GOPinionPlus

Election Official's Night Before Christmas

2010-12-21T18:28:00.002-05:00

ELECTION OFFICIAL'S NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS

By: J. Patrick Kelly

‘Twas the night before Christmas, and all through the house

Not a creature was stirring, not even a computer mouse;

The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,

In hopes that no recall petitions would be there;

The employees were nestled all snug in their beds,

While visions of recounts danced in their heads;

And ma in her kerchief, and I in my cap,

Had just settled down with a hot toddy and our big furry cat,

When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,

I sprang from my bed to see what was the matter!

Away to the window I flew like a flash,

Tore open the shutters, and threw out the trash.

The moon on the breast of the new fallen snow

Gave the luster of a lobbyist all warm and aglow,

When what to my wondering eyes did appear,

But a slick politician with an entourage of reindeer.

With a little old driver, so lively and quick,

I knew in an instance he was up to some trick.

More rapid than eagles his courses they came,

And he whistled and shouted and called them by name;

“Now Press Corps! Now Publicists! Now Focus Groups all!

Now dash away! Dash away! Dash away all!”

And then in a twinkling, I heard on the roof

The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.

As I drew in my hand, and was turning around,

Down the chimney came the politician with a bound!

He was dressed all in fur and diamond and rings;

And his clothes were all polished and his teeth were so clean!

No bundle of toys were flung on his back,

It was easy to tell he was a political flack!

A wink of his eye and a twist of head,

Soon gave me to know I had a lot to dread.

He spoke many words and went straight to work,

Insuring that his message was full of all sorts of quirks.

He demanded his party lists and his precincts like loot,

But he let out a howl when the dog bit his boot!

He threw me his campaign finance forms with flourish and glee,

He knew he had all the money washed carefully.

And laying his finger aside of his nose,

And with a spin of his head, up the chimney he rose!

He sprang to his limo, to his PR team gave a whistle,

And they all flew away like the down of a thistle.

And I heard him exclaim as through the Midnight he flew,

“Trust me dear Voters, I’m here to help you!”

What a difference a week makes!

2010-12-08T13:52:00.000-05:00

The Baltimore County Republican Central Committee took some time to get organized. After three meetings in four weeks, they seemed to find their sea legs and get down to business.

The first meeting got off on the wrong foot.

The next meeting was, well, something.

On Monday, December 6, 2010, though, things were different. First was the pre-meeting meeting of the Lincoln/Reagan Dinner Planning Committee. What do you think?

In the meeting that followed, everybody focused on doing business. See?

They finished quickly and were joined by the 42nd District Republican Club, many party activists and elected officials for a Holiday Celebration.

Throughout, all doors, if not minds, were wide open.

Next stop - MDGOP Convention!

Signs of the Times

2010-08-25T15:52:00.003-04:00

During two of the last three weeks, my wife and I were visiting the panhandle of Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.

During visits to four Alaskan communities during the two weeks preceding the primary election, we saw a total of one political campaign sign. That sign, attached to the second floor façade of a home on a hill in Ketchikan, was the size of a standard yard sign. We had to look up to see it! It was for the incumbent U.S. Senator, Lisa Murkowski.

Last week, we travelled through Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and Utah. Travelling east to west across Washington over two days, we saw three yard signs. Their primary election was that week.

Idaho was bereft of political signs, as was Montana. No signs were evident in Utah, either. I am betting Brigham disapproved.

Wyoming had the mother lode, it seems. On one vacant corner of an intersection of two six-lane roads, in what claimed to be a town, there were as many as ten signs ranging in size from yard size to 4X8. Then, in Afton, a town of 100 homes, there was a sign in the window of a store.

There was an archway over Main Street that purports to be constructed of more elk antlers that any other arch on the world, and one political sign. We were there on Wednesday, one entire day after the statewide primary, so we figured everyone running for office had travelled across the state and collected all the signs after the polls closed on Tuesday.

That’s plausible, isn’t it?

What should Judge Sweeney do about Sheila?

2009-12-01T13:49:00.004-05:00

Mayor Sheila Dixon of Baltimore was convicted, after more than forty hours of deliberation of keeping and using gift cards given to her as Mayor to dispense to needy citizens of Baltimore.

This is punishable by up to five years in prison. Additionally, a conviction requires the Mayor to resign the office.

The Judge can strike the verdict if he does not believe the evidence supported the jury finding. Should he?

The Judge can strike the verdict and enter a finding of probation before judgement the effect of which is to vacate the conviction and permit the Mayor to continue in office. Should he?

If convicted, the Mayor will definitely appeal the conviction. The Judge can hold off on the finding of guilt, and the attendant penalties, pending the appeal. Should he?

What do you think?

WALK NAKED IN AMERICA DAY

2009-11-19T15:32:00.001-05:00

Don't neglect to mark your calendars. As you may already know, it is a sin for a Muslim male to see any woman other than his wife naked. He must commit suicide if he does.

Therefore, next Saturday at 4 PM Eastern Time, all American women are to walk out of their house completely naked to help weed out any neighborhood terrorists. Circle your block for one hour for this anti-terrorist effort.

All patriotic men are to position themselves in lawn chairs in front of their house to prove they are not Muslims and to demonstrate they think it's okay to see nude women other than their wife and to show support for all American women.

Since Islam also does not approve of alcohol, a cold 6-pack at your side is further proof of your anti-Muslim sentiment. The American government appreciates your efforts to root-out terrorists and applauds your participation in this anti-terrorist activity.

God bless America! It is your patriotic duty to pass this on. If you don't send this to at least 5 people, you're a terrorist-sympathizing, lily-livered coward and are in the position of posing as a national threat.

Obituary – Common Sense (London Times)

2009-11-10T07:25:00.001-05:00

Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was. His birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape.

He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as:

- Knowing when to come in out of the rain;

- Why the early bird gets the worm;

- Life isn't always fair;

- and maybe it was my fault.

Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge).

His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place:

- Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate;

- teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch;

- and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition.

Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children.

It declined even further, when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sunscreen or an Aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion.

Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault.

Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims.

Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement.

Common Sense was preceded in death:

- by his parents, Truth and Trust;

- by his wife, Discretion;

- by his daughter, Responsibility and

- by his son, Reason.

His four stepbrothers survive him:

- I Know My Rights

- I Want It Now

- Someone Else Is To Blame

- I am a Victim

Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.

If you still remember him, pass this on.

If not, join the majority and do nothing.

Would you have approved?

2009-10-21T08:48:00.001-04:00

Passed on to me from my old friend Phil –

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and referred to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created positions for 32 Czars reporting directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within ten years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can't think of anything?

Don't worry. He's done all this in five months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.

The Tea Party the Media Missed

2009-10-19T10:47:00.001-04:00

The media downplayed this event from September and granted both advance announcements and two days of coverage to the two thousand GLBT attendees last week.

The folks who took these shots were there.

Don't forget. Don't argue over the little issues on the fringe.

It is because our Freedom is at risk that these people assembled.

This is the first great conservative anti-statist manifestation in American history. The conservative movement, which developed in the post-WWII, Cold War environment has now fully matured into the most significant political movement of the 21st century. I believe that this day could be referred to in the not too distant future as the day that changed America. This was the day the great silent conservative majority finally found its voice.

Many of the attendees were quite meek and timid and were unsure of exactly what to expect, this being the first time in their lives they'd been involved in a protest movement. Their fears evaporated early in the day and I saw people reveling in the camaraderie , the joy and sheer civility that was exhibited at the entire event. Chants of "Freedom, freedom, freedom", "No more czars! No more czars!" carried through the air without the slightest hint of rancor or incivility which is the norm at the leftist rallies I have photographed over the years.

The two photos above show a tiny fraction of the two million ABC estimates attended. I saw signs and heard lots of comments comparing this event to Woodstock. At the time this photo was taken, around 1:00 p.m., Pennsylvania Avenue was still jammed completely, and the mall was packed from the Capitol Building past the Washington Monument. See aerial photos here.

Protesters came from every state in the union. This man came from San Antonio, TX. He said that he was really sorry he hadn't brought his family. He stated that being a black conservative he was afraid to expose his children to what he expected would be a lot of liberal abuse. He was thrilled with the tenor of the event and the fact that no liberals were present to harass him. He spoke about how incredibly intolerant the left is to black individuals who don't bow to the party line.



These Ohioans took a day off their rodeo bullriding schedule. They said they'll be back at it tomorrow.

Mike Pence (R-Indiana) was one of the speakers who addressed the crowd: "After years of fighting runaway government on this hill, you people look like the cavalry to me..I believe we are on the verge of a great American awakening."

San Diego radio host Mason Weaver said from the podium: "I came here because I thought you might want to hear a black man speak without a teleprompter…This government is trying to make a nation of dependent people. Americans have always been independent people…This is not a Republican thing, it's not a Democrat thing. It's not a black thing or a white thing. It's an American thing…We the people are telling them 'No more! We've had enough!"



In the very center of the photo, above the Silence is Consent – Can You Hear Us Now sign, you can see Pennsylvania Ave., which at this time is totally blocked with protesters who cannot move forward to the Capitol area. Sorry, full up.

There were notable differences though, in the behavior of these attendees. Although the legend of Woodstock is that there was a friendly atmosphere of camaraderie, the truth is that most people were there for the drugs, sex and rock and roll. Today in D.C. there was a true kinship amongst these people based on shared values and intellectual understanding of what America is and how its future is imperiled by big radical government.

No one was having sex in the Reflecting Pool let alone the mud, and I saw no one projectile vomiting on the steps of the Capitol. There were no warnings to avoid the bad acid which would send you on a trip to the hospital. Not just a different era, but a different level of civilized behavior and thought. Oh, and by the way, these people didn't leave tons of garbage behind when they left. Actually they left no trash behind at all.



Obama Lied, Capitalism Died.

We are the mob!

    Support Class Envy! Redistribute Wealth.

Madam Speaker: Kiss Our Astroturf!

    The Only Thing We Have to Fear is Obama Himself     – - –    Compassion is Voluntary, Not Compulsory!

WALNUT – Workers Against Lazy Non-Producers United Together — the conservative answer to ACORN. Didn't have to ask them if they were receiving any taxpayer money like radical left-wing ACORN. Different DNA!

Proud members of the "Angry Mob" and they're armed with their votes.

   Your wallet…the only place Democrats are willing to drill! – Don't share my wealth – share my work ethic!

   Right-wing extremist armed with the constitution.

Who are the commie czars?

Marxism – the opiate of the asses – Posters from the Peoples Cube are proliferating amongst protesters.

Stop Making Profit! — Report all Capitalist Activities to flag@whitehouse.gov

World's #1 Crypto-Marxist. Endorsed by Fidel Castro: The most powerful progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency." – GRANMA, Havana, May 26, 2008

Nancy Pelosi has accused patriotic tea-partyers of "carrying swastikas" implying that they are Nazi sympathizers. This event was wall to wall hammers and sickles and words like "socialist" "communist" and "Marxist" etc. It continues to fascinate me how long the Democrats will tolerate this without ever commenting on it. Either they like it, or there's something to it.

Ever present at Tea Parties are Sons of Liberty reenactors. The couple on the left is from Tennessee and the young lady on the right is not but she joined in the photo. The clothing for the couple was hand stitched by the lady on the left.

Karl Rove Plays Nice with Children

2009-09-19T05:36:00.003-04:00

Karl Rove made a public appearance in the Baltimore area on September 16, 2009 at Goucher College to a sold out auditorium.

From Karl Rove at Goucher College September 16, 2009

In making their way from the parking lot, the attendees were exposed to the looney left screaming, "Karl Rove. You can't hide." Reminiscent of a small child caught out of bed after being tucked in, the childish performers scurry back into the area set aside for them to avoid the Baltimore County Police maintaining order. Um, folks. It was a public appearance open to the public with free admission, advertised for months in advance. Accusing Rove of "hiding" established your credibility for everything else you said.

As the evening got underway, Goucher President Ungar opened with, "Good evening," sparking the first of about two dozen interruptions by those who could not keep themselves under control. Great job by the Goucher President in setting the rules early. And a super job by the Baltimore County Police in removing the miscreants, efficiently and professionally.

Great event. Good remarks from Rove providing a new perspective on what it was like to work in the White House surrounded by the history of the occupancy and works of our political leadership over the last two centuries. Rove's conversation with President Ungar established the former's grasp of facts and events and the latter's reliance on the Bush Administration's political opponent's framing of issues.

The usual Baltimore County Republican suspects were there: Ellen (no honorary title or last name necessary), Delegate Aumann, Delegate Frank, Martha Klima, Chairman Chris, Woody, Joan, Ann, Phil, the Cap'n, Leslie, Tim, and Dave Wallace, to name a few.

There were strong contingents from the Goucher and UMBC CRs. The CDs executed a strategy of dominating the Q&A by positioning members along the aisle and rushing to the microphone lines ahead of others, shutting out all but one conservative voice from those asking questions, or, more accurately, stating theses based on inaccuracies, falsehoods and fantasies. Rove was respectful as he answered them, and passionate when they attacked America, the American Vision, and America's accomplishments that permit each of us to have the American Dream.

You should have been there.

The Bronze Rat

2009-09-08T10:18:00.001-04:00

A Tourist walked into a Chinese curio shop in San Francisco. While looking around at the exotic merchandise, he noticed a very lifelike, life-sized, bronze statue of a rat. It had no price tag, but was so incredibly striking the tourist decided he must have it. He took it to the old shop owner and asked, "How much for the bronze rat?"

"Ahhh, you have chosen wisely! It is $12 for the rat, $100 for the story," said the wise old China man. The tourist quickly pulled out twelve dollars. "I'll just take the rat, you can keep the story."

As he walked down the street carrying his bronze rat, the tourist noticed that a few real rats had crawled out of the alleys and sewers and had begun following him down the street. This was a bit disconcerting so he began walking faster.

A couple blocks later he looked behind him and saw to his horror the herd of rats behind him had grown to hundreds, and they began squealing. Sweating now, the tourist began to trot toward the Bay. Again, after a couple blocks, he looked around only to discover that the rats now numbered in the MILLIONS, and were squealing and coming toward him faster and faster. Terrified, he ran to the edge of the Bay and threw the bronze rat as far as he could into the Bay.

Amazingly, the millions of rats all jumped into the Bay after the bronze rat, and all were drowned.

The man walked back to the curio shop in Chinatown.

"Ahhh," said the owner, "You have come back for story?"

"No sir," said the man, "I came back to see if you have a bronze Democrat."

(This has made the rounds. I am certain. I do not know who the originator is.)

News Flash

2009-09-08T10:11:00.001-04:00

Ted Kennedy becomes eligible to vote in Chicago .

(The above is not original Material. The original source is unknown.)

Be mine

2009-09-04T13:41:00.002-04:00

Ah! The sound of the water.

Baltimore County Police Officers directing things and making inspections.

Not one, but two helicopters hovering overhead, their cameras recording every action on the street.

Crowds watching; curious.

It could be but one thing.

Delegate Bromwell, not to be outdone by Delegate Cardin, must be proposing something to someone!

I rushed to the scene. Camera in hand and pressed "record". I love getting pictures of gummint officials.

It's only a water main break. Everyone can relax.

I AM A REPUBLICAN BECAUSE . . .

2009-05-12T14:54:00.001-04:00

At the beginning of President George W. Bush's first term, Carl Rove predicted a Permanent Republican Majority for America. The press picked up that prediction and ran with it. With the exception of Ike's term, Rove had lived in a nation with a seemingly permanent Democratic majority.

By the time of the second George W. Bush inaugural the media believed Rove's prediction. What a difference the next two congressional elections wrought.

The young Turks of the Republican Party of Rove's youth had political beliefs and followed a creed. The party saw success with Nixon's two elections, success that was squandered by a failure to live up to those beliefs. The Republican Party was declared dead and buried, again.

But, from the first inaugural of Nixon, the Republican Party held the White House for all but twelve of the next thirty-six years.

It was lost after our representatives failed to live up to the beliefs of the Party; failed to follow the Creed. The Carter presidency was an interruption, an aberration. Then there were the Reagan years and the first Bush presidency, which ended with a failure to live up to the beliefs of the party.

During the Clinton administration, Republicans returned to their beliefs and were chosen by the people to govern. George W. Bush ran on those beliefs and was elected twice. When Republicans failed to walk the walk, they were required to stand down.

Congress did not walk the walk consistently and therefore did not do as well. As representatives strayed, the voters selected others. As the beliefs fell by the wayside, so did the incumbents.

The Republicans had the harder job. They had a clear and unambiguous set of beliefs. All the Democrats had to do was look for the weak Republican. During the last two congressional elections the voters chose someone else over the people who left their beliefs behind. So, what were those beliefs? What is this Creed? Here:

I AM A REPUBLICAN BECAUSE . . .

I believe that the strength of our nation lies with the individual and that each person's dignity, freedom, ability and responsibility must be honored.

I believe in equal rights, equal justice and equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, sex, age or disability.

I believe free enterprise and encouraging individual initiative have brought this nation opportunity, economic growth and prosperity.

I believe government must practice fiscal responsibility and allow individuals to keep more of the money they earn.

I believe the proper role of government is to provide for the people only those critical functions that cannot be performed by individuals or private organizations and the best government is that which governs least.

I believe the most effective, responsible and responsive government is government closest to the people.

I believe Americans must retain the principles that have made us strong while developing new and innovative ideas to meet the challenges of changing times.

I believe Americans value and should preserve our national strength and pride while working to extend peace, freedom and human rights throughout the world.

Finally, I believe the Republican Party is the best vehicle for translating these ideals into positive and successful principles for government.

The Republican Creed

(as written on the gravestone of Lee Atwater)

I Do Not Choose To Be A Common Man.

It Is My Right To Be Uncommon.

I Prefer The Challenges

Of Life To Guaranteed Security,

The Thrill of Fulfillment To The

State Calm of Utopia.

I Will Never Cower Before Any Master,

Save My God.

When Republicans stand for their beliefs and walk the walk, they will return to electoral success.

Annapolis Tax Day Tea Party

2009-04-04T06:48:00.001-04:00

The American Family Association points out that: "The new $3.6 trillion budget includes a deficit of $1.2 trillion. One third of the budget is deficit spending, MONEY WE DON'T HAVE! That is on top of the $12 trillion we already owe." President Obama and members of Congress don't seem to care that the debt they are piling on our children and grandchildren will rob them of the right to enjoy the American dream that we have been blessed to experience.

This is the first opportunity for a massive demonstration of outrage at the IRRESPONSIBLE FISCAL POLICIES in Washington. Please turn out and make you voices heard – loud and clear. The word is spreading well, but it would help if you would pass this on to everyone you know! Bring your homemade signs.

THE MARYLAND TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION

Invites you to the

Annapolis Tax Day Tea Party

Come one, come all!

April 15, 2009

Noon to 2 pm

Where- Annapolis Dock

At bottom of Main St

Join Us!

For an exciting afternoon on the dock!

Ellen Sauerbrey

4122 Sweet Air Road

Baldwin Maryland 21013

ellensauerbrey@comcast.net

410-592-6707

That picture don’t mean nuthin”.

2009-03-06T09:14:00.001-05:00

Rod Blagojevich, Barack Obama and Richard Daley during a rally in Chicago , April 16, 2007. Photo Reuters.
Rod Blagojevich (Democrat), Barack Obama (Democrat), and Richard M. Daley (Democrat - Mayor of Chicago since 1989)

To understand the next 4 years, you have to understand the world according to Chicago .

While it is a city in Illinois, it is also a completely different country, with a whole different set of morals and language.

There are only three rules which anybody can understand. You don't even need an attorney to understand them and if you need an attorney, well, you know too much...so look out for Rule #3!

RULE #1...No matter what you see, hear, or do, you don't know anybody and you don't know nothing!
RULE #2...If you capture something on tape or camera, it doesn't reveal nothing!

RULE #3...If you know what everybody knows in Chicago , well, you still don't know nothing.

Now pay close attention! We don't want to have to say this more than once. It's very simple...we'll illustrate. Remember, you know nothing.

These two? They don't know each other! They said they didn't.

The fellas in the background of this picture? Well, what fellas? We don't see nothin'!

The guy on the left? For all you know he's Santa Claus. And the guy on the right . . .well, he's the Easter Bunny! That's all you need to know.

Go to your eye doctor...your eyes are lying to you! Ca'pish?

Remember Jimmy Hoffa! He knew too much and now, well, now no one knows where he is. Is the big picture clear? Not these pictures! Remember. You've already forgot them.

Now, ain't that simple? They don't know each other, 'cause they said so! And, neither do we!

And don't forget it!

P.S. If you pass this on to your friends, don't forget, you know nothing and they will know nothing.

Credit and my thanks to Chez Miller for sending this to me.

Ravens Going to the Playoffs. Do you want tickets?

2008-12-21T10:46:00.002-05:00

Whew!
What a week for Ravens' fans. One win stolen took us all down, then one game won decisively kept us on the edge of our seat until the end! Could you believe that last three and one-half minutes!
The playoffs look to be in the Ravens' future. Are they in yours?
The Timonium Optimist Club and Foundation, Inc. is selling raffle tickets for each playoff game the Ravens appear in.
The tickets are only $5.00 each and there are only three hundred tickets available!
Get your raffle tickets now by sending me a comment that indicates how many tickets you want! (There are not three hundred available. They are selling as you read this.)
Get your raffle tickets.
In the event the Ravens do not make the playoffs, extremely unlikely now, the winner of the 12/31/08 raffle will take home $400.00!

Are you ready for some Ravens Playoff Football Tickets

2008-12-15T06:50:00.002-05:00

Friends and Family who are Ravens' fans:

Some of you may know that the Timonium Optimist Club & Foundation, Inc., an IRC 501(c) (3) tax exempt corporation, raffles off a pair of Ravens' season tickets each summer as one its our fundraising projects. Since the team may be headed for post-season play, the club has exercised its option to buy tickets for any post-season home games. We have organized a rush raffle of the tickets. Here is how it works:

· We will sell only 300 raffle tickets at $5 each. (Not bad odds!)
· Every ticket sold will be good for a chance to win two tickets to the first playoff game. When the Ravens win, everyone’s ticket goes back into the pot for a chance at the next game – potentially three drawings.

Wildcard game drawing: Dec. 31
Division playoff game drawing: Jan. 7
AFC Championship game drawing: Jan. 14

If the Ravens do not make the playoffs, the default prize is $400.

Proceeds, of course, go to support the Timonium Optimist youth programs and projects. Checks should be made payable to "Timonium Optimist Foundation."

If you would like to purchase tickets for this raffle, please let me know by email ASAP. I will make every effort to get tickets back to you in time to use as stocking stuffers -- no problem for those of you who live close enough to Baltimore that I can deliver them personally. (If you are further away, you could always put an IOU in the stocking.)

FYI, the seat location is Section 513, Row 14, Seats 1 and 2 (center end zone).
eBay listings for tickets in similar locations for two seats to the wildcard game are offered for $390. Championship tickets are going for $750.

Merry Christmas and good luck!!

Is Voter Fraud Everywhere?

2008-10-22T10:17:00.002-04:00

Bernie Thomas, the Baltimore Examiner News and Traffic Examiner, diverged a bit into the voter fraud fray. The story is worth a read and the video clips worth watching. As with everything on the internet, though, keep your critical thinking cap on.

A couple of minor points, if I may, on the combined article:

Voter ID was challenged and ended up getting to the Supreme Court. At no level in the trial process did the opponents produce one witness who was deprived of their vote because they showed without ID or stayed home because they did not have ID. It is a theory, not supported by evidence.

Registered voters are not removed from the voter rolls because of foreclosure. A person may challenge the residency of a voter, but if the voter produces acceptable evidence of residency in the precinct or election district, they will be permitted to vote without prejudice or further checking. If the voter does not have evidence, but is a registered voter, they will be permitted to vote a provisional ballot and take up to six days to show up at the election office with their evidence. What is evidence? Governments ID, a current bill from a utility or correspondence from a government agency to the claimed residence are acceptable. The challenged voter can display a voter registration card, a social security card, or an employee photo ID. The only legal basis for a challenge is the identity of the voter, not their residency.

Voter-roll purges are not an evil designed by the Republican Party. Changing your address with the Board of Elections is low on most people's priorities when they are moving. If the move takes place within the state, the system will catch up with them when they show at a poll or they will get a prod when they change their drivers' license address or vehicle registration.

The story relates no identified unlawful voters. Not true now. Voters have been identified in several states. Perhaps the AAG in the story was fired for not doing a good job. Government appointees are often fired without any explanation of cause. All of those so fired will plead no fault in their work. All of their superiors will privately find fault with the employee.

The story also mentions something that greatly concerns me. ACORN checks 100% of the voter registrations that their agents collect. Someone other than an election official is looking at those applications before the voter is registered. Who can say that the applications were completed? Who can say that the information reflects the registrant's wishes? What if the registrar advises the registrant, correctly, that they need not affiliate with a party?

Many, many people believe two things about party affiliation. One is that their party primary is always distinct from the primary for other parties. This true in some states, but not in all. The other thing is that they must vote only for candidates of their party, even in the General Election. This last belief ends up in people not voting when they are unsatisfied with party nominee. However, in this case, we have the opportunity for ACORN staffers to review applications and send on the ones they want, with the potential to assign party affiliation. Increases in a party's registrations results in the other party's members staying home. Voter suppression is the technical term for this.

Voter-roll accuracy requires a great deal of coordination between many agencies of governance and the Board of Elections in each county in the country. People who move, people who die, people convicted of felonies, people who served their punishments are all classes of voters whose records should be updated.

Some convicted felons lose the vote. (Are these the people we want choosing our leaders and setting our policies?) The courts are required to notify the Board of Elections of felony convictions. When the felon has served their time and made required restitution, the right to vote should be returned. We ask the voter to notify the Board of Elections to ensure that the voter registers in the correct Election District so that they receive the full right to vote an entire ballot.

Dead people rarely notify their local board. The folks who settle the estate rarely think about notifying the local board. Surely, the Department of Health will take care of that. Until recently, there was no requirement for such notifications. Now, when the notification comes, a typo in an eighty-year-old birth certificate may result in no-match with the voter registration record. The typo issue can work both ways, by the way. Local Boards have received notice of a death with absentee ballots sent in by spouses. Some of the ballots are voted! Can a dead person vote by absentee ballot if the Board of Elections isn't aware of the death? Can a spouse who does not like the other's vote report them dead on the ballot? Can a spouse or caretaker vote an absentee ballot after the death of the voter? Presently, there is no way the local board of elections can know.

(In Maryland, there is a ballot question to amend the state Constitution to permit early voting. If a person votes early, and dies before Election Day, should their vote count? How would we know which vote not to count since every ballot is secret? Can you say, "Early voting is another bad idea."?)

. . . Fear Itself, and Absentee Ballots

2008-10-15T12:58:00.002-04:00

Professor Schaller makes several good points against early voting, all of them valid. The proposal in Question 1 has the additional downside of placing the early voting locations in places not necessarily friendly to all voters in the county.

Let's look at some additional factors. Ballots are not finalized until forty-five days before the election, provided that the courts do not uphold one of the several challenges to questions and issues proposed for a ballot.

Each county, as has been pointed out by Marylander, does not use the same ballot. Even within an election district in Baltimore County, there will be more than one ballot. This is worse during Gubernatorial Primaries and General Elections. Adjacent election precincts can have different State senators and Delegates, different Congressional Representatives, different County Council Members and more. To have forty different ballots in a county is not unreasonable. This bill allows any registered voter to vote anywhere in the state! Good luck getting all of the ballots in the state to every county polling place.

Beyond the logistics of producing, printing, distributing and securing ballots, there are the voting equipment, staffing and security issues. Local boards currently pull hens teeth to get an adequate number of election judges and train them before and for one Election Day. This question requires judges for ten days before the election.

The real problem with this question lies in the other part of it.

Absentee ballots are the most fraud prone of all voting methods. It is bad that a person not entitled to vote can cast a vote and cancel the vote of a legally qualified citizen. Most people illegally present in the country do not want to call attention to themselves, but there are significant numbers in some precincts that will lie on the application regarding citizenship and vote.

The less risky way for those voters and those who would try to influence the election results through fraud is through the Absentee vote. Let me explain.

A person not entitled to vote registers fraudulently, and then requests an absentee ballot. They execute the ballot and mail it in, never having to risk physical apprehension or identification and challenge. They merely submit a copy of the driver's license issued by the MVA to thousands of aliens every day. But it can be worse.

An organization of individuals could obtain a list of voters, active and inactive, from the local board of elections. They could then identify individuals who, by their history, are not likely to vote. The perpetrators of the fraud would then send in a change of address for each identified voter. When the change is effective, they send in a request for an absentee ballot and then vote that ballot. If the voter shows up at the precinct, the poll book will show that an absentee ballot was requested and the voter will vote a provisional ballot.

Absentee ballots are counted on the Thursday after the election. While that counting is going on, the Provisional Ballots are reviewed and entered into the election files. If an absentee ballot has been received, the provisional ballot is rejected. The fraudulent absentee ballot is counted. The real voter is confused. Confidence in the electoral system is undermined. Very few voters will have shown up and even fewer will challenge what happened. None of the votes will be changed because the systems ensure that each ballot counted is not identifiable with a voter.

What if such an effort only resulted in fifteen votes in each precinct? There are 219 precincts in Baltimore County. Fifteen fraudulent votes in each would result in 3285 votes.

There are about 487,570 registered voters in the county according to the State Election website as of October 1, 2008. If there is 75% turnout, 365,678 voters, one percent could be fraudulent. The numbers could easily be higher without raising an alarm.

In the past ten Presidential elections there have been, on average, five states with more than fifty electoral votes total that have been decided by less than one percent of the popular vote. Those numbers could have changed three of those elections.

I do not have actual vote totals for the states in those ten elections, but I think that several states might have turned on less than one percent of the vote. This is how an election can be stolen with the help of legislatures.

Instead of making it easy to register and vote, we should make it harder for frauds to be committed. Perhaps we can ask for new signatures every five years. Or, sit down for this one, requiring a photo id at the polls and with absentee ballots. Copies are easy to get. A person's agent can take the id to the local copy center, library, post office, or law office to get one.

States should spend the money on signature recognition software and hardware. It's on the market. It processes the applications and flags the signatures that don't match for a human to deal with. Currently, we rely on humans, very few of them and none of them trained in handwriting analysis, to catch this. The results are abysmal.

By the way, it is not the ACORN attempts to register Mickey Mouse and the NFL Cowboys that will result in fraudulent votes. It is the fictitious persons, registered by mail with fraudulent identification cards, made for just that purpose, which will defraud the voters.

Voter Registration Numbers Are Not Reliable Indicators of Results

2008-10-06T11:28:00.002-04:00

On October 5, 2008 Baltimore Sun columnist Dan Rodricks blogged about the voter registration for young people in Maryland. This was preceded on October 2 with a post about an elected Republican changing his party affiliation to unaffiliated and the dire condition of the Republican Party in Maryland.

Dan: Some facts.

The State Board of Elections didn't whimsically reinstate a policy allowing 17-year-olds to cast ballots or register to vote. The Attorney General opined that since someone who was eighteen on General Election Day could vote in that election, the same person should be entitled to vote in the Primary Election that selected the nominees for the ensuing General Election.

In Baltimore County, Republican registrations had been gaining on Democrats for the ten years prior to 2004. The gains were in hundredths of points, but they occurred every month.

In the last five months, the months for which I have figures handy, the Democrats have been registering three for every Republican registrant. Unaffiliated registrations were running even with Republicans, but in the last four months have been edging to a 1.25:1 ratio.

Your conclusions about what is happening and mine differ. Registrations have tended to follow the money. One party control of government always drove registrations. I know it is hard to believe, but many people are sure that their party affiliation affects their earning ability. I have lost two jobs in quasi and state government based on my affiliation. I have never gotten a job because of that.

First, let's get rid of the affiliated bases, the eighty percent of all voters who are Republican or Democrat.

Of the remainder, in Maryland, people register as Democrats to maintain jobs and receive contracts. They also donate to campaigns for those reasons. People who wish to avoid problems with affiliation register as unaffiliated. People who wish to staunch the flow of campaign literature register as unaffiliated. (This no longer works as it did decades ago because all campaigns target the unaffiliated.) One of my sons registered as unaffiliated out of a) rebellion, b) a desire not to be pigeonholed by others, and c) to avoid partisan mail. He received more mail than the three affiliated voters in the house did!

Democrats were very aggressive in conducting voter registration drives in high schools and colleges in the last four years. They were particularly effective in 2008. On Primary Election Day, people were flooding into election precincts demanding to be allowed to register and vote, or to vote in the Democrat Primary in spite of their registration as Republican or something other than Democrat. How this plays out in the General Election cannot be known.

Historically, the elections that had great turnout were the elections that presented contests to the voters. People stay home if the result is a foregone conclusion. However, if there is a contest the proverbial wild horses will not keep them home. In this respect, the media hold the cards. Gore was declared dead four weeks out. Same for Kerry. Then, the media kicked in with new poll numbers and people showed up in unprecedented numbers and the races were all too close.

During the 2008 Democrat Primary, the media declared Hilary dead in January, and then discussed how close each subsequent race was. Voter turnout was through the roof. If you build a race, they will come.

As for conclusions about Maryland, let me point to the last four gubernatorial contests. The registration numbers for each gave the Democrats a 2:1 advantage going in, but no result was even close to that. Every race was decided in single digits. My conclusion: registration numbers in one party states do not provide a sound indication of the results of political contests.

They said it on the news – it must be true

2008-09-13T06:53:00.002-04:00

They are all saying it, so it must be true. John McCain's campaign is telling lies. That is what they are saying.

The McCain campaign commercial claimed that Barack Obama has the legislative accomplishment of voting for comprehensive sexual education for Illinois children in Kindergarten. George Stephanopoulos said it was a lie. Joy Behar said it was lie. David Brooks said it was not truthful. Mark Shields said that by saying this, McCain has become dishonorable.

Forgive whom you must. The piece of legislation in question is some years old and nearly fourteen pages long. Illinois SB0099, amending the existing law to add K through 5 to the Sex Education statute, contains this text:

 6        (105 ILCS 5/27-9.1) (from Ch. 122, par. 27-9.1)

 7        Sec. 27-9.1.  Sex Education.

 8        (a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate  in

 9    any  class  or  course  in comprehensive sex education if the

10    pupil's
      his parent  or  guardian  submits  written  objection

11    thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or

12    program  shall  not  be reason for suspension or expulsion of

13    such  pupil.  Each  class  or  course  in  comprehensive  sex

14    education offered in any of  grades  K
      6  through  12  shall

15    include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted

16    infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread

17    of HIV
      AIDS. Nothing in this Section prohibits instruction in

18    sanitation, hygiene or traditional courses in biology.

19        (b)  All  public elementary, junior high, and senior high

20    school classes that teach sex education  and  discuss  sexual

21    activity   or   behavior
      intercourse  shall  emphasize  that

22    abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended
      is

23    the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual  intercourse

24    is  the  only  protection  that  is  100%  effective  against

25    unwanted  teenage  pregnancy,  sexually transmitted diseases,

26    and HIV
      acquired  immune  deficiency  syndrome  (AIDS)  when

27    transmitted sexually.

That is from page 1 of the amendment. Underlined text is added to the law and struck-through text is removed.

At line 9, the legislation considers this bill as regarding "comprehensive sex education". At line 13, it adds grades K through 5 to those students receiving instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. At line 19, this includes the teaching of sexual activity or behavior. Barack Obama admits to voting for this legislation in committee.

I can forgive the McCain campaign for believing that a bill about comprehensive sex education amended to include K-5 on a vote by Barack Obama for sharing that with the public.

But, on the news, they said it was a lie.

They also said that the Obama comment this week about putting lipstick on a pig was not in response to the Sarah Palin comment about lipstick on hockey moms differentiating them from pit bills. You be the judge. The audience certainly seems to know what he was saying. The pause in his delivery, the wait for the audience to get "it" isn't confusing. Only Obama's defenders, only those who wish to pick another battle will leave it alone.

Behar, Brooks, Shields and Stephanopoulos, and many others in the media, said it was deceitful and misleading to accuse Obama of referring to Sarah Palin. He later characterized his statement as a common figure of speech for him. However, consider his delivery, not only on Letterman, but also at a campaign event. In the original, he stumbles and trips over getting the line right, but nails the wait for reaction. In the last two, the words slip off his tongue without any pause. Perhaps he was nervous the first time. Perhaps he understood the certain outcry to come. I cannot know.

What do you think?

Size Counts

2008-08-30T10:34:00.002-04:00

Since the day President Bill Clinton campaigned for Martin O'Malley, the buzz in Maryland was that O'Malley was a leading candidate for Vice-President on Hillary Clinton's ticket. Then, O'Malley was elected Governor of Maryland.

I suspect he took a deep breath and made the decision to reciprocate and endorsed Hillary's candidacy for the presidential nomination. The buzz became a roar, and O'Malley hadn't started to govern, yet.

The first session of the General Assembly of Maryland displayed the new Governor as a pragmatic who did not attempt to openly drive the agenda. Shortly after the end of the session, he began to terminate the employment of Republicans hired to middle management jobs during the last four years. The only discriminate exercise was to leave those who still had strong connections in politics in place.

Governor O'Malley continued to campaign against Governor Ehrlich, calling a special session of the General Assembly to fix the fiscal problems left by Ehrlich. When he was done, O'Malley, elected over an incumbent with favorable of over fifty percent in the polls just one year before, had his favorable drop to the low thirty percent area. This represented double devastation. First, the people who had elected him knowing he would raise taxes had turned their backs on him. Second, his base was turning against him. Sixty percent of registered voters in Maryland are with his party, yet his approval ratings looked like he was a Republican. Governor Ehrlich had approval ratings on his way out the door similar to O'Malley's winning portion of the vote. Now, though, O'Malley was receiving approval ratings ten points (and more) below Ehrlich's gubernatorial vote.

We can only imagine the reaction of the Maryland Governor, the one with approval ratings in the tank, to the announcement that a Governor with approval ratings of ninety percent was selected for his dream job of Vice-president!

Governor O'Malley can do either of two things to settle his future. He can continue to pillage Maryland, doing the things he has determined are necessary without regard for the people's wishes and needs, securing his future as a former Governor. Alternatively, he can learn for the Governor's who rode success in their states to national prominence. Ronald Reagan, Tom Ridge, both Roosevelt's, Taft, Bill Clinton, even Jimmy Carter, found that working for the people will be rewarded.

Governor O'Malley will learn that size matters, or shrivel and shrink like George Costanza on a cold day at the pool. He need only look to the success of Sarah Palin and wonder what could have been.

Crazy or sly?

2008-08-28T08:58:00.002-04:00

"The definition of crazy'' we are told, "is to do the same thing over and over expecting a different result."

Patuxent Publishing's newspaper The Jeffersonian caries of series called Party Line. Each month a spokesman for the Republicans alternates with a spokesman for the Democrats, offering a partisan argument. The most recent article is one that brings the above adage to mind. Again, we have the same person, James Kehl, representing the Democrats of Baltimore County, attempting to deceive the public and indict his chosen political enemy with deceptions. Let me explain.

The title of his piece, "My encounter with Sen. Andy Harris" indicates an encounter with Senator Harris. An encounter is defined as a meeting, one that might be brief, it might be unexpected, hostile or violent, but a meeting, nonetheless. What is described? A sighting of Senator Harris. America did not encounter Senator Clinton on television at the DNC Convention. They saw her. Mr. Kehl continues to explain that he decided not to have a meeting, an encounter.

Based on this "encounter", we are led to believe that voters, bearing their Baltimore County Board of Elections issued Identification Card, swarmed to him, saying in unison, "Please tell us, oh great and wise spokesman for Baltimore County Democrats, what issue would you have confronted the Senator with, had you the courage and bravery we know you to be saving for a better opportunity, instead of the passive aggressive behavior you appear by your own words to have chosen?"

Then, Mr. Kehl tells the readers that "someone" researched the legislative records. Not him; not Joe; not Mary; not an intern; not David - "someone" - a most creditable source, we are to assume, because you used them, did the research and provided it to you.

No one cares if there is a fact or a fiction in the rest of the item. It is based on deception, and relies on unknown and unverifiable parties for the meat of the item. Like much of this author's work, this reads like a fantasy, like something for which the readers must willingly suspend disbelief for the premise, and logically, what follows.

Take away the trickery and deception, cite legitimate sources and toss away the devices of the fiction writer and we are left with a partisan attack on the chosen enemy and the praise of the hero. That, I believe, is what Party Line is for. If nothing else, people who read about politics can differentiate "stuff piled higher and deeper" from information that can help guide them in choosing their representatives.

Here is an example based on the article: Senator Harris has been elected three times by the people in his district to represent them, even after redistricting. State's Attorney Kratovil has been elected twice by the people of Queen Anne's County to represent the people of that county in criminal prosecutions. This information comes from their campaigns and is verified by the records of the State Board of Elections.

There you have information that can help voters without misleading them.

Here is another example based on the item: Marylanders know that Senator Harris is a Republican in a minority in the General Assembly. President of the Senate Mike Miller declared four years ago that he would bury the Republican Party in Maryland. He leads efforts to stop Republican sponsored legislation from becoming law. A county State's Attorney, like Frank Kratovil, is elected independently in order to diminish political influence in criminal prosecutions. A State's Attorney might lobby the General Assembly for strong laws, but should not compromise his independence by dealing with legislators from either party.

Once again, information that can help voters make decisions about the qualities they want in their representatives. Noting there casts aspersions on either candidate. It particularly does not, as the item does, impute that Mr. Kratovil compromises his independence of office.

In the end, no one objects to partisan articles. They stimulate the readers. By the same token, no one likes to be deceived or tricked by delusional, passive aggressive activities. Please, Baltimore County Democrats, find one of your passionate, honest, members to represent you on these pages.

Or not! I am probably the only Republican to raise the objection, and that, against my party's interests.

The Democrats Opening Bell

2008-08-26T12:13:00.002-04:00

We don't have cable television. We canned it when the kids got interested in television on the theory that without much to watch they wouldn't. They didn't. They don't.

We watch a lot of PBS. They have made some great efforts in competing with the mindlessness that fills early evening network broadcasts. We have been watching endless PBS promotions for their October series on presidential elections. Not once did we see anything about their convention coverage.

With full knowledge that the big three would only give us one hour each night, I went to PBS at 8:00 PM for Antiques Road Show. What a pleasant surprise. Jim Leherererer (I can't quite get that pronunciation, or aparrently spelling, down) and company giving us commentary during the slow spots and letting us listen to the speeches.

As enriching as the format was, I found the team of Democrat apologists, oops, Presidential Historians, to be either offensive or comedic relief. Come on guys, add something to our understanding, don't relieve yourself on our legs and tell us its raining. A little more Brooks and Shields style evaluation will let the viewers make judgments about the information broadcast.

I hope the Republican convention will not have one-sided commentary. Challenges to ideas are far my edifying than sycophants. Knowing that your ideas will be thoughtfully considered will strengthen your ideas.

Get active!

2008-05-03T12:15:00.002-04:00

From the Reagan Republican Club in northern Baltimore County comes a regimen for success.

FREE EXERCISE PROGRAM SPONSORED BY THE BALTIMORE COUNTY GOP

- Includes personal instruction

- All equipment provided

- Work out with your conservative friends

- If you can walk, you can do this program

- Stop for short breaks every 50 yards

- Requires only 2-3 hours per week

- Benefits include closing the gap on the Dems, helping out Andy Harris' campaign

You can't afford to pass up this offer! But you must act now and RSVP to info@ReganRepublicanClub.com

First session starts this Saturday at 10am at Kingsville Elementary (opportunities on Sunday also). Burn some calories through the innovative new Voter Registration Program! Sign up now!!

How to blow a whistle

2008-03-21T16:33:00.002-04:00

Baltimore Sunpapers columnist Dan Rodricks does a great job – of agitating reasonable folks by jumping to conclusions in his column.

For instance, he has taken up the cause of a Police Officer who was fired for not only not reporting problems he identified as part of his duties, but instead making anonymous reports to the media that were sure to embarrass his employer, Governor Ehrlich, and assist the governor's opponent in the next election.

Like all of us, Rodricks has a blog that often continues the discussions he initiates with his columns. Sometimes the comments light my fuse. Like this one.

In response to Reader Tom Ryugo's questions, I offer:

Q1. Should John Dean have shut up and said nothing?

A1. John Dean witnessed and participated in criminal conspiracy. He should have left the room and reported his observations to law enforcement and Congress, before he was caught.

Q2. Should Anita Hill have shut up and said nothing?

A2. Anita Hill should have made a complaint of facts of the harassment that occurred so that an investigation could determine possible wrongdoing and appropriate actions could have ensued. I suspect she did and we can find that record. Oops! The first we heard from her was at the behest of the president's political opponents to smear a nominee to the Supreme Court. In turn, she received a left-liberal reward; she is a college professor.

Q3. Should the Secret Service agent who spoke up against Bill Clinton (have) kept his mouth shut?

Q4. Bill Clinton was convicted of Perjury on the basis of copious testimony collected under subpoena. No agent made anonymous allegations to the media. The agents did not testify to criminal acts. They connected the dots with their observations and the testimony of the victims to otherwise unwitnessed crimes. Similarly, the Impeachment of Bill Clinton was not as the result of sworn officers leaking information to embarrass the head of the Executive Branch. In all cases, the Secret Service Agents, sworn officers, followed the regulations of the agency and the law. They did place themselves outside of their sworn duty.

Q4. Should Linda Tripp have kept her mouth shut?

A4. Lind Tripp was not a law enforcement officer. She became aware of possible criminal activity and reported it. Thinking she was protecting herself and her friend, she committed a crime unique to Maryland by secretly tape recording the evidence that would lead to incriminating evidence. Bill Clinton could have spared us by keeping his mouth shut and not inviting Monica Lewinsky to do other than keep her mouth shut.

Q5.Should the soldier who found photos of Abu Ghraib have simply burned them?

A5. Found them? What were you doing during the aftermath of the Abu Ghraib story. The soldier deserved the Courts Martial. He was aware of what he should have recognized as behavior by members of the armed forces that violated the written code of conduct. He didn't report it. he made videos and still photographs and published them on the Internet because he thought they were cool and would give everyone a big laugh.

As an obvious and blatant conservative, I defend the Ehrlich administration for terminating an employee who was charged with keeping our facilities secure and protected who failed to fulfill his responsibilities. For that, he should have been disciplined. For violating the public trust, he deserved to have his employment terminated.

As a dyed in the wool liberal apologist dedicated to defending the O'Malley administration at all costs, often with full regard for the truth, I must stand and defend the governor for not giving this unreliable, untrustworthy, unethical former police officer a job, even though his goal of embarrassing Governor Ehrlich was noble, and it probably assisted the O'Malley election.

Next question, please.

Fame & Fortune through Immorality and Corruption

2008-03-15T18:31:00.001-04:00

Alan Greenblatt, writing for Ballot Box, asserts that the most certain way for politicians to gain publicity is to act in an illegal, immoral or corrupt way.

It being Saturday morning in Maryland, I can't help but think of our Governor O'Malley. If he had made his claims about the Maryland budget to federal investigators, he would be eligible for charges similar to those faced by Scooter Libby and Martha Stewart. Can you say illegal? Maybe not.

When I think about the farcical Maryland General Assembly Special Session of October 2007, I can't help but think about the immorality of strong arming legislators to vote for tax increases in a declining economy, and adding huge government programs to a previously balanced budget while claiming there was a deficit. When I consider the claims of the O'Malley campaign to stop the 72% increases in our electric rates, I think of the immorality of the lie and the illegality of even considering such an action, a violation of both contract law and the laws of the state. Immoral? O'Malley? Completely!

When I think about the 37% and higher raises given to Governor O'Malley's inner circle, while limiting state workers to 2%, while 6% is the statutory limit. I think corruption. When I think about the refusal by Governor O'Malley to appoint a Secretary of State because the person he likes for the job apparently refuses to work for under $100k per year, I think corruption. When I think of the Department Secretaries brought back from the Glendenning administration, who previously accepted the salaries established, but now must have more, I think corruption.

When I think about Governor O'Malley I think a politician acting immorally, corruptly, and possibly, illegally. I can but hope that Maryland voters think of him this way too.

O’Malley and Spitzer: Comeback chances compared

2008-03-15T10:44:00.001-04:00

The headline is a tease. However, the article was not, at least not when first posted forty-five days ago.

Check out Josh Goodman's take on the two governors before the Spitzer jump off the cliff.

Of course, O'Malley inoculated himself against the stories of marital infidelity by dragging his wife to a press conference and saying he did not do it. Why did he do that? It seems that a staffer, likely, baited a staffer of O'Malley's future gubernatorial opponent into a conversation about the topic on an internet bulletin board. O'Malley then accused the sitting governor of spreading the rumor of infidelity through his staff. In O'Malley's lawyerly mind, the act of the subordinate, a servant, in taking the bait was the act of the Governor, the employer. That is a difference between O'Malley and Spitzer, that and the arrogant hypocrisy of Spitzer.

O'Malley's vulnerability lies in his opponent's ability to continue to hang his sins around his neck.

A fair shake of the stick

2008-03-15T10:04:00.001-04:00

My fascination with things electoral led me to the Governance Magazine blog, Ballot Box, a seeming little read gathering of writers focused on government.

A recent post there by Blogger/Reporter Alan Greenblatt asked the question about the Spitzer affair: Does it hurt the Dems?

One commenter, and there are not many to the Ballot Box, suggested that there would be no fallout if Spitzer had hung on and that the calls by Republicans in the New York assembly should have been fodder for attacks on Republicans fund raising. He ended with,"Nuff said." As if that would be the last word on this.

I would agree. Democrat falls from grace are generally handled gently and soon forgiven, if not forgotten.

On the other hand, Marc Foley, Senator Craig, and other Republican sinners are inserted into every stump speech of every Democrat running for any office. It looks like this:

"This Republican member of (insert governance body), this man who held himself out as in favor of family values, as a champion for law and order, as a moral light in the dark, was nothing more than (choose one - a closet homosexual, someone who would force himself on employees who were afraid to resist, a common philanderer - or insert your own) who attempted to force his hypocrisy on others. Well, my Republican opponent, although not charged or alleged to have done the same thing, aligns himself with (insert name of miscreant Republican) and the Republican party that tolerated this behavior for so long, protecting its member from public scrutiny merely to (choose one - retain, gain) a political majority that gave the republicans the power to do to you and your children as they pleased!"

Too much said. Too much unexamined hypocrisy. Too many watchdogs that are the dogs in the fight.

(The last four paragraphs were also posted as a comment to "Does it hurt the Dems?")

On the rocks or neat?

2008-03-07T17:16:00.001-05:00

At the core of the problem between parties and unaffiliated voters is a desire to participate or not.

Since the third Presidential election, parties have been a factor. The activists who shared general beliefs in how a government should function joined and selected their best hope, a candidate who would garner wide affection from the voting population. Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists; Democrat-Republicans vs. Whigs; Democrats vs. Republicans, the list has, if anything, expanded over the centuries. Parties have always been collections of likeminded people who join in the pursuit of power.

What is different in the current unaffiliated ranks is that these folks have declared, in writing, that they do not want to be a part of any available recognized political party. I suspect that this arises more out of electoral-political-fatigue than out of a lack of identification with any party. In a word, "laziness" best describes these folks.

"Complainers" or "whiners" are the next best descriptors. In every state, a person can register to vote as affiliated or not. In every state, people are free to change their affiliation, or not, as often as they please. This lets the liberal-conservative look at a field of candidates early and join the party of their favored candidate. Likewise, the Conservative-liberal can join the party of the candidate carrying their desired banner and cast their vote in the primary election. Even principled party members can change form one party to the other when the choices of their stripe are unattractive as compared to the opposition party candidate. Instead of filling out the form to make the change for that permits them to make the choice, they complain that they had no say. They complain that the parties did not offer good choices for them. They whine about the partisan system.

In 2008, many in the parties are making the same complaints about their primary choices. For instance, Rudy G was the first Republican to announce and he did not appear on a ballot until Florida. Fred Thompson was leading all of the media polls but the voter polls eliminated him early. All summer and fall, we were subjected to debates between all the people in both parties who were destined to drop out as soon as the voters were to get a chance to say who they liked. By the time the second real voter polls came around ten viable Republicans had become two and ten viable Democrats had too.

In getting to this result, many state parties permitted people not in their party to vote in their primary. These partisan groups let people who disagree with them influence their candidate selection. They did not do this as a strategy to draw unaffiliated voters to a particularly desirable candidate. They did this as a matter of course. How can a state party permit unaffiliated and opposition party voters to select their candidate and then trumpet the results as an achievement?

Unaffiliated voters and those who choose parties that do not appear on primary election ballots turned their backs on the primary system. Their complaints are no more valuable that the opinions of small children who cry because they soiled themselves and become uncomfortable with the result. They are as teetotalers arguing about the taste of beer as compared to whisky.

Vinnie sets trap with wooden nickel as bait

2008-03-05T10:23:00.001-05:00

Vinnie DeMarco has been a long time, yes ubiquitous, socialist to communist representative of programs that harm businesses and impose the will of a minority on the majority. He, and the Maryland Citizen's Health Initiative, building on the Democrat Party model of gathering small special interest groups to oppose or support a narrow issue, threaten legislators with the wrath of the coalition if their oppressive demands are not met.

Of the tools DeMarco has regularly employed are the red herring and the straw man. Here we have the classic red herring, with a side order of straw man and a newspaper reporter willing to give it undeserved credibility by running with it.

There will not be a President Bush for much more than two weeks when there is a Representative Harris. Oh, my! Perhaps there was a false premise in the DeMarco argument, too. It does get confusing when so much stuff is thrown at the wall at one time. In this case, without Sunpapers reporter Brad Olson, there isn't even a wall.

How about this one: "Vinnie DeMarco and the Maryland Citizen's Health Initiative commend Maryland State Senator Andy Harris for his vote as part the unanimous effort of the Maryland General Assembly and Governor Ehrlich to address the high costs for prescription drugs. It is our fervent hope that the Democrat controlled Congress act to remove the Federal constraints on this effort. We call on Senators Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski to take the leadership on this on behalf of the Maryland General Assembly, the former Governor and the citizens of Maryland."

Oops! Please forgive me for my foolishness. Democrat party operatives like DeMarco praising Republican legislative actions is as unlikely as Rush Limbaugh endorsing a Democrat for the Presidency.

Democrats: Nothing to like about our candidates

2008-03-05T09:46:00.005-05:00

I read with great interest the Party Line (D) column of the 2/26/08 edition of the Jeffersonian. Once again, it started with a tease that it there would be positive information about the current presidential campaign. Once again, it disappointed by spewing out more than 400 words of rumor, innuendo and attack against two well qualified Republicans and patriots, Senator John McCain, and Senator Andrew Harris, men whose service under arms to the United States is well documented, as is their energetic representation in the Congress and General Assembly, respectively. The only favorable words from the columnist about the Democrat candidates: These are two highly qualified candidates. He goes on to state that only the Democrat candidates care about the best interests of the United States.
In a sister publication, The Northeast Reporter, of the same week (2/28/08), a letter to the editor from Shannon Lowe decried Republican Delegate Joe Boteler III for commenting on Democrat Todd Schuler for his leftist views, and criticizing Governor O'Malley for reversing the action to close the Hickey School in opposition to the majority of the people living in Cub Hill. It further objected to partisan Republicans blaming the Democrats for bad things happening in Maryland. I agree that nasty partisanship degrades the discussion of political issues and has a negative effect on our community. I am not as certain that giving credit where it is due is partisanship. My recollection is that Democrats have dominated the General assembly, and get credit for all of its actions, good and bad, for more than one-hundred years.
I agree with Ms. Shannon that it would be nice to hear from elected officials about how we can unite and face issues, but her party is dedicated to burying the Republican Party for at least ten years. I doubt that the Democrats intend to join the Republicans in that nasty, partisan grave.
It is saddening that the Democrat party in Baltimore County cannot find someone to write positive articles about Democrats. I would like to repeat my plea that the Democrats find a spokesman who can tell us why their candidates are worthwhile of our consideration, and compare and contrast them with Republican Candidates. If that isn't possible, perhaps we could read about what makes voting for Democrats a positive thing.
James Kehl, besides being a member of the Democrat Party Central Committee, is a CPA and the author of a book on tax law. In short, all non-political indications are that he 's a bright guy! I have to wonder what impairs his ability to promote positively his party's candidates.
I hope other readers of community newspapers will join me in calling for raising the political discourse to a civil level that permits honest criticism and discussion that honestly informs.

Gimme your money! I’m running for office!

2008-03-03T14:41:00.001-05:00

Elected officials write campaign finance laws. Elected officials have a prime directive - get re-elected. Everything they do that can influence re-election is done in that light.

Elected officials wrote and passed the current Maryland Campaign Finance laws (Maryland Code Annotated, Elections, Title 13 Campaign Finance). The Democrat party has held a huge majority in the General Assembly since time immemorial. Each section of the law was passed with consideration of how it would affect the officials' re-election.

Someone has to be held accountable for campaign finance faux pas, intentional or accidental. It would not do to hold the official accountable for these acts, so the scheme has a treasurer who is. The rules are strict, too. Only the treasurer can accept or disburse funds.

There is a case in Maryland where a member of the House of Delegates was convicted of stealing campaign funds and expense account funds. He appealed and the Court of Appeals overturned his conviction and refused to allow as evidence against him the campaign finance reports that he had signed. Only the treasurer was permitted to sign the documents. Any other signature invalidated the forms and they were not permissible as business document evidence. Without the documents, the state could not prove their case. The delegate, who had resigned upon conviction, ran for re-election in 1994 and won. He has a new campaign finance fund, a new expense account, and a job at IWIF, former home of Tommy Bromwell, current home of former Attorney General J. Joseph Curran.

From news reports on the Oliver case, Councilman Oliver admitted that he wrote checks. Under Maryland Campaign Finance Law, only the treasurer can write checks. The treasurer is responsible for the checkbook. Either the Councilman forged a signature, or the Councilman signed a check without lawful authority, or the treasurer pre-signed checks for the Councilman to write as he wished. All three are very bad things to do.

The only time the candidate is liable is when, if acting as the campaign chairman, the mandated reports are not filed timely. The fines cannot come out of campaign funds.

Public Financing of Political Campaigns - Remember the prime directive for elected officials? Do nothing that would impair reelection. Keep that in mind.

PFPC is an idea that comes to us out of the great progressive era of Teddy Roosevelt. It was debated and discussed ad nauseum in a time when the population was inclined towards progressive ideas. This from the era that gave us great programs for leveling in society so that we did not have to suffer through any more robber barons.

Current promoters, all of them elected officials or progressive organizations, complain of the bad influence of money in political campaigns and want to limit it. They also complain of having to spend hours on the telephone fundraising in order to fund campaigns for re-election. Oh, and there is the pitch that political campaigns have become so expensive that well qualified people are reluctant to get involved in representative politics. They call their proposals Clean Campaign Finance Reform. You have heard the joke about how you can tell when a politician is lying - his lips are moving. The lips are flying!

Let us look at some of their arguments. There is too much money in politics. You have heard huge numbers from the media. The presidential campaigns are generating more money per week than President Bush raised for each of the last two campaigns. If you put together all the money for all the campaigns in the country from January 2001 through December 2004, a presidential election cycle, you wouldn't have enough money to pay for the potato chips purchased by Americans during the same period. It is not so much that there is too much money; it is more like not enough of the money finds its way to the elected official's campaign.

Big donations get big attention from elected officials. If I understand this, they are saying that because they have been in office for years, and some people have given the maximum permissible contribution each cycle, that these elected officials are influenced by this money. They do not need campaign finance reform, by their own admission; they need to be turned out of office. More than Clean Money, we need clean politicians.

Well-qualified people, does this assume that current office holders are generally not well qualified, find political campaigns to be too expensive. PFPC schemes establish limits that diffuse this fear, we are told. There is nothing in the PFPC scheme to remove the real problem in this respect, huge campaign war chests held by officials to warn off challengers. Senator Paul Pinsky, the principal proponent of PFPC, has not had a credible challenger since he challenged and beat an incumbent. Since raising money is always seen as a sign of strength and support, rather than collect big checks, PFPC requires a number of small contributions to demonstrate public support. Who has the tougher job of raising these little amounts, the incumbent with a list of thousands of contributors from prior years, or, on of Senator Pinsky's favorite examples, the janitor in the building occupied by the fortune five-hundred company president? Clean Campaigns? It really is more like underhanded dirty dealing.

PFPC gets more people involved in running for office. This might be true. This was one of the stated goals of the Maryland Commission on Public Financing of Political Campaigns. This is somewhat deceptive. A goal to serve the public interest would be to increase the number of challengers elected to public office, and that has not happened. It is unlikely to happen. For example, consider the case of the janitor challenging the two-term incumbent. The incumbent is worried, for good reason. The incumbent might counter this by encouraging several people to run in the challenger's primary. The incumbent can muster a smear campaign against the threat, to be carried out by the solicited challenger. The smart, campaign savvy incumbent can easily keep the credible challenger distracted while remaining above the fray. When the incumbent's record is called forth for public consideration, he characterizes this as an attack from a desperate candidate involved in a dirty primary campaign. This does not cost anybody any money, except the public, and we already know how incumbents regard the public's dollars. This is but one obvious example. Seasoned political operatives know many, many ways to undercut a good candidate. Another easy way to go is to get an independent to run in the General Election and use public money to siphon off votes from the challenger. Remember Ralph Nader and Ross Perot. Remember the impact they had on the presidential contests. PFPC does not even require them to come up with their own money to run spoiler campaigns. Spoiler campaigns are not run merely to please the incumbent. There will always be a quid pro quo at the end. In the 2008 Presidential campaign, Governor Huckabee is said to have stayed in the race in order to minimize Governor Romney, splitting g the conservative vote and giving Senator McCain an easy walk to the nomination. Huckabee is suspected of angling for a VP spot in exchange. Senator Clinton is being encouraged to drop out of the race so she can be added as VP to Senator Obama's nomination.

Presently, incumbents have name recognition, established fundraising and volunteer organizations, and the power of incumbency, the ability to promote themselves at no expense to them, but often at a dollar cost to their constituents, to aid them with reelection. Public finding, even when shared with their opponents, provides them with money without working for it. This is not corruption because of the sharing aspect of the scheme. It is a scheme that will continue progressives in office. Virtually all of the support for PFPC comes from the political left. In Maryland, the left has promised to bury the right. Does anyone really believe that PFPC will level the playing field? If so, can I interest you in some land just east of Ocean City, Maryland?

Real political corruption does not have anything to do with campaign contributions. It has to do with corrupt people. Minor politicians will be caught with their hand in the campaign cookie jar. Recall the scandal surrounding the expenses for hotel room in Towson for Baltimore Mayoral candidate Keiffer Mitchell. This not unlike the Baltimore County Councilman Oliver situation. Both campaigns saw the money sitting there and decided to use it for things prohibited by law. Real corruption takes big money and that cannot flow through a regulated campaign finance system.

Tommy Bromwell was not caught up in campaign finance problems. No matter how much was in his campaign account, or how much he might have needed money for personal things while serving as a Senator, he didn't skim. It was guaranteed he would be caught. He would go into debt before he would ever consider such a thing and there is no indication that he even considered it. He was corrupted by big money. Instead of getting a big paycheck to do the job at IWIF, he exchanged it for similar money to wield influence in state government. Once he went down that easy money path, he became addicted. That was his downfall. The people in the money chain rolled on him. His friends and loyal supporters aren't mad at him for taking the money and the services in exchange for his power, they are mad at the scummy people who rolled on Tommy and snitched him out. There is no shortage of big corruption for elected officials. I recall that Oliver North faced similar charges over a security fence built at his home at no cost to him. Saying that money is the problem is the equivalent of blaming guns for crimes. Neither political party is without corrupt members. Lord Acton's admonition about power comes to mind.

PFPC does not level the playing field. The results from the four states and New York City that have tried this, and all are very different from Maryland, but for one party domination and progressives in their legislatures. Public funding will be used by candidates without a prayer and by incumbents who are not threatened. The first will tilt at windmills and the second will use the money to self-promote at your expense. And that, my friend, is the key.

Polling on this topic always favors: reducing the influence of money in elections; reducing the time incumbents spend raising money and increasing the time they spend on issues important to you; reducing the influence of big donors on public policy; giving you an equal voice with the special interests; cleaning up elections; removing the financial obstacles to well-qualified people who want to run for office. All of these are runaway winners. There is a runaway loser question on these polls, when it is included: Are you in favor paying higher taxes to fund political campaigns in Maryland?

Under the current laws in Maryland, and excepting the office of Governor, candidates for election solicit money from people they think will support their candidacy. People who contribute can be assumed to support that candidate. There are exceptions to this, for instance an employee who buys a ticket to a fundraiser because the boss really wants them to, but largely, contributors to campaigns are supporters. People would be surprised to find out that the Democrat candidate for the Eighth District Senate seat made financial contributions to their Republican candidate's campaign. People would be more surprised to find out that they had contributed to the campaign of someone for whom they would never vote. Under PFPC that would happen to everyone who paid taxes under threat of going to prison. (All taxes are voluntarily paid under threat of going to prison.) There are plenty of governmental programs funded by tax dollars that significant numbers of people disagree with. That happens in republican government. In at least one state with this plan and insufficient money to fund everyone who chose to run, a court challenge resulted in the government having to allocate funds from other programs in order to fund political campaigns. Are we ready to have schools closed, firehouse shuttered, reductions in the number of police officers, all of the foregoing coming from the left's play book, so that we can finance the political campaigns of anyone who can generate four-hundred five dollar contributions? At the Federal level, the check-off for allocations, not additional taxes, to the public funding of presidential campaigns cannot support the needs of the program. Thankfully, most candidates find traditional funding sources – citizens. If the proponents of PFPC would be honest and tell us that it would be Additional Taxes to Fund Political Campaigns, this would be a non-starter.

Public financing of political campaigns is a bad idea for the public. It will not reform the influence of money in politics. It will not open the doors to the state house to new people. It will continue to aid incumbents, making their already all but guaranteed reelection even more assured, and nothing more.

Check back for campaign finance ideas that will help the public.

What is really on Del. Schuler's mind?

2008-02-16T10:17:00.004-05:00

The ninety-day session of the Maryland General Assembly has always generated amusing stories. Many people have lamented that the “characters” are disappearing from politics to be replaced by bland products of polling. I am not sure whether we should be offended or amused by Del. Todd Schuler.

The Northeast Booster, a publication of Patuxent Publishing serving Northeast Baltimore County ran a story by political editor Bryan P. Sears about the future aspirations of Mr. Schuler, a young man with a reputation for squandering his time and treasure in the alehouses of central Maryland and little more. He ran for election against George Bush and for the progressive era of Teddy Roosevelt and worse.

Perhaps there is more to Del. Schuler’s proposal to remove the term marriage from Maryland than previously met the eye. Following is a letter sent to Editor Sears. It remains to be seen if Patuxent sees fit to publish it.

Dear Editor:
Sadly, we all know what happens to work performance once someone
decides to quit, retire or change jobs: they stop working. Let’s hope the
residents of the 8th Legislative District don’t suffer unduly as Del. Todd
Schuler casts about, trying to decide what he wants to do with his life as he
looks around for something more attractive. (Del. Schuler eyeing Bartenfelder’s
seat, Northeast Booster, February 13.)

With little community experience before running for the House of Delegates against President Bush (who wasn’t running) Todd’s work in the House of Delegates has been similarly out of touch with the values of the people of the 8th District.
The legislative leadership gave him a pass on the Special Session tax bills. When he had a chance to do his job and vote for or against slots, he deferred his responsibility to the voters, forcing them to learn far more than they needed to about the issue so they can make an informed choice. His current bill to erase the term “marriage” from Maryland law is another example of how out of touch he is with the constituency
of this district.
His vacuous thinking, as illustrated by his comment, “The thought process is that I am the only incumbent Democrat living in (Bartenfelder’s) district so I have to consider it,” says a lot. If Del. Schuler believes that only incumbents can run for open seats, as he indicates, why, oh why, did he run for the House of Delegates to begin with? Moreover, what, oh what, will we who live here do for representation in the House of Delegates with no incumbents like him to replace him?
In recent years, hard working people who were in tune with the community and refused to shirk their responsibilities represented the 8th District. Residents of the 8th legislative and sixth councilmanic district deserve representatives who will address our issues, schools and roads being front and center, and share our values.
Our delegates belong in their Annapolis offices and legislative chambers working for us, not hanging out in the social establishments of our capital city dreaming about
another meal at the public trough.
Fortunately, there are excellent potential candidates to represent us. As mentioned in the article, one is former delegate John Cluster. Other candidates include civic leaders who have worked hard for the community, but never felt the need to hold office, such as longtime Perry Hall community leader David Marks.
The 8th District needs, and deserves strong, dedicated, proven leadership in Annapolis.
Please join me in encouraging Del. Schuler to focus on his job instead of Councilman Bartenfelder’s posterior or its placement.

The Grasmick Thing

2007-12-14T14:26:00.001-05:00

I hope some will share my dismay at the lack of understanding there is on "the Grasmick thing."

First - the board. The membership changes each year. The Governor appoints, or reappoints, members each year. Governor O'Malley made three appointments last year and will make three (announced this week) this year. There is no new board that is waiting in the wings to engage the Superintendent on July 1. Every four years, the board has the opportunity to retain or replace the superintendent. This system was designed to minimize the direct influence of politics on the choice of education CEO. The last several boards saw fit to continue Grasmick in this role. The board is the public representative who evaluates the job of the CEO. By having these citizens make the choice of superintendent, we pray that some politician doesn't appoint a political hack to run the schools. The progress of the state system during the past 16 years has pleased them with their choice.

Were we displeased with the state of education we would vent ourselves at the Governor who would determine if the problem was with the board or their management and act accordingly. There are laws to restrict purely political reactions or retribution for real or perceived slights. If a poor performance is turned in, then the responsible party or parties replace the performer.

Each of the counties and Baltimore City select the CEO for their systems, putting control of education in the hands of the people closest to it. In some counties, these people are elected, and in others, they are appointed. In Baltimore County, for example, there was great dissatisfaction with the system that has the Governor making direct appointments. Anecdotally, the legislature tried to enact specific legislation to make at least one Ehrlich appointment quit either the board or other employment. They also proposed a number of complicated systems that did not meet with legislative approval. If the appointments were bad or the elected choices failed to perform – vote the bums out.

The state board has the responsibility for making statewide policy. They have responsibility for meeting the Maryland constitutional requirements regarding education. They run the show. They evaluate the performance of the superintendent. Near the end of the superintendent's contract, the make a decision to offer a renewal to an effective superintendent, or begin the process of selecting a replacement. If the decision was not made until the last month of the contract, they stand to lose and effective executive or face a period without an executive as they seek the replacement. The replacement pool will look askance at a system that does not plan for leadership transitions. In any event, this invites instability to the system, which will harm the system. Subdivision boards have similar responsibilities at their level.

Next - the superintendent. This is the CEO of the whole of Maryland's schools, not just Baltimore City, not just the core counties, and not just primary and secondary education. She works under a contract for the board. The board under Governor Schaffer, appointed mostly by Governor Hughes, selected our current superintendent. Her personal relationship with him was advantageous during his terms in office. A board consisting of mostly or all Schaffer appointees twice chose to continue Grasmick in this role under Governor Glendenning. Mostly or all Glendenning appointees twice renewed Grasmick's contract. Which brings us to the current board, most of which was appointed or reappointed under Governor Ehrlich, and at least one-quarter of which was appointed by Governor O'Malley.

Most to comments to InsideEd blog cite a lack of knowledge of any accomplishments by Superintendent Grasmick, but then cite examples of problems with local systems. Greater understanding and information on the state system can be found here. I suggest that people check their county education website for basic information about strictly local issues.

Having looked through this information about the State Board of Education, each of us will find it easier to determine why there seems to be a different sense of the responders to this blog and the responders to Jay Hancock's. Oversimplified, Hancock's responders are focused on the product of the entire educational system – members of the workforce. They measure the system by the quality of applicant they receive. That is different, it seems to me, from the focus of the responders to InsideEd.

There is nothing to lose by opening ourselves to the other's perspective. Additionally, too much reliance on the reports in the papers, on television and on radio, will only continue to muddle the issues. With the resources available to each person commenting here – a computer with internet access – it is too easy to become informed and to discuss issues from a position of strength, i.e., knowledge, and not from a position of demagoguery and confusion.

O’Malley’s “Bunk”

2007-12-14T10:31:00.001-05:00

You remember, don't you? Governor Schaffer made a stink over poor service at a restaurant. The conversation veered into multiculturalism and Governor Ehrlich made an off-hand remark characterizing multiculturalism as "bunk".

Do you know why you remember it? Not because of its insightfulness and depth. Not because it was bluntly accurate and demonstrated that executives have a talent for distilling arguments to their core and reaching a decisive conclusion. Not because was the funniest thing you had ever heard, although history may relegate it to the next publication of "Politicians say the funniest things". So, why do you remember it?

You remember it because every Democrat in Maryland repeated it so often, and into every microphone, that years later, during an election, mere mention of the word "bunk" made people thing "Ehrlich" in the context of "Ehrlich doesn't like people who are not white." It wasn't true. It was reality.

This why there is a need to continue to talk about the things done and said by the O'Malley Administration, O'Malley, and his employees. When Republican candidates talk into microphones, they must be prepared to list concisely the most egregious offenses. And that must start now and continue through the next election.

O'MalleyWatch is full of fodder for the cannons of those who prefer freedom to the progressive movement that had its origins in the writings of Marx. Each of you, through your blogs and comments adds to the information that will populate the computer screen when the reporters doing background for the election stories of 2010 the search term use "Martin O'Malley". (Don't hold your breath for 2008.)

Examining the Tuesday News

2007-11-14T13:27:00.001-05:00

There was good news on page 4 of the Baltimore Examiner this morning, kind of. Len Lazarick reports that there are not more than 70 votes in favor of putting slot parlors in the Maryland Constitution. Pray that the GA members hang in there and address this, appropriately, during the regular session in 2008.

Lower on the busy page we learn from Len that cuts are not cuts, but merely reductions in the rate of increase in a budget that has not yet appeared. Maryland's Constitution permits the GA to cut the Governor's budget, but not increase or rearrange it. In the newspeak of 2007, slowing spending is cutting and the budget receives trimming in the same manner as the Emperor's new clothes, without being seen.

As far as the discussion of priests goes, we are taking about priests now, aren't we, I have a couple of questions: Why haven't the majority of priests stepped forward an objected to the coddling of those in their number who are credibly accused, and those who are convicted of crimes involving sexual abuse of children and young adults. Can't the chief priest in a congregation decline to have a pedophile assigned to his congregation? If sanctions resulted, should not the body of good priests stand together? Lastly, if the Church objects to abortions, and states that politicians endorsing abortion are not welcome, how can priests register as Democrats? Isn't abortion part of the Democratic Party platform?

Thank you, Chief Goodwin, for your lifetime of honorable service to the citizens of Baltimore. Somehow, I expect that your retirement will result in personal and professional growth. I hope that the department staff, the firefighters and officers, will take note of how the Union represents them until they reach the heights of their profession. First, they stick by you, and then they stick it to you. You took responsibility for the failures that occurred on your watch and took timely, appropriate action against those who betrayed the trust placed in them. God speed. Maybe Stephen Janis and Luke Broadwater will write about the other thirty-one years of your career.

I have to jump to page 10 for the continuing saga of Ticket-gate. Some questions continue here, too. Maybe Stephen Janis can address them. How long have the errant ticket writers been writing tickets? How far back are we going to look? When a police officer perjures themselves in a case, our State's Attorney reviews all cases where the officer is a witness, dropping the pending cases. Is there an effort to review the work of the allegedly perjuous parking control officer? The big question - why didn't Citi-Stat catch this?

Page 19 brings a great juxtaposition of articles. News in Brief. Item 1, GOP hopeful Thompson urges growing military. Item 2, Edwards proposes $2B for paid family leave program. You don't need the text of these items to see the difference. GOP candidate urges protection of United States. Democrat candidate proposes to redistribute wealth. One wants to perform a Constitutional function; one wants to do something entirely different.

Moreover, on, and on it went. Democrats refuse to fund the military and complain that although the deficit is falling (lower tax rates resulted in increased revenue) they are not happy. Don't you just love a cup of coffee and a newspaper? I know I do.

Annapolis Halloween

2007-11-01T10:47:00.001-04:00

I almost ran into Baltimore Sun Columnist Laura Vozzella in Annapolis Monday as the No-Tax Rally was starting. Sidestepping, I spoke to her, but she took one look at the man in the Stars and Stripes hat and moved quickly away. She looks taller in the paper.

Her column of the following day, Halloween goes all tasteful -- baltimoresun.com, didn’t address the rally, but was, as almost always, interesting. Often I think that her columns reveal more in what they don’t say in that they trigger memories of related information that sharpens the attentive readers’ focus. I did have some comments on her musings. (Or, are these musings on her comments?)

Halloween Decorations
The sedate Government House display is an example of parents molding their children in the image in which the grandparents molded them. Marty is from, as she notes, MoCo and Katie from staid Homeland. Of course, we have to wonder about the sincerity of the plain-jane facade in light of the bathwater drinking proclivity disclosures of the Gov made by the First Lady.

Speech Writing
I suspect the Governor does his own writing. I can't imagine anyone editing this stuff and letting it go through as a speech.

Perhaps what he really needs is an editor with good taste.

By the way, did you notice that there were no explosions of applause during the Special Session opening speech? I have seen it attributed to a lack of support, but believe it more likely that the room was dumbfounded by the rhetorical flourishes.

Harris v. Gilchrest
I am shocked; shocked, I tell you to hear a political operative deny participating in the spreading of nastiness about an opponent in Maryland politics.

If we learned nothing from the recent past, we should know that the pol first inoculates himself from nasty rumors by, at the very least, staring into a television camera and declaring his innocence, particularly when the nasty involves sexual indiscretion.

Who listens to local talk radio: an open letter to WBAL Baltimore

2007-10-30T13:06:00.001-04:00

Dear WBAL Programming:

I can't imagine how hard getting good talk hosts can be, especially when you lose two strong personalities at the same time, as happened earlier this year. It appears to be too hard, even for professionals like you.

Today was the straw that broke this ever-bending camel's back. Maryland is going through a huge news event. Every talk show has crowded telephone boards. People want to talk about the Special session and issues. Once again, Shari is somewhere else, talking about inanities. I wish we knew why a host of the Bruce Elliott caliber could not be brought into the daytime line-up.

The Shari Elliker show was a good Sunday afternoon break for the masses, those that weren't in front of the tube watching the big game. Maybe she needs to fill that horrible spot on Saturday morning from 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM. Peo0le might not find her as irrelevant over coffee and breakfast. However, the daily drivel and cast of characters filling in as co-hosts has finally pushed me over to Tom Marr and WCBM. Moreover, right now, I am getting Rush's national perspective because I don't feel getting up to change the station.

Hours of Shari and her co-hosts on Britney Spears is now gone. Hours of knee jerk responses to news that are opposites of the truth in the stories is now gone. Hours of implorations to callers to tell her what is right, to disagree with her. Who thinks the audience is interested in Prince? Or Barack and Ellen? Grunting during workouts? People doing workouts are not listening to talk radio. They are listening to tunes. People at their desks, people in the shop, people behind the wheel or helm, people sitting, these are the people listening to talk radio. (I will admit to listening while wading in rivers and streams with a fishing rod.)

Chip Franklin introduced us to these personalities and he managed them well when he kept them to one segment or one day, mixed into the show. He was an interesting addition and will be missed. Too, his show was changing, and I frankly don't know what the impact (read: ratings) was, and what effect that had on his sudden departure.

It is my opinion, and only that, that talk radio during the day is listened to by people interested in what is going on NOW. Uncle Allie needed to go, although many people stopped as WBAL listeners, I am certain. However, Chip brought a new formula. He also figured out, or his producers did and he bought into, your audience wants to stay current. They want to believe in your advertising that radio does it now, television does it later and the newspapers do it tomorrow. In ten years, blogging has gone from zero to more than 70 million blogs. People want info now. Yesterday, in Maryland, the question traveling through local blogs was who will be blogging real time from Annapolis.

Big deal, you might respond. Well, I think it is. I have been a holdout in the switch among right of center political activists. Many of my more centrist friends left during the last few months, and they won't be back. Another reason it's a big deal – my office radio, the one I turn on in the morning and off at dinner, a 1985 vintage unit made in Korea and bearing the GE nameplate, has a manual tuner. That means I have to work, even if it slight work, by getting up, walking across the room, and turning the dial to make the station change.

Some years ago, I would listen to NPR in the evening for the jazz, and WCBM when working in the office or on the road. All of my tuners were manual. Now, except for the office, all of my radios have solid-state tuners, and most of them have remotes. Whatever station is tuned in the office is tuned to the other radios so I can follow discussions as I move about. For now, that will be WCBM for local news and talk. I might tune in to Dave and Ron, but being human, being lazy, that will happen less and less if the programming stays current.

I don't how big a deal it will be that this is posted as a blog, but it will give other people an opportunity to consider it, weigh in and make their decisions about what they need from a news source.

Mississippi Dem Runs Right at Barbour

2007-10-10T08:50:00.001-04:00

The NY Times thinks a man bit a dog in Mississippi.

John Eaves, (D-MS) is the sacrificial lamb put up to challenge Haley Barbour (R-MS) in the race for Governor. The Times characterizes Barbour as "looking irritated" and "clearly annoyed" at Eaves' invocation of the Bible as a guide for social and governmental action. Apparently, the folks at the Times think this is great. Democrat runs on principles = man bites dog. They even spoke to Baltimore's own, self-proclaimed Democratic Political Science Professor Tom Schaller who seems to be defining the New Democratic Southern Strategy – deny what you party has represented for the last two hundred years and run on a Republican platform with strong roots in Judeo-Christianity.

For ten years, GOPinionPlus has argued that Republicans in the dark blue state of Maryland should be taking their message to Democratic religious strongholds, colleges and community associations, and clearly defining the consistency between the community values and the Republican Party Principles. Is anyone listening?

By the way, can anyone produce a similar statement of the Democrat Party Principles?

Dishonorable Discharge Reprise II

2007-10-07T10:27:00.001-04:00

No sooner do I finish a comment about the proliferation of stories about Democrats public dishonesty, than I find another pattern: Commentators calling lying Democrats to task. Michael Reagan warns in his piece, People of Deceit, that the deceivers should fear columnists and talk show hosts who will hold the liar's feet to the fire. To that, I will add that there should as great a fear of the blogosphere.

Dishonorable Discharge: Democrats Soil Themselves Reprise

2007-10-07T10:14:00.001-04:00

Catching up on some email news while listening to Sunday morning television, I came across something I wish I had when I wrote the original Dishonorable Discharge piece.

Kathryn Jean Lopez lead, "Is the truth necessary only when it suits your political agenda?" hit close to home with me. I read the piece, chuckling to myself that one of her points was how Democrats had reacted to a headline without knowing what the story was about. At least two of us are seeing a pattern.

Dishonorable Discharge: Democrats soil themselves

2007-10-05T16:48:00.001-04:00

You have to hand it to the headline writers at The Jeffersonian. For the September 25, 2007 Party Line column, where every other week the Democrats spokesman, James Kehl, trades penning columns with the Republican Party County Chairman, Chris Cavey, they wrote Support troops not just with a yard sign. I was hooked. I wanted to know how this was going to be twisted.

The first sentence recalled the deaths in Iraq of two young men serving in the Marine Corps. The local community continuously honors these soldiers, these defenders of our freedoms, lest any of us forget what they did for all of us. I wish I could provide a link to the item, but it is not included in the newspaper's archive.

I smiled as I read about the author's memories of sacrifices and his feelings. By paragraph two, I was grinning, and paragraph three started me thinking about the Jonathan Swift solution for the Irish problem: eat the children. There were typical misstatements of fact. While asserting that the United States military is under civilian control, he concludes that each of determines when members of the military can be placed at risk. Yes. We elect the congress and congress has the sole authority to declare war, it is the President, the Chief Executive and Commander in Chief, who holds the ultimate responsibility for placing soldiers at risk.

Kehl describes the Selective Service (neglecting that a Democratic Congress under a Democratic President) that once drafted citizens to serve. He becomes even fuzzier as he walks through the logic that the draft was discontinued resulting in an all volunteer military resulting in the placing of a burden being borne by a small percentage of the population. I wondered what his point was. This was unchanged during the last four administrations, two of which were headed by a Democrat. What was wrong? He did not make me wait.

With no more warning than that, Kehl was spinning into a bizarre land of make believe, and I assumed, satire. Let me share with you:

The current administration does not want a draft because that would affect a large segment of the population. Since the lives of their family members would be at risk, these citizens would pay close attention to the actions of the government. Unfortunately, people tend not to pay attention to the actions of their government if they have nothing at stake. It is easy to call a right-wing talk show or put a sign on your lawn that says "Support Our Troops, Support Our President" when other people have their lives at risk.

Mr. Kehl is certain that a draft would address a larger segment of the population. Is that because we would draft more people from more families than the volunteer effort generate? It is nonsense. He goes on to say that members of the administration do not pay attention to what our government is doing. More nonsense. The last assertion, that people putting fictitious (these signs are a figment of his imagination) signs up will exempt your loved ones from risk, is part of what convinced me that this was a satire by Kehl. Why would he write a column advancing Republicans or the President? I read on.

Kehl went into the party screed about the unjust and immoral invasion of Iraq before stating, "It has not protected our country from terrorists. " he ended the paragraph with, " Why should terrorists come to America to kill Americans when all they have to do is go to Iraq." All right, I admit that I was seeing this as more than a jest. It was more untruth masquerading as truth given the credibility of being a regular column in a twice per week newspaper. Terrorists successfully attacked on our soil at the beginning of the Clinton Administration and at the beginning of the Bush Administration. They have tried to attack unarmed, non-combatant civilians here at home but have been thwarted. Kehl wants us to believe that terrorists would rather attack armed soldiers in Iraq than attack civilians. Kehl went from humorous to dishonest here.

The close to Kehl's column went back to the military members and families he started with. He then called all Americans who disagree with his anti-war stance irresponsible. People who listen to talk radio hosts without family members serving in Iraq are irresponsible for not acknowledging that this war is not a "necessary part of the war on terror".

So what, you might ask. Different strokes for different folks, right? The September 27, 2007 Jeffersonian put the Kehl commentary in perspective Two mothers honor fallen sons. On the front page, above the fold, a picture of two smiling women, each holding a two-foot by three-foot photograph of their son, one of them in country with an Iraqi youth and the other hugging his wife of three weeks, both men in uniform. It was the same two boys being lamented in the anti-war column from the week before. However, this article was far different from Kehl's spin.

These mothers miss their sons dearly. They would do anything to have them back, safe, in the family home. They were celebrating the lives their sons had lived. They were also talking about the upcoming scholarship fundraiser (October 12, 2007, 7:30 to 11:30 PM, Martin's Valley Mansion, 594 Cranbrook Road, Cockeyesville, MD Call (410) 473-4657 for tickets or to contribute). Please forgive me lengthy quote from the article (page A6, Night for sharing memories, which, unfortunately is not available online at this writing.

Lance Cpl. [Norm] Anderson and Cpl. [Josh] Snyder said their presence in Iraq deterred terrorist attacks in America. Today, their families say the United States should not withdraw its forces prematurely.

"To Josh, our country was like our family farm. He would do anything for it," Doris Snyder said. "He said that he'd rather fight the enemy over there than over here."

The mothers, who keep in touch with many of their sons' friends from Hereford [High School] as well as Marines from their units, recently broadened the scope of the Anderson-Snyder Memorial Fund to include military families in need.

Previously, money went solely to scholarships – five, totaling $6,000, so far – for Hereford High School graduates.

"We think the boys would want us to help their family – the Marine family," Snyder said. "We haven't given any money to any families yet, but we'd like to."

Robyn Anderson had the last word in the article, "The next time you see a soldier in uniform, just walk up and say 'Thank you.' Nothing would have made Norm and Josh happier."

James Kehl invoked the images of Norm and Josh in his anti-war, anti-Bush administration, anti-Republican diatribe that was factually inaccurate, and attempted to use those who disagree with him, but cannot speak for themselves to support his attacks. Norm and Josh have far more credibility here than does Kehl. The Democrats who hold Kehl out as their spokesperson are smeared with the filth that he wrote. For the sake of civil discourse, I pray that thinking Democrats find a new columnist. Until then, thinking people will read him critically and make decisions about whom and what deserves their support and who and what does not.

Republican “debate” (?) in the Valley of the Shadow of Death

2007-09-28T10:30:00.001-04:00

It has been widely reported that the Republican Presidential Primary frontrunners have slapped the African-American community in the face, on both cheeks, by failing to attend a debate in a Democratic city (renowned for its high violent crime rates), in a Democratic state, at a traditionally, and majority, black university. I, and I suspect many others, have struggled with the concept of this 'debate' for the last several weeks. As Akilah Smith said, "This isn't [the Republicans] environment. These aren't the people who voted for them. I guess they think this is a waste of their time," she said. "I would think it was a waste of my time." Smart woman. And, she was not alone.

Nine out of ten registered voters in Baltimore are Democrats. This was a Republican debate. The Democratic Party debates have been held in Democratic strongholds. Why hold this here, and why would anyone expect the candidates to show up here? Perhaps UMES would have drawn a larger audience and a larger pool of candidates while still maintaining a focus on issues of particular interest to the various population segments on which this gathering was to focus. Furthermore, the goal of highlighting a traditionally black university within a reasonable drive from Washington would have been met.

The lack of audience looks less like a disappointment than like a plan. Of the 2000 seats in the auditorium, only 800, slightly more than one-third, were available to the public and one-third went begging. I wonder which third was empty – the reserved or the available. This could have been caused as much by the venue itself as by the location in what is perceived as a very, very dangerous city where crime was the over-riding concern in the recent city election.

My wife and I both white, both over 50, she from Chicago and I from Baltimore, can name one-half dozen predominately-black colleges off the tops of our heads. Neither of us can name a predominately-white college. Each of us has attended two or more colleges, our children have attended three - all liberal arts - and I took a non-credit course at Morgan in 1980. The 2008 Democratic Presidential debates have been scheduled at traditionally black colleges where the candidates were roundly supported. The history of Republican debates at Morgan has been less than stellar. We hope last night helped to temper that history. Overall, was this really the best place, or even a reasonable place, to reach Republican Primary voters?

Lastly, Mr. Eugene Morris, a Democrat coming here from Chicago for the Republican Presidential debate (?), nailed down the real reason the Republicans should have rejected this debate completely, "Already, there is a big PR push to make sure the African-American community is very aware of what happened here," he said. If the community wants to complain about the bad thing that happened, they might want to focus on host Tavis Smiley repeatedly minimizing the venue by refusing to refer to it by its name, Morgan State University.

This was clearly a lose/lose proposition for the candidates. Those who did not show up because it was a bad idea to be there will be maligned, criticized and castigated by Republicans and Democrats, because each has an ox to gore by doing so. This started on the stage during the introductory remarks and continued into the spin-room afterwards where the host and questioners talked more about what did not happen that what did. Everyone has his or her agenda. Those who did show up will be criticized for the lack of content and depth of their positions and their presentations. The only winners here were the opponents of the Republican Party.

Traditionally low ratings for PBS primary debates; an unfriendly audience dominated by people who will not or cannot vote for them; and a format that gave unfriendly questioners more time to ask questions than the candidates had to answer them (and what was that bit with Juan Williams calling out people placed in the audience to illustrate his statements couched as questions - the NPR State of the Union Address?); this all added up to good reasons for candidates to make other plans for the evening. It does not take a political scientist to figure out that getting this event out of the PBS conference room last January set-up the Democratic Party to bludgeon the Republicans during the long campaign. There is more than one color of blood contemplated by the press adage, "if it bleeds, it leads". Occasionally, the messenger is wielding the weapon.

You Better Pay Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain

2007-09-25T10:11:00.001-04:00

It was the Gubernatorial Election of 2006. The top two candidates locked in a neck and neck race. The polls were all too close for either side to explain away. The Governor was flush with cash and spending freely. The Mayor was strapped for cash and taking out loans, one for a cool $500,000, to ensure competitiveness. Losing because you ran out of money at the end is a terrible way to lose. It worked! The Mayor became the Governor, giving him a platform from which to raise the money to pay back his financiers.

However, there were some lingering problems. As reported in the September 25, 2007, Examiner, O'Malley, Brown return funds nearly a year later, some of the money being used at the end of the campaign last November was somewhat tainted. The Examiner seems to tell us without drawing conclusions for us.

"We regret that there confusion regarding the ability of corporations to make campaign contributions," reads the letter, dated August 13 [2007] from O'Malley/Brown campaign treasurer Martin Cadogan to James Robinson (no relation to this blogger), described as the chief of Morgan Creek Productions. One is driven to wonder, did Robinson independently come up with the idea to write multiple checks to the election committees of 1) Martin O'Malley, 2) Anthony Brown, and 3) O'Malley & Brown – leadership that works, confused after researching Maryland Campaign Law. On the other hand, is it possible that he received counsel, or guidance from someone else? It would be hard to believe that Mr. Cadogan, an experienced attorney could have contributed to the confusion he cites in his letter. Perhaps subsequent stories will tell us the origins of the confusion.

There seems to be a lot of confusion surrounding these contributions. When Common Cause raised the questions last November to the campaigns, the State Board of Elections and the State Prosecutor, the O'Malley campaign responded that it was all a computer glitch erroneously linking the contributions from a variety of sources to Robinson, implying that there were no improper contributions. On a beautiful fall day in September, the spokesperson for the Governor does not retreat, but modifies his response in light of the facts. He now believes that the computer glitched, erroneously linking the contributions, AND that the violations took place. "[O'Malley spokesman Rick] Abbruzzese said, '… once we realized these contributions were made in violation of campaign finance law, we moved quickly to correct it.'" Ten months had passed since Common cause raised the issue. Multiple campaign finance reports had been prepared and filed during that period. Moreover, only the O'Malley campaign entities report, officially, returning any portion of the money. Campaign spokespeople make a living selecting the right word for every official declaration. Her, we are left to determine how Mr. Abbruzzese squares his definition of the word "quickly" with that understood by everyone else.

The State Board of Elections seems a little confused, too, about their responsibilities, in spite of access to excellent legal counsel. They are obligated to report perceived violations of election law to the State Prosecutor. Common Cause brought these alleged suspected violations to their attention in November 2006. They did not refer this to the Special Prosecutor because Common Cause said they would. In spite of some wags assertions, Common Cause does not represent, and is not the agent for any state agency.

Throughout this story, reporter Jaime Malarkey has presented quotes from administration officials that make the nose turn up. It is the statements and not the paper that reeks of weeks (or months) old fish.

“The War”: Anything left to learn?

2007-09-24T17:17:00.001-04:00

Baltimore Sun columnist and blogger Dan Rodericks offers that the story being told by Ken Burns on Public Television is a story too often told and previously told better. Not everyone agrees on what the story is and what it might tell us.

Some saw the same production that Rodericks' saw. Tried and true - or is it old hat and mundane - video techniques, music reminiscent of the most effective lullabies', and a 150 minutes segment that needs a fifteen minute break to avoid putting people soundly to sleep. However, some people saw something else in the project. Some saw a story too often told, while others, reminded of the recent state of public education, recognize the need to share facts about our history so that we might heed Santayana, and accept the reminder of what we might not remember.

My first impression was that I was not really watching public television. The messages I was seeing and hearing were inconsistent with the left of center political position generally found here. Additionally, although I, too, have heard the story before, there were nuances and details that often seemed to slip by in the telling by Walter Cronkite and other chroniclers of the last half of the twentieth century. Let me explain myself by giving a few examples and the messages I was receiving. That these messages were coming at this time in our national struggles at home and abroad was more perplexing.

In fairness, I was running an errand to the grocery store when the show started, and missed the first one-half hour. When I joined the show there were images and commentaries on the events occurring in Spain and Asia in 1939. There were bits of film from the theaters and comments from contemporaries about their shock, concern and horror at what men were doing to men. We then started to go down the slopes that ended with virtually everyone at war, even those in countries that were neutral.

What was different was some of the slant, or spin, or perspective. We are familiar with the photos of bodies Burns used in The Civil War, and with the melancholy music. We are not as familiar with the photos of dead babies and beheaded corpses. We are familiar with the story of spoken atrocities, but not with supporting images on public television. The reverence usually reserved for conditions under President for Life Roosevelt (I wonder if the press referred to him as Roosevelt II?) was missing. The state of preparedness of the armed forces was atrocious. Why, during the early years of alphabet soup agencies, didn't our leadership prepare for the national defense in a period of extraordinary weakness, the great depression, and world instability, and build some arms and stock materiel to ensure our future use of the Blue Ridge Parkway and Lake New Germany, to name but two important projects that used American workers and resources during that period.

It was hard to watch the images and listen to the people who lived in America in the middle years of the century without drawing some comparisons to America today. From the attack on American innocents to the reactions of the general populace, to the responses to the preparedness for and progress of the military operations, we are enlightened by how the Greatest Generation responded to these stimuli. We listened to a sailor express his outrage at the Japanese attack on the innocent people at Pearl Harbor. It is hard to feel his outraged at the attack on a military installation that killed 2900 American members of the armed forces. The sailors at Pearl Harbor had the tools with which to defend themselves. The outrage about the attack should go more to the failure of the Executive Branch to inform military commanders of the specific threats delivered earlier by the Japanese Ambassador. The sailors could have used that information stand ready for their own defense. The numbers and outrage cannot help but invoke the image of 9/11 where the attack killed 2900 people, too. These were really innocents when we speak of acts of war. They had no tools for their defense. They had no expectation that an enemy might attack them in their office building. The outrages of the populations of the two attacks were similar. There was shock and pain followed by a broad consensus of determination to right this wrong as a nation.

(This might not go here, but if only the Republicans had not said they were going to use the terror attacks as a tool in the next Congressional or Presidential elections, we not have had such an increase in impolitic, impolite and vile public discourse. It has extended to the 2008 election where the democrats are still running against George Bush and he is not running. Back to the other War . . .)

Burns reminded us that some of the decisions coming out of Washington contradicted the advice of the military commanders on the ground. Without stretching, we can recall a Southeast Asian police action where the troops repeatedly achieved objectives and made advances only to be recalled by the salons in Washington. In the 1960s, the result was a quagmire. In this century, the political opposition uses that term to evoke a similar, visceral public reaction. In earlier wars, the result of diddling by politicians resulted in deaths no less than it does now. Nevertheless, The War provides another distinction between earlier wars and the present. That distinction is in the numbers of deaths. During WWII, 1500 deaths each day were common. In Viet Nam, the daily average was closer to 16. Now the average is closer to four. Perhaps the military leaders have learned more than the politicians have over the years. At least that is what the evidence suggests.

People were also struck by the descriptions of the early war efforts of the United States. We had been shipping arms and materiel to Great Britain and Russia, but had not been increasing the equipment and preparedness of our forces. There were images of WWI pie plate helmets and leggings. We saw the horse of the cavalry and heard about the numbers useless for mounting war on an ocean of islands or in Europe. How many administrations had dropped that ball? Who could not immediately think of the 21^st century American soldiers fighting without body armor or armored vehicles. Was this one of those things forgotten, things that could not inform us for that reason?

One more example that invokes a comparison is that of Bataan. The government abandoned 78,000 American and Filipino troops because the United States was not prepared for the action. The radio carried messages of hope for the soldiers and threat to the enemy. Both messages were hollow. The few who survived described the terrible actions of their opponents, beheadings and genital mutilation. We heard of the promises of captors to employ humane treatment, promises made by people who scorned surrender and visited their scorn on their prisoners. Where is the comparison with modern times? Why, in what we remember. Our military has learned not to overextend its lines even if the President says to do it. It has remembered what Sun Tzu told us centuries before about force deployments. After practices that made people seem expendable from the American Civil War, The Spanish American War, the Great War and The War, our military started to see soldiers as people, people worth protecting and worth retrieving.

My maternal grandfather left Baltimore and joined the Royal Canadian Air Force early in WWI. He flew in France. Repatriated when America joined the War, based on the three planes shot out from under him, he became an aircraft mechanic in the Army Air Corps. While in the Army, he helped train a pilot, H. Norris Mangan of Salem New Jersey. Norris and his brother Harry had been part of the New Jersey National Guard activated to fight in that war. My grandfather told me stories of the war and Norris and Harry wrote letters almost every day to their Mother. I listened to the stories and read the letters. I recently found some letters written in December of 1918 by a Baltimore Marine Drill Sergeant at Parris Island. I could not help but recall these things as I watched, snoozing to the lullabies of The War. As in the show, the complaints of these men were not of the poor political leadership, but were about the heat in Biloxi and the behaviors of those around them. The DI thought it unfair that the draftees were going to go home before the enlistees. The future pilot and his brother commiserated about the qualities of their commander, a good person back in Salem, but not the best of leaders in the field.

My parents both served in the Army during The War. Mom, a WAC from Baltimore and Dad, an Okie intelligence operative both served. They met when he made the occasional disciplinary visit to the Fort Monmouth office of the Adjutant General to see mom's boss and clear up his case. There sits on my desk a box of tiny photos from the tiny camera he used in the Pacific Theater. The emaciated young men were not complaining about the food, but of the changes to their characters from their participation in The War. My parents also told stories of the hardships of war but never once mentioned the incompetency of the leadership. They, like the WWI veterans understood that not everything would work. The War was hard on them. People around them were dying, even at Fort Monmouth. They trusted that the leaders would do their best bring success. The glass framed, sepia toned photograph of them smiling at the camera is in another box nearby.

Watching the reactions of the people to the attacks on America was amazing. After Pearl, people stood ten deep in the streets to send off soldiers, not protest their patriotism. In every town, a line around the block of young men enlisting to protect their country, and the attack was three thousand miles away from their homes! Fast forward to now. People still silently pass the site of the attack on our soil. The enlistment lines have diminished. But they were there. Young people might want to serve but there are so many voices in opposition it is hard to step up. I am afraid our political leaders have forgotten. Protestors get the media to promote their marches and inflate expectations that always fall short under a post event detail blackout. I wonder what they think they will really accomplish beyond rending the fabric of their community. I fear they do not remember the result of the last time this was done this way.

My mother described her duty in the towers on the New Jersey shore, watching for submarines intent on attacking our homeland. My sisters and I thought this activity to be preposterous. In The War, I learned that the Gulf Coast and waters off Florida experienced attacks on many ships attempting to get supplies to our troops and those of our allies. As often as I have heard the story that detail that hit my mind as fresh. Perhaps I can blame my public school education. Probably not. That was but one of the little details that I learned from Mr. Burns production there were others for another time.

I think that one of the greatest harms of war is the way it drains the gene pool. Darwinism does not always seem to triumph in war. The list of good people dead is too long. The list of people who stood up to right wrongs and were killed is too long. Those who made it back procreated the next generation. Moreover, after the next war we were left with those who survived. Many good people survived, but the evidence suggests that many spineless people have passed there traits on to others. When I was in school I wrote about the harms visited upon those who fought and returned to society lesser people than when they left. Now I am worrying more about the children of the previous age's cowards. What will their progeny contribute to society?

I admit that I was falling every so softly into the land of nod as I 'watched" the last thirty minutes of The War. My wife rested quietly beside me. The story was very familiar, as was the music, as were the production techniques. But I learned something new and remembered some things that had faded for me. I was interested that "political correctness" was not overpowering. The series will continue tonight. I have been assailed by advertisers to join that singer of standards Wayne What'shisname, you remember him, he has black hair, as he Dances with the Stars. Others insist that I join Chuck, the computer geek with no drive. I will leave those shows to Dan and his friends and return to the story of what made the Greatest Generation so great.