Opinion

J. Edgar, COINTELPRO, and Me by Gren Whitman

November 14, 2022 by Opinion 3 Comments

“The minute the FBI makes recommendations on what should be done with its information, we become a Gestapo.”
—J. Edgar Hoover

I wasn’t bad or famous enough to get onto President Nixon’s enemies list, but FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover – not as picky – included me as Subject No. BA 100-24104 in his agency’s covert and illegal counter-intelligence program, a.k.a. COINTELPRO.

From 1965 to 1971 — and while the FBI was assembling my 115-page file – I worked on voting rights projects in Maryland and Georgia, spoke out against U.S. foreign policies, drove a taxi in Baltimore, edited copy at the Baltimore Sun, put out a weekly political newsletter, spent a year as an anti-Vietnam war organizer, and directed an addiction treatment clinic — all perfectly constitutional activities.

Then on March 8, 1971, the self-styled Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI burgled the agency’s office in Media, Pa. By liberating suitcases stuffed with files, the “commission” outed COINTELPRO, Hoover’s super-secret, extra-legal counterintelligence program that began spying on thousands of Americans in 1956.

Under the Freedom of Information Act and for 10 cents a page, I obtained my COINTELPRO file. Shadowing me at meetings and picket lines and recording what I said and wrote and with whom I met, the banal assemblage discovered nothing, prevented nothing, and ultimately proved nothing. Riddled with redactions, repetitions, and errors, J. Edgar’s surveillance was a big waste of federal employees’ time and taxpayers’ dollars.

What triggered Hoover’s minions to spy on me? I was targeted after I mailed my draft card back to Local Draft Board No. 36 in Towson in April 1965. Even though I’d been discharged from the Army three years earlier, not carrying a draft card was still illegal. Protesting LBJ’s decision to send the 82nd Airborne — my old outfit — into the Dominican Republic, I told my draft board that I refused to carry it any longer. When the feds looked closer, they found that I fit into two of their very favorite subversive profiles: pro-civil rights plus anti-Vietnam war, and so they started watching.

As Selma exploded and the Vietnam war escalated, 1965 was tumultuous and I was swept into the turmoil. That August, I joined the “Assembly of Unrepresented People” on the National Mall, and along with another 200-plus civilly disobedient anti-war protesters was arrested on Capitol Hill while trying to present Congress with our “Declaration of Peace with the People of Vietnam.” The FBI was watching.

Leaving SNCC in 1966, I became a Baltimore Sun copy editor and in my free time produced a political newsletter, “The View From Here,” which expressed liberal-to-left views on social, political, and economic issues, including Vietnam and civil rights. The FBI was watching.

In early 1968, I was persuaded by Catholic activist Phil Berrigan to leave the Sun and organize full-time against the war, giving me a front-row seat for this watershed year. A year later, I was invited to direct Man Alive, a struggling methadone maintenance clinic in Baltimore. Though deeply involved in the intricacies of treating opiate addicts day-to-day, I continued to engage in anti-war activities, including the May Day demonstration in 1971, when I was arrested again, this time with 20,000 others. The FBI watched all of this.

Hoover’s surveillance might have had consequences. With its litany of “captioned-subject-went-here” and “Whitman-said-this,” the faceless folks at COINTELPRO included two incidents, either of which could have put me in serious legal jeopardy, including prison.

The first was in October 1968, when marshals seized me in the U.S. Courthouse in Baltimore and accused me of handing out leaflets while the Catonsville Nine were being sentenced. After sitting in a holding cell for an hour while munching on a bologna sandwich, I was released by Maryland’s U.S. Attorney, Steve Sachs, who apologized.

The folks at COINTELPRO, however, interpreted this courthouse altercation completely differently, alleging instead that I assaulted three federal officers, a felony. Although the marshals had grabbed me, the FBI instead described them as my “victims.”

The report read:
“Deputy U.S. Marshal [name redacted]-Victim; Deputy U.S. Marshall [name redacted]-Victim; and U.S. Marshall Frank Udoff-Victim: Crime on a Government Reservation – Assaulting a Federal Officer.”

But Mr. Sachs elected to do nothing, and this matter was dropped.

The other entry in my file with potentially serious consequences came on the heels of my arrest during the 1971 May Day demonstrations in D.C. As I walked along M Street near Mount Vernon Square, I was arrested by D.C. police without provocation, charged with disorderly conduct, held until late that evening, and released on $50 bail.

The dicey bit came several weeks later. After being found not guilty — the cop who testified wasn’t even able to place me at the scene — I was puzzled when the judge remarked, “I really hoped we could get this man.”

Ultimately, my file suggested why the judge made this unnerving statement. Dated May 10, 1971, a report was titled, “NAME CHECK REQUEST ON MAY DAY DEMONSTRATORS” and was focused on “179 individuals who were arrested on May 3, 1971.” I was one of those individuals and the judge had likely read this in advance of my trial.

Because my COINTELPRO file reported my arrest in 1965 and the courthouse incident in 1968, I remain convinced my May Day judge had been handed this erroneous report to review before he found me not guilty. (After May Day, I was a plaintiff in a civil liberties lawsuit against the D.C. government and was awarded a $1,100 settlement in 1981.)

Because I was “connected” with SNCC and “participated in anti-war and anti-draft demonstrations” and “urged civil disobedience,” the FBI put me on its “Agitator Index” in 1969. I was later upgraded to “Priority III of the Security Index,” whatever that meant.

To this day, I remain tickled by parts of the file.

Despite its overweening interest in what I said and what I did and with whom I associated, the FBI never actually interviewed me. Why? “There is no indication that an interview of WHITMAN would prove productive, and it is believed that an interview of WHITMAN would not be prudent.”

My high school in Dedham, Mass., informed Hoover & Co. that I was “generally considered to be a good campus citizen and a good student.”

Presumptuously, J. Edgar’s intensely anti-Communist agency labeled me as a “non-Communist Party (CP) member.” Accuracy demands should that I have been described as “a Democratic Party (DP) member,” but that wasn’t the agency’s purpose.

Also odd was the entry: “At the time of Reverend PHILIP BERRIGAN’s arrest in New York City on 4/20/70, he had in his possession the name of captioned subject. The significance of WHITMAN’S name in BERRIGAN’S address book is unknown.”

In a May 1971 memo, the Baltimore FBI office reported, “this case is being placed in a closed status by the Baltimore Division.” For whatever reason, they had tired of me.

As it related to me, COINTELPRO never reached “Gestapo” level. Those anonymous informers just watched and watched and reported and reported.

Spies and snitches never prevented me from speaking out, writing, demonstrating, and organizing. Didn’t prevent me from shepherding newspaper and TV reporters to Catonsville to witness the Berrigans’ raid on the draft board. Didn’t stop me from organizing and joining numerous anti-war and civil rights protests, including civil disobedience. COINTELPRO just watched and reported — just creepy when you think about it.

Once-burned, twice shy, eh? During the COINTELPRO years, the FBI spied on thousands of activists using informers, typewriters, telephones, and index cards. It created long lists of so-called subversives and put them on its “Agitator Index” and “Security Index.” But, given 2022-level technologies, the agency’s spy powers are limitless.

A new version of COINTELPRO can happen again, anytime, and a new generation of fired-up constitutional activists may find it already has.

Gren Whitman has been a leader in neighborhood, umbrella, public interest, and political groups and committees, and worked for civil rights and anti-war organizations. He is now retired and lives in Rock Hall, MD.

Clarifying Misunderstandings with WC’s Plans for Armory Site by Mike Sosulski

October 28, 2022 by Opinion 11 Comments

There have been questions over the decision to remove the current Chestertown Armory, and those questions seem to be based on a misunderstanding of some of the issues at play regarding the site. Let me provide some background and state that it has never been our preference to pursue this course. In 2005 the 155th infantry regiment, which called the Armory home, was merged with the 105th leaving the facility without a tenant. This occurred during a time of consolidation in the military and as is the process, the Federal government offered the Armory building and property to Kent County and Chestertown. The building had sustained considerable damage during Hurricane Isabel in 2003, so taking on the property came with considerable costs and both the county, and the town passed on the opportunity.

Washington College obtained the property in 2012 as part of a pass-through agreement with the town of Chestertown that saw ownership transfer first to the town and then to the College. After using a portion of the land to build Semans-Griswold Environmental Hall—which houses the Center for the Environment and Society—and the new Hodson Boathouse, the College began to consider options for the Armory. The idea of a small hotel and conference center for Chestertown has been considered for quite some time, but as a non-profit institution, Washington College cannot operate a for-profit hotel and would therefore need to find investors willing to build and operate the hotel with the College leasing the property to that group. For various reasons, the project didn’t gain traction until the past few years. At that time, prospective investors provided positive feedback about a hotel in Chestertown and the potential of the historic Armory as a location and provided funding to explore the feasibility of the project.

After commissioning reports to explore the condition of the Armory and the associated work to make the structure viable, it was realized that the condition of the facility made renovation prohibitive. In response to this news, community members have noted that the lead and asbestos in the building can be addressed, and they are right—the lead and asbestos would be costly, but not impossible to remediate. Others have indicated that mold can also be remediated, and if what we were dealing with were ordinary mold that simply sat on surfaces that would surely be true.

However, the environmental report indicates three main areas of concern: the mold is not just on surfaces within the building, but it has penetrated the fabric of the building; in a renovation, much of the concrete block and brick would be left in place and represent an ongoing threat; as a result, full and permanent remediation cannot be guaranteed. The issues around the extent of the mold present major barriers for potential investors who see no upside to attempting to repurpose a building that will present ongoing health risks. As a result, removing the building and replacing it with new construction that will commemorate both the historic building and the contributions of the 155th regiment present the best-case scenario to make use of the property and to provide much needed hotel space for to the benefit of the College, town, and county.

Washington College takes its responsibility as a member of the Chestertown and Kent County communities seriously. Since taking ownership of the property in 2012, the college has pursued a number of plans to adaptively reuse or renovate the historic structure with the hope of preserving the Armory. Unfortunately, none of those plans turned out to be feasible. It should also be recognized that an independent group, not associated with the College, has spent the last 5 years trying to save the Armory with their own money. They have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars hiring architects, engineers, consultants, lawyers, and builders to try and incorporate the Armory building into a useful structure. Their efforts too, were not successful. I understand the inclination to react negatively to the news about the plans for the Armory. It’s never a happy day when we must decide to demolish a historic building, but these decisions are never arrived at lightly and without fully examining every available option.

Mike Sosulski is president of Washington College

Opinion: Constitution Update Required by Bob Moores

May 23, 2022 by Opinion 3 Comments

As most people who follow the abortion issue know, the draft of a majority opinion authored by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to overturn Roe v. Wade [1973] was revealed by Politico on 2 May. The decision is in response to a challenge of a Mississippi Law enacted in 2018 called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

In his draft, Judge Alito describes the job before the Court:

“The State of Mississippi asks us to uphold the constitutionality of a law that generally prohibits an abortion after the fifteenth week of pregnancy – several weeks before the point at which a fetus is now regarded as ‘viable’ outside the womb. In defending this law, the State’s primary argument is that we should reconsider and overrule Roe and Casey and once again allow each State to regulate abortion as its citizens wish. On the other side, respondents and the Solicitor General ask us to reaffirm Roe and Casey, and they contend that the Mississippi law cannot stand if we do so. Allowing Mississippi to prohibit abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, they argue, ‘would be no different than overruling Casey and Roe entirely.’ They contend that ‘no half measures’ are available and that we must either reaffirm or overrule Roe and Casey.”

Note: Casey [1992] modified Roe, but reaffirmed most of it by holding that stare decisis (precedent) should be respected in most cases.

Judge Alito summarizes the majority opinion:

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely – the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. It’s time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.”

My opinion of Judge Alito’s opinion:

He is right in saying “Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held [in Roe] that it confers a broad right to obtain one.” Here I note Judge Alito’s reference to the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Amendment 14, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Judge Alito is also right when he says that because the Constitution does not explicitly address abortion, Roe was weakly reasoned, and that the Court is being asked, in effect, to make the law. That endeavor, called “judicial activism”, is not the job of the Court. But couldn’t a future court conclude that Dobbs, because it refers to language that must be “interpreted”, is also weakly reasoned?

Alito is wrong if he thinks that punting the ball back to the States is going to lessen our “enflamed debate” and “deepened division” on abortion. The rancor will get worse, not better. If abortion is of national importance, it should not be left to the States to do as they please, otherwise, slavery might still be legal in some.

The Court’s reputation is taking another hit. It already contains five justices who implied or explicitly stated in their confirmation hearings that they supported Roe. Now we find they were, in their job interviews, less than truthful.

The best solution is a Constitutional amendment clearly delineating the law regarding abortion (same for LGBTQ and privacy rights). That would remove the Court’s need to opine. We need a federal law on abortion, not a hodge-podge of state laws that run from no abortions under any circumstances to the opposite. But an amendment requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, and with the Congress we have today, passionately divided along ideological lines on social issues, that is not a possibility.

So, we are stuck. It looks like abortion is going back to the states. There it will remain unless or until abortion becomes a national priority for voters.

Another Amendment, the Second, is out of touch with modern reality. It simply says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” This statement consists of an explanatory part followed by a declarative part, the latter being dependent on the former. The right of the people to keep and bear arms seems to be addressing the need for security provided by a well-regulated militia, does it not? Intent (a.k.a. mindreading) of the Second Amendment has been ruled upon four times by the Court, but the original wording has not changed.

When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, the most destructive “Arm” bearable by a person was a single-shot, muzzle-loading pistol or rifle. Did Madison, in his wildest dreams, envision mentally-ill citizens using rapid-fire, multi-shot pistols and rifles to murder their neighbors? To illustrate the ridiculous limit of the vagueness of “Arm”, the Second Amendment does not preclude citizens from bearing thermonuclear devices. It seems to me that the Second Amendment is in dire need of revision.

Bob Moores retired from Black & Decker/DeWalt in 1999 after 36 years. He was the Director of Cordless Product Development at the time. He holds a mechanical engineering degree from Johns Hopkins University

Off the Bench: Moving a Community Forward by Steve Rideout

March 14, 2022 by Opinion Leave a Comment

About a year ago, I was approached by others in the community with an idea for a project to bring our community together to help improve outcomes for families here. That idea has come to be called Moving Dorchester Forward (MDF).

As our small group met and talked this past year, we gained momentum, focus, and people who were interested in joining and contributing to the effort. The data that we collected about children and families in our community and the challenges that they face made it clear that the need was here but the resources were not or were so limited that the people and non-profits trying to help were having limited impact.

We were fortunate during this time to have the J2W Foundation begin to help start the change here that needed to take place. Through its investment in developing collaborative efforts for after-school programs and funding a local Campaign for Grade Level Reading, more people in our community began to take notice.

The focus of MDF is not to provide the numerous services that are needed here but to connect those resources, find funding for service providers to implement needed services, and support existing programs through writing grants and collecting data to show their value. Another way to say it is that our aim is to turn resources into assets. With several work streams in the mission of MDF, the area of focus that I am leading as a volunteer is Advocacy, Parent/Family Engagement, and Court Involved Children. One program that we recently started is called the Coalition 4 Court Kids (C4CK).

This effort is based on a program created by the Children’s Defense Fund called “Beat the Odds.” I learned about it years ago from a judicial colleague in a neighboring community who invited me to a local awards dinner for their Beat the Odds program. The hotel room was packed with well over two hundred people from business, government, the faith community, nonprofits, youth, and family members. The purpose was both to raise money for the program and to award scholarships and grants to youth that had been involved in the juvenile court in that community and to recognize them for changing their lives with the help of programs and work with agency staff, volunteers, and engaged parents and family members.

I brought the idea back to our local bar association that took the lead and began raising money. On average they raise in the area of $30,000 each year for court involved youth college scholarships or grants to help with more education or jobs.

With a small grant this past year from the Todd Fund here in Dorchester County, MDF created the Coalition 4 Court Kids. We put together a brochure that will be printed and an application form to submit requests by youth for funding that is supported by letters from the person, nonprofit, and/or agency that works with the youth to help him or her turn their life around.

The funding is available not only for scholarships but also for purchasing computers, helping repair cars or bikes used for transportation to a job, providing money to a nonprofit that wants to hire a youth for a summer job, or whatever need the youth has that will acknowledge his or her success in changing the direction of their life and help them continue in the right direction.

If you have an interest in talking about this program or have an idea to support court involved youth or any youth for that matter, please give me a call at 703-655-6149 or email me.

Thanks for Reading. Please be in touch.

Judge Rideout is the former Chief Judge of the Alexandria, VA Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court (1989-2004). From 2004 until the present he has consulted in different states to support their efforts to improve their child welfare systems. From 2016 to early 2021, he was the Ward 1 Commissioner on the Cambridge City Council. Throughout his career, he has been an advocate for improving the lives of children in his and other communities.

General Milley, Traitor or Hero? By Bob Moores

September 25, 2021 by Opinion

I read Howard Freedlander’s piece in The Spy on the “Military Conundrum” created by General Mark Milley’s call to his Chinese counterpart, Gen Li Zuocheng, on 8 January, two days after the insurrectionist assault on our democracy.

Milley was trying to allay Chinese fears of an attack by the United States. Quoting Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, in their book “Peril”, US intel believed “The Chinese thought that Trump in desperation [in having lost the election] would create a crisis, present himself as the savior, and use the gambit to win reelection.”

Shortly before or after General Milley’s call to Gen Li [Woodward and Costa do not make it clear], Speaker Pelosi expressed the same worry in a face-to-face meeting with Milley. She wanted assurance that Trump could not launch a nuclear attack on China by himself. Milley affirmed that there were “procedures” which guaranteed that that could not happen.

I agree with Mr. Freedlander that circumventing President Trump in this manner was a violation of normal chain-of-command protocols, both political and military. I also agree that policy decisions on going to war, or not, belong to civilians in the Congress and Executive branch, not the military.

However, I disagree with Mr. Freedlander’s view that General Milley should have resigned rather than calling General li.

This is not a normal situation we are talking about. Nor is it a normal president we were dealing with. I have voted in fifteen presidential elections, so I have experience with only the last third of our commanders-in-chief. But I have never seen the likes of Donald Trump. Not even Nixon, whom I confess to have supported early on, was as impulsive, self-centered, power-hungry, and ignorant/disdainful of the US Constitution. In the end, Nixon, to avoid impeachment, displayed honor in resigning. I see no honor in the perpetrator of the Big Lie, only child-like selfishness.

From the day he lost the election to inauguration of President Biden on 20 January, I worried that Trump might attack Iran, North Korea, or even China in a “Dr. Strangelove” move in order to stay in power. Am I being too melodramatic? Unrealistic? I don’t think so. I’ve come to expect non-normality with Trump. I heard his niece, Mary Trump, say on the Lawrence O’Donnell show, “This is the first time in his life that he lost something that he couldn’t lie, cheat, or steal his way out of, so his desperation is what General Milley was dealing with.”

I don’t think Milley’s resignation-with-explanation would have been as reassuring to the Chinese as was his person-to-person call. His words would have carried less credibility than that of a sitting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

General Milley is scheduled to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 28. I hope and expect it to be televised. He will have a chance to explain why he did what he did. I’ll try to reserve my final opinion until then, but for now, Milley looks to be a hero in the mold of Lt. Col. Vindman, Fiona Hill, and Ambassador Yovanovitch.

Op-Ed: Blowing Off Steam by Bob Moores

August 8, 2021 by Opinion

I’m guessing this expression came from the days of steam engines, when excessive boiler pressure was relieved by a safety valve.

Trust is in short supply. It’s a valuable thing. A combination of honesty and dependability, it is hard to attain and easy to lose. Saint Paul said “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” I don’t like to argue with a saint, and while I note that faith and trust are virtually the same, in my dealings with people I think trust is primal. The greatest compliment I can give or receive is “I trust you.”

President Reagan’s famous phrase “trust but verify” concerned the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. The idea is to give the other side the benefit of doubt at the beginning of a relationship, but it’s prudent to check and see if they are truly upholding their end of the bargain. This is not a bad approach, I think, in personal relationships.

But how about the US Government? When you think of trustworthiness, it’s not the first organization that comes to mind – usually the other way around. Is this a good thing? The US Government is composed of many people, and like any group, there are (mostly) good people and a few who are not so good. Should we condemn the entire bunch for the corruptions of the few? Should we castigate all law enforcement officers because of a few bad apples? I don’t think so. I don’t believe unbridled cynicism is productive, or warranted. It’s a disservice to the competent who are trying to do the right thing.

Our last President, in four painfully-long years, did more to instill distrust in the U.S. Government than any I have seen. Seventeen US intelligence agencies concluded that Russia meddled in the 2016 election to help him win, but he declared they were all wrong. “Trust me, not them,” said he. Really? He said climate change was a Chinese hoax, that Covid-19 would be gone by Easter of 2020, and the 2020 election was fraudulently stolen from him. Is it too much to ask for the tiniest modicum of evidence? He said he always hired the best people, but if that were true, why did he wind up firing more than forty (so many I lost track)?

Now to you who refuse to be vaccinated. Unless you have consulted with your doctor and have a good medical reason why you should not be vaccinated, you are being irresponsibly dangerous and selfish. You are a threat to your family, friends, neighbors, and people of the world. You are helping the virus survive and mutate to ever-more-deadly forms. If you don’t trust the government, why don’t you research the science behind the vaccines? Don’t listen to the idiots on Fox News, Governor DeSantis, or Senator Paul. Mask-wearing and vaccinations are not matters of personal liberty if they affect others. You may think you have the right to risk your own health, but not if my grandchildren die as a result.

Now to deniers of human-caused global warming. You are not helping your grandchildren or mine to a good life in the coming years. Research the science. Yes, there are a few in the denier camp, but they are akin to those who worked for tobacco companies. They have special interests, namely their own, not yours. The real scientists are worried. You should be too.

Op-Ed: Kent County Must Support Minary’s Dream by Jason Claire and John Schratwieser

July 16, 2021 by Opinion

The Kent Cultural Alliance fully supports Minary’s Dream Alliance’s continued, uninterrupted use of the Frank M. Jarman American Legion building on American Legion Road in Chestertown. Minary’s Dream Alliance (MDA) has been renting the property to fulfill its mission of providing a safe place for mentorship programs and events for adolescent children and their families, a place for a widely popular and extraordinarily well run food program providing groceries to vulnerable seniors and families during the pandemic, an event space for summer learning programs co-sponsored by Washington College and the Kent Cultural Alliance, a place for our veterans to meet, and a place for the continuation of the American Legion blood bank which has been meeting at this property for years. The use of this building has not changed in 60 years, and it will still be the same: A place for people to meet and families to gather together.

Remarkably, it took MDA only three months to raise enough funds to purchase the building from The American Legion as its permanent home. We salute the leadership of MDA for this herculean task, and we are humbled by their deep impact on our community in only 14 months since its founding!

At the eleventh hour, a group of neighbors made a litigious effort to block an African American community center that is meant to help all of Kent County’s marginalized residents and youth. Part of the mission of the Kent Cultural Alliance is to connect communities through sharing conversations. Throughout our recent history in Chestertown, African American lives have been hindered by prioritizing the comfort and will of white residents, with little regard to what that may do to our black community. We believe blocking MDA will add to that unfortunate history. The message from these neighbors isn’t We have some concerns and we would like to work together as a community to address them. The message appears to be We don’t want you here. Historically this is not a new message, but we hope that Chestertown will continue its recent work in reconciling with the past and not repeating it, by not letting the preferences of a small few outweigh the future benefit of many.

The Kent Cultural Alliance is proud to partner with MDA as we have overlapping missions to provide programming to the greater Kent County community, and we look forward to co-hosting events at their new home on American Legion Road. The possibilities are endless when organizations and members of our community work together. It’s what neighbors do for one another. Please stand with our friends at Minary’s Dream Alliance and show your support at the planning and zoning appeals hearing on July 19th, 7pm, 400 High Street.

Jason Claire is the President of Kent Cultural Alliance Board and John Schratwieser is its Director

On behalf of the Board

Opinion: An Old White Guy’s Thoughts on Racism by Bob Moores

June 10, 2021 by Opinion

Consider two aspects of racism, biology and psychology. Biology first.

We humans, in taxonomy, are in the Eukaryota domain, Animalia kingdom, Chordata phylum, Mammilia class, Primate order, Hominidae family, Homo genus, and Sapiens species.

There are no subspecies of Homo sapiens. While it is true that both gene “expression” (genotype) and environment determine visible characteristics (phenotype), these variations are too superficial to warrant further taxonomic refinement. People are people. That’s it.

Human skin color depends on content of the dark brown pigment called melanin. Melanin has the special ability to block almost 100% of the sun’s harmful ultraviolet radiation, the main cause of skin cancers, including particularly dangerous melanomas. Humans who migrated north from Africa nearly two million years ago gradually lost melanin, becoming more fair-skinned. Reduced melanin allowed sunlight to produce more vitamin D in their skin. Today, since most people in northern latitudes wear clothes and get almost all their vitamin D from food or drink, their lighter skin gives them little advantage. As tradeoffs go, melanin’s UV protection in darker skin would seem more advantageous than the bonus of vitamin D production in lighter skin.

No “white” person is truly white; no “black” person is truly black. Human skin color ranges in shades of brown, from light beige to very dark brown. Thus, the expression “people of color” seems a contrived descriptor.

Now to psychology.

Humans, according to famous sociobiologist E.O. Wilson, are among the most social animals on Earth. The other contenders, says he, are ants, termites, and honeybees. We tend to gather with, and be more comfortable in, groups of people who look like us, think like us, are in the same economic class as us, etc. In other words, we are tribal, and that propensity probably goes back thousands of years to the time when groups were trying to survive not just among competing groups, but also with ferocious animals who viewed humans as tasty cuisine. Our history is of violent competition between tribes to occupy the best land, have access to the best food, spread the best religion, live under the best government, or simply determine who has the right to exist. The “winning” tribes have been those with the most adamant purpose, best organization, and superior weaponry.

Today, because of interdependency of economic systems across the globe, the conquering of one country by another is probably (hopefully) a thing of the past. Conflict between competing tribes will continue, but another world war is unlikely because it could easily result in extinction of the human species.

Racism, I’m sorry to say, is not going to quickly subside. That’s because skin color, and any other physical attribute for which one wants claim superiority, is a highly visible indicator of “not me”. One cannot immediately know another’s religion, politics, nationality, ethnicity, social status, or sexual orientation, but skin color is an obvious difference, if difference is what one seeks.

Racism is not a yes/no, either/or thing. We all may be a little racist, but loath to recognize or admit it. I confess I have thoughts at times that could be considered racist. Still, I try to remain vigilant, and push those thoughts away because I know they are irrational and unproductive.

In sum, if we are ever to achieve a true “United States”, much less a united world, racism must become a thing of the past.

When is the Right Time? By Bob Moores

April 19, 2021 by Opinion

Besides death and taxes, there is one thing we can always count on. After every mass shooting, conservative lawmakers will say “Now is the time for grieving, not for talking about new gun laws.” This is my attempt to inject a modicum of sanity into this discussion.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States became law in 1791, two years after the Constitution itself was ratified. It simply states:

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Two-and-a-third centuries later, we are still debating what James Madison, in consultation with other framers, meant. We tend to ignore the part about “A well-regulated Militia”, and argue about the second part, the citizen’s right to bear arms.

But what arms? The most advanced personal-weapons technology in 1791 was muzzle-loading pistols and muskets which could be fired at no more than three shots per minute. Madison could not have imagined hand-held firearms that could fire several hundred shots per minute. I further doubt that our founders could have conceived of a time when US citizens, in possession of such weapons, would regularly turn them on their neighbors.

Now, a problem is a situation that someone thinks something should be done about. I think most sane people would agree that frequent murdering of innocent civilians (often including children) is an unacceptable situation.

What’s the solution? Some focus on the weapon, others on the person using the weapon, but this a false dichotomy, an either/or fallacy. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t tackle both.

I’ll start with the shooter.

For a person to deliberately take a lawful person’s life is not within acceptable bounds of human interaction. Agree? At the least, we would judge the killer to be mentally disturbed at the moment the murder is committed. When one considers, however, that in our increasingly complex technological society, that mental disturbance, either on-going or temporary, is becoming more the norm than the exception, it would seem impossible to predict or identify with certainty when an individual is going become a deadly threat to himself or others.

My premise, then, is that no matter how carefully we observe our neighbors and try to help those we think are in mental distress, we are not going to be successful if we focus solely on the “person” element of the equation. And that leads to the other element, the gun.

The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 assigned regulation of certain types of weapons to the purview of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Some weapon types are regulated because they lend themselves to criminal intent (e.g., sawed-off shotguns and suppressors); others, like machine guns, grenades, and bombs, are used principally by our armed forces. The result is that one cannot go to his local gun store and purchase a “NFA firearm” without submitting to a federal background check, paying the $200 federal tax (same as 60 years ago), and waiting a couple of weeks for paperwork approval.

Semi-automatic pistols and assault rifles like the AR-15, on the other hand, are not federally regulated. They are state regulated, and much easier to buy. Maryland requires a background check that can take as long as a week, with no federal tax required. But many states have lesser requirements. Further, one can purchase an assault-type rifle at a gun show in Maryland with no waiting period at all.

The assault rifle was invented by the Germans in WW2. It was unique in being more compact, lighter in weight, and having greater magazine capacity than infantry rifles of that era. The round it fired was less powerful than that of the infantry rifle, but more powerful than the pistol bullet of a submachine gun. It is a close-quarter weapon where high volume of fire is more apropos than accuracy.

US armed forces adopted their version of the assault rifle, the M-16, in the 60’s, and today it remains the standard rifle used by all branches of our military. The M16 and its many variants are all capable of selective fire, a choice of firing mode between semiautomatic (one shot per trigger pull) or a three-round burst per trigger pull. In some variants, full-automatic (continuous) fire like a machine gun is an option.

The civilian version of the M-16 is called the AR-15. The AR-15 is capable of semi automatic fire only, and is the most popular rifle purchased by civilians today. Private citizens buy and use them for hunting, target shooting, home defense, collector value, and sometimes for homicide or suicide.

The AR-15, and other models in the same family, such as the semi-auto AK-47, are especially effective in striking the greatest number of “soft targets” like unarmed, unarmored people, in the shortest time. In this regard it is even more effective than a machine gun. That’s because the combination of high magazine capacity (20-30 rounds) and close range of targets means fewer bullets are wasted. Further enhancing the deadliness of the assault-type rifle is that its magazine, when empty, can be replaced by a full one in a few seconds.

In sum, the assault-type rifle is currently the best legal and readily available choice if you want to kill a lot of civilians in the shortest time.

What can be done about this intolerable situation?

My best idea on the gun part:

Pass a law that re-classifies all firearms capable of accepting high-capacity magazines as NFA firearms, thereby making them federally regulated and taxed upon sales or transfer of ownership. Raise the one-time tax on NFA firearms to $500. Create a new class of semiautomatic pistols and “assault-looking” rifles where magazine capacity is limited to ten rounds for handguns and five rounds for rifles (two-handed guns). As an engineer, I assure you that gun manufacturers can easily design assault-appearing rifles (for some folks it’s the “look” that is psychologically appealing) and handguns with these limitations. Sales of these weapons would be state-regulated and not incur the NFA tax.

The new law would apply not only to future gun sales, it would be retroactive to include all guns currently owned. Current owners of AR-15s, for example, to be compliant with the law, would have to apply for a federal background check and pay the $500 NFA tax on a gun that they bought for $600-$2000. Otherwise, they would be in possession of an illegal weapon. Note that compliance with this law would not demand, encourage, or allow gestapo-type home raids by the feds.

Would this law create a black-market for illegal assault weapons? Probably. But couple it with a government-run buy-back program (say $1000 per AR-15) and the net effect would be a reduction of these types of weapons in civilian hands.

My best idea on the person part:

Create a hotline (call it 1-1-1 for ease of remembering) similar to 9-1-1 whereby people in unusual or time-critical mental distress can contact a caring person for help. Like the 9-1-1 system, a dispatcher would answer immediately, and transfer the caller to the appropriate counselor. This system would obviously require a large network of counselors because the caller shouldn’t expect to be told something like “the present wait time is 30 minutes”.

Perhaps we could commission a diverse group of creative problem solvers (exclude politicians) which would include gun owners, non-gun owners, and people who have “no dog in the fight”. Brainstorm ideas and see if there is a sensible plan we could agree on.

The 2nd Amendment is not an edict from God. It was written centuries ago in circumstances far different than what we have today. It is in dire need of an update.

What can you and I in District 1 do immediately? Express your feelings in writing to:

Representative Andy Harris
2334 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515

Or email him at https://harris.house.gov/contact/offices

Priority one for any politician is to keep his job. To do that, he must actually represent the wishes of his constituents, the voters he is counting on for reelection. Therefore, he will have to accede to the wishes of his potential voters if the volume of complaint is high enough.

If we remain silent, nothing will change.

Op-Ed: Columbus, Courageous and Lucky by Bob Moores

October 12, 2020 by Opinion

Every school kid learns that Italian explorer Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas in 1492. That Norsemen had colonized parts of North America in the 10th century apparently was unknown in Europe at that time.

Columbus successfully lobbied Spanish monarchs Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand II to finance his voyage west to the East Indies. The purpose was to facilitate trade by greatly shortening the travel distance to the Far East rather than sailing south around Africa, and then northeast.

On 3 August 1492, Columbus departed Palos de la Frontera on the southwestern corner of Spain on the carrack Santa Maria, accompanied by caravels Nina and Pinta. His first sailed southwest to the Canary Islands where his ships were restocked for the western voyage, leaving the port of San Sebastian de la Gomera on 6 September.

Columbus estimated his voyage would take about a month. This was based on his estimation that the circumference of Earth was about one half to three quarters of its actual size. By some accounts Columbus had convinced himself that Japan was only 3000 miles west of the Canaries.

But what is the actual circumference of Earth? Amazingly, its true size had been calculated fifteen centuries earlier, so to that fascinating story I now turn.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c.276-194 BCE) was chief librarian of the great Library of Alexandria in Egypt. He happened to read in one of the books (scrolls?) that on the day of the summer solstice (the longest day of the year in the northern hemisphere), June 21, the sun shone directly down a deep well, and columns cast no shadows, in Syene (modern Aswan), 5000 stadia (approx. 500 miles) to the south.

This gave Eratosthenes an idea. Assuming the Earth was spherical, he could do an experiment by which he could calculate its circumference.

Knowing that Alexandria was 5000 stadia in north of Syene, and that the sun was distant enough that its rays striking Earth were parallel all over, he figured that on the day of summer solstice, columns (or obelisks) in Alexandria should cast shadows.

So, on June 21 he measured the shadow of an obelisk at Alexandria and found it to be about seven degrees. See diagram:

From there it was a straightforward calculation. Since seven degrees was about 1/50th of the circumference of a circle, 5000 stadia should be 1/50th of Earth’s circumference. Fifty times 5000 then gave 250,000 stadia for Earth’s circumference. Eratosthenes published a figure of 252,000 stadia because that number is divisible by all whole numbers from 1 to 10 and would therefore make geographic calculations easier.

It turns out that Eratosthenes’ value of Earth’s meridian circumference is about one percent in error.

Back to Columbus.

In the early morning of 12 October, after a journey lasting five weeks and one day, a lookout on the Pinta spotted land, an island which he named San Salvador (in the Bahamas). The distance he had traveled from la Gomera to San Salvador was 7544 kilometers, or 4,073 nautical miles.

Columbus must have felt pride that his estimated distance to Japan was not far off.

But Columbus was lucky. What if the Americas had not been in his way? On his average course and speed, it looks like he would have landed, after a voyage of eighteen weeks, in the Philippines, 26,400 kilometers (14,254 nautical miles) from la Gomera.

If his destination had been five times more distant would Columbus and his intrepid sailors have become discouraged and turned back? Did they have provisions for four-and-a-half months? Fortunately for Columbus, his men (and us), that issue did not arise.

There’s an old saying “It’s better to be lucky than good.” Christopher Columbus was both.

Sections

More