MENU

Sections

More

April 10, 2021

The Chestertown Spy

An Educational News Source for Chestertown Maryland

Point of View Op-Ed

Did You Ever Know that You’re My Hero—Wait—Maybe Not by Maria Grant

by Leave a Comment

Share

It’s a disillusioning experience when people whom you’ve idolized your whole life turn out to be less than idol worthy. It happens way too often.

When I was in middle school, the youthful and vigorous JFK was my hero. I waited in line in front of a drugstore on Gratiot Avenue in Detroit for what seemed like hours just to wave at JFK’s motorcade. A few years ago, I read an article in The Atlantic that detailed some of JFK’s exploits while he was in the White House. It included shocking descriptions of JFK in the White House swimming pool with interns and other White House staff. Sound familiar?

Even before I got to college, I was obsessed with Ernest Hemingway. I read every novel (The Sun Also Rises was my favorite), every short story, and took Hemingway courses in college. The more I learned about Hemingway’s personal life, the more disillusioned I became. I eventually wrote a final paper on how Hemingway never depicted real women—instead, as I recall my description, they were either angels or bitch goddesses. And I used quotes from Catherine Barkley (an angel) in A Farewell to Arms as an example. She said, “I want what you want. There isn’t any me, anymore. Just what you want.”   

When I went to graduate school at Georgetown, I remember my friends and I listing our top 10 movies of all time. Two of mine were Woody Allen films—Annie Hall and Manhattan. I knew the dialogue by heart. Last week, I finished watching the HBO Max documentary Allen vs. Farrow. It’s hard to look at those movies in the same light.  Somehow those innocent and charming scenes with Mariel Hemingway in Manhattan just aren’t that charming anymore.

Catcher in the Rye by J. D. Salinger is on my “top 10 books of all time” list. Last weekend, I read an article by a woman to whom J.D. Salinger wrote love letters. She was 17 and at Yale. He was in his 50’s. She quit college to be with him, chocked everything up. She later discovered that she was only one of many nubile women to whom Salinger wrote. He later discarded her like a used shoe. It took her several years to recover from the trauma. 

I just finished the new biography Eleanor by David Michaelis. It’s beautifully written, well documented and engaging—also long. But it shows a side of FDR—my mother’s hero—that I never knew. He cheated on Eleanor with several other women, was quite the anti-Semite, and had a racist streak as well. I realize these were different times, but Eleanor evolved in ways that FDR never did. 

The list of such disillusionments is long. Having said that, I still think JFK was a great President. He founded the Peace Corps and stood down Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis. He also inspired many young people to get involved in public service. Hemingway’s writing remains amazing. He used language in simple uncompromising ways. Few authors come close to mastering such focus on the bare essence of each word. The dialogue in some Woody Allen movies is superb. And something tells me that The Catcher in the Rye will remain an all-time classic for years to come. And despite FDR’s shortcomings, he gave us the New Deal and led us to victory in World War II. That compensates for a lot.

What’s the moral of this tale? Nobody’s perfect. We all disappoint in one way or another. Is it sad when someone we revere turns out to be less than we had hoped? Yes. But can we still appreciate their accomplishments and admire their strengths?  Carl Jung once said, “There is no light without shadow, and no psychic wholeness without imperfection.” Still, somehow, I wish that when temptation knocked, these heroes had chosen to see the light rather than lurk in the shadows. Something to think about. 

Maria Grant was principal- in-charge of the Federal Human Capital practice of an international consulting firm. Since she retired, she has focused on writing, reading, piano, kayaking, nature, gardening, and travel.

 

Op-Ed: Mayor Cerino Will be Missed by Tom Herz

by 2 Comments

Share

“You can just call it ‘The Center’, man.” Mayor Cerino gently corrected me when I properly referenced the Cerino Center, a downtown building named in his honor. This small, humble gesture is emblematic of the Mayor I had the pleasure to serve with for the past 14 months. It is the core of the man I have the privilege to call a friend.

A lot will be said about Mr. Cerino in the coming days, but we must not forget how we got to this moment.

Small town politics is a rough business. We all know this. And those of us who serve in public office put our personal relationships, careers, physical and mental health in peril. We should commend him for openly and forthrightly explaining why he left.

Mr. Cerino exemplified what public service should be: humility in the face of vicious opposition, compassion for those he served, unwavering commitment toward a better future for every resident present and future.

He handled controversy and attacks with dignity and returned callousness with respect. Mr. Cerino may not have agreed with your opinion, but you could count on being heard.

Aside from the Town Charter and Code of Ordinances, there is no manual for how to proceed in public life. You must somehow figure it out while travelling at speed. One must forge a path while navigating personal agendas, age-old rivalries and consuming mountains of information that come from all directions. In my experience, there is precious little help or coaching as you go along.

I was lucky to have Mr. Cerino act as an advisor (dare I say, mentor) to me. He did so in a forthright and fair-minded way by setting aside his own interests to help me, a new council member, understand the depth of whatever issue was at hand. I always left our meetings feeling heard and better informed for knowing his perspective. I look forward to continuing this relationship as he transitions from being our Mayor to private citizen.

His leadership in Chestertown and on the Town Council will be missed.

Tom Herz serves on the Chestertown Town Council representing Ward 2.

Not So Fast on the Biden Jobs Plan Act—Let’s Get It Right by J.E. Dean

by 11 Comments

Share

In the next few weeks, a lot will be written about President Biden’s American Jobs Plan Act. This $2.3 trillion bill is omnibus legislation intended to address a variety of national problems. These problems include our crumbling infrastructure, climate change, underpayment of workers who care for seniors, and the need to be more competitive with China. To pay for solutions to these problems, the bill also raises taxes for “big corporations” and for “wealthy individuals.”  

A draft of the bill does not yet appear to be available. When it surfaces, it will be yet another 800-page monster, the type of bill that our elected representatives tend to vote for or against without reading all of it. And because Republicans are already lined up against the bill, primarily because of the size of the spending and the imposition of new taxes, civil, bipartisan debate of the type that can lead to improved legislation is unlikely to occur. 

Democrats are likely to use a legislative process known as “reconciliation” to try to pass the bill in the Senate despite the 50-50 split between the parties. It is hard to fault Majority Leader Schumer for resorting to this approach given no signs of any Republican compromise. The reconciliation process, however, was not intended to facilitate the passage of massive new programs. As a result of the availability of this “legislative shortcut,” incentives for Democrats to work with Republicans are eliminated or at least reduced.  Schumer’s likely decision to use reconciliation also will “justify” Republicans simply voting against the bill and hoping that once it gets enacted, problems with it will surface.

“Problems” are likely if a bill of the size and complexity of Biden’s proposal, including dozens of new programs, is enacted. It is hard to get dozens of new spending programs “right” when they are all enacted and funded at the same time. The new spending in the bill could also trigger inflation. If it does, will additional “emergency” legislation be needed to clean up the mess?  And what if Republicans are right that raising corporate taxes will decrease rather than increase American competitiveness?

Based on what we know now about what is in the bill and how Congress will consider it, asking questions is warranted. Not asking questions is irresponsible. Because of the size of the bill, which will be followed by a third trillion dollar plus bill, asking questions is imperative. And if acceptable answers are not found, changes should be made, or enactment of the legislation should be reconsidered.

Dozens of questions should be explored regarding the bill. Here are a few examples:

At the top of the list is “Will this bill trigger inflation?”  There are no simple answers here. Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT, suggests that it may be possible to address pressing priorities such as climate change, infrastructure, and social justice and not trigger inflation.  Others are not so sure. Reducing the risk of igniting inflation means reducing the cost of the bill or finding trillions of dollars in new taxes. Given the unlikelihood of enactment of the full Biden tax plan, a reasonable compromise might be to pare down the bill, something progressives will not like.

Do the electric vehicle provisions in the bill, with a price tag of $174 billion, make sense? The bill calls for more funding to promote electric cars than to repair bridges and roads. ($115 billion).  Given that multiple manufacturers already are aggressively entering the electric car market, do we need the Federal government to build charging stations? The summary of Biden’s proposal includes the point that workers building the cars must receive a good wage. How do you make that happen? The bill also states that low-income people should have the wherewithal to drive electric cars. Do you force manufacturers to sell these electric cars at affordable prices or subsidize them?  In either case, does this make sense given the entire car market already is heading towards electrification?

Other questions relate to the diverse programs that look like campaign promises being fulfilled. A case in point:  Provisions in the bill proposing $400 billion to support improved elder care. A major part of this proposal is to raise wages for home health workers serving seniors. While it is unclear how the bill would accomplish this other than by giving states and local governments money to subsidize wages, the bill also requires that home health workers get the right to union organization. Many of us support unions, but the summary of the bill makes it sound as though these workers might not have a choice not to join a union. That may not be good for the workers, but why pick a unionization fight in a spending bill?  Maybe this fight should have been fought elsewhere?

Mark Twain once said, “He who asks is a fool for five minutes, but he who does not ask remains a fool forever.”  I do not want to feel foolish if the American Jobs Plan proves to be a mistake. Support for repairing our infrastructure, addressing climate change, and promoting racial and social equity should not be mistaken as a license to pass massive legislation without doing everything possible to “get it right.” 

J.E. Dean of Oxford is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, domestic policy, and occasionally goldendoodles.

 

Out and About (Sort of): Public Apologies by Howard Freedlander

by 1 Comment

Share

In late March, a Republican congressman from New York, Tom Reed, apologized to a female lobbyist whom he groped in 2017 and then resigned his seat in the House of Representatives. He publicly acknowledged his alcohol addiction.

Also, former Democratic governor of Maryland, Parris Glendening, admitted in a Washington Post opinion piece on March 1 that he made a “serious mistake” in adamantly proclaiming in 1995 that life meant life for a person sentenced to life without parole. He conceded that he paid too little attention to the value of rehabilitation, maybe even redemption, in prison.

After seven people died in 1982 from cyanide inserted into Tylenol tablets, the Johnson & Johnson’s CEO publicly apologized with little or no prompting for the fatal tampering of Tylenol pill bottles. He did what few corporate leaders: he immediately took responsibility. Some thought he was crazy, perhaps rash. In fact, he was spot-on. The fortunes of Tylenol rebounded rather profitably after the CEO’s mea culpa; marketing experts suggested that the Tylenol brand would cease to exist. They were wrong.

In 1989, news headlines blared reports of a severe oil spill after the Exxon Valdez oil tanker ran aground in the Prince William Sound off the coast of Alaska. Advised by attorneys to express no contrition, the Exxon CEO said nothing to alleviate the public uproar over the disastrous spill. When, after much stumbling, the CEO did claim responsibility and apologized; by that time the company’s reputation had suffered significant damage, as customers shredded their credit cards and stopped buying Exxon products.

A lengthy Harvard Business Review article, published in 2006, analyzed rather coldly and objectively the reasoning behind public apologies by political and corporate leaders. The decision-making process involves a cost-benefit calculation: would an apology help or hurt a corporation’s bottom, or in the case of a politician, his or her polling numbers and odds for re-election?

The magazine writer does not mention—unless I overlooked it, for which I apologize—another compelling reason: it’ is the right thing to do amid a crisis that you or your underlings precipitated. An apology for the plain reality of public suffering would seem to be a convincing reason to seek forgiveness, accompanied naturally by concerns over image.

I realize that some will consider me naive. And that might be true. An apology does not signify weakness, as many believe. In fact, it illustrates evidence of personal and professional character often secondary to bluster and finger-pointing in the public arena.

I recall that President John F. Kennedy accepted responsibility for approving the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Communist Cuba early in his presidency in April 1961. He had accepted the advice of his military advisors to invade our troublesome neighbor. He learned a difficult lesson that placed him in good stead during the standoff with the Soviet Union over the threatening placement of missiles in Cuba.

When I read Rep. Reed’s apology and intention to resign, I felt sympathy, not scorn for this public official and his demeaning behavior toward a female lobbyist. He took personal responsibility. He publicized his addiction. He accepted embarrassment as his punishment.

The cerebral Glendening, though out of office since 2002, decided to go public in claiming his mistake. While some might scoff at his confession, he certainly had little to gain by refuting his past remarks. I suppose his change of opinion could influence the state legislature as it deliberates over parole for juveniles. However, I doubt many legislators would pay attention to a former governor.

Sincere public apologies—even those constructed by crisis public relations firms—have value. They reflect some humanity and humility on the part of the apologists. They indicate a willingness to accept responsibility, as strong leaders should.

They illustrate sensitivity to public sentiment, if not to the inescapable harm caused by the activity or event that necessitated the public act of contrition.

As someone who has apologized often for my actions, and who has accepted apologies, I think a simple apology has lasting value. The benefit always exceeds the cost.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

The Peace of an Evening by Jamie Kirkpatrick

by Leave a Comment

Share

There is something about a quiet evening that soothes my soul. Day is done, the clock is winding down, it’s time for friends. The warming weather helps a lot; so does lingering daylight.

If you really let yourself go, you might just believe that for a moment, all is right with the world.

Of course, it isn’t, but we’ll deal with that tomorrow. Tonight let’s just go look at the colors in the sky, listen to the osprey on her nest, feel the residual warmth of the day, and just breathe. Let it all go.

Some things got done today but there’s still more to do tomorrow. But tonight, let’s just be with each other, however many that is. We’ll sit on the porch, toast our good fortune, talk, laugh, or weep a little remembering the ones no longer here. I’ll put my arm around you for a small measure of comfort.

Maybe we’ll make a fire. Maybe we’ll pour another glass of wine. Maybe we’ll nibble or nosh or listen to some music. Or maybe we’ll just sit quietly on the porch swing and watch the evening fall like a feather. OK; well, maybe we’re still working on the quiet part.

A pair of house wrens have made a nest in the hanging basket that presides over the porch. It was a lovely Christmas basket back in December, but now it’s well past its prime. But evidently the wrens found it nest-worthy—there are three tiny blue eggs hidden among the boughs—so the basket will remain where it is until the fledging are hatched and gone. That should only take a few weeks; in the meantime, it makes a good human story and a safe and secure avian home.

I am certainly not one you would call from a night owl, but I do enjoy a pleasant gloaming. That’s what my Scottish ancestors called the time in between day and night. It’s neither exactly twilight nor dusk, although both those names come close. Gloaming is subtly different because the farther north one goes, the longer the interim between daylight and darkness—at least during the summer months. (In winter, there just isn’t time for any roamin’ in the gloamin’ because as soon as the sun dips below the horizon—probably around four o’clock in the afternoon—you want to be indoors and in front of the fire or, even better, under the covers!)

But now, here in this pleasant clime, evenings are like a promise kept. They are to be savored. Put your work aside for a moment, put away your phone, find a comfortable place and a good friend and watch what happens when day is finally done and the busy world is hushed. You’ll be surprised about how the light lingers and glows, about how softly falls the night. And if you’re really lucky, maybe a friend will stroll by and stop for a quick chat; maybe you’ll smell the heat rising up from the earth or hear the chorus of peepers out by the pond; maybe you’ll take your wife’s hand and feel its warmth against your skin.

And if you’re really, really lucky, you’ll whisper to her, “Happy birthday, Honey!”

I’ll be right back.

Jamie Kirkpatrick is a writer and photographer who lives in Chestertown. His work has appeared in the Washington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Washington College Alumni Magazine, and American Cowboy Magazine. Two collections of his essays (“Musing Right Along” and “I’ll Be Right Back”) are available on Amazon. Jamie’s website is www.musingjamie.com.

 

 

 

 

Snapshots of Daily Life: Intolerance by George Merrill

by Leave a Comment

Share

In seventeenth century England, Clergy and nobility, the high rollers of that day, played hard ball with each other and with most everyone else. Religion and politics weren’t only matters of one’s preferences or personal beliefs; they were a form of blood sport. You could lose your head for not playing by the house rules, that is, for not being politically or theologically correct. Excessive political and religious zeal frequently turned lethal.

I like the idea that even in the past, when intolerance and vindictiveness prevailed, somebody with a conscience was speaking out at considerable cost to themselves.

This climate of intolerance in England grated on Anglican Bishop, Jeremy Taylor and in mid-sixteen hundred Taylor preached a sermon to address prejudice. Its title, “Against Bitterness of Zeal,” caught my eye. He wrote, “Any Zeal is proper for Religion but the Zeal of the Sword and Zeal of Anger.”

Here’s the sermon:

“When Abraham sat at his Tent Door, according to his custom, waiting to entertain strangers, he espied an old Man, stooping and leaning on his Staff, weary with Age and Travel coming towards him, who was a hundred years of age, He received him kindly, washed his Feet, provided Supper, caused him to sit down; but observing the Old man Eat and prayed not nor begged a blessing on his Meat, he asked him why he did not worship the God of Heaven. The old Man told him that he worshipped the Fire, and acknowledged no other God. At which answer, Abraham grew so zealously angry that he thrust the old Man out of his Tent, and exposed him to all the Evils of the Night and an unregulated Condition. And when the old Man was gone, God called to Abraham and asked him where the Stranger was? He replied, I thrust him away because he did not worship thee.”

God answered him, ‘I have suffered him these hundred Years, although he dishonored me: and coulds’t not thou endure him one Night?”

Taylor was no stranger to the civil and religious conflicts raging in the England of his day. He apparently irritated some nobleman or offended clergy as he was imprisoned three times. Fortunately, he managed to keep his head.

Today, there’s an antagonistic religious/political atmosphere here in the states. This is why Bishop Taylor’s sermon struck me as it did; a kind of ‘déjà vu in retrospect, a discouraging one at that.

Intolerant people act hatefully, zealously, particularly in groups. Is such behavior driven by some natural law? Do men (typically men) necessarily turn cruel when they convene in groups to collectively regulate their needs? I have read accounts of atrocities committed by men in groups; there’s a theory that holds how it’s unlikely they’d behave that way as individuals.

In an old Life magazine, I read an article about a lynched black man. In an accompanying photograph, we see the man naked, dead, hanging by the neck from a tree limb, He had been castrated. An assembly of white men, and some children appear to be milling around the body, festively chatting as we might see people attending a community barbeque. I know from other accounts how church going Christians would likely be among such gatherings. These Christians would profess to love Jesus but would have no scruples brutalizing this man. They held an opinion that became a conviction: that the man hanging from the tree was not “their kind.” He was less than human, someone to be rid of.

In Bishop Taylor’s parable, Abraham was religious, ready, as his faith taught him, to provide hospitality to the stranger. When Abraham learned the old man was not a worshiper of his God, the old man was dehumanized in Abraham’s eyes. Abraham suddenly turned cruel, became punitive, putting the old man out into the night. What was he thinking?

In this tale, Abraham held a contemptuous opinion about people who didn’t worship his God. Fire worshipers, in his opinion, were inhuman. When Abraham discovered the old man’s religious preferences, all bets were off; Abraham treated the old man inhumanely. Dehumanizing those you dislike, is an ancient vice. The old man was undeserving of the normal courtesies of Abraham’s faith.

Our minds and bodies host all kinds of conditions. They live in the body or the soul but remain inert and do no harm. Circumstances, like being fearful or threatened, or affectionate and caring can activate the latent conditions to appear. I believe the habits of the human heart work in similar ways.

I have experienced two habits of my own heart that have influenced my life; the habit to love and to care, and the habit to hate and destroy. I have seen the way kindness activates the activates loving and caring. I have also experienced the fear that mobilizes violence. This is an ugly condition.

Years ago, a bat found a way into my house. He awakened me but I don’t know how, since bats on the wing are silent. However, I saw him. He scared me.

I knew that bats follow air currents and if I opened a downstairs window, he’d eventually find his way out. But I was too afraid to wait; I became possessed to get rid of him immediately. I grabbed a squash racket and waited for him to fly over the bed again. As he did, I swung hitting him square. The bat hit the wall with a thud and fell to the floor. I went over to see him. He lay on his back, his wing broken and twisted. He bled.

I looked at him –– this was the first time I’d seen a bat close up. –– and I saw how beautiful a creature he was. He had the fine features and the innocent face of a mouse only dark haired. He body was tiny with two tiny black eyes that glistened and still showed life. I looked carefully at his face and I was overwhelmed with sadness and regret. My behavior was mindless and particularly unnecessary and to this day I would swear, while he was dying, that his eyes were looking right into mine and asking me, why?

That’s when I met some of the bitterness of my own zeal inspired by fear and how destructive it can become.

Columnist George Merrill is an Episcopal Church priest and pastoral psychotherapist. A writer and photographer, he’s authored two books on spirituality: Reflections: Psychological and Spiritual Images of the Heart and The Bay of the Mother of God: A Yankee Discovers the Chesapeake Bay. He is a native New Yorker, previously directing counseling services in Hartford, Connecticut, and in Baltimore. George’s essays, some award winning, have appeared in regional magazines and are broadcast twice monthly on Delmarva Public Radio.

Commentary: Slicing and Dicing the Democratic Vote for Governor by Josh Kurtz

by Leave a Comment

Share

The goal in any election is to get 50% of the vote plus one — or, in a multi-candidate field, to get one more vote than everybody else.

So as we contemplate the 2022 Democratic primary for governor, where will the vote come from and how much does a candidate need to become the nominee?

The answer to the second question obviously depends on the size of field. Right now, it remains a lopsided two-person race between Comptroller Peter V.R. Franchot, with his 15 years in statewide office and 35 years as an elected official, against Ashwani Jain, a former Obama administration official who hasn’t even been on earth as long as Franchot has been in public office.

But the field of course is going to grow — and probably soon. So let’s talk about the candidates, official and potential, and see where their vote might come from.

It’s always nice to have a political base in a statewide contest. That’s an advantage for Baltimore County Executive John A. Olszewski Jr., who is contemplating a run for governor.

In fact, of all the potential Democratic candidates, assuming as we do that Prince George’s County Executive Angela D. Alsobrooks isn’t planning to run, Olszewski may be the only candidate with a real geographic base. Add to that the fact that he is the only potential Democratic candidate for governor on Baltimore TV regularly, and Johnny O’s geographic base looks even more formidable.

But how secure is that base, really? Olszewski got just a third of the vote in the 2018 Democratic primary for county executive, and while he would probably be a lock if he ran for re-election next year, there are certainly some Democratic voters at home who would oppose him in a gubernatorial primary — either because he raised taxes or for other policies they don’t like, or because some might just prefer another candidate.

Remember, in the 2018 Democratic primary for governor, then-Prince George’s County executive Rushern L. Baker III took just 49.9% of the vote in his home county in a race with nine candidates on the ballot. That’s a cautionary tale for Johnny O.

And let’s not forget about the appeal in Baltimore of Wes Moore, the author and anti-poverty activist, if he runs for governor, which is looking increasingly likely.

Moving to the other population center of the state, a lot of Democrats look at the field of announced and potential Democratic candidates for governor and see an awful lot of people from Montgomery County. True enough.

But while Franchot lays his head on a pillow in Montgomery County every night and represented the county’s most liberal legislative district for 20 years in the House of Delegates, he may not enjoy any kind of home field advantage. Until recently, Franchot as comptroller has marked out territory as a moderate with statewide appeal, geared to the swing voters of Dundalk and Cambridge who love Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr. (R) more than the wild-eyed lefties of Takoma Park and Silver Spring.

Similarly, former state attorney general Douglas F. Gansler, who seems compelled to run for governor a second time, is a Montgomery County guy. But Montgomery County is an increasingly diverse place, and Gansler seems to fit in only a part of it. Yes, Gansler has eight years of statewide connections, from his time as AG and his frequent appearances on the state’s Democratic rubber chicken circuit. But where is his base?

And what if U.S. Rep. David J. Trone runs for governor? He’s also a white guy from Montgomery County, though in an economic and social stratosphere all his own. If he ran, he wouldn’t rely on a geographic base so much as his ability to self-fund — which becomes a significant factor in and of itself.

Jon Baron, the former Clinton administration official and policy analyst who is exploring a run for governor, also comes from Montgomery County.

And there are two other potential candidates from Montgomery County. But beyond geography they seem to have several similarities that could cancel each other out.

Former Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez and former U.S. Education secretary John B. King Jr. are both progressive former Obama cabinet secretaries of color who live a couple of miles from each other — ironically, in Franchot’s old legislative district. Both travel in the same political circles and have many of the same national contacts. Do they have to come to some kind of agreement or risk canceling each other out in a Democratic primary?

On top of that, Jain is a former Obama administration official of color who lives in Montgomery County — albeit one who held a much lower profile position than Perez or King.

It is inconceivable that there won’t be a strong Black candidate in the race.

If Moore is the only significant candidate of color, he should get a substantial amount of the minority vote in the primary and would give Olszewski a run for his money in Baltimore, and could have broad statewide appeal — even though there are always risks with a novice candidate. But with King and Perez taking a look at the race, along with U.S. Rep. Anthony G. Brown, there could be no shortage of candidates of color for voters to choose from.

Here’s another potentially important segment of the Democratic electorate: organized labor. If Perez, a former U.S. and Maryland Labor secretary, is able to line up a significant portion of union support in the primary, that’s significant.

But Johnny O is a former teacher, and is personally close to the president of the Maryland State Education Association, Cheryl Bost, who is a teacher in Baltimore County. Does that give him an advantage in lining up the teachers’ endorsement? Franchot has already won the endorsement of the Laborers International Union of North America, a construction trades union that is eager to see if the comptroller votes for the interstate widening proposals that will come before the Board of Public Works soon.

We’ve had three competitive Democratic primaries for governor in the past 28 years. In 2018, Benjamin T. Jealous won the nine-candidate race with 40% of the vote. In 2014, Brown won 51% in a three-way race. And in 1994, Parris N. Glendening won 54% of the vote in what was essentially a four-way race (Glendening, the Prince George’s County executive at the time, won about 70% of the primary vote on his home turf).

It’s way too early to know for sure who will be at the starting gate when the filing deadline for governor finally rolls around in February 2022. But it’s not too early to start thinking about how the numbers add up. They’ll have to add up for somebody — the question is how, and for whom?

And once again, we look at this field and wonder: How is it possible that a woman of substance and character isn’t gearing up to seek the Democratic nomination for governor?

By Josh Kurtz

Letter to Editor: Let’s Honor Lou Gehrig Day

by Leave a Comment

Share

Major League Baseball recently designated June 2 this year and moving forward will be known across the league as Lou Gehrig Day. The announcement is an opportunity to honor the legacy of the Hall of Fame first baseman and a bold step in the movement to end amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). As a fan of the Baltimore Orioles, I’m thrilled by the league’s endorsement of an annual occasion to celebrate those impacted by ALS and the accompanying commitment to raise awareness and funds for much needed treatments and cures.

For individuals living with ALS, every day is a matter of life and death. Today, ALS is always fatal and people living with the disease typically die within 2-5 years of their diagnosis. Research shows that ALS diagnoses are expected to rise by 69 percent by 2040, and, sadly, ALS will affect 1 in 300 people in our lifetimes.

Gehrig’s life and courage continue to be both an inspiration and a reminder of what those impacted by ALS still face. The designation of a league-wide Lou Gehrig Day in baseball is the result of tireless efforts by ALS patients, caregivers and loved ones. Thank you, Baltimore Orioles, for your ongoing support to the ALS community and for officially signing on to help champion a cure for this uniquely challenging neurodegenerative disease.

Tim Abeska
Rock Hall

Life’s Lessons: Criticism by Angela Rieck

by 1 Comment

Share

I got a desperate call from a friend this morning. She had been stewing all night over a criticism and wanted my advice.

She passed the first test which is not to react or become defensive.

The next step is to remember that criticism is all about the criticizer. What were the motivations of the criticizer? Once we uncovered the motivation, she could decide what do with it.

This is not about criticism of ideas, which is a means of discourse (although I recognize that some criticisms devolve into personal attacks). This is about personal criticisms.

When to accept or reject personal criticism and is all about the motivation of the criticizer.

Criticisms to consider:

Those that come from love or expertise (but sometimes the love is disguised).

  • Expert criticism/solicited advice. This is where you have engaged an expert, a boss, or an expert has reached out to you. Be receptive but recognize that the person giving the advice has a bias.
  • Love wearing a “Fear” jacket. A lot of criticism (or unsolicited advice) comes from someone who loves you but is afraid of the path that you are taking. This type of criticism or advice often begins with “You should…” It comes from love, so consider it.
  • Mistake. No one likes making mistakes. But if the criticism cuts deeply, and there are no apparent biases, it could be that you made a mistake and, sadly, we learn through our mistakes.
  • Fixers. These people (and I am one of them) want to make things better. They are often perfectionists (guilty again).  Consider these because they are usually coming from a genuine desire to help.
  • Inadvertent criticism. This is where someone makes a statement, and you take offense to it even though it is not intended as a criticism. (For example, someone doesn’t know me mentions that she doesn’t like white dogs; and I have white dogs.) Own your sensitivity.

None of those categories fit the criticism that she received. Then we started to talk about criticisms that should be ignored.

Criticisms to ignore:

Many times criticizers are projecting their issues onto you. While you should ignore the feedback, the better angels of our nature can practice compassion.

  • Emotional. This is coming from the criticizer’s mood or feelings in the moment, it could be fear, anger, pain, or just plain grumpiness. Pass.
  • Critical/Judgmental Person. The goal is to find fault rather than help. Pass.
  • Other Than. These criticisms come from those who see you as “other” and are threatened or uncomfortable. These are frequently generalizations. “You people” “Why can’t you….” This is often not directed at you, but your tribe. Definitely Pass.
  • Self-Elevation. These people need to criticize others in order to feel good about themselves. They need compassion because they have such deep-rooted insecurities. Nevertheless, pass and avoid these people.
  • Envy. Psychologists have a saying “follow the envy.” Therapists use envy to uncover a deep, unsatisfied need. But envy can also be used to understand criticism. If the criticism comes from envy, ignore it. After a lengthy conversation, my friend realized that this was the source of the complainant’s criticism.

My friend ended the conversation saying that she would try to put it in perspective, but she reminded me that even inappropriate criticism hurts. She’s right. And that may be the most important lesson of all.

Angela Rieck, a Caroline County native, received her PhD in Mathematical Psychology from the University of Maryland and worked as a scientist at Bell Labs, and other high-tech companies in New Jersey before retiring as a corporate executive. Angela and her dogs divide their time between St Michaels and Key West Florida. Her daughter lives and works in New York City.

Gun Control: Go Upstream and Fix the 2nd Amendment by Al Sikes

by 24 Comments

Share

Mass shootings equal tragedy, a lot of talk and not much else. So let me make a radical suggestion. Go upstream, go to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Change it, don’t argue about what can be done to circumvent it. Too many politicians use the persistence of gun control as an issue, as a political tool to raise money and enhance their position with single-issue voters.

It is time to let all Americans have a say! I am reminded of the Equal Rights Amendment initiative to assure the equal rights under the law for women. The amendment failed, but the “conversation” resulted in a number of laws that improved women’s rights.

Assault weapons should be carefully regulated. Common sense rules should be proposed and the overarching question should be what will work, not what will thread the needle of current political and constitutional objections. An amendment should provide constitutional room to write effective law.

Additions to the Constitution are difficult. If the Second Amendment is to be amended the addition should be simple, clear, limited and broadly appealing. My suggestion, a second sentence that says: The possession and use of military weapons and their facsimile can be regulated. Under current circumstances there are many efforts to regulate and often gun ownership or use that doesn’t need to be regulated gets swept up in our zeal to regulate military-style weapons.

By the way, I make this argument as a hunter who also does some recreational shooting at sporting clay ranges.

Automobiles that are potentially dangerous provide an interesting context. You have to be licensed to drive and you must have a key/fob to get into a car or truck that is locked. There should be a class of weapons that are treated similarly. When an applicant for a license to own a military-style weapon begins the application process, authorities should make sure past conduct does not disclose criminality or mental illness that might increase the propensity for violence. And, if I was writing regulatory law, there would also need to be a biometric identification before the weapon can be used.

Millions of persons hunt and shoot competitively with limited magazine guns. I cannot, for example, duck hunt with a shotgun that allows more than three shells. I have been to a number of sporting clay ranges; my experience is that you put one shell or at the most two shells in the chamber at a time. Any constitutional proposal should preclude interference with these activities. If that exemption is not clear an amendment initiative will fail.

I can hear the instinctive reactions. “Impossible”, “too slow”, “too demanding”. It is certainly true that amending the constitution is not quick nor easy, but it is also certain that real progress in preventing homicidal disasters will not occur without an amendment to the Constitution.

We are forever talking about the need for a national “conversation” on this or that. Attempts to amend the Second Amendment to the Constitution will assure such a conversation. It will also elevate the debate above the riven framework of recent decades. I say let the people decide, not the Washington lobby and their camp followers. But, yes there always seems to be a “but”. An important question is whether we can have a temperate debate? Should we be optimistic? We should find out.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al recently published Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.