seniors are probably thinking: I'd rather have Eliot Spitzer's prostitute as a keynote than Mike Tomlin. Mr. Newman articulately explained that

[t]he College has been through a hellish time this year. Our leadership is gone and we attempt to move forward. One of the few bright spots for seniors was the upcoming commencement speaker. Tony Blair, Stephen Colbert and J.K. Rowling were dangled before us, and if ever there was a time for someone of their stature to come and inspire us, the time was now.
Unfortunately for us, the decision was less than earthshaking. Our speaker is none other than Mike Tomlin, a rookie head coach in the NFL out of Pittsburgh. After Robert Gates last year, it seemed that we could go no lower in the obscure graduation speaker hierarchy. This year, we were supposed to have a household name that we actually give a damn about; instead, we get Tomlin. ...

Was Carrot Top taken?

Thankfully, I'm in the class of 2009. I can easily say, though, that if Mr. Tomlin -- who I'm sure is a really nice guy -- was my commencement speaker, I would be outraged. I mean, come ON. You couldn't have gotten a senator, or even a congressman? What about Ron Paul, for God's sake? John Edwards would even have been a good choice -- he's got a lot of free time on his hands right about now. The point is, the administration -- in a quote from the best of the three Indiana Jones movies -- "chose poorly." The administration owes it to the students to pick someone, as Mr. Newman explained, of "stature" and whom students "actually give a damn about." They failed on both of these fronts. I can only hope that my commencement speaker will be a step up, because I can't see how the administration could do any worse. [NCF]

The Virginia Informer, v. 2.0

2008-03-21T17:56:00.009-04:00

The Virginia Informer is in the process of undergoing some very exciting changes. No, Joe Luppino-Esposito ('08) didn't die, and we didn't invite the members of SDS to manage our editorial board -- sorry, Pilchen. The Informer is now embarking on the very first staff lineup that does not have a founding member -- ie, Amanda Yasenchak ('07) or Mr. L-E -- at its helm. Equally exciting is The Informer's move to a dichotomous setup, with two staffs managing its print edition and its upcoming new Web site, The Virginia Informer Online (VIO). I could not be happier with the results: - Andrew Blasi ('10), Editor in Chief - Nick Fitzgerald ('09), Editor in Chief, The Virginia Informer Online - Alex Mayer ('09), Managing Editor - Jon San ('09), Executive Editor - Steven Nelson ('10), News Editor - Michelle Ju ('09), Features Editor - Megan Locke ('10), Arts & Culture Editor - Kristin Coyner ('09), Opinion Editor - RC Rasmus ('09), Copy Chief - Jennifer Souers ('10), Business Manager - Sam McVane ('11), Design Editor - Alec McKinley ('10), Photography & Graphics Editor This is a top-notch team. I am very much looking forward to managing the editorial direction and content of VIO, which will include opportunities for blogging, podcasting, and reader commentary. We are looking to transform our current Web site into more than simply The Informer on the Internet -- ie, a Web site only updated every two weeks that exactly mirrors our print edition. Like The National Review -- which has a staff managing its print edition, and a different staff managing its Web site, The National Review Online -- The Informer wishes to make VIO into a primary go-to for the latest in campus news, features, and opinion. Because The Informer is at an inherent disadvantage when compared to The Flat Hat because we only print once every two weeks, VIO will be there to fill in the gaps. Look for VIO by the end of the semester. I will be sure to blog about it once it's fully up and running. [NCF]

A new administration -- but not really?

2008-03-21T17:17:00.003-04:00

Last Thursday's Student Assembly elections resulted in the voting in of a new SA executive -- or did it? Former SA President Zach Pilchen ('09) has now become the newly elected SA vice president. Former Vice President Valerie Hopkins ('09) has now become the newly elected SA president. While Mr. Pilchen had promised to be president for only one term, I don't know if this was exactly what people understood it to mean. Now, I'm not in the SA and am not always privy to its intellectual back-and-forth or general intrigue -- including, but not limited to, Matt Skibiak's drunken abuse of the Senate's listserv ("Hey y'all! Party on and I endorse Val and Zach! Probably shouldn't say that, but whatever. I'm a senior so eff you!") -- but I question Mr. Pilchen's trading places with his former vice president. While this trade arguably affords Madame President Hopkins the opportunity to truly prove herself as a student executive, I'm wondering about any possible differences between a Pilchen / Hopkins v. a Hopkins / Pilchen administration. The problem is, I can't really think of any -- at least in substance. I think it would have been better for Ms. Hopkins to do more during the campaign to differentiate herself from her running mate, who naturally overshadows her simply because he has already held the position for which she was running. The obvious response to that, however, is that this differentiation was simply unnecessary given the fact that: 1) everyone knows Zach and Valerie, and the key to winning any SA election is name recognition; and 2) their opponents -- who, it appears, decided to run their campaign on a wave of idiocy and inexperience -- had absolutely no chance of actually winning. The final vote totals favored Hopkins / Pilchen 70% to 25%, the remaining 5% going to write-in candidates. I voted for the two of them both in this election and in the last, and I don't regret it. In any case, the fact that Mr. Pilchen and Ms. Hopkins decided to run the SA equivalent of a Chinese fire drill seems more for show than for substance. We'll have to wait until the next year to see if I'm right. [NCF]

Whatcha gonna do when they come for you?

2008-03-21T16:42:00.007-04:00

Seeing as I'm on a roll here with SA referenda, I thought I'd finish up with probably the most surprising of the bunch. There was a question on last Thursday's SA ballot that read:

Do you perceive the William and Mary Police Department as behaving in a manner which is overly harsh and unresponsive to daily student needs?

As far as I'm concerned, the obvious answer to this question is a resounding YES. The William & Mary Police Department, in my opinion, comprises individuals who are overzealous, power hungry, and have way too much time on their hands. I've never personally had any bad experiences with them -- thank God -- but I've heard some horror stories. The Virginia Informer actually reported on a few of these travesties, including one situation in which a WMPD officer refused to escort a girl late at night just hours after her roommate had been mugged. My general impression of the student sentiment regarding the police has been overwhelmingly negative. The referendum passed with a "yes" to the above question, but 56%-42%. It is truly unbelievable to me how many students -- apparently, 42% of those who voted -- think that the police are not in some way abusing their power. Maybe I just have rowdy friends who have told me all of their horrible stories -- but seriously, truly trying to be objective, as a student of the College I feel like our police force does an adequate job in keeping the campus safe. I think they spend too much time, however, looking for drunk kids to write up and arrest. Shooting fish in a barrel should not be their top priority -- protect and serve, not harass and disturb. [NCF]

William & Mary gets green, Students say no to HBO

2008-03-21T16:11:00.003-04:00

The Student Assembly elections were held this past Thursday, and the so-called "green fees" referendum passed with an overwhelming 85%. As I said in an earlier post,

[a]ccording to Greening William and Mary (GWM)...the green fees involve an additional $15 fee per semester -- ie, $30 per year -- to the already mandatory student activities fee, which currently sits around $85. A poll conducted by GWM concluded that 86% of students would vote for the additional $30 fee.

Whoever did the polling for that survey should be given some serious credit -- he or she was right on the money. In any case, the students have spoken -- I myself also voted "yes" for the fees. The real test now, though, will be to see what GWM does with its new mandate. Because they actually got what they wanted, it is critical that GWM properly utilizes their newfound support in the appropriate ways. It has been my experience that convincing or sweet-talking the administration is far harder than doing so with the students, but, regardless, I wish GWM the best of luck in its upcoming endeavors. Another referendum on this year's SA ballot was regarding an additional charge to be added to student activities fees. The purpose of the charge would be to bring HBO to campus at a reduced rate, although there were a total of four actual choices on this referendum -- it was not a simple "yes" or "no." Voters were deciding among the following: 1) Bring HBO to campus through an additional $17.50 student fee AND defund the William & Mary movie channel completely, opening up $45,000 to help pay for HBO; 2) Bring HBO to campus for an additional student fee of $27.50 AND keep the William & Mary movie channel up and running; 3) Do neither of these things; or 4) Defund the movie channel ONLY and do not bring HBO to campus. In what I considered a very surprising twist, the winning option on this referendum -- with a 35% plurality -- was to neither bring HBO to campus nor to defund the William & Mary movie channel. This is also how I voted. I will support an increase in student activities' fees for something substantive -- like green sustainability -- but I really don't need HBO on campus. And frankly, I kind of like the movie channel. I don't even watch that much TV anyway. I'm glad William & Mary students felt the same. [NCF]

But Johann, you don't look a day over 322

2008-03-21T15:09:00.004-04:00

Those of you who know me understand my deep love and admiration for the music of the greatest musical mind the world has ever known: Johann Sebastian Bach.

Today, March 21, is Bach's 323d birthday. I would be hugely remiss if I did not give him a shout out on my blog. Bach is a fascinating individual -- he was first and foremost a devout Christian, a musical and mathematical genius, and a perfectionist, among other things. He wrote over 1,000 pieces of music that we know about -- varying from collections of short, stylized dances for harpsichord to three-hour sacred vocal works for two full choirs, orchestra, and soloists -- and, historians guess, another 1,000-1,500 works that we don't know about, forever lost to history.

It has been said of Bach that he gave us God's word in music. This is because of his work with the Lutheran church, for which he composed a new, approximately 30 minute composition, called a cantata, on a weekly basis for performance in church for over five years straight. His major sacred vocal works -- the Passion of St. Matthew, the Passion of St. John, the Magnificat, the Christmas and Easter Oratorios, the Mass in b minor, and, of course, the cantatas -- are some of the most beautiful music ever written by man. It is in these works that we truly see not only the existence of God, but also a passion and deep workings of a mind which clearly operated on an intellectual and emotional plane unreachable by most individuals.

Bach's understanding of the mathematical underpinnings of music -- chord progression and structure, tone color, harmony, and most especially counterpoint -- make his compositions worthy of study on a scientific level alone, forgetting entirely the cultural contributions his music made to Western civilization as a whole.

So, in general, I wanted to wish a happy birthday to one of my idols, my favorite composer, and the man whose compositions really got me interested in pursuing music seriously. If anyone wants any samples of his works, never hesitate to ask. I have over 4 days' worth of Bach's music in my iTunes library.

[NCF]

I'm back!

2008-03-21T14:45:00.003-04:00

Well, after my 11 day hiatus from the world of blogging, I hope to now be back in full force. The past week or so has been pretty crazy for me, so do forgive the overly long silence. There is a lot to catch up on, which I'll try to do with relative quickness over the next few days. There will definitely be a wide variety of posts upcoming, everything from music to birthdays to Student Assembly elections to The Virginia Informer to God knows what else. Be sure to stay tuned. [NCF]

Review: Bach's Missae Breves

2008-03-11T11:21:00.005-04:00

Bach: Missae Breves (The Lutheran Masses, BWV 233-236)
Cantus Cölln & Konrad Junghänel

The output of sacred music by Johann Sebastian Bach during his lifetime is nothing short of impressive. His substantial oeuvre in the realm of religious vocal music in particular -- including his 300+ cantatas, the Passions of Sts. Matthew and John, the Christmas and Easter Oratorios, and, of course, the Catholic Mass in b minor -- are a testament not only to Bach’s own religious fervor, but also to his truly remarkable compositional abilities.

The Lutheran masses -- or missae breves (“brief masses”) in Latin -- are works which, unfortunately, have not been placed in the same category by historians and musicologists as those named above. This is for a few reasons. For example, the masses are written in Latin and not in the typical Lutheran German, and, consequently, scholars have questioned their practicality and the historical and musical setting in which they were performed. “Contrary to what their Latin titles might seem to imply,” read the CD notes, “the four short masses…belong to the sphere of the Reformed liturgy, and are therefore limited to the Kyrie and Gloria, with just six separate numbers in each mass.”

Additionally, and most importantly, the movements of these four masses all contain rescored versions of movements from preexisting works -- namely, Bach’s cantatas -- and have been viewed, somewhat surprisingly, with polite disdain by the modern musical community. Because the composer decided to “recycle” old musical material, modern musicologists felt comfortable turning up their noses at the missae breves, deeming them to be of lesser musical quality. The lack of available recordings of these works is the number one indicator of this unfortunate reality.

The historically authentic vocal and instrumental ensemble Cantus Cölln and their director Konrad Junghänel, who is widely regarded as one of the premier interpreters of Bach’s music in the world, have successfully decimated the erroneous prejudices this music has faced with their flawless reading of these masses. This recording by Cantus Cölln is of the highest quality in nearly all aspects: from phrasing, articulation, instrumentation, scoring -- two voices per part -- and tempo.

Junghänel provides artistic direction that not only illuminates the mathematical intricacies of Bach’s gorgeous counterpoint, but also makes plain a convincing emotional religiosity from an extremely devout composer. For example, the exquisite beauty of the quasi-fugal Kyrie of the Mass in g minor (BWV 235) and the strict, nearly arithmetic double-fugue of the opening to the Mass in G major (BWV 236) feature instances of complex imitative polyphony which are deftly delivered and tastefully treated. The Christe eleison of the Mass in A major (BWV 234) is hauntingly magnificent and leads directly into a fugal reprise of the Kyrie, marked by perfect tempi and delicate phrasing.

Taken as a whole, however, it is the Mass in G that steals the show. The oboe line in Quoniam tu solus is performed with the utmost sensitivity and meshes beautifully with the solo voices, creating an ethereal synthesis of voice and instrument. The mass ends with the movement Cum Sancto Spiritu, a substantial choral fugue in both composition and performance, whose fundamental elements were taken from the opening chorus of Bach’s Cantata 17.

Cantus Cölln and Konrad Junghänel provide an absolutely delightful reading of Bach’s missae breves. This appraisal is arguably the best of these works yet recorded. The depth that Junghänel brings to these pieces is without comparison, and the extraordinary performance given by the orchestra and chorus of Cantus Cölln is to be commended. The hitherto outrageous criticisms of this music as being less than Bach or not worthy of full scholarly or musicological consideration can finally be put to rest. Junghänel and company have provided a truly illuminating reading of these heavenly works.

Performance: A
Sound: A-

(Read the original article here.)

I want my sleep back

2008-03-09T01:17:00.014-05:00

Based on the time of this post, you can see that, within the next 40 minutes or so, America will be required to "spring forward" its clocks by one hour -- and therefore lose that hour of sleep -- in the interest of Daylight Savings Time. For so long, I thought this arcane practice had to do with the now antiquated idea that farmers, because of the nature of their work, had an obvious need to maximize the number of daylight hours for as much of the year as possible. According to John J. Miller of The National Review, however, this is simply untrue. He also claims that DST arose from far less practical -- and far more political -- origins:

The reason we have Daylight Saving Time (DST), of course, is because the politicians have mandated it. Washington is much better at wasting things than saving them, but federal lawmakers nevertheless spent much of the 20th century insisting, with typical modesty, that they could "save daylight." (Why couldn't they instead have tried to save Social Security?) ... I recently wondered exactly why we observe Daylight Saving Time (DST). For some reason, I had harbored a vague notion that it had to do with farmers. Well, it turns out that DST had nothing to do with farmers, who traditionally haven't cared much for it. They care a lot less nowadays, but when the first DST law was making its way through Congress, farmers actually lobbied against it. Dairy farmers were especially upset because their cows refused to accept humanity's tinkering with the hands of time. The obstinate cud-chewers wanted to be milked every twelve hours, and had absolutely no interest in resetting their biological clocks—even if the local creameries suddenly wanted their milk an hour earlier. As Michael Downing points out in his new book, Spring Forward: The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving Time, urban businessmen were a major force behind the adoption of DST in the United States. They thought daylight would encourage workers to go shopping on their way home. They also tried to make a case for agriculture, though they didn't bother to consult any actual farmers. One pamphlet argued that DST would benefit the men and women who worked the land because "most farm products are better when gathered with dew on. They are firmer, crisper, than if the sun has dried the dew off." At least that was the claim of the Boston Chamber of Commerce, chaired by department-store magnate A. Lincoln Filene. This was utter nonsense.

So, at the end of the day -- now an hour earlier, by the way -- we see that the United States Congress has transformed a delicate astronomical process so utterly beyond its control into a meaningless, inefficient, arbitrary piece of -- yet more -- government regulation over people's lives. I'm surprised Congress hasn't suggested we tax the planet for every trip it makes around the sun. (And I thought immigration reform was a hot issue! Ba doom chh.) Just on its very face -- doesn't it seem so very silly, so without common sense, for the government to try and intervene in the earth's rotation both on its axis and around the sun? This is a seemingly indomitable process that has, apparently, occurred successfully without such intervention for literally millions of years. But, of course, leave it to the US Congress to try and "fix" it. I would most definitely support any steps toward removing this ridiculous piece of government regulation from the books. And besides -- most importantly -- I want my sleep back. [NCF]

Lent begins for Orthodox Christians

2008-03-07T23:09:00.016-05:00

On Monday, Lent officially begins for the 325+ million Orthodox Christians around the world. While Orthodox Christianity is little-known in the United States -- with followers only numbering about one million total in all of North America -- it is actually the second most practiced denomination of Christianity worldwide behind Roman Catholicism. The Orthodox Church's liturgical calendar differs from other Christian denominations' -- Catholics and Protestants have been in Lent for weeks already -- because of the OC's strict adherence to the Julian / Jewish / lunar calendar upon which the first Christian Church and its holidays were originally based. In the Bible, Christ's Resurrection didn't occur until the Jews' celebration of Passover; the OC maintains this today, disregarding the calendrical alterations made by the Roman Empire -- which manifested itself in the Gregorian calendar -- centuries later. This adherence to the Jewish calendar is just one example of how Christianity's Jewish roots are extremely important to the OC. The connections between Easter -- also known in the Orthodox tradition as Pascha, the Greek word for "Passover" -- and the Jewish holiday of the same name are central to OC theology. The Jewish tradition of the slaughter of the Passover lamb -- whose blood was painted on the doors of Jewish households so that the Angel of Death could, literally, pass over them, thus keeping them safe from death -- applies precisely and directly to the Easter celebration of Christians generally, but is labeled as highly crucial to the OC's theology in particular. Jesus Christ, the slaughtered Passover lamb, sheds His blood not just for Jews but for all of mankind -- past, present, and future. By accepting and believing in His perfect sacrifice on the Cross, the shedding of His blood allows us, as human beings, to pass over from death to eternal life in union with Him, His Father, and the Holy Spirit -- one God in three persons. As it was prophesied nearly 700 years before Christ's birth,

He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement for our peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth....for the transgressions of My people was He stricken. -- Isaiah 53:5-8 (NKJV)

Lent allows Christians a special time for fasting, fervent prayer and meditation, and also for introspection -- all in preparation for Christ's Passion and Resurrection. As Christ roamed the desert for 40 days eating nothing and being tempted by Satan to eschew His divinity for the sake of earthly pleasures and power, so Christians, in an attempt to imitate Christ, fast or abstain from certain food, drink, habits, and / or activities that we feel have an earthly stranglehold on our lives. Diet Coke and obsessively checking my GMail are two relevant examples for me. I hope that this Lent proves to be a spritually productive time for me -- I will try my best to ensure that it is. I am also sincerely asking my friends to help me through the coming weeks -- your support will only make the Lenten struggle easier. After all, the fact that Orthodox Good Friday -- the most solemn day of the OC's liturgical calendar, the day when God Himself, the Eternal Creator who existed before the world was made, who humbled Himself by taking the form of His creation, is tortured, mutilated, humiliated, mocked, and ultimately put to death by His own chosen people -- falls on BLOWOUT this semester is hard enough as it is. [NCF]

Zuckerberg hits the big time

2008-03-06T15:42:00.005-05:00

Mark Zuckerberg, Harvard dropout and 23 year old CEO of Facebook, has just become the world's youngest self-made billionaire according to Forbes magazine. On the list of worldwide billionaires he comes in number 785 out of 1,062 at a net worth of $1.5 billion. USA Today printed an article quoting the Forbes statistic, explaining that

Zuckerberg, born during the Ronald Reagan presidency, is worth $1.5 billion four years after launching the social-networking site and the third-youngest to crack the billionaire list since Forbes began tracking ages a decade ago. The other two inherited their money. Facebook did not respond to requests for comment.

The Forbes list often reflects the times. Bill Gates was once himself like Zuckerberg and dropped out of Harvard to launch a technology upstart. Gates is now 52 and slipped from first place in the rankings after being the richest person in the world for 13 straight years. In 1995, Gates replaced Yoshiaki Tsutsumi, a Japanese real estate investor who subsequently fell on hard times and was removed from the Forbes list in 2007.

People like Mr. Zuckerberg represent what's good about America. A free market, ingenuity, proper utilization of demand, and -- above all -- hard work, when combined, are the key ingredients to the recipe of a financially successful life. As is always the case, a little bit of luck helps, too. A free-market, capitalistic society does not provide any guarantees, but it does provide unlimited opportunity. Cheers. [NCF]

And now, for something completely different

2008-03-06T15:13:00.007-05:00

Having spent the last two posts and a lot of emotional energy discussing the unfolding demise of the Democratic Party as we know it, I thought it would be in the best interests of not only myself but my readers to talk about something a little lighter. And what better way to transition from the important to the frivolous than with a post about William & Mary's exquisite housing lottery? Yes, folks, it's that special time of spring semester when Res Life e-mails everyone with their room selection time blocks. So I'm sitting here this afternoon, having finished up a lovely lunch at Bobby Van's in the District, and -- what to my wondering eyes should appear, but an e-mail from Res Life, with a subject line of "You're screwed!" Res Life informs me that my slot is

APR 11, 2008 14:50 P.M. - APR 26, 2008 23:00 P.M.

which, for those of you who don't know, is the LAST possible senior time slot. Ha! And I thought my spring break was going to end poorly. Now, I have the luxury of returning to the Burg knowing that I will probably end up homeless, like many that I saw in DC today. No, but seriously -- I'm scared. I don't think I could do the Bryan Complex again. Not as a senior. Gah. [NCF]

A further splintering party?

2008-03-06T01:03:00.007-05:00

In what amounts to a polite warning to the senator from New York, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi -- who, this August, will also be acting as chairwoman of the Democratic National Convention in Denver -- affirmed for the public that it will be the voters, not capricious superdelegates, who decide the Democratic Party's nominee for president of the United States:

“The electoral process has to work its way,” Pelosi said in a session with reporters Wednesday morning. “I was never among those who thought this would be resolved by now.”
Superdelegates, she said, should weigh a number of factors, including whether Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) or Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) won whatever district the delegates represent, as well as “their own belief.” ...
House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who appeared with Pelosi, said the state-by-state battle for the nomination is good for the party, and no one should “short-circuit” it.

So, the Democratic leadership has unofficially given HRC a pretty clear warning shot. Ms. Pelosi, perhaps wisely, has refused to endorse a candidate thus far. She is, though, stating plainly that she does not intend to tolerate any shenanigans from Mrs. Clinton.

Not surprisingly, this comes after HRC's arguably unexpected three-state win on Super Tuesday II. (Personally, I credit Rush Limbaugh for Mrs. Clinton's win in Texas, as he urged his conservative listeners in the state to vote for her in its open primary -- but that's just me.) Regardless -- even discounting the fact that Michigan and Florida are currently discussing re-doing their primaries -- it appears that some Democratic superdelegates are spitting in the faces of their party's leadership. According to The Politico,

a bloc of Ohio superdelegates is withholding endorsements from Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton until one or the other offers a concrete proposal to protect American jobs.... The apparent deal among Ohioans is the first evidence of superdelegates’ banding together and seeking concessions from the presidential candidates in return for votes at the convention. It’s a practice that could become more common after Clinton’s victories in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday put her back on solid footing in her race against Obama and ensured that the battle for superdelegates will continue for many weeks to come. ... “We have a laundry list of measures we think would be effective, some involving tax policy, some involving investment policy, intellectual property incentives to hold investments in this country,” [Ohio Democratic Rep. Marcy] Kaptur said. “I’m hoping superdelegates [who] are uncommitted that have the economy as their major concern will gravitate to our group and use that power to gain additional attention.”

And we thought Clinton v. Obama was bad. Horizontal splintering of that type is common in primary election cycles, especially ones that are, delegate-wise, this close -- what is remarkably more unusual, however, is this vertical splintering and dissonance we are now beginning to see between party leadership and those who control the casting of delegates. In the words of one conservative commentor on my last post, "I want to see them [Clinton and Obama] bloody each other up so bad that even I will want to vote for McCain." It may not even come to that. The superdelegates may handle that for us. [NCF]

HRC and the numbers

2008-03-04T18:09:00.008-05:00

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter authored a piece today entitled "Hillary's Math Problem," in which he outlined the remaining Democratic presidential contests and their possible outcomes. For each of the remaining 16 primaries -- including those in Guam and Puerto Rico -- he awards Senator Hillary Clinton victories by the widest of margins, awarding her highly improbable numbers of delegates given the latest polling data -- and using Slate's Delegate Calculator -- in an effort to illustrate that point that Mrs. Clinton "could win 16 straight and still lose." Mr. Alter concludes that, given 16 wins for HRC,

at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 58-delegate lead.
Let's say the Democratic National Committee schedules do-overs in Florida and (heavily African-American) Michigan. Hillary wins big yet again. But the chances of her netting 56 delegates out of those two states would require two more huge margins. ...
So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.

The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how Obama can't carry any large states besides Illinois. How he can't close the deal. How they've got the Big Mo now.

Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator.

Perhaps it would be in Mrs. Clinton's best interests -- if she loses tonight in Texas, Ohio, or Rhode Island -- to pull a Mitt Romney, and bow out now for the sake of party unity. I have a feeling that even if she loses all three contests tonight -- a legitimate possibility -- she will still try to carry it out until the bitter, bitter end.

As a conservative, I wholeheartedly wish that Mrs. Clinton would grab the nomination. I am not mentioning these statistical realities to disparage her. Senator Obama is arguably the most liberal legislator in Congress, and I would like nothing more than for him to fail at securing the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. It would seem, though, that -- like HRC -- the numbers are not in my favor. Conservatives, though, are generally torn as to how to react to what they see unfolding before them across the aisle. The National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez stated in her op-ed today,

The Right does not speak with one voice on their hopes for the Democratic primary....Rush Limbaugh has encouraged Republicans to vote Clinton in the open primary in Texas, if only to keep the race going. And they are far from the only conservatives who are not ready to see the Clintons exit the presidential stage. Republican operative and presidential-campaign vet Ralph Reed “with up to 47 percent of the electorate indicating they will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances, it is fair to say that Hillary faces more challenges today than Obama in a head-to-head match-up with McCain. Conservatives should want Clinton to keep fighting if only for that reason.”

[NCF]

MWB for WCC

2008-03-04T16:41:00.009-05:00

Today in The Virginia Gazette, it was unveiled that a student from the College of William & Mary would be running for Williamsburg City Council:

Matt Beato, a long-time member of the College of William & Mary and the first student elected to citywide office when he won a coin flip to take a seat on the Soil & Water Conservation District Board, has announced his candidacy for one of three open seats on Williamsburg City Council. Beato made his announcement overnight Monday. "I am running because we need someone on council who can bring the city together to address the issues of all Williamsburg," Beato said in a press release e-mailed early Tuesday morning.

For what it's worth -- which isn't much -- I would like to say that I officially endorse the candidacy of Matthew Walker Beato. Student involvement in Williamsburg politics -- whether through voting rights or actual participation -- is something that is finally becoming a reality after the removal of corrupt former Williamsburg Registrar Dave Andrews last spring. Furthermore, looking at the WCC's Web site, it would appear that it is perhaps in need of some fresher, younger faces. While information about the WCC abounds in its online brochure, it doesn't tell you everything -- say, for example, the average age of its members. Now, to quote Jackie Moon, I'm not familiar with the metric system or any other foreign language, but I would imagine a WCC member's average age to be somewhere in the mid to high 90s. Imagine that. That's a fact. In all seriousness, I'm happy to see students getting involved in politics of any sort -- but particularly locally, where we can actually effect some sort of change. As students, we contribute so much to Williamsburg economically, socially, and otherwise, and, consequently, we ought to have a say in the decisions being made. A student on the WCC would at least be able to offer some sort of representation for Williamsburg's younger -- and, not to mention, most populous -- demographic. With that in mind, I encourage my fellow students to register to vote in Williamsburg and cast their vote for our fellow student and burgeoning politician, Mr. Beato. I'm sure he'll appreciate it. [NCF]

Echo Wall fails to resonate

2008-03-03T14:18:00.002-05:00

For those of you who don't know, The Echo Wall is a blog dedicated to bringer its readers "news," "gigs," and "scenes from life at W&M." It has links to the major campus news outlets, including WMTV, The Flat Hat, The Virginia Informer, The DoG Street Journal, and even William & Mary News, among others. Its first post was on January 8, promising to

introduce you to the new tradition at the College of William and Mary. This new information sharing source allows its contributors to post amusing conversations they overheard at Swem or the Grind, news that should be published immediately, and random pieces of information that the Flat Hat or DoG Street Journal won't give you. Welcome to the 21st century at the College.

This concept is a good one -- a blog to which members of the William & Mary community can contribute and on which they can collaborate, posting anonymously about things overheard, interesting stories, or any other various minutiae that might intrigue the blog-savvy at the College. Unfortunately, The Echo Wall's outreach has been less than stellar, with only nine posts since January 8. The last post was simply:

In a study room in Swem someone had altered the sign about making noise: "Room is not soundproof. Please keep (sex) noise to a minimum."

If something a la Overheard in New York (for William & Mary) is what you desire, I highly recommend that interested students turn to Overheard @ William & Mary: The Voice of the Burg. This is a very aesthetically pleasing blog dedicated solely to Overheard-type moments around campus. Posts can be e-mailed to overheardatwm@gmail.com. Otherwise, I encourage people to POST on The Echo Wall to get it going and keep it up. With appropriate student interest, it could easily become a welcome repository for our campus' stories, anecdotes, and other general observations. Submissions should be sent to

ColonelEbirt1.postnow@blogger.com Subject = Title Message = Post Just do it!

This blog is a good idea. People should try and keep it going. There is no reason why The Echo Wall cannot be a very visible, very successful aspect of life at the College. [NCF]

Making William & Mary green

2008-02-28T16:48:00.012-05:00

Over the past two weeks or so, several students and faculty have been attempting to bring campus attention to the idea of environmental sustainability at William & Mary. The Green movement on campus has finally gotten itself organized into a cohesive unit -- perhaps, to their credit, after harnessing some of the energy of the once-vocal pro-Nichol movement that has all but vanished over the past few days -- and has successfully lobbied to get a referendum on "green fees" on the upcoming March 20 Student Assembly ballot. According to Greening William and Mary (GWM), the group and Web site of the same name, the green fees involve an additional $15 fee per semester -- ie, $30 per year -- to the already mandatory student activities fee, which currently sits around $85. A poll conducted by GWM concluded that 86% of students would vote for the additional $30 fee. Although this may come as a surprise to many, I will be voting "yes" on the $30 increase in fees for green sustainability. I have been continually impressed with the level of organization and detail that GWM has exhibited in recent days. Their explanation of the breakdown of the additional fees is detailed, well researched, and, truthfully, convincing. I believe that these fees -- if utilized properly, and in the way set forth in GWM's outlines -- will be able to save the College a significant amount of money in the longterm. While my reasons for voting "yes" are, I admit, environmentally unrelated, they are certainly economically motivated. This school cannot afford to be wasting money on unnecessary or inefficient programs or processes, and I even said as much in an op-ed I wrote on January 30 of this year in The Virginia Informer:

We should focus, presently, on taking care of the students currently attending the College, our faculty—who should be rewarded for their intelligence and hard work with competitive salaries—and on measures for green sustainability, which will save the College millions in the long run. Let it be known: I am requesting that Mr. Nichol trade in his [free, College-provided] Cherokee for a Prius. How’s that for cutting costs?

While GWM believes that this is an environmental issue of the utmost importance, my reason for an affirmative vote is purely economic in nature. Regardless, a "yes" is a "yes." Further, I encourage my fellow students to vote similarly on this referendum on March 20. [NCF]

Update: HRC tries to cover herself -- and Barack

2008-02-25T15:04:00.005-05:00

The DC-based liberal blog Wonkette deserves special credit today -- not only for their posting of this delightfully funny picture of Hillary Clinton -- but also for their treatment of Senator Barack Obama's apparent wardrobe malfunction. They simply reposted the nonsensical and erroneous response of Maggie Williams, HRC's campaign manager, topped off with this hilarious headline:

Hillary Campaign Blames Obama For Hillary Campaign Sending Funny Obama Picture To Drudge Report

Also, this was tagged under Wonkette's "OH NO YOU DIDN'T" section. Good for them.

[NCF]

HRC tries to cover herself -- and Barack

2008-02-25T14:42:00.004-05:00

For those of you who read The Drudge Report, the above was today's main attraction. Apparently, Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign released this photo to the press, which depicts the New York senator's Democratic presidential rival, Senator Barack Obama, dressed in traditional Samolian garb. This photo was taken about two years ago, when Mr. Obama was on a five nation African tour.

Apparently, in an e-mail obtained by the press, an HRC staffer was quoted as saying, "Wouldn’t we be seeing this on the cover of every magazine if it were HRC?" The Clinton campaign is apparently of the belief that the truly ridiculous release of this photograph somehow simultaneously delegitimizes Mr. Obama's campaign and legitimizes Mrs. Clinton's. Does she not realize this does nothing but hurt her?

The reactions to this political cheap shot have been fairly unanimous -- there's that word again -- across the board among the political commentators and talking heads:

“Nothing in his life became him like the leaving it,” says Malcolm of the executed Thane of Cawdor in Macbeth. It’s a safe assumption that Hillary Clinton’s presidential aspiration will not terminate with like grace and dignity. ...

As if it were not enough that the Clintonistas have tried to stir a scandal with an innocuous image of Obama doing what politicians do when they travel abroad and going native in clothes and custom, they’re now berating Obama’s camp for being appalled at their behavior!

It is obvious, now, that HRC is beyond desperate. What's even worse than her desperation is the fact that after her staff released this photo to the media, HRC's campaign pounced on Mr. Obama for making a big deal out of it -- saying that he was distracting the public's attention from the real issues at hand:

If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

We will not be distracted.

Distracted, perhaps, from the reality that maybe Mrs. Clinton's time in this race is very steadily coming to a close. Newsweek's Jonathon Alter probably said it the best out of the bevy of stories, editorials, and blog posts about this photo:

But to withdraw this week would be the best thing imaginable for Hillary's political career. She won't, of course, and for reasons that help explain why she's in so much trouble in the first place.

[NCF]

An honest misunderstanding

2008-02-25T04:04:00.004-05:00

Last week, I blogged about a new Facebook group that had been formed in the wake of recent campus controversy. The group is called "Red Tuesday," and calls on its members to wear red arm bands to show solidarity either against the Board of Visitors or for Gene Nichol -- I'm not really sure which. In any case, after giving the group's description more thought and having a very civil discussion with the group's creator, I admit that I may have been too hasty in my judgment. While I do not believe the group's existence is even necessary, nor that the parallels drawn in the group's description are particularly relevant, I believe that -- in the words of one commenter on my blog -- "if you re-read the description, it's clear that the Nazi occupation is employed to explain the use of a colored armband, NOT to claim that this situation [Nazi occupation] is analogous [to the political situation at William & Mary]." So, I apologize for that. But -- that being said -- there is still one thing I would be curious to know. The group calls on its members to wear red or red arm bands every Tuesday until "our demands are met." First of all, what are these people's demands -- none are stated on the group's Facebook page -- and, second of all, were any of these demands met at the student forum last Friday? I'd be very interested to know. [NCF]

TBAR gets a facelift

2008-02-25T02:22:00.003-05:00

I know it's been several days since I've posted, but things have been a little crazy in my life recently. I intend to blog later this week about last Friday's Board of Visitors forum -- which, in my estimation, was a great step in moving the College forward -- and some last remaining Nichol / Powell / BOV issues that will hopefully be wrapping themselves up by the time spring break '08 rolls around. Also, as you can see -- except those reading this note on Facebook, where my blog automatically imports -- TBAR has gotten a little more aesthetically pleasing, at least in my opinion. I think this color scheme works a lot better -- easier on the eyes. In any case, for all four dedicated readers out there -- and I do care about you and appreciate you all individually -- do not fear, TBAR will be back in full force this week and going into spring break. I'm looking forward to getting back in to the swing of things. [NCF]

Even more on Blair

2008-02-21T22:47:00.004-05:00

I know this is getting tedious, but I just checked The Flat Hat's Web site. On the home page is an article about this very issue that everyone should read. Highlights have been reproduced below.

“I have said there was not a vote, only a discussion and a consensus,” Powell said. “There was a discussion about speaking with one voice and whether anyone objected to describing our decision as unanimous. I did not hear any objection and believe other board members understood this. I deeply regret if I misunderstood Mr. Blair’s intent.”
[BOV member Henry] Wolf also told the Daily Press that several board members had approached Nichol on February 10 and informed him as a “courtesy” that his contract would not be renewed. Wolf said that he and other board members had not known Nichol would resign until the morning of Nichol’s resignation.

In an interview with The Flat Hat, BOV member Barbara Ukrop ’61 confirmed that she — along with Powell and one unnamed board member — met with Nichol to inform him of the board’s decision. Ukrop also said that she had agreed with the non-renewal decision.

Ukrop said that the non-renewal decision had been agreed upon at a BOV dinner in the days leading up to the board’s February meeting, but did not recall Powell using the word “unanimous.”

“I guess maybe what [Powell] meant is that he thought the board agreed to speak with one unanimous voice,” she said. ...
“I think maybe there got to be some anger last week, especially with the defacing of the Wren building, and maybe tempers flared,” Ukrop said. “I never saw any mean spirited thing against Nichol.”

Ukrop also said that she was sure the board did not base their decision on politics.

“Our decision was in no way based on ideology,” she said. “We believe in diversity in multiculturalism and access and Gateway … and we’ll continue to push forward with all of that.”

More on Blair

2008-02-21T21:55:00.013-05:00

Also worthy of discussion is the line in former Board of Visitors member Robert Blair's statement that

I have also seen mean-spirited communications that are not worthy of the professional deliberations of any managing board, but most especially not the Board of Visitors of William and Mary.

Again, BOV member John Gerdelman, in an article written by The Daily Press, contends this assertion. Mr. Gerdelman said that

he is surprised and "very disappointed" by Blair's resignation. He said he is baffled by Blair's statements regarding "mean-spirited communications." "I had no idea what he was talking about," Gerdelman said. "I like Bob a lot — a good friend. I'm just very sad to see the direction he took. "He was probably the closest to Gene [Nichol] of any of us."

When read in context, Mr. Blair appears to be saying that once Mr. Nichol sent out the e-mail announcing his immediate resignation -- in spite of the BOV's entreaties to Mr. Nichol to finish out his term, or, at the very least, to give the board time to draft a response to the e-mail Mr. Nichol recklessly unleashed on the community -- that that's when the "mean-spirited communications" about the former president started to fly between members of the BOV. Let's think for a moment, shall we? As a member of the BOV, if I were publicly accused of trying to bribe someone and then was subject to a gross mischaracterization of my actions as one member of a 17-person board -- ie, I chose not to renew Mr. Nichol's contract based on ideology or because a Richmond legislator told me not to (two lines of thinking espoused by Mr. Nichol and his followers, both of which have been attested to by several relevant individuals as blatantly untrue) -- after my fellow BOV members and I attempted to extend to Mr. Nichol the professional courtesy of an unnecessary severance package and a very necessary dignified exit, I would be pretty angry. Pissed, actually. Furious. It sounds to me like Mr. Blair is really the one making decisions based on ideology. What it boils down to is that he didn't get his own way, didn't like what other board members were saying about Mr. Nichol after he unabashedly screwed them over, and chose -- just as Mr. Nichol did -- to have a temper tantrum. Oh, and then quit. Also, let's put one more thing in perspective. Mr. Blair sat on the BOV's Committee of Buildings and Grounds -- not exactly the sexiest job one could hold on the board. He was set for retirement in the summer, his last meeting being this coming April. Is it just possible -- perhaps even probable -- that, when faced with an outcome he didn't like, Mr. Blair saw this as an opportunity to go out in a blaze of glory? Hell, he was leaving in a few months anyway -- at least now he gets to have his name in the paper and be remembered for something. Other interesting pieces of information which support this perspective include the fact that he went out of his way to make his own explicit statement -- rather than just letting the news of his tendered resignation hit the usual sources, as they always do. Additionally, Mr. Blair sent this statement specifically to SA President Zach Pilchen ('09) and Vice President Valerie Hopkins ('09). Although the message was addressed to the entire William & Mary community, Mr. Blair understood that this statement, when given first to students, would serve no other purpose but to inflame the campus -- just as Mr. Nichol's e-mail did. He could have just as easily sent the letter to University Relations, William & Mary News, the President's Office, etc. Furthermore, Mr. Blair claims that "[m]y conscience now tells me it is time to move on." As we all know, actions speak louder than words. My feeling is, if Mr. Blair had to go out of his way to say how much his conscience affected this decision -- just in case we didn't catch this oh-so-obvious display of ethical and moral deliberation in his statement -- then it probably isn't true. Or, at the very least, it's highly exaggerated. Mr. Blair's resignation, in my opinion, will be a non issue by early next week -- especially given BOV Rector Michael Powell's upcoming appearance at the College tomorrow. [NCF]

A question of unanimity

2008-02-21T18:03:00.011-05:00

On February 19, Board of Visitors member Robert Blair ('68) announced his resignation from the BOV in a statement obtained by several local and campus news sources. A resignation of a BOV member under normal circumstances is certainly worthy of note, and in this politically tense environment we are currently experiencing at the College, it is worthy of particular scrutiny. Mr. Blair said in his statement that he

was one of several members of the Board who argued forcefully for the renewal of Gene Nichol's contract as President of the College. Although no vote was taken, one was not required if the contract was not to be renewed. Those for renewal were given ample opportunity to argue their points. We ultimately found ourselves in the minority. I was confident at the time that most of those speaking for non-renewal based their positions on non-ideological grounds and without animus towards Mr. Nichol. ... Why then am I resigning from the Board at this juncture? Because there has been an incipient effort by some members of the Board of Visitors to pick apart President Nichol's accomplishments. To what end? They gained their stated objective. I have also seen mean-spirited communications that are not worthy of the professional deliberations of any managing board, but most especially not the Board of Visitors of William and Mary. Such communications call into question the real motivation for the initial decision not to renew the President's contract. ...

These statements raises a few questions. Most immediately, it calls into question some of BOV Rector Michael Powell's previous statements in several newspapers and in e-mails, which essentially state that the BOV

discussed on a number of occasions whether it would offer President Nichol a new contract in July when his employment agreement expired. As it became unanimous that was unlikely, we felt an obligation to tell President Nichol as early as possible to allow him to find other opportunities if he wished. Indeed, President Nichol asked that we let him know as soon as we could and we did. [emphasis added]

So, the question becomes one of unanimity. Mr. Blair asserts that he was one of a few BOV members to lobby for the renewal of former President Gene Nichol's contract. If this is true -- which, realistically, there is not necessarily reason to doubt -- then obviously the BOV was not unanimous in its feelings toward the renewal of Mr. Nichol's contract. Ultimately, however, this point is irrelevant.

The question, really, becomes not about how certain members felt, but rather what was done about the decision itself. Was the decision not to renew Mr. Nichol -- after Mr. Blair and these other BOV members voiced their desire to renew him -- unanimous, once those in favor of extending his contract realized they were in the minority?

BOV member John Gerdelman says yes. Appearing in The Daily Press yesterday, Mr. Gerdelman

emphasized the board's decision not to renew Nichol's contract was unanimous, although no vote was taken. He said the decision was made before he and three other board members were summoned to answer questions from state delegates in Richmond regarding Nichol and controversies on campus. Blair didn't change his opinion of Nichol when the contract decision was made, but he didn't object, Gerdelman said. [emphasis added]

It appears, yet again, that Mr. Powell is not lying. I admit that some of his statements, when juxtaposed with each other or with those of Mr. Blair, could be construed as unclear or confusing, and perhaps even disingenuous. After careful review of the differing statements of Messrs. Blair and Powell, however, it is logical to conclude that they are not mutually exclusive, especially considering Mr. Gerdelman's commentary. What I personally think, though, is ultimately irrelevant -- we will find out once and for all as much as we -- legally -- can about how this process occurred when Mr. Powell arrives at the UC Commonwealth tomorrow to set the record straight. [NCF]

Pathetic

2008-02-19T09:58:00.006-05:00

After our graffiti-filled weekend here at William & Mary, I thought the cheap theatrics were over with -- until I saw this latest Facebook group, authored by some obviously unhinged individuals on this campus. The title of the group is "Red Tuesday" -- the idea is that the political situation which began last week on campus is analogous to

[w]hen the Nazis occupied the Netherlands [and] the Dutch mounted a powerful resistance against them. One of the bigger acts of the Dutch resistance was Orange Fridays. Every Friday all of the supporters of the Dutch resistance would wear orange to show solidarity with each other and show the Nazis occupiers that they were against them. The Nazis could not do anything to those who participated in this resistance because they were only wearing orange.
Now that the strikes and sit-ins have ended here at William & Mary we must not forget what was done to our school and what we did about it. We must also show the rest of our community that we are committed to this. So, I am purposing [sic.] that we, like the dutch [sic.] did, show our solidarity and opposition by wearing red or our red arm bands every Tuesday, they day Nichol resined [sic.], till our demands are met. The fight is far from over, so let us no [sic.] forget, and not let anyone else.

Obvious errors in grammar and syntax aside, this is -- in the words of The Daily Press' Tamara Dietrich -- utter "bilge." I've seen many a Facebook group in my time, and this is probably the most offensive and most ridiculous of them all. To assert that the political climate at William & Mary is analogous to that of a Nazi-occupied territory during World War II is beyond words. All it shows is that those who are in this group have absolutely no idea what life under an oppressive, totalitarian regime is actually like -- and something tells me it's not what they have concocted in their ultra-Left fantasy world, devoid of consideration for historical fact or, say, actual reality -- and, furthermore, it reveals a lack of intellectualism not befitting a student of the College of William & Mary. Who do these people think they are? Unless this group is a joke. I mean, it could be. It's just so unabashedly absurd. If not, someone needs to call Hillel -- they need to get out of town, and I mean pronto. Rector Michael Powell might have them -- and, naturally, any dissenters -- interned in the Sunken Gardens, which, if he hasn't done so already, will be transformed into a forced labor camp. And from a political standpoint, the more mainstream pro-Nicholites should be the most vocal in denouncing this sort of expression. It delegitimizes their movement more than any anti-Nicholite could -- the only end this Facebook group ultimately serves is to give ammunition to people like me and others who have no desire to see this movement grow any stronger. But -- and this is the great part -- with a face like that, our work is practically being done for us. [NCF]

William & Mary in Washington...Post, that is

2008-02-19T01:48:00.006-05:00

Yesterday's staff editorial in The Washington Post reaffirms further, at least in my estimation, the correctness of the Board of Visitors' decision not to renew Gene Nichol's contract. The editorial took fair swipes at both sides of the debate, but ultimately concluded that the BOV did not act coercively or disingenuously with Mr. Nichol, and, further, by admitting that very fact, it "would give pause to those who think that their meddling worked at William and Mary." The meddlers, in the case of this piece, are the Virginia House of Delegates.

The unanimous decision by the college's governing board not to renew Mr. Nichol's contract prompted his resignation last week. In an angry, public letter, he claims he fell victim to a vicious campaign by those opposed to his liberal policies. Mr. Nichol was indeed the object of unconscionable attacks, but the Board of Visitors may well have had good reasons to conclude he was not the right leader for the college: The head of the board said that it wasn't the controversies so much as Mr. Nichol's handling of them. There's no question the college has been diverted from its core mission since Mr. Nichol arbitrarily decided 16 months ago to banish a historic cross from the campus chapel. ...
Still, as it seeks a new president and tries to soothe an enraged student body, the board must contend with the perception of outside political interference. That was created largely by those members of the Virginia House of Delegates who summoned board appointees to Richmond for an unusual and inappropriate grilling. Destructive words from alumni who profess a love of the institution contributed to the poisonous atmosphere.
One way for the board to answer questions about the integrity of its process is to be completely open about its deliberations. It is instructive, for instance, that the board apparently reached its decision about Mr. Nichol before prospective members were called before the legislature and that it engaged an outside consultant to conduct a formal review. ... [emphasis added]

Ah! This is quite interesting, and, for some reason, buried in the middle of a paragraph near the end of the editorial. This piece of information should be front and center, if not the subject of the piece itself. One of the biggest complaints from the pro-Nicholites regarding his ouster was the overblown and highly emotionalized "interrogation" that four BOV members had to undergo -- as they were up for confirmation -- in front of the General Assembly. In a strange twist (sarcasm), the state legislature was acting as the official body of oversight for the College, which, much to my chagrin, is still a state institution -- how dare they! But, it seems, this "grilling" had little or nothing to do with these BOV members' positions on Mr. Nichol, because, apparently, "the board...reached its decision about Mr. Nichol before prospective members were called before the legislature..." So, in case you missed it, these "senseless political grand-stand[ers]" in the state assembly -- who, again, as I have already said in previous posts, approved these four BOV members unanimously (incidentally, the same way the BOV felt about not renewing Nichol's contract) -- had nothing to do with the decision on Mr. Nichol. Period. [NCF]

Getting it right

2008-02-18T17:26:00.011-05:00

Acting Vice President for Student Affairs Ginger Ambler sent out an e-mail to the William & Mary community today in response to the vandalism that has recently graced our beautiful campus buildings. These acts of defacement were perpetrated by those who obviously have a dislike for the Board of Visitors in light of its recent decision, and who, apparently, believe that damaging public property is a more effective means to express themselves than through the written or spoken word:

I could not let the day go by without writing to you about egregious vandalism that occurred on campus over the weekend. As many of you seen by now, a number of our buildings have been defaced with anti-BOV graffiti -- spray-painted messages and images have appeared on Tyler Hall, on the beautiful stone benches in the Tyler Garden, on the concrete handrails on the new Laycock building, and, on the portico doors and stone walks at our beloved and historic Wren Building. Like many students and staff who have contacted me today out of concern, I am disheartened -- shocked, really -- that anyone in our community would resort to such acts. The W&M Police have initiated an investigation into this recent vandalism. If anyone has information that would be helpful in that investigation, please contact them at 221-4596. ...

In the meantime, I urge a return to the civil discourse that characterized our campus' response last week.

Ms. Ambler did the right thing in chastising these vandals, and, furthermore, for encouraging anyone with information to step forward. I do not believe that soon-to-be-retired VP for Student Affairs -- and, lest we forget, former SDS member -- Sam Sadler would have done the same. More good news from the newest member of the William & Mary administration comes in the form of an e-mail sent out today by President Taylor Reveley, in which he discussed future budgetary concerns vis-a-vis upcoming legislation. Mr. Reveley is currently in Richmond, rightly attempting to present the new-and-improved face of William & Mary to those who -- let's not forget -- make our very existence as a public institution possible. Our president reminds us that

[t]here is much to be resolved before the General Assembly adjourns early next month. There are, for example, three different approaches to capital funding, although each includes full funding for the new School of Education. There are also three different proposals for faculty and staff salary increases. We will continue to remind our representatives in Richmond that these additional funds matter very much to the College. I have already joined Sam [Jones] and Fran Bradford and others in Richmond, making the College’s case along these and other important lines. I will send word as we learn more in the weeks to come.

How refreshing -- an e-mail devoid of meaningless platitudes and stuffy language, and one which provides specific examples of what exactly Mr. Reveley is actually doing in Richmond besides just "talking." And, in good form, he promises to keep us updated. As far as I'm concerned, this is a good beginning for the newest faces in the College's administration. [NCF]

Waning protests now not our only eyesore

2008-02-18T01:43:00.011-05:00

This past weekend -- in an apparent eschewment of their right to peaceably assemble, rally, protest, and, generally, scream their heads off -- a few of the more artistic members of the now-waning pro-Nichol / anti-BOV / anti-legislature (SDS?) crowd decided to express themselves on campus using a combination of spray paint and public property. Charming. The facade of Swem -- and now, apparently, a few of the large Wren portico doors -- were defaced using spray paint, which had been used to spell out such witticisms as "Fuck the BOV" -- in the words of Dennis Miller, "Eloquent in its brevity" -- and to draw a hand, middle finger protruding. To be fair, though, apparently the Swem graphics had the line "Visit this!" underneath the finger -- that's actually funny. This vandalism, while intellectually satisfying, I'm sure, falls short in accomplishing, well, anything -- unless, of course, you count a police investigation and possible jail time. Word-on-the-street says that's a very legitimate possibility for the perpetrators, who may or may not have been ID'd. Those responsible for defacing Swem and the Wren building -- both of which are obviously to blame for the decision rendered by the BOV, which, by the way, meets in Blow -- should think long and hard about why they are doing what they are doing. Defacing public property was what you did in high school if you were upset -- marking up Wren isn't going to do much for the cause, and just paints the followers of this movement -- pardon the pun -- as desperate, immature, and out of viable options. Grow up. [NCF]

BOV update

2008-02-17T22:50:00.004-05:00

My previous post about the Board of Visitors and Rector Michael Powell was a bit hasty, I must admit. I had not done enough research and checked the latest updates before opining on the matter of Mr. Powell creating a student feedback Web site, where students could go and post questions they wished answered by the BOV. Mr. Powell, in the same e-mail, said he would be convening the board in Williamsburg within the next week, at which point the members thereof would "hear the views and concerns of our community in person and...answer questions." One important fact I egregiously failed to mention -- hence the title of this post -- is that a few of the more common questions that students wish to ask of the BOV, along with their respective responses, have already been posted on William & Mary's Web site as part of the larger BOV / student feedback process that Mr. Powell has just recently begun. For anyone accusing the BOV of bribery, lying, secret or illegal voting, or just generally accusing them of being a "conservative cabal" which decided to cave under the pressure of a few state legislators -- all of whom, by the way, voted to unanimously approve the four BOV members they questioned in Richmond two weeks ago -- this Web site serves as a firm, factual denial of these charges. Unless you think that the "conservative" Mr. Powell is lying -- and the mostly liberal BOV is keeping silent, not wanting to blow his cover -- then this Web site should answer several questions you may want answered before the BOV actually arrives in Williamsburg:

If the Board’s Decision was not based on ideology, then what was it? Out of respect for Gene Nichol and the office of President of our College, the Board of Visitors is constrained from describing in detail all of the factors it considered in its difficult decision not to renew Gene Nichol's contract. We believe that it is important, however, to make this one additional statement: The job of president of our beloved College involves many duties, 10% of which are performed in public, 90% of which occur largely behind the scenes but are nonetheless absolutely fundamental to the successful stewardship of the College, such as fundraising, long-term planning, program development, executive management and collaborative decision-making. The popular narrative that it was the visible and publicly controversial 10% of Gene Nichol's performance that led to the Board's decision makes for a much more dramatic and politically powerful story. But it simply does not reflect the reality of the Board's full evaluation or the reasons for its decision. ... Did the Board try to ‘bribe” the Nichols as some have alleged? Absolutely not. To move forward there were numerous issues to resolve with the President—timing and content of a public announcement, interim leadership, pay and benefits for the outgoing leader, and use of the President’s house, just to name a few. The Board proposed an initial offer on how to deal with these issues. The President did not object to the proposal nor did he chose to offer a different view of its terms. The first response we received was to announce he was resigning immediately. It is customary to offer an outgoing executive a transition/severance package. The Board cares about Nick and Glenn and wanted to be generous in recognition of their service. The Board said we wanted to reach a “mutually agreeable public statement.” As the Board explained to President Nichol, we wanted a graceful and dignified transition to protect the interest and reputation of the College. Additionally, it was our intent to protect President Nichol’s reputation and to give the fullest opportunity to secure rewarding future employment. A mutually agreeable statement would be designed to advance those twin interests. We would not accept portraying our decision as based on ideological grounds because it was untrue. Did the Board act in secret? The Board did not take a vote. The Board did not fire the President. The Board discussed on a number of occasions whether it would offer President Nichol a new contract in July when his employment agreement expired. As it became unanimous that was unlikely, we felt an obligation to tell President Nichol as early as possible to allow him to find other opportunities if he wished. Indeed, President Nichol asked that we let him know as soon as we could and we did.

As far as I'm concerned, this removes any question as to whether the BOV acted illegally in any of these proceedings. Mr. Powell -- former chairman of the FCC -- is surrounded by William & Mary's legal team and is otherwise used to dealing with attorneys. There is simply no way he would knowingly break the law, set up a Web site which forces him to lie further about it, and, on top of everything, convene the entire BOV to Williamsburg so, collectively, they could further lie to the whole of the Williamsburg community. To think otherwise, at this point, is ludicrous. Furthermore, Mr. Powell displayed phenomenal PR skills by, essentially, co-opting the "demands" of those who are now in charge of the pro-Nichol / anti-BOV / anti-legislature movement (honestly, I don't really know what else to call it -- I think Tribe United used to be their name, before SDS took it over). From what I understand, this is a group that, last Wednesday, was nearly 2,000 strong, and who now boasts anywhere from 10 to 30 actually active members. This group demanded the BOV answer for its actions -- a relatively fair request -- and Mr. Powell is, smartly, accepting. He will, undoubtedly, be able to defuse the rest of this swiftly waning group -- which is already showing signs of internal conflict -- pretty handily once he and the rest of the BOV come to Williamsburg. [NCF]

Powell makes the right move

2008-02-17T11:07:00.005-05:00

In an e-mail to the campus community sent on February 15, Board of Visitors Rector Michael Powell said the following:

Members of the William and Mary Board of Visitors will come to the Williamsburg campus next week to meet with the campus community. While we have fielded calls and emails, it is still important to hear the views and concerns of our community in person and to answer questions. Plans are still being finalized, but Board members expect to be on campus by the end of next week for public and private meetings with students, faculty and staff. Once the specific details of the meetings are complete, the College will e-mail the campus community. Also, I would like to announce a web link that has been set up for members of the campus community to send comments to the Board. The address is http://www.wm.edu/bov/feedbackform.php.

This is the absolutely right move on Mr. Powell's part. Amidst rumors and half-truths spewing forth from ignorant, uninformed faculty and students -- those claiming to have the full story in hopes that the more people who believe something, the more true it becomes -- Mr. Powell needs to restate, plainly, that the BOV did not: make their decision about Gene Nichol based on ideology; attempt to bribe him or his wife into silence; and, importantly, that they did not hold an illegal vote or in any way violate Virginia FOIA law or state procedures for public governing bodies concerning the severance package or the appointment of President Taylor Reveley. Unless, of course, any of these things did happen. If the BOV did do any of these things, Mr. Powell, as its representative, needs to come clean and admit fault for its actions, which could be attributed -- unsubstantively, but sufficiently -- to hasty decision making, lack of sufficient information, poor communication between the board and Gene Nichol, or any of a number of politically acceptable excuses -- as long as an apology comes with them. Whatever punitive actions come with an admission of fault should be carried out to their full extent, which may include bringing legal action against the board. To convene the entire board in Williamsburg is also the right move. All members need to be present to not only convey unity -- which, in an interview with The Flat Hat, Mr. Powell said exists unanimously -- but to potentially allow for each board member to defend his or her decision to the student body in an open, transparent way:

“It became crystal clear that, unanimously, the board didn’t have confidence that he would succeed,” Powell said. “We made the gut-wrenching decision to make a change.”

It is my hope that by bringing the BOV to Williamsburg, Mr. Powell will successfully calm the angry mob who is now asking for his head. [NCF]

Not just The Informer anymore

2008-02-17T10:35:00.005-05:00

To the horror of the pro-Nichol establishment, I'm sure, last Friday's staff editorial in The Flat Hat laid out a well written and thoughtful explanation of why not renewing Gene Nichol's contract was a "painful, proper decision":

Just four months ago, we were calling for Nichol’s renewal.
But our opinion on Nichol evolved as we studied his presidency, with recent editorials expressing deep skepticism. His relationships with donors soured and serious ethical questions arose concerning whether he knowingly misrepresented fundraising figures. Controversy made Nichol himself the issue, and this has impeded his ability to lead effectively....

While we understand those who overlooked Nichol’s administrative missteps and admired him for his passion and energy, it is in the management of the College, its finances and its image that he was charged to lead, and it is in these areas that he failed.

The BOV resisted the temptation of an indefensible knee-jerk reaction, and instead deliberated for four ponderous months. The BOV reached out, seeking input via e-mail from those wishing to contribute to the debate.

What’s more, the BOV hired an independent consulting firm to assess the situation. That firm reached the same conclusion: As an executive, Nichol had performed poorly. A unanimous consensus from the board sealed his fate. The investigation was fair and its assessments were accurate. We may never know the extent to which ideological concerns were a factor in the decision not to renew Nichol, but it is clear that his administrative failures alone warrant the BOV’s decision. We hope those disillusioned with the outcome will, in time, come to agree.

The current vilification of the BOV is disheartening, but anticipated. Many of the attacks on the members’ characters and their decision are unfair. Most BOV members are Democrats, and all were either appointed or reappointed by Democratic governors. Many give considerable sums to liberal candidates’ campaigns. Despite what protesters have not-so-subtly intimated, the group is in no way a conservative cabal. Ideology, it appears, was not the driving factor.

This editorial makes clear several key points that The Informer has been saying for a long time: Mr. Nichol has failed as an executive; the controversy surrounding many of his decisions -- right or wrong -- has paralyzed him as a leader; and he has failed in taking effective charge of the College's finances and management. These reasons are enough -- forgetting the actual content of the Wren cross decision, the $12 million lie, the refusal to challenge the NCAA on our two feathers -- for the College to part ways with Mr. Nichol.

What's more, The Flat Hat "hope[s] those disillusioned" will not only be ready to heal old wounds, but, one step further, "come to agree." The editorial board also praises the BOV for not making a "knee-jerk" reaction, and the board makes crystal clear that the BOV is not a "conservative cabal," to say nothing of the independent assessment team the BOV hired to do an objective analysis of Mr. Nichol's tenure.

This is all good information that needs to be disseminated through the student body and to the larger community. Because many at the College -- faculty and students both -- would prefer to rip up copies of The Virginia Informer before actually reading what we have to say, I'm glad to see that The Flat Hat has come to the same conclusions that we have.

[NCF]

President Reveley needs to step up

2008-02-14T10:25:00.012-05:00

Newly appointed acting William & Mary President Taylor Reveley sent an e-mail to students this morning entitled "Let's Keep the College Moving Forward." While I agree with the sentiment behind the e-mail, unfortunately Mr. Reveley offered a weak opening to his interim tenure:

Dear William and Mary Community: In the hours since Tuesday's news reached us, our William and Mary community has known surprise, confusion and pain. In the words of a faculty member, this is a time when we must come together to heal wounds, revive ideals and restore hope. This is a difficult time of transition not just for William and Mary but also for Gene Nichol and his family. Nick and Glenn are my good friends. They have my very best wishes. Though not a mission I sought, I will serve this marvelous College as best I can. Listening and learning will be crucial for me in the weeks to come. I have begun meeting with our extraordinary faculty and students, deeply committed staff, and stalwart alumni. I look forward to many more conversations in the days and weeks to come. Vitally important to the continued progress of the College is our commitment to William and Mary as a place for students, faculty and staff of great diversity. Important also are the College's welcome and support for students regardless of means. It matters too that the College is a place increasingly open to the world. And William and Mary's historic commitment to the civic involvement of its people is central to our identity. These are College values of great importance. They are also my values. William and Mary is among the most ancient and important institutions in America. It is a national treasure. Those of us who love the College must keep it moving forward. Taylor Reveley

I agree that "we must come together to heal wounds." I agree that "vitally important to the continued progress of the College is our commitment to William and Mary as a place for students, faculty and staff of great diversity." And I particularly agree that "those of us who love the College must keep it moving forward." Notice, by the way, he made the very apparent distinction between "those of us" and "all of us." It has become strikingly apparent to me -- and also, apparently, to Mr. Reveley -- that there are elements of students and faculty on this campus, on both sides, who are more interested in their own personal politics than the good of the school at large -- sound familiar? But I digress. At this critical time in our campus' history, we need strong leadership to fill the power vacuum left behind. Mr. Reveley's e-mail needs to inspire confidence and a sense of calm to our distressed campus. As a previously uninvolved party, he should be able to do that. He should be encouraging students and faculty to voice their anger, disappointment, outrage, etc., in a manner consistent with their values -- but this is not mutually exclusive with, say, fulfilling a contractually binding agreement to teach classes, or, for students, attending regularly scheduled classes. Mr. Reveley also needs to assert to -- and for -- our campus that all opinions on this matter will be tolerated with respect by all the members of our community. After all, wasn't it Gene Nichol who quoted and likened himself to Thomas Jefferson when he said Jefferson

expressly rejected the claim that speech should be suppressed because “it might influence others to do evil,” insisting instead that “we have nothing to fear from the demoralizing reasonings of some if others are left free to demonstrate their errors.”

This applies equally to members and organizers of the Sex Workers' Art Show as it does to, say, the staff members of The Virginia Informer. Some on this campus have forgotten this critical element to our free society -- but more on that in a later blog post. Mr. Reveley need not act timidly or be bashful about his new position. He needs to assert himself strongly, calm the campus with understanding and sympathy, but, above all, insist on the correctness of moving forward. He can spend other e-mails talking about Mr. Nichol's policies, which is a completely separate issue -- both in relevance and importance -- when compared to the campus climate we are currently facing. [NCF]

A voice of reason

2008-02-13T18:18:00.001-05:00

The staff editorial in today's issue of The Daily Press is a beautifully written, well composed piece of objective analysis, which not only communicates the cold, hard facts of our situation at William & Mary, but, more importantly, makes relevant, logical conclusions therefrom:

Gene Nichol's resignation letter says more about his aborted presidency at the College of William and Mary than he probably intends. Its tone, its timing, its tenacious grip on the story line that he was run out of town by right-wing crazies — all keep him at the center of a passion play, when maybe what's needed is a pause to consider what's best for the college.... Maybe he was just wounded and exhausted, but is it really unimaginable that the interests of the college might have been better served by graciously remaining in place and assisting with a transition? Unimaginable that stoking political division complicates matters for the college more than eases them? Nichol only plays into the hands of his political detractors by insisting that he is their victim. The board that fired him had backed him up publicly, from the controversy over the cross in the Wren Chapel, to the expansion of opportunity for lower-income applicants, to the support for free speech and student prerogatives.... In his e-mail, Nichol instead indulges in some parting shots. On becoming president, he says, he found a deficient institution. The college was unwelcoming to minority faiths. Kids from the lower end of the economic ladder were insufficiently represented. The place was only casually committed to social diversity. And it was wobbly on the U.S. Constitution in general and the First Amendment in particular. But Nichol also needs to go back and read his own resignation statement one more time, when he writes, "Mine, to be sure, has not been a perfect presidency. I have sometimes moved too swiftly, and perhaps paid insufficient attention to the processes and practices of a strong and complex university. A wiser leader would likely have done otherwise." That is, in fact, a fair self-assessment. A wiser leader might not have written this e-mail at all. A wiser leader might still be president of William and Mary.

Beautiful. Simply beautiful. It is heartening to see that there are still some people in the Williamsburg area who have some common sense and objectivity, and who are not blinded by a rabid, mob-think mentality for a man who has neither. [NCF]

An absent faculty

2008-02-12T22:24:00.009-05:00

On the heels of Gene Nichol's voluntary decision to resign as president of the College, several faculty members -- including one of my own professors -- e-mailed their students today, informing them that they would be canceling class. Why, you ask? Apparently, to allow both themselves and their students the chance to "mourn" the loss of our College president. In the e-mail I received, my professor told us she was going to protest the BOV's decision by participating in today's "teach-in," held at the Sunken Gardens, and would not be in class. She also encouraged students to participate. Some faculty are also encouraging their colleagues to cancel their own academic schedules to engage in a so-called "faculty strike," to be held on Wednesday and Thursday, in an effort to protest the BOV's decision. Unfortunately, these faculty members are comporting themselves like petulant children. In order to be truly "great and public" -- in the words of these faculty members' newest martyr -- we need to have professors who demonstrate their ability to do their job even amidst emotional and professional turmoil. As a paying in-state student -- I can only imagine what out-of-state students must think -- I am appalled by these professors' lack of commitment to their jobs. By being truant -- and encouraging their students to do the same -- these faculty members are sending three distinct messages:

Education is less important than personal, political differences.
Gene Nichol is larger and more important than the abstract concept of the College of William & Mary.
Moving on, with dignity, is not a priority.

And let's not forget that all of these messages are being communicated while these faculty members are on the clock. For every class these professors miss as a result of the resignation of Gene Nichol, their pay should be docked accordingly. No one is suggesting that professors at William & Mary do not have a right to protest or to be angry. Sign the petitions, join in the rallies, and partake in the sit-ins -- on your own time. These faculty should understand that by doing otherwise they are not only putting their jobs on the line, but they are sending a clear signal which speaks to the appropriateness of using public resources -- e-mail addresses and listservs -- on a public campus to communicate and endorse a personal and inflammatory political message -- all in the name, perhaps, of "righteous" indignation. For the good of the College, these faculty should be sending e-mails to their classes -- reminding their classes about their plan to be there for normally scheduled lectures, and that they demand all of their students to do the same. [NCF]

E-mail no. 3

2008-02-12T18:31:00.004-05:00

At around 2 o'clock today, Student Assembly President Zach Pilchen ('09) and SA Vice President Valeria Hopkins ('09) sent an e-mail to students berating the Board of Visitors for its decision not to renew former William & Mary President Gene Nichol's contract. This decision subsequently caused Mr. Nichol to resign today, effective immediately. Mr. Pilchen and Ms. Hopkins also accused the BOV of "attempted bribery" in an effort to silence the now-former president:

We are particularly ashamed of the way the BOV chose to handle this situation. Michael Powell's statement on the BOV's decision rings empty. He lauds President Nichol and claims that the decision was, "not in any way based on ideology." If that was true, why would the BOV feel the necessity to bribe President Nichol and his wife into silence? Attempted bribery is about as un-William and Mary as you can get. President Nichol took the principled decision in rejecting their offer. We have come to expect nothing less from him.... Although we are not proud of the Board's decision, and are ashamed by their attempted bribery, the entire College community is proud of the students of the College who have been catalyzed in support of President Nichol.

First of all, I am not going to assume that I know all of the facts of the conversation had among Mr. Nichol, his wife, and the BOV a mere hours after it becomes public. It is very possible -- not to mention, likely -- that this so-called "bribery" was in fact more of a severance package for Mr. Nichol, very typical for CEOs in corporate America. Secondly, I do agree with Mr. Pilchen and Ms. Hopkins that the Nichol decision

was made in a closed room with no recorded vote....Who voted which way? Why was the decision made? The BOV has a responsibility to the College community to not hide behind closed doors, and to act with behavior befitting William and Mary. Sadly, they have failed in that duty.

The BOV needs to come clean here. In a public institution, transparency is key. The BOV, Mr. Nichol, and -- lest we forget -- soon-to-be-retired Vice President for Student Affairs Sam Sadler have all exhibited an inappropriate opacity over these last two and a half years, and it needs to end. Let this be a lesson to the board and to future presidents. Lastly, the SA president and vice president invite and encourage the student body to attend a rally tonight for Mr. Nichol, as

a show of support and unity among the student body, and we ask you to come with utmost respect to thank President Nichol for all he has done so selflessly for us.

Selflessly? Mr. Nichol earned nearly $340,000 annually as president, including a free car and a free, multi-million dollar, fully restored 18th-century mansion in which to live. Let's not forget he wasn't doing all of this for free. [NCF]

E-mail no. 2

2008-02-12T17:36:00.001-05:00

Following Gene Nichol's e-mail this morning announcing his resignation, Board of Visitors Rector Michael Powell issued a statement of his own, on behalf of the entire BOV. In it, Mr. Powell claimed that the Nichol decision was reached because

the Board believed there were a number of problems that were keeping the College from reaching its full potential and concluded that those issues could not be effectively remedied without a change of leadership. It is critical to explain that this decision was not in any way based on ideology or any single public controversy. To suggest such a motivation for the Board is flatly wrong. Indeed, the Board has been repulsed by the personal attacks on the President and his family. The uncharitable personal assaults are unworthy of anyone who professes to care about the College and there should be no joy when things do not work out between good people....

I find it interesting that this statement contained no substantive explanation of, or response to, Mr. Nichol's claim that

the Board of Visitors offered both my wife and me substantial economic incentives if we would agree “not to characterize [the non-renewal decision] as based on ideological grounds” or make any other statement about my departure without their approval. Some members may have intended this as a gesture of generosity to ease my transition. But the stipulation of censorship made it seem like something else entirely. We, of course, rejected the offer. It would have required that I make statements I believe to be untrue and that I believe most would find non-credible.

This deserves to come out in the open fully -- but of course, this could very easily have been a type of "severance package" for Mr. Nichol that is so often found in corporate America. When boards of directors (boards of visitors) and CEOs (university presidents) decide to part ways, a monetary agreement is often reached in an effort to help the individual transition and maintain financial stability while moving to his or her next job. A quick Wiki of the term reveals that

[s]everance contracts often stipulate that the employee will not sue the employer for wrongful termination or attempt to collect on unemployment insurance, and that if the employee does so, then he must return the severance money.

So -- the CEO (Gene Nichol) receives money ("substantial economic incentives") from the board of directors (the Board of Visitors) to prevent him from claiming wrongful termination (essentially, “not to characterize [the non-renewal decision] as based on ideological grounds”). It appears, despite the best efforts of overzealous faculty and students, that this is not a bribe. And it is certainly not illegal. Besides, Mr. Nichol has the option of accepting the arrangement or not, which, obviously, he chose not to -- which is his right. By not accepting the agreement, however, he does have the freedom to paint the dismissal in whatever terms he wants -- after all, he is a lawyer. Keep this in mind when Student Assembly presidents -- or former university presidents -- attempt to accuse the BOV of bribery. [NCF]

Reactions thus far

2008-02-12T14:17:00.000-05:00

Nearly as soon as Gene Nichol announced his resignation in an e-mail this morning, students angry about the situation have been moving to create Facebook groups and events, rallies and other general protests against the Board of Visitors' decision, and even sit-ins -- all to communicate to the BOV some of the following gems from my fellow colleagues' Facebook statuses:

[...] is FLOORED. HOW DARE??!?!? BOV you disgust me. [...] is FUCK YOU BOV, GENE NICHOL KICKS ASSS. [...] says, "so who's next to go? will it be YOUR department? stay tuned to find out..." [...] loves nichol and hates w&m. [...] is disgusted at politics that had to slander a good man in an effort to get a pat on the head. [...] is really fucking pissed about gene nichol. i hate you, william and mary. fuck off.

These measured, tempered reactions to the BOV's decision clearly indicate the mature realization of our student body that sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. Sarcasm aside, I am not at all suggesting that students and faculty do not have the right to be upset, disappointed, angry, or hurt by the BOV's decision -- and I'm not decrying their Constitutional right to, of course, peaceably assemble in favor of Mr. Nichol. What I am saying, though, is that rabid, trigger-happy protestations such as these reflect poorly upon not only the individuals to whom they are ascribed, but to the pro-Nichol movement in general. It's ok to be upset. It's ok to be angry. But William & Mary is a school where -- until, say, today -- such inane commentary is not fostered and supported, but where clear, reasoned argument -- which can be made on both sides -- comes to the fore. And frankly, if you hate William & Mary, then please leave -- transfer elsewhere. Reasonable people can disagree on our president but still come together for the love of our school. If you can't do that, though -- with respect for dissonant opinions, but, more importantly, for your fellow students -- then you have no place in our community. [NCF]

The end of the Nichol era

2008-02-12T10:19:00.001-05:00

Announced today was the resignation of the College of William & Mary's embattled president, Gene R. Nichol. In an e-mail to students, Mr. Nichol cited several reasons for why his tenure at the College has been controversial, and why he thinks these "decisions, or sets of decisions" contributed to the decision of the Board of Visitors, under Rector Michael Powell, not to renew his contract:

...[T]he last sixteen months have been challenging ones for me and my family. A committed, relentless, frequently untruthful and vicious campaign -- on the internet and in the press -- has been waged against me, my wife and my daughters. It has been joined, occasionally, by members of the Virginia House of Delegates -- including last week’s steps by the Privileges and Elections Committee to effectively threaten Board appointees if I were not fired over decisions concerning the Wren Cross and the Sex Workers’ Art Show. That campaign has now been rendered successful. And those same voices will no doubt claim victory today.... Mine, to be sure, has not been a perfect presidency. I have sometimes moved too swiftly, and perhaps paid insufficient attention to the processes and practices of a strong and complex university. A wiser leader would likely have done otherwise. But I have believed, and attempted to explain, from even before my arrival on the campus, that an emboldened future for the College of William & Mary requires wider horizons, more fully opened doors, a broader membership, and a more engaging clash of perspectives than the sometimes narrowed gauges of the past have allowed. I step down today believing it still.

I admit, given my work as executive editor of The Virginia Informer, it is often easy to get caught up in "the cause" and forget that our president is a fallible human being. Make no mistake: I believe the BOV made the right decision in not renewing Mr. Nichol, who also made the right decision in officially resigning. Still, he is a human being and deserves dignity -- he also deserves to leave the Brafferton gracefully. I want to go on record now saying that, personally, this man deserves to step down in a dignified way. Kicking Mr. Nichol when he's down serves absolutely no purpose except the self-gratification of those who, in Mr. Nichol's own words, "will no doubt claim victory today." To sensationalize Mr. Nichol's resignation would not only make people like me -- and organizations like The Informer -- less effective and credible members of our community, but it would also -- perhaps more importantly -- make us worse people. I firmly believe this. Having said that, I also believe that this is a good day for the College. Campus will undoubtedly be an angry and gloomy place today -- but I think, given a long term perspective, the BOV did the right thing. Let us move forward from this, and let us, the members of the community -- faculty, staff, and students -- grant each other the ability to reunite behind our mutual love for the College of William & Mary. [NCF]

Oversight? What's that?

2008-02-11T00:39:00.000-05:00

On Friday, February 8, The Flat Hat printed a staff editorial entitled "GA inquiry troubling." The editorial asserted that the General Assembly acted inappropriately and outside of its bounds when a few of its members recently decided to call Board of Visitors members John Gerdelman, Kathy Hornsby, Anita O. Poston, and Henry Wolf -- all of whom are up for confirmation by the House of Delegates -- to Richmond. The purpose of the interview -- or, depending on which side of the issue you are on, interrogation -- was to hear these BOV members' opinions on recent William & Mary controversies in general, and their positions on President Gene Nichol in particular. The Flat Hat's ed board believes that

to hear four BOV members immediately prior to their confirmations smacks of political opportunism, micromanagement and is wholly inappropriate....That a few delegates might like to see the College’s BOV prospects grilled like Supreme Court nominees is worrying...[and that i]t will be exceedingly difficult for the College to maintain its reputation as a great and public institution if it is also condemned to being a ward of the state.

I doubt that The Flat Hat would knowingly chide the GA for doing its job. After all, as the governing legislative body of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the GA has, in government, something called "oversight." As William & Mary is a public institution, the GA, our overarching governing body, has the lawful right to monitor not only how its tax dollars are being spent, but also those in charge. Interestingly, The Flat Hat's ed board invokes Mr. Nichol's term of "great and public," but they fail to realize that they cannot have their cake and eat it, too. If our president and his followers wish to stress their desire for the College to become "great and public," they have to understand the political, legislative, and governmental realities that go along with that desire. The more "public" we are, the more government regulation we require. Conversely, the less public we are, the less regulation we require -- and, God forbid, if we were completely private, we would not only be insusceptible to volatile changes in the state budget, as we have seen recently, but no conservative or liberal lawmaker back in Richmond could tell us what to do with our own private dollars. And, for the record, all four of the BOV members that were "grilled" in Richmond were confirmed unanimously by the General Assembly on Friday. If the House of Delegates were really acting out of political opportunism, would these members have been confirmed? If you read The Flat Hat, the answer seems to be "no." [NCF]

Ignorance receives a platform, Part 3

2008-02-10T00:46:00.000-05:00

...Continued... 3. The final point that can be derived from Ms. Dietrich's piece is that

if you want a president who challenges and inspires his students, who defends their free speech even when it defies his own, and who puts himself out on a limb to try to elevate a great university, then look no further.

Ms. Dietrich claims that a "fund-raising robo-president programmed to shake hands, tell jokes and mix cocktails for alumni from a portable bar" is far worse than what the College currently has to work with -- and I fundamentally disagree. While being open to students is important -- and is something that, I must admit, Mr. Nichol has done a very good job of -- it is not a university president's primary role. A president acts as a representative of the school, putting on a good face to raise money, build good will, and form bonds and connections that will be useful for collecting future donations. Left-leaning President Emeritus Timothy "Timmy J" Sullivan understood this very well, checked his personal politics at the door, and was a hugely successful -- ie, lucrative -- representative for the College of William & Mary. Everybody loved him -- conservative, liberal, and other -- and he did great things for our school, as he acted in its best interests, rather than his own. This is the example we should be looking toward if we want to see a quality university president. Ms. Dietrich also posits that,

Love him or hate him, Nichol is precisely the sort of guy you want at the head of an institution of higher learning. You don't like controversy?

No, actually, I don't. And neither do alumni, donors, or the Board of Visitors. This fanciful notion of an avant-garde president who stretches convention and institutes all of these progressive, heart-warming measures to make us all better people is ignorant and self indulgent. It is a line of thinking obviously engendered by a severe lack of any experience -- or bad experience -- in the basics of public relations, fundraising, and organizational management. In the future, it would behoove The Daily Press to save their journalistic real estate for more thoughtful displays of support for a very divisive figure. [NCF]

Ignorance receives a platform, Part 2

2008-02-10T00:20:00.001-05:00

...Continued... 2. The second essential point Ms. Dietrich makes in her editorial is that

a batch of conservative alumni and state lawmakers with nothing better to rail against in Richmond want his head at the end of a pike....The ones hurting the university are the cadre of old-school grads who yanked their fund-raising pledges because they disagree with Nichol's philosophy of inclusion and allowing students to find their own voice...

What is so shocking about this statement is how uninformed it is. Had Ms. Dietrich talked to a number of current faculty, alumni, students, and others -- as I have -- she would realize that there are plenty of liberals who dislike Mr. Nichol -- not because of his political agenda -- but because he has become an ineffective leader and a divisive figure. The second crime committed in this editorial is that Ms. Dietrich abridges what is a very complex issue -- which includes political, religious, monetary, and economic considerations -- to simply "disagree[ing]" with "inclusion and allowing students to find their own voice." Yes, I'm sure that's what James McGlothin ('62) was thinking when he revoked a $12 million pledge -- which, by the way, Mr. Nichol lied about to the Board of Visitors -- how can I silence students' voices? And boy, do I hate others. By the way, our Supreme Court has decided that giving money is a form of freedom of speech -- the same applies to not giving money, to make a point. Surely Ms. Dietrich does not condemn Mr. McGlothlin exercising his free speech -- how unprogressive of her. [NCF] ...Continued above...

Ignorance receives a platform, Part 1

2008-02-09T21:57:00.000-05:00

On February 8, The Daily Press printed an op-ed by Tamara Dietrich entitled "Nichol is not the one who is hurting William and Mary." The overall message of the article can be easily distilled into three points, the first two of which are essentially untrue -- at least in the way they were presented in the editorial -- and the last of which, while certainly debatable, can be quickly dismissed after less than five minutes of rational thought:

1. "Thousands" of William & Mary students "adore" President Gene Nichol:

In short, his students adore him....Students overwhelmingly support Nichol...[who] has his outside detractors, but ...[is praised by students] for the unity he fosters on campus.

First of all, the above is a twisting of reality. While I give the pro-Nicholites deserved credit for amassing the approximately 400-strong rally they held on Thursday, the reality is that most students don't care one way or the other about Mr. Nichol. A few comments on The Daily Press' Web site in response to Ms. Dietrich's article sum this up nicely:

As an employee on the campus of W&M I can assure you that there WAS NOT thousands of students...supporting Nichol. Thousands would imply at least half the student population. I personally saw maybe a hundred or two at most over the course of the week....[T]his article was a "stretch" in the kindest assessment and a "fabrication" in the truest. Nichol is certainly not exactly the beloved leader that Ms. Dietrich impl[ies] here.

And:

I think the use of the word "adored" may be a wee bit strong. Plus, we only have 5500 students. "Thousands" were unlikely to have mobilized -- another article in your paper says 300.

And:

The student support of Nichol is grossly exagerated. Most students are apathetic, although some students are fanatical about him. Over 2,000 students joined the group against the new logo, but just 700 joined to show their support of Nichol. This is where student's [sic.] have their priorities.

Additionally, to praise Mr. Nichol for "the unity he fosters on campus" is simply a display of ignorance. Mr. Nichol has been one of the College's most divisive figures in its modern age -- whether you like him or not, and whether this division is justified or not, the utter lack of unity he has created is indisputable -- and to claim otherwise is nothing short of irresponsible.

[NCF]

...Continued above...

Final thoughts on CPAC

2008-02-09T21:43:00.001-05:00

This year's 35th annual Conservative Political Action Conference was my first political conference ever, and it was quite an experience. Of the few thousand people who attended the conference, there was a statistic floating around the hotel that nearly half of them were students. This pleased me to no end, as, coming from William & Mary, it is sometimes very easy to forget that there are people in my age demographic who actually believe in the correctness of conservative principles. What pleased me even more, however, was that a true zeal was exhibited by CPAC attendees of all ages and relative level of conservatism, a real fire which attracts people to national politics -- which begins, of course, with grassroots activism -- in the first place. Hearing people in the hotel restaurant or bar or lounging on the couches, talking about candidate viability, calculating delegate numbers, older attendees swapping stories about Ronald Reagan, etc., all was really quite inspiring. These are conversations that I wish would go on with much more frequency, say, at the College, even if the candidates in the discussion are not Republicans. We so often forget -- especially during an election year -- that we, as a voting citizenry, have a moral and ethical obligation, although not required by law, to be not only an informed electorate, but one which exercises our right to the franchise in the first place. Too many people -- especially young people -- eschew their right to vote through weak rationalizations of laziness or ignorance. The fact of the matter is, to be good citizens, we need to not only inform ourselves about the candidates and their positions, but, after doing so, exercise our right to have a voice in the American republican (small R) process. This is the biggest thing that I learned -- or, rather, relearned -- from attending CPAC. It is a valuable lesson. [NCF]

CPAC Overview: Day 3

2008-02-09T21:18:00.000-05:00

Today was the final day at CPAC. Governor Mike Huckabee spoke this morning at 9 am, although -- much like for President Bush's speech -- I had trouble mustering up the energy to get up and see him. The Spark Notes of Mr. Huckabee's speech indicate that he is continuing to fight on to the bitter end, and will not plan on giving Senator John McCain -- the now presumptive Republican candidate -- any more primacy than he already has. The reality is very simple. Mr. Huckabee will not get the nomination. There's really not much more to say about it than that, although a related -- and for more interesting -- discussion involves tossing around the idea that, while Mr. McCain will most assuredly receive the Republican nomination for president, how likely will it be that conservative Republicans actually vote for him? This question had been fiercely debated by everyone attending CPAC since Day 1, and even moreso today, as Mr. Huckabee is now the Arizona senator's only (minor) roadblock to the Republican nomination. And with Mr. Huckabee's arrival at CPAC this morning, with him came his ardent supporters. All day in the lobby of the Omni Shoreham Hotel in Washington, DC, Huckabee activists held up signs and wore t-shirts which read "MCCAIN = AMNESTY" on one side and "AMNESTY TRUTH SQUAD" on the other. Apparently illegal immigration is a big issue for these people. Today I also met my favorite conservative blogger, Ed Morrissey. Mr. Morrissey has been blogging now for several years, and alway offers a fresh, common sense perspective on a lot of issues. I highly recommend him to people on both sides of the political spectrum, as he will at least make you stop and think -- even if you don't agree. Mr. Morrisey blogged about Mr. Huckabee's performance this morning, saying that

[h]e wants to continue to press for the policy stands he has taken in his campaign, and feels the best way to do that is to continue that campaign until it comes to a natural end at the convention -- and as he put it, he "majored in miracles" in divinity college.
The miracles will not likely manifest themselves on the campaign trail, but his continuing efforts will not have a deleterious effect on the Republicans. The contest between McCain and Huckabee has remained highly collegial, and there is no reason to believe that it will deteriorate at this point. While it might distract from the effort at unity by the McCain camp for a couple of more weeks, it represents no threat to McCain's eventual ascension.

I am having trouble, however, nailing down the highlight of my day. One the one hand, I did get to see former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich come out of his Cadillac Escalade and walk into the hotel this morning -- I did get to shake his hand -- but on the other hand, I was about five feet away from Ann Coulter while she was doing a book signing. Yes, the rumors are true -- she is, in fact, quite skeletal, and not at all attractive. Also, I feel like if I shook her hand I might have broken it off. I think I'll go with Newt on this one. [NCF]

CPAC Overview: Day 2

2008-02-08T23:28:00.000-05:00

Yet another interesting day at CPAC 2008. In addition to almost seeing Ann Coulter, riding the elevator with Tom DeLay from the 7th floor to the lobby, participating in a very informative workshop on public speaking, and being quoted by a fellow blogger -- yeah, that last one is unrelated to CPAC -- I have had yet another full day here in the District. President Bush spoke here this morning at 7 am, and, I must admit, I did not muster up the energy to get up and go participate. After reading highlights from the speech and seeing some clips on television, it appears I didn't really miss much. One thing that definitely struck me, however -- so much so that I will let Mr. Bush's words simply sit for themselves -- was when Mr. Bush referred to Dick Cheney as "the best vice president in history." As supportive as I have been of both of these individuals -- admittedly, though, much less so over the past four years -- I find this sentiment to be a bit of a stretch. Ann Coulter was here at CPAC as well, although she was simply signing books and was not given a platform to make a public speech. I have a hunch that the organizers of CPAC didn't really feel like having yet another year in which Ms. Coulter referred to someone on national television as a "faggot," but maybe that's just me. Now, to be fair, I, too, found John Edwards to be the least masculine of the male candidates running for president -- Dennis Kucinich aside -- but resorting to petty namecalling is what we conservatives try not to do, unlike our friends across the aisle. Ann Coulter's writing is superb, I must admit, but I would not advocate going to hear her speak. Tomorrow morning is another early speech -- Governor Mike "I Heart" Huckabee. To think that this man may still have a fighting chance in this election frightens me somewhat. As I stipulated in an earlier post, with Mitt Romney out, I am forced to jump on the bandwagon of John "Mac is Back" McCain. Tomorrow's lineup for the conference looks pretty good overall, so hopefully I'll find some intellectually stimulating ways to entertain myself. If not, I'll just replay the transcript from Mr. Huckabee's speech tomorrow morning. [NCF]

Loving the College

2008-02-08T00:38:00.000-05:00

The College of William & Mary holds a very personal, very special place in my heart. My thoughts on our president aside, I cannot say enough good things about William & Mary -- so much so that I even applied for the job of, and became, a tour guide, who acts as the College's most personal, most tangible representative in pitching our fine institution of higher education to prospective students and their families. Earlier today, there was a rally for President Gene Nichol, who, after tomorrow, may learn that he will not have a continuing working relationship with the College after his contract expires this summer. According to several friends, the rally was well-attended, with numbers in the hundreds. Devan Barber ('08), a fellow student and someone with whom I have a close relationship, blogged today that she

[j]oined with several hundred other students who love William & Mary, and candles, and standing around in the cold, [and] I showed my support...[for] President Nichol....The experience reminded me of a few things: 1. I love this school, and so do the countless students and faculty who took time out of their evenings to come together for this event. 2. No matter how many inane, vile, anonymous comments the crazies leave on Flat Hat columns, Gene Nichol has (gasp!) done some good things! And people LIKE him, those HEATHENS!

The reason I mention Ms. Barber's post in particular is that I believe it typifies an attitude among the pro-Nicholites, which, ironically, is analogous to something within the realm of national politics as well. Allow me to explain: While I am not accusing Ms. Barber -- who is an extremely intelligent individual and whose writing, it should be said, is of good quality -- of saying that loving the College and disliking Mr. Nichol are mutually exclusive, many in the pro-Nichol lobby do truly believe that. And how does this relate to national politics? It comes from the many ignorant conservatives who wrongly believe that to question a president in a time of war is unpatriotic, unhelpful, and otherwise unworthy of further discussion -- a notion that, as a conservative, I firmly reject. Ms. Barber and the hundreds of other pro-Nicholites -- most of whom, it should be noted, are uninformed students -- also claim that Mr. Nichol has "done some good things!" I call on anyone in the pro-Nichol lobby to respond to this post in comments with these apparently obvious positives which I seem to be missing. My only request, though, is that these reasons be objective, measurable, and quantitative -- this is only fair, as his job description demands results based on those same criteria. In other words, at the end of the day, Mr. Nichol's success or failure as president -- as upsetting as this might be -- is not based on how many hearts he warmed, but, rather, on how many dollars he brought in. I love the College of William & Mary just as much as any other student here, and I will display my love for the Green and Gold until the day I die. The fact of the matter is, simply, that this does not require that I also like our president. [NCF]

CPAC Overview: Day 1

2008-02-08T00:04:00.000-05:00

Well, the opening day of my first conservative conference has come to a close. Although it's only Day 1, I have already met some truly fascinating people -- most of whom, it needs to be said, are much smarter than I -- and have engaged in some truly informed and challenging political discourse -- conservative to conservative, of course. For example, I talked for over an hour today with a man who works for RedBlue America, a Web site dedicated to "best thinking, both sides." We had one of the most intellectually engaging political conversations I've had in a while, discussing, among other things, the question of John McCain's (true) level of conservatism, my personally ideal candidate, the hypotheticals of Mitt Romney's success or failure leading up to the Republican National Convention -- were he still in the race -- and, also, President George W. Bush's role in what seems to be an apparent centralization of Republican politics. CPAC is an opportunity for likeminded conservatives to come together to discuss the issues, rally behind our fundamental values, and, hopefully, have a good time in the process. (Other than being charged $7.49 for a Tanqueray and tonic, I enjoyed myself tonight.) Speaking of Mr. Bush, he is speaking tomorrow morning, Friday, at 7:30 am. He hasn't spoken at CPAC for, as far as I know, the past two years -- why choose this year, one in which his political irrelevance could not possibly be overstated, to speak? Considering the fact that Mr. Bush is not a true conservative -- having done more to singlehandedly ruin the Republican Party in the past four years than any liberal in the same amount of time -- and that the Republican Party is preparing itself to nominate one of its most liberal members for the office of the president of the United States, Mr. Bush's presence at CPAC seems almost unnecessary. I'll wait for his comments tomorrow, however, to pass judgment. And, lastly, my favorite quote for today comes from fellow William & Mary student and CPAC attendee Jennifer Souers ('10):

"Hey Fitz, guess what? My shoe just made a date with your face."

[NCF]

A crucial weekend?

2008-02-07T17:08:00.000-05:00

This weekend's Board of Visitors meeting may prove to be a defining moment in President Gene Nichol's tenure at William & Mary. Rumors, as they tend to do, have been passed around among those both in and out of the know -- and, although nothing is certain, I have a feeling we may hear something about Mr. Nichol's future at William & Mary on Friday. I know I said in an earlier post that it may not be that we hear anything until March, but further complicating this situation is the fact that it appears members of the BOV have a peculiarly adept ability to talk -- as many politicians do -- out of both sides of their mouth. Some who have had significant access and facetime with members of the BOV claim that they are fully supportive of Mr. Nichol, while others -- with equally legitimate access -- say they have heard the exact opposite. Who is right? Complicating the political situation in Williamsburg -- and, now, Richmond -- even further is the "interview" process that four BOV members, all of whom are up for confirmation by the General Assembly, have to go through:

The chairman of the House Privileges and Elections Committee, Del. Mark L. Cole, R-Spotsylvania, has asked members of the William and Mary board of visitors who are up for confirmation to report to Richmond this week for a talk....Gov. Timothy M. Kaine made interim appointments to the board of visitors while lawmakers were not in session and now, the members have to confirm them....The members up for confirmation are John Gerdelman of Williamsburg, Kathy Hornsby of Williamsburg, Anita O. Poston of Norfolk and Henry Wolf of Norfolk.

Apparently, Mr. Cole -- right or wrongly -- believes that

[t]here has been "a lot of concern among some of the members [of the General Assembly] about some of the things that have been going on at William and Mary, and they would just like to talk to the board of visitors nominees before we [the General Assembly] confirm them to get their thoughts on it and to express their concerns with them"....

These "concerns," in part, have to do -- obviously -- with the Sex Workers' Art Show. In a recent letter to Mr. Nichol, for example, Delegate Brenda Pogge (R-York) wrote that

"[n]ot only has this controversy [over the Sex Workers' Art Show] brought considerable embarrassment to our community, but in my estimation this will inflict damage to the dignity and decorum that the college enjoys."

For the record, Mr. Nichol had little to do with the solicitation -- no pun intended -- of the Sex Workers' Art Show in coming to William & Mary, and nothing at all to do with its funding -- he said himself that he disapproved of the show. He did, however, have to make a decision to approve the venue for the show, which he said was protected by the First Amendment. With the BOV meeting already underway -- and certain BOV members being asked their thoughts, on record, with the General Assembly, which will take the members' testimony into consideration in future decision making -- this weekend could see an announcement of Mr. Nichol's future. [NCF]

At CPAC, Romney drops and McCain woos

2008-02-07T16:27:00.000-05:00

Although I was still on a train on my way up to the District when I heard the news, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has suspended his presidential campaign. This drop out of the race came as an absolute shock to everyone present at the speech. As stated in an earlier post, conventional wisdom suggested that Mr. Romney would have to make his final appeal at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference if he had any shot at taking the lead in Campaign 2008. To back out of the race at CPAC, I think, was certainly a politically interesting move, especially given the rationale provided by Mr. Romney:

"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."

So, apparently, in an effort to save both the party and the nation, Mr. Romney has, oh-so-heroically, stepped down. What is almost certain is that an agreement was brokered, a deal yet unknown, which would make the concept of stepping down from the presidential election at the biggest conservative event of the year somehow palatable for the former governor. Senator John McCain, on the other hand, appeared to gain momentum during his speech at CPAC today, given to a packed hotel ballroom. Mr. McCain delivered the speech deftly and with recently unseen energy, striking some very resonant chords with a crowd who, for the most part, is skeptical of the Arizona senator:

"I am proud to be a conservative, and I make that claim because I share with you that most basic of conservative principles: that liberty is a right conferred by our Creator, not by governments, and that the proper object of justice and the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens."

As expected, Mr. McCain painted himself as a true conservative -- someone who supports

"small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense; judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are the true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and unborn....You have heard me say before that...I have only found true happiness in serving a cause greater than my self-interest. For me, that cause has always been our country, and the ideals that have made us great. I have been her imperfect servant for many years, and I have made many mistakes...[f]or I know them well myself. But I love her deeply and I will never, never tire of the honor of serving her. I cannot do that without your counsel and support. And I am grateful, very grateful, that you have given me this opportunity to ask for it."

McCain / Huckabee 2008? Only time will tell. [NCF]

CPAC v. Romney

2008-02-07T00:01:00.000-05:00

Mitt Romney, like his challenger, will also have his work cut out for him at CPAC this year. The convention allows Mr. Romney one final appeal to the conservative base before he heads into what could be his last weeks of Campaign 2008. And although Super Tuesday is behind him -- perhaps his performance was not quite as noteworthy as some, including myself, have said -- he has an opportunity to energize the party and make a final push over Senator John McCain, who handily beat him on Tuesday. I admit, however, that this might be wishful thinking. Correspondents at The Politico do not even offer Mr. Romney the benefit of the doubt at this point, saying that

Mitt Romney came out of Super Tuesday with a serious problem. Huckabee’s success means he will not get the one-on-one race against McCain he has been hoping for. And his own failures -- he has yet to win a primary except in three states where he has deep personal roots -- mean his campaign increasingly exudes an air of implausibility, even desperation.

I would not say, yet, that Mr. Romney's campaign is implausible, or that the former governor is desperate -- I would save those words for after CPAC, where it is very likely that Mr. McCain could go down in flames in front of an unwelcoming crowd. Mr. Romney may get a bump, not from anything of his own doing, but rather from Mr. McCain's inability to relate to the conservative base, for whose votes both men are currently fighting. Generally speaking, I would wait until after CPAC has concluded to suggest Mr. Romney should throw in the towel. Truthfully, however, it must be acknowledged that, after this weekend, Mr. McCain might be the one "Republican" candidate left standing. [NCF]

CPAC v. McCain

2008-02-06T22:32:00.000-05:00

Tomorrow I will be off to Washington, DC, for the weekend to attend CPAC, the Conservative Political Action Conference. It is an annual event which brings together the biggest names in American conservatism, local grassroots activists, the media's conservative talking heads, political pundits, and everyone in between. This year's attendees include President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, presidential candidate Senator John McCain, and presidential candidate and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, just to name a few. The fact that this year is a presidential election year will make CPAC particularly interesting. This convention is the biggest, most important event for conservatives all year -- which means Messrs. McCain and Romney will have to make some serious appeals if they want to gain much-needed traction. For Mr. McCain -- whose many conservative detractors fault him for being closer in ideology to Senator Hillary Clinton than, say, Ronald Reagan -- it will probably be one of the most important speeches of his political career. Mr. McCain will have to convince a throng of mostly discontented conservatives -- who have gathered in the District to rally behind, and reaffirm their belief in, traditional, conservative values -- that he is the new Ronald Reagan. I predict, though, that his appeals will be uninspiring -- especially given his voting record. Jed Babbin's column today makes this supremely clear:

Very few of the 2008 CPAC crowd will see McCain as the successor to Reagan and Reagan’s principles. McCain has sacrificed conservatives’ fundamental beliefs throughout his Senate career....If he fails at CPAC -- and doesn’t win the CPAC straw poll (he finished dead last in 2007) -- the word will be out that the conservatives are off his team this year....McCain has to finish first at CPAC or risk a disunited party this fall.

I will be posting several times throughout the day while at CPAC, and even attempt a live-blogging session if the logistics allow for it. Needless to say, it should be an interesting time. [NCF]

Super Tuesday and my endorsement

2008-02-06T00:29:00.000-05:00

With the final Super Tuesday votes from the West rolling in, and FOX News calling California for Senator John McCain, it has come time for me to officially get behind a candidate. As I've been telling friends of mine, as a conservative I finally know what it must have felt like for Democrats in 2004, ie, do I support the candidate that I think can win, even though I don't like him -- or, as might be the case in this election year, her -- or do I vote for the person who most closely supports my values even though they will probably lose? I gave myself until Super Tuesday to make a full-fledged decision -- taking into account the progress, or not, made by the candidates, and also the American people's input -- and have decided that, despite Mr. McCain's recent surge in popularity as a "moderate" Republican over these past few weeks, I have no choice but to get behind Mitt Romney. Mr. Romney most closely reflects the conservative principles that I value -- personal responsibility, low taxes, small government, national optimism -- while Mr. McCain -- whom I consider to be a very liberal Republican, at best -- has a voting record not so far from that of his colleague, the lady senator from New York, who also happens to be running for president. That being said, I happen to align quite nicely with Minnesota blogger and radio talk show host Edward Morrissey's position on the 2008 election. His blog post on the subject is quite a perfect summary of my own feelings, and I could not say it any better myself. We both agree that

Romney is not a perfect candidate. We don't have any perfect candidates. In fact, I could still support...McCain, or Mike Huckabee without reservation in a general election against either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. I think, though, that Romney has the most staying power, the better argument, and the best resume of the remaining Republican candidates.... I want to emphasize the point that I have no problem supporting John McCain in a general election against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama if he wins the nomination. Elections are about choices and reality, not fantasy.

The fact of the matter is that this is still an open contest. Mr. McCain won nine states tonight, Mr. Romney seven -- and Governor Mike Huckabee comes in, having swept the south, with five. This is very much anyone's race. And despite the fact that everytime I see Mr. Romney on TV I feel like he's trying to sell me a used car, the fact is, he's the best Republican candidate for the job. With Super Tuesday behind them, the candidates -- both Democrats and Republicans -- have now entered into a much different political climate. Let's see what they can do with it. [NCF]

Got capital? Part II

2008-02-05T22:01:00.000-05:00

The Daily Press printed an article today regarding comments made by Republican Delegate Tim Hugo of Fairfax County, a William & Mary graduate. Mr. Hugo stated that

the College of William and Mary "is becoming a joke" after hosting the Sex Workers' Art Show on Monday and an earlier controversy over the display of a cross...[which] have hurt the university's standing at the General Assembly, where lawmakers decide funding for everything from faculty salaries to research efforts. The mention of William and Mary in the halls of power "elicits snickers and off-color jokes that were probably funny the first 15 times that I heard them," Hugo said. "William and Mary's stock relative to the other institutions is plummeting."

For those who think that news of this is nothing but rumor and conjecture -- a crazy, diabolical scheme created by the top editors of The Virginia Informer, of which, in the interest of full disclosure, I am one -- they are simply wrong. This is not the first time that a state lawmaker has come out against the College and its current leadership. I wrote an op-ed on this issue in the January 30 issue of The Informer, which posited that

Mr. Nichol’s political capital is completely spent due to poor handling of several controversial issues over the past two years, [which] means he no longer has the ability to bargain effectively for the College in the halls of the General Assembly.
As a result, Mr. Nichol has forced the College into a financial corner in which it does not belong. And while it is true that Mr. Nichol and his “colleagues…will be in Richmond often” this semester -- and that the majority of the student body loves our president to a degree that would make even a lemming stop and think -- it is nothing more than a waste of gas, emanating...from Mr. Nichol’s mouth...

The proof, I think, is in the pudding -- and by pudding, I mean budget cuts and harshly negative words from lawmakers who decide how much money we get and how we operate. I hate to harp on Mr. Nichol, but, again, he is garnering our university yet more negative press. [NCF]

Desperation is a stinky cologne

2008-02-05T13:25:00.000-05:00

Well, the pro-Nichol lobby here at William & Mary is at it again. (I'm glad they are, because it gives me something to blog about.) Yesterday, I saw that I had been invited to the "SUPPORT NICHOL? ORDER OFFICIAL T-SHIRT TODAY!" Facebook event. Obviously this had to be a cruel joke, as anyone who knows me understands I have no respect for Gene Nichol -- this is for a number of reasons already enumerated through a variety of campus media, so I will spare the details. (If anyone wants to ask me about why I don't like our College's current president, I will be happy to tell them, but otherwise consider my reasons so enumerated.) The event's picture is the t-shirt's design -- a bright yellow background, green lettering, and a sketch of the Wren building -- which states: "If President Nichol's Not Welcome Here...THEN NEITHER AM I." The t-shirts are being sold before this weekend's Board of Visitors meeting, at which an official decision regarding Mr. Nichol's future at the College may be reached -- probably, though, this announcement will be postponed until their March meeting. Yet again, the pro-Nichol movement is forced to play to the emotions -- rather than the intellect -- of our generally disinterested student body. The pro-Nicholites understand that objective, quantitative statistics are not on their side -- again, if someone asks me for the gory details, I will be happy to provide them -- so they are forced to attack from an emotional, rather than thinking, standpoint. The premise of the t-shirt appears to be a poorly feigned attempt at taking a definitive stand on the issue -- as if people who proudly wear these shirts are putting their college careers on the line. Graduating seniors aside, I would be extremely hard-pressed to find even one student who would drop out of, or transfer from, William & Mary, simply because Gene Nichol's contract does not get renewed. Please correct me if I'm wrong -- until then, to the 213 members of this event, put your t-shirt where your mouth is. To me, this is nothing more than a sign of desperation from the pro-Nicholites. It appears as if, at this point, they are fighting an uphill battle, being forced to use the most unimaginative methods -- do the wearers of these shirts really feel unwelcome at William & Mary? -- in attempting to get their point across. [NCF]

Third time's the charm?

2008-02-04T23:43:00.002-05:00

I know, I know -- this has happened before. Fitz decides to start a blog that he will ultimately be unable to maintain with any regularity. Well, I consider this [one of] my last attempt[s] at breaking into the Blogosphere in my own right. As you all know, I have a lot to say -- whether for better or worse is for others to decide. I have charged myself with the task of posting at least once a day on an issue or event that is campus related. That is not to say that I will not spill over into national news or politics -- after all, this is election season -- but I will try to keep the blogs relevant, and relatively brief. Otherwise, I will have no chance -- nor will I deserve one -- of keeping anyone who decides to read this blog interested. In regards to the title of the blog, The Sun Also Rises -- written by Ernest Hemingway -- is my favorite novel of all time. The title of Hemingway's book comes from Scripture:

But the earth abides forever. The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose. The wind goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit. -- Ecclesiastes 1:4-6 (NKJV)

It is a passage about the perpetual, cyclical nature of life, its up and its downs, something that speaks very closely, I think, to a healthy college experience. These past two and a half years I have called Williamsburg my home, and in that time I have had plenty of ups and downs. I hope, this time, I keep myself motivated enough to keep my blog up and running. The election season, among a number of other events occurring in my life now, have inspired me to give this one more shot. Let's see how it goes. [NCF]