For Sale: History
Tasked with tracking a number of properties, the Real Estate Editor has the busiest job at wmrw.com. Of course there’s the site of Robert’s murder, the previous home of the defendants, 1509 Swann Street; the 16th Street apartment they lived in after the murder and the McLean home in which they all share now.
There is the investment property portfolio too: The Silver Spring condo Joe owned that his brother Michael and partner Louis Hinton lived in; Joe’s Dupont Circle condo on R Street, and of course the Miami Shores home that Dylan was holed up in prior to his arrest and extradition back to DC. And finally, the home in Northeast DC targeted in a search warrant early in the investigation.
We came across this real estate listing for a home in Chevy Chase DC. Held open this Sunday from 130pm-430pm, the ask is a reasonable $850,000, and in addition to it being a classic pre-war home in a highly desirable neighborhood, you’re buying a piece of First Amendment history.
The connection to the Wone case? None. The connection a previous owner has to our mission? Inseparable. Mentioned in a post a few months back, the man who lived there from 1940 – 1970 is a guiding light for what we strive to do here. Iconoclastic journalist I.F. Stone called 5618 Nebraska Avenue home.
Stone started in journalism as a teen in the 1920’s only to find himself virtually excommunicated from the press corps and much of official Washington in the early 1950’s. In 1953 he began self-publishing (blogging as the kids say these days) a four-page weekly newsletter that he helmed until 1971.
A role model for independent journalists, he fought the biggest of the big and the worst of the worst: McCarthy’s witch-hunts, Hoover’s abuses, Nixon’s criminality and more than often Stone found himself at odds with a lethargic and compliant Washington press corps.
Known for his towering intellect, curiosity and indefatigable ability to chase leads and develop sources, Stone scoured the official records and public documents covering stories unseen elsewhere.
Although the real estate listing provides no clue to the home’s past celebrated owner, we sniffed this out using the available databases and the public records. Izzy’s tried and true methods can still pay off.
Daybook: On Monday we begin a countdown to a key anniversary, August 2. Two weeks out from that fateful date the advanced planning for Robert’s overnight stay began, although some were clearly not looped in.
-Craig
Thanks, Editors, for this post. One can never have too much historical context!
In pursuit of what actually happened on August 2, 2006, you (and your hundreds of commentators) are taking your readers to places which entrenched interests and establishments (both gay and mainstream) would prefer all of us not to go.
I used to live near there. Stone rhymes with Wone. Keep muckraking guys.
On his alt.com site, Joe Price described himself as “extremely liberal,” a term that Stone would have used to describe himself. Did Counselor Price, however, think that he would be hoisted on his own petard (a line popularized by Shakespeare, by the way) and by his own purported principles?
Regarding drugs, on that same site, he checked prefer not to say. Why would one display such coy reticence on that behavior, while proudly pronouncing every other imaginable preference?
Lawyers must be concerned with “moral turpitude” to maintain bar membership – my guess is that he would not want to be on record as having a habit of breaking laws. I know this is laughable in view of all that has transpired – BUT consensual adult sexual behavior is not illegal, but drugs are. His “prefer to not say” would be a way of saying “YEP” without being concerned that someday someone would find his profile. My two cents.
I agree with your “two cents” interpretation here, Bea. I think that Joe on some level thought (post-murder) that this site would be found and that his most intimate behaviors (whether illegal drug use or legal consensual sex) would be discovered. A cry for help, or a continued testing of the boundaries of the permissible?
I just hope that, after the trial and probable conviction, at the very least, his moral turpitude may preclude him from ever being part of the bar again.
Clio,
I think he figured that his intimate sexual behaviors would be revealed in the course of an investigation/trial since multiple photographs pointing in that direction were found on his computers (work and home) but I don’t think he figured a website dedicated to the murder was in the offing.
David
David, I certainly agree with you on his astonishment at WMRW.com, but my reference was to his alt.com site, which apparently was still up and running into early 2009. Why would anyone, even Joe, still be looking in that way, given what has happened?
It seems that everything Joe does flies in the face of authority.
His personalty so fits that of a narcissist.
Keeping the alt.com profile active seems typical of a personality like that. “I’ll do whatever I want.”
“A continued testing of the boundaries of the permissible,” as Bea says, seems very plausible.
O.K., Joe’s character (or lack of it) is finally starting making sense to me. Over fifty years ago, psychologists trying explain why some people blindly followed totalitarian regimes of their day came up with “the authoritarian personality.” Like most theories of the 1940s, it has been challenged and largely refuted. Yet, there is one insight coming out of that work that may be useful here: Joe himself seemed/s to be always challenging authority (in some very reckless manifestations), but he maintained/s tight control of his subordinate/compliant dependents. So, given the comments so far, the constant authority-challenger is insisting on everyone in his own sphere of influence to tow his line. This would be a variation on the authoritarian personality trying too hard to please higher-ups or authorities, while abusing those below one in any hierarchy. So, in this scenario, instead of the infamous “kiss-up, kick-down” management attributed to one Bush official in particular, Joe’s way is that of the rebel-dictator, in which mortal rules apply only to others under his sway. The common theme for these powertrippers, as CD has reiterated many times, is maximal self-absorption, or “narcissism.”
One may want to be careful when applying the term “liberal.” My sister is a liberal which makes her the most conservative member of my family. I.F. Stone shared the politics of my parents who were more than “fellow travelers.”
Many in community call themselves liberal on account of their views on Gay and related issues, but would not otherwise be so regarded.
For example, there are Republicans — even conservatives — such as members of Log Cabin who are liberal on social issues.
Joe Price was an Eagle Scout and President of his class at an other than politically liberal college. Same Sex Marriage groups such as “Equality Virginia” are not hotbeds of radicalism. True radicals seek out other outposts for their activism.
While I support the efforts of Radio Free Asia, it is also not as radical an org as one might suspect.
Radicals do not become real estate lawyers at major law firms even if that is what some may think necessary to pay back student loans.
This is not to disparage anybody’s politics, but merely to put them into perspective by one who has spent a lifetime in the human rights movement including participation in protests against Tianamen Square at the time and participation in the rallies and demonstrations surrounding the Stonewall Rebellion as well as membership in the SCLC, NOW and NGLTF.
True, but Joe (and employee/ward Dylan) did at least pose as liberals in Virginia and did help to transform Equality Virginia from the cozy yet marginal Virginians for Justice (VJ) to the more effective and “professional” Human Rights Campaign Lite that it is today. Between 2003 and 2006, Joe and Dylan helped to have EV to reach out to other social justice groups such as the ones that you list, and Joe even served as a board member of the Virginia Organizing Project, a network of progressive community activists and organizers from around the Old Dominion.
EV’s transformation, by the way, was resented by some old VJers, who greeted the awful news of August 2, 2006 with a more than a touch of Schadenfreude. EV’s transformation also could be quite Machiavellian, however: when an “out” lesbian accountant was running for City Treasurer in a Virginian port in the spring of 2005, EV (under Joe’s leadership) went out of its way to endorse her opponent — the establishment, former speaker of the state house — for the post because he could be a more influential “friend” and because the fight against the marriage amendment was already on the horizion (and EV needed those “blue dogs” on board).
Muckraking and investigative journalism are essential.
But why so shy about I.F. Stone’s true life passion? He was a staunch believer in the principles of Marx.
Sad that so many young people believe there were zero Americans working for the KGB during the cold war just because some others were unfairly accused of such activity.
But it was real, documented and confirmed by Russian source material after the USSR dissolved.
If he really cared about the plight of people, I.F. would have spent his life uncovering the massive injustices perpetrated on the people living under Communism in the USSR. But of course, no muckrakers were allowed there and Izzy believed in the fairy tale of socialism.
True. Joe Price does remind me (in some very limited and superficial ways) of another Joe, of whom Stone and other radicals of his generation were not critical enough: Stalin!
Reality – I think the jury is still out on Izzy’s exact involvement with Verona. The Right has been long determined to hang him for years, but it still remains unclear the level of his involvement.
I’d wager he was developing sources rather than passing classified information.
From his wiki page: According to Stone’s biographer, Myra MacPherson… the FBI never identified Blin/Pancake as I.F. Stone…. The FBI contended that Blin must have been someone “whose true pro-Soviet sympathies were not known to the public…” and hence could not have been Stone, who, on the contrary, far from being “fearful,” did not hide his beliefs. Indeed, rather than wishing to avoid FBI attention as BLIN reportedly did, I.F. Stone made a point of suggesting to the Soviet press attache Oleg Kalugin that they lunch together at Harvey’s, a favorite Hoover haunt, in order to “tweak his [the F.B.I. Director’s] nose.”
And for the record – Izzy was was more Trotskyite than Stalinist and as the new Guttenplan bio states, he voted for Ike in 1952. Go figure.
REALITY CHEQ/CRAIG
I would agree that I.F. Stone was a Marxist who may not have been critical enough of the Russian revolution and its aftermath. This is not to say that he was either a Stalinist or a Russian spy.
Clio
I agree generally with your analysis of Joe Price’s role in Equality Virginia and I had at least mixed
feelings about that organization’s support for a former speaker of the Virginia House whose support for LGBT rights was questionable.
Personally, I think of Human Rights Campaign as a middle-of-the-road organization. I volunteered for then National Gay Task Force (later National Gay & Lesbian Task Force) from 1977 thru 1982.
For what it’s worth, recently resigned NGLTF Exec Director, Matt Foreman, was a year behind me at NYU Law School and his involvement was later.
While I would consider the Task Force to be to the Left of HRC, I am not sure I would classify it as left-wing organization. In the early days of LGBT Rights Movement, I was involved with the Gay Liberation Front, Gay Activists Alliance and Workers World Party — all of which I woud characterize as being to the Left of most LGBT Rights organizations at the present time.
Notwithstanding that the Mattachine Society was founded by Marxist labor organizer, Harry Hay, it was not a radical organization. On the other hand,
the Daughters of Bilitis founders, Phyllis Lyons and Del Martin were radical feminists and it could be said that DOB was to the Left of Mattachine.
Thanks, Editors, for this post. One can never have too much historical context!
In pursuit of what actually happened on August 2, 2006, you (and your hundreds of commentators) are taking your readers to places which entrenched interests and establishments (both gay and mainstream) would prefer all of us not to go.
I used to live near there. Stone rhymes with Wone. Keep muckraking guys.
On his alt.com site, Joe Price described himself as “extremely liberal,” a term that Stone would have used to describe himself. Did Counselor Price, however, think that he would be hoisted on his own petard (a line popularized by Shakespeare, by the way) and by his own purported principles?
Regarding drugs, on that same site, he checked prefer not to say. Why would one display such coy reticence on that behavior, while proudly pronouncing every other imaginable preference?
Lawyers must be concerned with “moral turpitude” to maintain bar membership – my guess is that he would not want to be on record as having a habit of breaking laws. I know this is laughable in view of all that has transpired – BUT consensual adult sexual behavior is not illegal, but drugs are. His “prefer to not say” would be a way of saying “YEP” without being concerned that someday someone would find his profile. My two cents.
I agree with your “two cents” interpretation here, Bea. I think that Joe on some level thought (post-murder) that this site would be found and that his most intimate behaviors (whether illegal drug use or legal consensual sex) would be discovered. A cry for help, or a continued testing of the boundaries of the permissible?
I just hope that, after the trial and probable conviction, at the very least, his moral turpitude may preclude him from ever being part of the bar again.
Clio,
I think he figured that his intimate sexual behaviors would be revealed in the course of an investigation/trial since multiple photographs pointing in that direction were found on his computers (work and home) but I don’t think he figured a website dedicated to the murder was in the offing.
David
David, I certainly agree with you on his astonishment at WMRW.com, but my reference was to his alt.com site, which apparently was still up and running into early 2009. Why would anyone, even Joe, still be looking in that way, given what has happened?
It seems that everything Joe does flies in the face of authority.
His personalty so fits that of a narcissist.
Keeping the alt.com profile active seems typical of a personality like that. “I’ll do whatever I want.”
“A continued testing of the boundaries of the permissible,” as Bea says, seems very plausible.
O.K., Joe’s character (or lack of it) is finally starting making sense to me. Over fifty years ago, psychologists trying explain why some people blindly followed totalitarian regimes of their day came up with “the authoritarian personality.” Like most theories of the 1940s, it has been challenged and largely refuted. Yet, there is one insight coming out of that work that may be useful here: Joe himself seemed/s to be always challenging authority (in some very reckless manifestations), but he maintained/s tight control of his subordinate/compliant dependents. So, given the comments so far, the constant authority-challenger is insisting on everyone in his own sphere of influence to tow his line. This would be a variation on the authoritarian personality trying too hard to please higher-ups or authorities, while abusing those below one in any hierarchy. So, in this scenario, instead of the infamous “kiss-up, kick-down” management attributed to one Bush official in particular, Joe’s way is that of the rebel-dictator, in which mortal rules apply only to others under his sway. The common theme for these powertrippers, as CD has reiterated many times, is maximal self-absorption, or “narcissism.”
One may want to be careful when applying the term “liberal.” My sister is a liberal which makes her the most conservative member of my family. I.F. Stone shared the politics of my parents who were more than “fellow travelers.”
Many in community call themselves liberal on account of their views on Gay and related issues, but would not otherwise be so regarded.
For example, there are Republicans — even conservatives — such as members of Log Cabin who are liberal on social issues.
Joe Price was an Eagle Scout and President of his class at an other than politically liberal college. Same Sex Marriage groups such as “Equality Virginia” are not hotbeds of radicalism. True radicals seek out other outposts for their activism.
While I support the efforts of Radio Free Asia, it is also not as radical an org as one might suspect.
Radicals do not become real estate lawyers at major law firms even if that is what some may think necessary to pay back student loans.
This is not to disparage anybody’s politics, but merely to put them into perspective by one who has spent a lifetime in the human rights movement including participation in protests against Tianamen Square at the time and participation in the rallies and demonstrations surrounding the Stonewall Rebellion as well as membership in the SCLC, NOW and NGLTF.
True, but Joe (and employee/ward Dylan) did at least pose as liberals in Virginia and did help to transform Equality Virginia from the cozy yet marginal Virginians for Justice (VJ) to the more effective and “professional” Human Rights Campaign Lite that it is today. Between 2003 and 2006, Joe and Dylan helped to have EV to reach out to other social justice groups such as the ones that you list, and Joe even served as a board member of the Virginia Organizing Project, a network of progressive community activists and organizers from around the Old Dominion.
EV’s transformation, by the way, was resented by some old VJers, who greeted the awful news of August 2, 2006 with a more than a touch of Schadenfreude. EV’s transformation also could be quite Machiavellian, however: when an “out” lesbian accountant was running for City Treasurer in a Virginian port in the spring of 2005, EV (under Joe’s leadership) went out of its way to endorse her opponent — the establishment, former speaker of the state house — for the post because he could be a more influential “friend” and because the fight against the marriage amendment was already on the horizion (and EV needed those “blue dogs” on board).
Muckraking and investigative journalism are essential.
But why so shy about I.F. Stone’s true life passion? He was a staunch believer in the principles of Marx.
Sad that so many young people believe there were zero Americans working for the KGB during the cold war just because some others were unfairly accused of such activity.
But it was real, documented and confirmed by Russian source material after the USSR dissolved.
If he really cared about the plight of people, I.F. would have spent his life uncovering the massive injustices perpetrated on the people living under Communism in the USSR. But of course, no muckrakers were allowed there and Izzy believed in the fairy tale of socialism.
True. Joe Price does remind me (in some very limited and superficial ways) of another Joe, of whom Stone and other radicals of his generation were not critical enough: Stalin!
Reality – I think the jury is still out on Izzy’s exact involvement with Verona. The Right has been long determined to hang him for years, but it still remains unclear the level of his involvement.
I’d wager he was developing sources rather than passing classified information.
From his wiki page: According to Stone’s biographer, Myra MacPherson… the FBI never identified Blin/Pancake as I.F. Stone…. The FBI contended that Blin must have been someone “whose true pro-Soviet sympathies were not known to the public…” and hence could not have been Stone, who, on the contrary, far from being “fearful,” did not hide his beliefs. Indeed, rather than wishing to avoid FBI attention as BLIN reportedly did, I.F. Stone made a point of suggesting to the Soviet press attache Oleg Kalugin that they lunch together at Harvey’s, a favorite Hoover haunt, in order to “tweak his [the F.B.I. Director’s] nose.”
And for the record – Izzy was was more Trotskyite than Stalinist and as the new Guttenplan bio states, he voted for Ike in 1952. Go figure.
REALITY CHEQ/CRAIG
I would agree that I.F. Stone was a Marxist who may not have been critical enough of the Russian revolution and its aftermath. This is not to say that he was either a Stalinist or a Russian spy.
Clio
I agree generally with your analysis of Joe Price’s role in Equality Virginia and I had at least mixed
feelings about that organization’s support for a former speaker of the Virginia House whose support for LGBT rights was questionable.
Personally, I think of Human Rights Campaign as a middle-of-the-road organization. I volunteered for then National Gay Task Force (later National Gay & Lesbian Task Force) from 1977 thru 1982.
For what it’s worth, recently resigned NGLTF Exec Director, Matt Foreman, was a year behind me at NYU Law School and his involvement was later.
While I would consider the Task Force to be to the Left of HRC, I am not sure I would classify it as left-wing organization. In the early days of LGBT Rights Movement, I was involved with the Gay Liberation Front, Gay Activists Alliance and Workers World Party — all of which I woud characterize as being to the Left of most LGBT Rights organizations at the present time.
Notwithstanding that the Mattachine Society was founded by Marxist labor organizer, Harry Hay, it was not a radical organization. On the other hand,
the Daughters of Bilitis founders, Phyllis Lyons and Del Martin were radical feminists and it could be said that DOB was to the Left of Mattachine.
Thanks, Editors, for this post. One can never have too much historical context!
In pursuit of what actually happened on August 2, 2006, you (and your hundreds of commentators) are taking your readers to places which entrenched interests and establishments (both gay and mainstream) would prefer all of us not to go.
I used to live near there. Stone rhymes with Wone. Keep muckraking guys.
On his alt.com site, Joe Price described himself as “extremely liberal,” a term that Stone would have used to describe himself. Did Counselor Price, however, think that he would be hoisted on his own petard (a line popularized by Shakespeare, by the way) and by his own purported principles?
Regarding drugs, on that same site, he checked prefer not to say. Why would one display such coy reticence on that behavior, while proudly pronouncing every other imaginable preference?
Lawyers must be concerned with “moral turpitude” to maintain bar membership – my guess is that he would not want to be on record as having a habit of breaking laws. I know this is laughable in view of all that has transpired – BUT consensual adult sexual behavior is not illegal, but drugs are. His “prefer to not say” would be a way of saying “YEP” without being concerned that someday someone would find his profile. My two cents.
I agree with your “two cents” interpretation here, Bea. I think that Joe on some level thought (post-murder) that this site would be found and that his most intimate behaviors (whether illegal drug use or legal consensual sex) would be discovered. A cry for help, or a continued testing of the boundaries of the permissible?
I just hope that, after the trial and probable conviction, at the very least, his moral turpitude may preclude him from ever being part of the bar again.
Clio,
I think he figured that his intimate sexual behaviors would be revealed in the course of an investigation/trial since multiple photographs pointing in that direction were found on his computers (work and home) but I don’t think he figured a website dedicated to the murder was in the offing.
David
David, I certainly agree with you on his astonishment at WMRW.com, but my reference was to his alt.com site, which apparently was still up and running into early 2009. Why would anyone, even Joe, still be looking in that way, given what has happened?
It seems that everything Joe does flies in the face of authority.
His personalty so fits that of a narcissist.
Keeping the alt.com profile active seems typical of a personality like that. “I’ll do whatever I want.”
“A continued testing of the boundaries of the permissible,” as Bea says, seems very plausible.
O.K., Joe’s character (or lack of it) is finally starting making sense to me. Over fifty years ago, psychologists trying explain why some people blindly followed totalitarian regimes of their day came up with “the authoritarian personality.” Like most theories of the 1940s, it has been challenged and largely refuted. Yet, there is one insight coming out of that work that may be useful here: Joe himself seemed/s to be always challenging authority (in some very reckless manifestations), but he maintained/s tight control of his subordinate/compliant dependents. So, given the comments so far, the constant authority-challenger is insisting on everyone in his own sphere of influence to tow his line. This would be a variation on the authoritarian personality trying too hard to please higher-ups or authorities, while abusing those below one in any hierarchy. So, in this scenario, instead of the infamous “kiss-up, kick-down” management attributed to one Bush official in particular, Joe’s way is that of the rebel-dictator, in which mortal rules apply only to others under his sway. The common theme for these powertrippers, as CD has reiterated many times, is maximal self-absorption, or “narcissism.”
One may want to be careful when applying the term “liberal.” My sister is a liberal which makes her the most conservative member of my family. I.F. Stone shared the politics of my parents who were more than “fellow travelers.”
Many in community call themselves liberal on account of their views on Gay and related issues, but would not otherwise be so regarded.
For example, there are Republicans — even conservatives — such as members of Log Cabin who are liberal on social issues.
Joe Price was an Eagle Scout and President of his class at an other than politically liberal college. Same Sex Marriage groups such as “Equality Virginia” are not hotbeds of radicalism. True radicals seek out other outposts for their activism.
While I support the efforts of Radio Free Asia, it is also not as radical an org as one might suspect.
Radicals do not become real estate lawyers at major law firms even if that is what some may think necessary to pay back student loans.
This is not to disparage anybody’s politics, but merely to put them into perspective by one who has spent a lifetime in the human rights movement including participation in protests against Tianamen Square at the time and participation in the rallies and demonstrations surrounding the Stonewall Rebellion as well as membership in the SCLC, NOW and NGLTF.
True, but Joe (and employee/ward Dylan) did at least pose as liberals in Virginia and did help to transform Equality Virginia from the cozy yet marginal Virginians for Justice (VJ) to the more effective and “professional” Human Rights Campaign Lite that it is today. Between 2003 and 2006, Joe and Dylan helped to have EV to reach out to other social justice groups such as the ones that you list, and Joe even served as a board member of the Virginia Organizing Project, a network of progressive community activists and organizers from around the Old Dominion.
EV’s transformation, by the way, was resented by some old VJers, who greeted the awful news of August 2, 2006 with a more than a touch of Schadenfreude. EV’s transformation also could be quite Machiavellian, however: when an “out” lesbian accountant was running for City Treasurer in a Virginian port in the spring of 2005, EV (under Joe’s leadership) went out of its way to endorse her opponent — the establishment, former speaker of the state house — for the post because he could be a more influential “friend” and because the fight against the marriage amendment was already on the horizion (and EV needed those “blue dogs” on board).
Muckraking and investigative journalism are essential.
But why so shy about I.F. Stone’s true life passion? He was a staunch believer in the principles of Marx.
Sad that so many young people believe there were zero Americans working for the KGB during the cold war just because some others were unfairly accused of such activity.
But it was real, documented and confirmed by Russian source material after the USSR dissolved.
If he really cared about the plight of people, I.F. would have spent his life uncovering the massive injustices perpetrated on the people living under Communism in the USSR. But of course, no muckrakers were allowed there and Izzy believed in the fairy tale of socialism.
True. Joe Price does remind me (in some very limited and superficial ways) of another Joe, of whom Stone and other radicals of his generation were not critical enough: Stalin!
Reality – I think the jury is still out on Izzy’s exact involvement with Verona. The Right has been long determined to hang him for years, but it still remains unclear the level of his involvement.
I’d wager he was developing sources rather than passing classified information.
From his wiki page: According to Stone’s biographer, Myra MacPherson… the FBI never identified Blin/Pancake as I.F. Stone…. The FBI contended that Blin must have been someone “whose true pro-Soviet sympathies were not known to the public…” and hence could not have been Stone, who, on the contrary, far from being “fearful,” did not hide his beliefs. Indeed, rather than wishing to avoid FBI attention as BLIN reportedly did, I.F. Stone made a point of suggesting to the Soviet press attache Oleg Kalugin that they lunch together at Harvey’s, a favorite Hoover haunt, in order to “tweak his [the F.B.I. Director’s] nose.”
And for the record – Izzy was was more Trotskyite than Stalinist and as the new Guttenplan bio states, he voted for Ike in 1952. Go figure.
REALITY CHEQ/CRAIG
I would agree that I.F. Stone was a Marxist who may not have been critical enough of the Russian revolution and its aftermath. This is not to say that he was either a Stalinist or a Russian spy.
Clio
I agree generally with your analysis of Joe Price’s role in Equality Virginia and I had at least mixed
feelings about that organization’s support for a former speaker of the Virginia House whose support for LGBT rights was questionable.
Personally, I think of Human Rights Campaign as a middle-of-the-road organization. I volunteered for then National Gay Task Force (later National Gay & Lesbian Task Force) from 1977 thru 1982.
For what it’s worth, recently resigned NGLTF Exec Director, Matt Foreman, was a year behind me at NYU Law School and his involvement was later.
While I would consider the Task Force to be to the Left of HRC, I am not sure I would classify it as left-wing organization. In the early days of LGBT Rights Movement, I was involved with the Gay Liberation Front, Gay Activists Alliance and Workers World Party — all of which I woud characterize as being to the Left of most LGBT Rights organizations at the present time.
Notwithstanding that the Mattachine Society was founded by Marxist labor organizer, Harry Hay, it was not a radical organization. On the other hand,
the Daughters of Bilitis founders, Phyllis Lyons and Del Martin were radical feminists and it could be said that DOB was to the Left of Mattachine.