Point of View

Letter to Editor: Decision Making in Women’s Health Care

September 26, 2021 by Letter to Editor Leave a Comment

Texas has enacted a law denying any woman an abortion after six weeks gestation, essentially when a heartbeat can be heard. In addition, anyone aiding the pregnant woman to get the abortion is also violating the law. Other states are predicted to follow suit with similar laws. This law takes the decision making out of the hands of the pregnant woman and puts it in the hands of a governmental body. I do not feel this is right.

Opinions on abortion have been offered by scientists, medical doctors, ethicists and theologians, among others. I am none of these. I am just a reasonably well educated, thoughtful, churchgoing person. I have observed these abortion discussions for years, and have developed my own position on abortion. My wife and I are well past the time of our lives when abortion applies to us personally, but it could apply to my daughters in law, and will someday apply to my granddaughters. I want them, and all women, to have the right to make these decisions without interference from overreaching governments.

So I am not writing to impose my views on anyone regarding the right and wrong of abortion. What I do hope is that people will read this and consider my argument that governments should not impose its views on any pregnant woman.

At its core, the argument on abortion turns on the question of “when is a soul first uniquely associated with a fetus.” A discussion of souls is at its essence a religious discussion. I think most religions agree that after a fetus is born and is now a “baby” it is a human being with a soul. But religions differ on when that fetus becomes uniquely associated with its soul.

To begin, let’s think about where a person’s soul “resides”. Is it in equal measure in each cell of the body? Is it concentrated all in one organ (e.g. heart, brain, spleen, left eye)? Does it encircle the body like an electron circulating around the nucleus of an atom? Is it kept remote from the body, say in a vault in the sky? No one knows.

In fact, no one has ever seen a soul, or spoken to a soul. No one has ever captured it and looked at through a microscope (or a telescope). Humans simply have no idea what a soul is made up of, where it resides, or what it looks like. My conclusion from this is that a discussion about a soul is NOT a scientific discussion. Science deals with observation and measurement. The discussion on abortion is religious.

I argue that the soul does not reside in equal measure of all the cells of a body. If it were, when a surgeon removes a person’s appendix or gall bladder and disposes of it as medical waste, religious leaders would insist we hold funerals for the death of a soul, or a portion of a soul. Likewise, they do not when a person falls, scraping a knee and bleeds. They don’t because the soul is not in these individual cells.

Science tells us that human cells have exactly 46 chromosomes. They’ve mapped many of them over the past decade or so. Does a soul only become associated with tissue that has 46 chromosomes? If so, there is no soul associated with human sperm and human eggs, since they each have only 23 chromosomes (making a cell of 46 chromosomes when they join).

But what about after the sperm and egg join, i.e. conception. Conception is a vague term. After a human egg is fertilized, it does have 46 chromosomes. And this single cell immediately starts to multiply, growing rapidly into a body of many cells. However that body of cells may take up to 2 weeks to attach to the mother’s uterus wall, according to the Mayo Clinic webpage that I viewed. Does that unattached collection of cells have a soul? If so, we should grieve for the lost life of a collection of these cells which fails to attach to the wall of the womb, and is just reabsorbed into the mother’s body or is flushed out of her body with other biological waste. But we don’t. So maybe the soul does not become associated with a collection of cells until it attaches to the mother’s uterus.

In a healthy pregnancy, this collection of cells now attached to a uterus wall starts to develop into human organs. The Texas law and most conversations on this issue argue that the organ that will grow into the heart starts to emit electrical impulses at about six weeks gestation and these can be heard through a stethoscope as a heartbeat. But doctors also tell us that this collection of cells is not yet really acting as a heart that is pumping blood and sustaining life in the fetus. Yet the Texas law argues that at this point the heartbeat tells us that there is a soul present. But what if the soul does not reside in the heart. If it resides in the spleen, or as an electron type satellite, the fact that there is a heartbeat is immaterial. Also, if the soul is uniquely associated with a fetus at conception, abortion prior to six weeks gestation is just as wrong as abortion after six weeks.

At birth, a baby starts to breathe on its own – remember all the pictures of the doctor giving a newborn a “spank” to start the baby crying and start the lungs exchanging air! Maybe this is when the body becomes associated with a soul.

In the Bible, Genesis 7 recounts that God made Adam from the dust of the ground and then breathed the breath of life into his nostrils and at that point Adam became a living being. Also, in Ezekiel the Bible recounts the story of God showing Ezekiel a valley of dried bones, and, again, God breathed life into these dried bones. These Biblical stories might lead credence to Christians believing that the soul becomes associated with a baby when the baby takes a first breath.

But not everyone believes in the Bible. If a person does not, these stories are irrelevant to them. Many atheists believe that there is no such thing as a soul, and the question of when a soul becomes associated with a human life is a meaningless question. They might argue that since no soul exists, abortion at any point during gestation is allowable.

My point is that the question of the timing of when a fetus becomes uniquely associated with a soul is complex, and one that has many possible answers, none of which are scientifically provable.

Consequently, I believe that the choice of having an abortion is solely a religious decision and one that must be left to the mother in consultation with whomever she wants to consult (the father, her physician, other advisors and counselors including religious counselors, or, for that matter, no one). I reject the policy that the Federal or a state government should dictate what choice a mother must make. While a pregnant woman is fully free to consult with others and follow their advice, the final choice is the mother’s, and the mother’s alone.

If religious organizations want to have a position on the abortion question and insist that followers of that religious organization follow this teaching, that is fine. A pregnant woman can follow the teaching or leave that religious organization if she chooses. But governmental bodies have no right to interfere with this decision.

In addition, the first Amendment to the Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. If a woman’s religion (or lack of religion) allows her to have an abortion, don’t governmental rules denying her that abortion violate the First Amendment?

I urge our legislators at both the federal and state levels, to stay away from legislating abortion restrictions.

Bob Scofield
Kennedyville

General Milley, Traitor or Hero? By Bob Moores

September 25, 2021 by Opinion Leave a Comment

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.

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

Shared Letter to County Commissioners: Proposed Morgnec Solar Project

September 24, 2021 by Letter to Editor 5 Comments

I am writing to urge immediate reconsideration and withdrawal of your opposition to the above-referenced proposed utility scale solar power project and pending related legal action. From my perspective as a long-term Kent County resident and businessperson, this project is clearly a win-win proposition for Kent County and its residents. Continued County opposition to the project is ill-advised and shortsighted and pending legal action is likely to be a regretable waste of of the County’s scarce financial resources.

While a lot has been written about the County’s opposition to the Morgnec Road solar project since 2018, little has been said about the rationale supporting your opposition other than the fact that the land is not currently zoned for the proposed purpose. As the County routinely approves requested variances and zoning changes where projects are deemed to be in the public interest, that fact alone should not be grounds for opposing this project. Here’s why you should enthusiastically support completion of this project:

Before the Clark farm was zoned for residential development, it, like all the road front property on the opposite side of Morgnec Road, was zoned for industrial/commercial development . The change to residential zoning was approved in the early 2000’s in response to a residential subdivision development proposal that was withdrawn when the economy tanked in 2008. Since then, other areas outside of Chestertown proper have been designated for future residential development. Unlike other properties currently zoned for utility scale enterprises, the Clark farm property is particularly well suited to its proposed use given its availability, its size, accessibility, location next to existing industrial/commercial enterprises, proximity to a properly scaled electric substation, and existing natural screening. In contrast, the property, which Chestertown has declined to incorporate, is not suited to residential development for many of the same reasons.

With climate change-related issues becoming ever more acute, it is incumbent on all MD municipalities to support the State’s goal of having at least 50% of electric power used in the State generated by renewable power sources by 2030, with 14.5% of the total generated by solar power producers. Achievement of this goal will require 6 times the amount of solar power generated by existing producers. Of all existing renewable energy sources, solar power is the cleanest, most dependable, most environmentally friendly source available. Further, it is inexhaustible. Implementation of the Morgnec Rd. solar power station will reduce local dependence on and costs associated with buying power from the privately owned PA/NJ/MD Interconnection LLC; improve the sustainability and lower power production costs at our regional electric power grid thereby reducing pressure to increase consumer electric rates; and reduce reliance on fossil fuel-based power production and our carbon footprint.

Morgnec Rd. Solar LLC agreed to take necessary steps to avoid disturbing existing wetlands and drainage ditches connecting with other wetlands and hydric soils; avoid cutting existed forested areas; and avoid disturbance of Critical Area Resource Conservation areas of the property. Also, they have found that there are no threatened or endangered species on the property; agreed to protect any areas (if any) found by MHT to have historical significance; and have reportedly agreed to several other conditions stipulated in your meetings with company representatives. Most importantly, they have committed to incorporate desperately needed local pollinator habitat decimated by widespread local use of agrichemicals, tree felling and monocrop planting in their grounds maintenance plans. The environmental value of adding over 200 acres of environmentally friendly pollinator habitat to County lands cannot be overstated. We simply could not have a more considerate and cooperative partner in supporting achievement of MD’s renewable energy development goals.

This project, which constitutes a new private capital investment of $80 million in Kent County’s infrastructure, will result in a substantial increase in annual property tax revenue and will create over 100 temporary but nonetheless welcome job opportunities for residents during the design/build phase. If the County reestablishes a positive working relationship with Morgnec Road LLC, it may be possible to negotiate a road front set-back of the proposed facility that would allow for new commercial development fronting Morgnec Road, added solar facility screening and additional property and sales tax revenue.

It’s not too late to change your position on this project. The reasons for you to do so are compelling. Spending $15K to $20K of County funds that could be put to much better use than the pending suit is both short-sighted and fiscally irresponsible. Support for this proposal will clearly pay many desirable dividends.

I hope you will take this request to heart and do what’s right for Kent County and your constituents in both the near and long term. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Sincerely

Paula B. Reeder

The Costs of Freedom by Angela Rieck

September 23, 2021 by Angela Rieck Leave a Comment

HBO Documentary Films recently released In the Same Breath, which chronicles the COVID 19 outbreak in Wuhan and the Chinese government’s response. Any anti-Chinese sentiment from COVID-19 will be dispelled when you realize how horribly the innocent Chinese residents in Wuhan suffered. But you will also find yourself angrier at the behavior of the totalitarian Chinese government, which allowed their people and the world to suffer in an effort to absolve China.

The documentary was written by Nanfu Wang; a former resident of Wuhan, who now lives in the US with her American husband and son. In January 2020, they traveled to Wuhan for the holidays to visit her family and had a terrifying ringside seat to the crisis.

She was able to return to the United States (without being tested or quarantined) in January; but her unique connections allowed her to get a close view into the desperate situation; despite the attempts of the Chinese government to keep the curtains tightly closed.

The losses Wuhan’s citizens endured were staggering and painful. The Chinese government responded by ruthlessly keeping a lid on the severity of the virus; and providing limited treatment to its infected citizens.

In January, Wang became aware that something unusual was happening in Wuhan when she discovered postings of medical records by Wuhan residents seeking medical treatment. She eventually counted over 1500 people who posted their symptoms and Xrays, begging for medical care. (She has recently tried to contact them; and discovered that none had survived.) She tried unsuccessfully to interest national newspapers in the story.

On New Year’s Day, the Chinese press announced that 8 doctors had been punished for spreading lies about a deadly respiratory disease emanating from the wet seafood market in Wuhan. In fact, all that the doctors had done was to create a chat room to warn family members and fellow scientists about a new deadly pneumonia emerging in the Wuhan “wet” market.

As more and more citizens posted their medical data in a desperate search for treatment, Wang hired videographers to quietly film the events. What they discovered was tragic. The Wuhan health care system was overwhelmed, and people were dying in hospital parking lots and on nearby streets waiting for a bed to open up. Ambulance workers carrying infected people were refused admission, who were sent home to die a painful death. It was heart wrenching to listen to a widow’s story about getting on her knees and vainly begging hospitals to care for her sick physician husband.

Their suffering would be a microcosm of the chaos and heartbreak that would follow due to the behavior of the Chinese government. The lies spread by the repressive Chinese regime would ultimately result in 4.55M deaths worldwide and 670K deaths in the US. It is painful to watch Dr. Fauci repeating false medical information provided by the Chinese; including: “this is not a serious virus, it is just a flu;” “it cannot be spread between humans;” “there is no need for masks in the United States;” “the virus is not a threat to US citizens.”

Factual information didn’t become available until the virus had bled into Europe and the Chinese government could no longer contain the disinformation. Scientists began compiling data about the disease in real-time, but it was too late. Our open borders had allowed people to move freely between China and the US. It wouldn’t have mattered. It is now clear that the disease was rampant in Wuhan in mid-December; long before rumors began spreading in January. China not only lied to the world; it lied to its citizens. The few courageous Chinese independent journalists who attempted to chronicle the situation have disappeared, most believe they have been killed.

The lies continue. Chinese officials claim their official death total is 4,600 citizens; but some anonymous workers have provided clues suggesting the death total is probably around 42k to 45K. State run mortuaries announced a two week time-period for family members to quickly and quietly gather urns filled with their loved one’s ashes.

Anyone brave enough to be interviewed for this documentary has probably disappeared or been punished. The few who agreed to talk, professed praise for China and their good fortune to live there. One young man courageously refused to do so; I hope he is still alive.

Years before, Wang had moved to the US so she could live in a free society.

But there were surprises in store for her in the US. After witnessing the suffering in Wuhan, she was disheartened by the demonstrations against masks, COVID 19 deniers, and anti-vaxers. Since April 1^st,(when the vaccine was readily available in the US), there have been over 110K deaths in the US from COVID 19. I recently spoke to a contact tracer who indicated that some people who test positive refuse to self-quarantine or wear a mask. Our healthcare workers remain overwhelmed from treating people who refuse to protect themselves and their fellow US citizens under the auspices of freedom.

The world paid a high price for China’s absence of freedom.

But there is also a price to pay for too much freedom.

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.

How 9/11 + 8 Years Began Eroding America’s Spirit by Tom Timberman

September 23, 2021 by Tom Timberman Leave a Comment

Most adult Americans will never forget the shocking, horrifying images they saw that sunny,.blue-sky September morning, when two airliners filled with passengers hit the twin towers in New York, another struck the Pentagon in Washington, D.C and a fourth crashed in Stonycreek Township, Pennsylvania. Some 3,000 people died that day.

We solemnly honor them, their families, their friends, the First Responders and two decades later, the toll of the two wars that followed.

My interest here is how and why after 9/11, previously latent or fringe American feelings and emotions began to became mainstream and politically potent. All human psyches over time can be affected by major crises, group reactions, changing moods and the firm, repeated convictions of their leaders. But, in 2021, the national spirit of the United States is fractured and much weakened.

First, Americans on 9/11 lost a belief ingrained since birth, that our homeland, the Continental United States (CONUS) ,was invulnerable to the death and destruction of foreign attacks. For 187 years, we had become accustomed to US forces engaging enemies on battlefields in Europe and Asia, not the CONUS.

Second, 9/11 also introduced a fear of Muslim terrorists, who eventually came to be promoted and accepted by many Americans, as a generic enemy: Arabs/Muslims.

Ethnic malice wasn’t new to the United States. Much earlier, the US Civil War and its aftermath froze an older, often violent, sense of white racial superiority over Blacks, which persevered into the 21st Century. Racial targeting of African Americans was violently manifested in 2020 (George Floyd and Brianna Taylor murders), but expanded to include Latinos and Asians as well as Arabs/Muslims. Antisemitism also surfaced as a smaller part of the movement against non-Christians and people of color.

This article addresses the 9/11 attacks and the George W. Bush Administration. A second will discuss the Obama and Trump Administrations and any additional slings and arrows our national spirit may have received.

The White House Policy Mood on 9/12/2001

America’s leaders as well as the population at large were traumatized by 9/11. But, “shock and awe” was in the air and swagger seemed called for at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue..

The Cold War had ended over a decade before and the Soviet Union was no more. The US stood astride the world. However, ten years had passed since the US military had last led its Allies in war and defeated a dictator, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. However, that conflict ended with a cease-fire agreement not a much tougher, more satisfying surrender ceremony removing Saddam from power.

In fact, President George H. W. Bush was repeatedly criticized for not sending American forces into Baghdad after the Iraqi military withdrew from Kuwait to force Saddam out and achieve a more total victory. The explanation was simple::neither President Bush nor Secretary of State Colin Powell had any interest in occupying another quagmire.

After 9/11, his son, President G. W. Bush, in office only 8 months, confronted critical choices after 9/11, but in a much more hawkish political environment with a fearful population in need of reassurance. .

Bush’s dilemma was not easy: should America attack Al Qaeda and its Taliban hosts in Afghanistan with limited objectives and highly selective targeting, or commit to all out war against them, but what about Iraq?

Those closest to President Bush immediately following 9/11 were Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. All were hawks, but Wolfowitz offered a strategic concept for the entire Middle East. An academic and veteran of earlier Republican administrations, Wolfowitz twenty-five years earlier, had written a paper describing Iraq as a serious threat to the United States, particularly under Saddam Hussein, BUT Iraq also offered a singular advantage.

Wolfowitz believed the Middle East could be refashioned one country at a time, starting with Iraq. And for several decades he had successfully promoted his paper’s thesis among prominent NeoCons. The President and Rumsfeld and many others, were converts.

Thus, in an excess of imperial hubris, the President announced the national security policy that would remain actively in place through three administrations: the Global War on Terrorism. Its mission was sufficiently vague to fit Afghanistan, Iraq and almost any other country that might have terrorists.

The Administrations was so fixated on Iraq, that it made an initial effort, widely reported in the media of the day, to name Saddam as the 9/11 Perp and/or an immediate, deadly threat to the US (WMD, fuel rods, chemical weapons trucks, rumors Saddam and Bin Laden had collaborated etc). None were true, but we invaded Afghanistan in fall, 2001 and Iraq in spring, 2003.

What the GWOT Wrought:

The military and national security agencies swung into action and quickly developed plans to implement the GWOT. DOD managed the two invasions while a complex of highly classified programs were approved by the White House to crush/deter terrorism. They included secret detentions, extraordinary rendition (kidnapping), enhanced interrogation (torture) and delivery of suspects to third countries for questioning that were more inclined to the use of torture. Secret US foreign detention facilities (Black Sites) were also created.

The underlying objective for all these arrangements was to place these captives and their interrogations and any judicial processes, beyond the reach of the US Constitution, US criminal justice system, the Federal Courts and international law. A similar explanation lay behind the 2002 establishment of a terrorist prison on the US Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba. 780 people were imprisoned there of whom 9 died. Today, only 39 prisoners remain,

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was established on November 25, 2002 to provide the vehicle and the personnel to exert domestic authority in support of the GWOT and later the Patriot Act. Moreover, through the Border Patrol, it was responsible for preventing illegal foreign entry into the United States. DHS eventually incorporated the US Coast Guard, the Transportation Safety Administration and the authority to decide who entered the country.

During the violent summer months of 2020, following the May murder of George Floyd, an African American, by a white police officer, outrage erupted in cities across the country. Armed DHS agents, among other Feds, were deployed to American cities to quell unrest, exacerbated by the intrusion of armed militias into otherwise peaceful citizen demonstrations. They would play major roles during the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the capitol.

Only seven months after the invasion of Iraq, the repulsive, sadistic abuse of Iraqi prisoners by American military men and women began. Photos of the night shifts’ activities between October – December 2002 at the Abu Ghraib Prison surfaced to the disgust of millions and to the moral shame of America.

And twelve more years were to follow.

Tom Timberman is an Army vet, lawyer, former senior Foreign Service officer, adjunct professor at GWU, and economic development team leader or foreign government advisor in war zones. He is the author of four books, lectures locally and at US and European universities. He and his wife are 24 year residents of Kent County.

5th Column by Al Sikes

September 22, 2021 by Al Sikes Leave a Comment

Several weeks ago tweets were sent out before President Biden arrived at Dover Air Force Base to honor the thirteen soldiers who were killed at the Afghan airport. The tweets said Biden had failed to show and CNN said they were sent by conservatives. Perhaps, but who knows. Could they have been sent by Russians posing as conservatives? Or, is there a 5th Column in the United States that either wittingly or unwittingly uses partisan vitriol amplified by digital manipulation? Maybe several 5th Columns.

Encyclopedia Britannica describes a 5th column, “as a clandestine group or faction of subversive agents who attempt to undermine a nation’s solidarity by any means at their disposal. A cardinal technique of the 5th column is the infiltration of sympathizers into the entire fabric of the nation under attack……….”

America has become radically schismatic. Our enemies are gleeful. It is quite clear that foreign adversaries want our differences to grow in both number and severity. Gleefully they watch and react as political performances become increasingly kinetic. How did Portland, Oregon turn into a stage set for violent demonstrations? I’ll tell you when, when exploitation was found to be politically useful. By the Americans? Russians? North Koreans? Or, well who knows.

Each day, internationally and domestically, agents of divisiveness plow through the day’s news looking for hosts to attach toxic viruses. And when they are successful the toxicity becomes the news. The agents are doing their job quite effectively.

The most glaring example is reaction to Covid. Since when did the transmission of a virus, its consequences, and protective public health remedies become a political cause? Sometimes I wonder if discernment is roadkill in the 21st Century because we are too lazy or preoccupied or stupid to discern fact from fiction or common sense from fraud. Sure some public pronouncements were clearly wrong, wrong because the brains behind the voices didn’t know. Coronavirus means novel virus: “In medicine, “novel” usually refers to a virus or bacterial strain that was not previously identified.”

Some decades ago I became familiar with William Wilberforce, a leading reformer in Britain in the mid-19th Century. He was a Member of Parliament and best known for his fierce advocacy against slavery. He led its abolition. A companion mission was his effort to improve what he called “manners.”

I was reminded of Wilberforce while reading an essay by Lance Morrow. Morrow has won the National Magazine Award for Essay and Criticism and has the distinction of writing more “Man of the Year” articles for Time magazine than any other writer in the magazine’s history.

Morrow’s recent essay in the Wall Street Journal began: “Stupidity is one of life’s big mysteries, like evil, like love, an ineffable thing. You cannot exactly define it, but you know it when you see it, as Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography. It takes many forms. Stupidity is entitled to no moral standing whatever, and yet it sits in a place of honor at the tables of the mighty; it blows in their ears and whispers promises.”

Morrow, who claims to be working on a Unified Field Theory of Stupidity, closed his essay with this assertion: “The death of manners and privacy, I argue, are profoundly political facts that, combined with other facts, lead, eventually, to an entire civilization of stupidity. It’s a short ride from stupidity to madness. Soon people aren’t quite people anymore; they are cartoons and categories. And “identities.” The media grow feral. Genitals became weirdly public issues; the sexes subdivide into 100 genders. Ideologues extract sunbeams from cucumbers. They engage in what amounts to an oedipal rebellion against reality itself.”

Morrow went exotic to make a point. Ideologues might be extracting “sunbeams from cucumbers”, but I doubt it. Would that ideologues spend their time on such frivolous pursuits. No, ideologues are organically disdainful, vainly insistent and intensely focused on attracting followers, not sunbeams.

Historically America’s social health is in part due to a “can do” strain of pragmatism. Americans on balance want to make good things happen. After all, we all arrived here on a ship even if for many the term is metaphorical. We have inherited the let’s make America better gene and in exercising our right to select our leaders we look for candidates who in one way or another point toward a better future.

So when academic intolerance cancels thinking and expression, send your children and money to colleges that honor thinking and expression. In a dynamic economy that is the only way to succeed. And when the spear carrying elements in the Trump world say fall into line or else, push back.

In a democracy, regardless of how messy politicians and politics, free speech is paired with the secret ballot. The next nationwide ballot counting will occur in November, 2022. Given the stakes for our country it can’t come soon enough.

But, back to 5th Columns. Campaigns and elections are fields of combat. And the field has been transformed. We are now bits in computer clouds accessed algorithmically. Hackers and saboteurs are often one. They will work to destroy threads of unity and the candidates that seek to appeal to our better nature. Push back!

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.

Gabby Petito, Domestic Violence, and Racism by J.E. Dean

September 22, 2021 by J.E. Dean 1 Comment

I start my mornings, before getting out of bed, with a quick glance a Google News. That’s where I first read the name Gabby Petito. Something about her disappearing. I didn’t read the details. I was more interested in other news, including the then-pending “J6 Justice” protest, hurricanes, Congress, migrants in Texas, and a few other things.

But Petito’s name kept showing up. That prompted me to read more. I now know that the story includes her disappearance while on a cross-country tour with her fiancé, domestic violence, some kind of mental health call to arms, a disappearing fiancé, and discovery of her body The story is still developing, but it appears Petito was murdered by a violent fiancé, who is now a “person of interest” who could face murder charges and is claimed to be somewhere on some massive Florida nature preserve. We know Petito died tragically, but just don’t know the details, yet.

Petito’s apparent murder is tragic, but why so much coverage? To me, at least, there are several answers, not all of them reflecting well on our society.

First, Petito was a young white woman. I wonder if we would be reading dozens of stories about her if she had been poor and a person of color. Dare I say that that the media is demonstrating racism by focusing on Petito’s disappearance while effectively ignoring murders and disappearances of dozens of other people?

Second, the Petito story reads like a murder mystery The media has focused on it because it is easy to understand. If the fiancé is the “bad guy,” he is easy to hate. He was witnessed slapping Petito and has since disappeared. Stories like Petito’s get people’s attention much easier than things like the debate over the Biden infrastructure bill or the huge crowd of migrants living under a bridge in Texas.

Third, is domestic violence. As a society, we are becoming less tolerant of it. The fact that the finance physically abused Petito gets our attention. Some of us relate more to domestic violence victims than to murder victims. That has heightened interest in the story.

None of the above makes light of the fact that a woman was apparently murdered. That alone should heighten our awareness of the problem of domestic violence. Did you know that 500,000 woman are physically assaulted or raped by an intimate partner in the U.S. each year? A 2018 UN report found that worldwide 50,000 woman are killed each year by intimate partners.

Do you recall seeing similar news coverage of any other domestic abuse/murder case this year? I don’t.

So, what to make of the Gabby Petito case? First, we should all be saddened by her murder but should remember that she is but one of thousands of domestic violence victims. We need to take the problem of domestic violence more seriously and press government to do more to combat it.

Second, we should be angry that the press does not publicize all crimes equally. Bias should not be tolerated. If Black lives matter, it should be reflected in what news we see.

Finally, the press must enhance coverage of “boring news” like politics and government. One of the reasons things are not going well in Washington is because too few of us understand the nuances of current events. The media must step up its efforts to inform an educated citizenry with “just the facts”.

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

Commentary: Numbers That Tell Political Stories in the 1st District by Josh Kurtz

September 21, 2021 by Maryland Matters Leave a Comment

Now that the General Assembly’s redistricting commission has begun meeting, even as Republican Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr.’s redistricting commission continues to hold sessions, it feels a little like the varsity team has finally taken the field. With all due respect to the other redistricting commissioners.

Hogan will attempt to get as much political mileage as he can from the Maryland Citizens Redistricting Commission he assembled earlier this year, and whatever maps the commission proposes for Congress and the state legislature will undergird Hogan’s bully pulpit when he argues, yet again, that partisanship needs to be taken out of the redistricting process.

The Hogan commission itself has been a bit of a masquerade — both the notion that its work product would result in maps that actually get due consideration in the General Assembly, along with the fiction that this has really been a non-partisan effort, when one of the co-chairs, Walter Olson, a senior fellow with the right-wing Cato Institute, has been calling most of the shots. It’s the legislature’s commission that’s going to produce the congressional and legislative boundaries that get adopted — unless and until the maps get taken to court.

With the Democrats firmly in control of the process for now, the big question is whether they will attempt to draw an 8-0 Democratic congressional map, potentially sending Republican Rep. Andrew P. Harris into political oblivion, or whether they will keep it at 7-1 but generate a cleaner-looking product.

The draft map that the Hogan/Olson commission circulated earlier this month appeared to have five solid Democratic districts, two Republican districts, and one that theoretically could be up for grabs. That more or less accurately reflects the state’s political makeup.

But when has that ever been a consideration during redistricting — here or in the other states where one political party controls the process? And why should Maryland Democrats “disarm” when Republicans aren’t going to do so in Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania? It may be the right thing to do but it isn’t the smart thing to do in the current national political environment.

According to sources on Capitol Hill and here in the Free State, no less an eminence than U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has been brandishing a proposed Maryland map that shows Democrats with eight seats and Republicans with zero. She is touting it to her Maryland colleagues, urging them to embrace the idea, fully aware that are very few states where Democrats can take advantage of redistricting. In fact, national political analysts say that Republicans could take over control of the U.S. House in 2023 on redistricting gains alone — never mind whatever seats they’ll invariably pick up in the midterm elections.

Drawing an 8-0 Maryland map in favor of the Democrats, believe it or not, isn’t that difficult as a cartographic and statistical exercise. The resistance comes from the Democratic members of Congress themselves, who are often reluctant to give up safe territory even if doing so would help the partisan cause.

A quick look at the 2020 election results suggests that each of the seven Democratic House incumbents from Maryland have plenty of safe territory to sacrifice: Rep. Anthony G. Brown, whose 4th District includes Prince George’s and Anne Arundel counties, won by 59 points last November; Rep. Kweisi Mfume, whose 7th District is anchored in Baltimore City but also takes in territory in Howard and Baltimore counties, won by 43 points; Rep. John P. Sarbanes, whose hideous-looking 3rd District touches five jurisdictions, won by 39 points.

Those bulging margins were followed by Rep. Steny H. Hoyer’s 38-point victory in the 5th District, which covers the three Southern Maryland counties plus Prince George’s and a piece of Anne Arundel; Rep. Jamie B. Raskin’s 36-point win in the 8th District, which is based in Montgomery but also takes in Frederick and Carroll counties; and Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger’s 35-point victory in the 2nd District, which touches Baltimore City and Baltimore and Harford counties.

Even in what’s seen as the closest thing to a competitive district in the state, the 6th — the district Democrats specifically carved out in Montgomery County and Western Maryland after the 2010 Census to pick up an extra seat — Rep. David J. Trone won by 16 points last year.

Imagine if each of these guys, minus Trone, said, “I’d be willing to shave 20 points off my victory margin.” How much easier would it then be for Democrats to put Harris’ seat in danger? Harris won reelection, by the way, by 27 points last year.

Our appointed General Assembly

When Cheryl S. Landis is sworn in as the next delegate from District 23B in Prince George’s County sometime this fall, she’ll become the 33rd member of the House of Delegates who was originally appointed to their seat. This is about one-quarter of the 141-member chamber.

And the numbers are certain to grow, with Del. Michael E. Malone (R-Anne Arundel) set to resign soon to take a judgeship, and Del. Erek L. Barron (D-Prince George’s) awaiting U.S. Senate confirmation to become Maryland’s U.S. attorney. Their slots will have to be filled as well.

The numbers aren’t any better in the Senate: In all, 12 of the 47 senators were originally appointed to their seats — five since the 2018 election alone. Add to that two senators who first entered the legislature as appointees to the House.

For those who need reminding, legislative vacancies in Maryland are filled by the governor, usually after receiving a recommendation from the relevant Democratic or Republican central committees in a departed lawmaker’s county. For Landis, it was probably pretty easy to get the recommendation: She’s the chair of the Prince George’s Democratic Central Committee. Several other appointees got their starts in politics serving on a central committee, which greased the skids for their appointment to the legislature.

Some lawmakers have tried to change the system, introducing legislation to require special elections to fill House and Senate vacancies in the first two years of the legislative term. The bill has passed the Senate in the past two years, and unanimously last year, but has stalled in the House.

It’s time to pass that bill. Is this the people’s legislature, or is it the province of political bosses and insiders?

In the meantime, we’d probably all better pay closer attention to central committee elections.

Josh Kurtz, founding editor of Maryland Matters, has been writing about state and local politics since 1995.

Positive by Jamie Kirkpatrick

September 21, 2021 by Jamie Kirkpatrick 4 Comments

My wife and I have always taken Covid-19 and its variants seriously. All through last year, we wore masks, practiced social distancing, and observed all the recommended CDC protocols. This year, when vaccines became available, we took the first available appointments to receive two injections. We continued to wear our masks and to avoid indoor gatherings. Even though we felt protected by our vaccinations, we remained vigilant. Covid was still hovering nearby, but it was an abstract phenomenon. We were safe.

Over the last few weeks, we watched as the virus surged anew. We continued to wear our masks and to practice social distancing. We were willing to get booster shots as soon as they became available. In short, we wanted to do everything we could to make sure we were safe and to ensure the safety of others. We were still abstractly safe, or so we thought.

But a week ago, our world changed. We were notified that someone in our “pod” had tested positive for Covid. We were encouraged to get a test. The next day we made arrangements to be tested at a clinic in Easton. We breathed a sigh of relief when the immediate results came back negative, but according to protocols, our samples were sent to LabCorp for more sensitive testing. Two days later, those results came back to us: for me, the results indicated the virus was not detected. For my wife, it was.

She had some symptoms: a headache, watery eyes, a dry cough, nasal stuffiness, and a prickly throat, all of which she attributed to seasonal allergies. I felt fine. But that soon began to change. The following day, I too began to experience the same symptoms. Within twenty-four hours, my wife rallied while I went downhill fast. I took to my bed with a racking cough, fever and chills, aches and pains. We knew I needed to be retested. Within another twenty-four hours, the report came back, but I already knew the results. Positive. I had Covid. What was once an abstraction had quickly become painfully real.

The next three days were awful. I was useless. We quarantined at home. My wife took my temperature, administered Advil and Tylenol according to her chart, and made sure I stayed well hydrated. I slept for hours on end, waking only to read for a few minutes before going back to sleep. I lost my senses of smell and taste. It was a dismal time for both of us: she worried about me while I remained mired in an illness that seemingly had struck out of nowhere. Neither she nor I understood how this had happened. We had been so careful.

We took some small comfort in the knowledge that our vaccinations were preventing us from experiencing Covid’s most virulent rage. I felt like a had a mild case of the flu, but I never came close to feeling I needed to be hospitalized. I would ride this out on a wave of good home care, plenty of fluids, and hours of rest.

On the morning of the third day after the onset of my symptoms, I awoke feeling I had rounded the curve. I had a modicum of energy. Even though I still had no sense of smell or taste, I was hungry. I could begin to resume my fair of the household chores—at least those my wife was willing to give me. When I was able to unload the dishwasher, I felt I had conquered Mount Everest.

Each day since has shown marked improvement. I’m almost back to my former self. If the science of disease is true, maybe now my wife and I are triple protected from a future case of Covid because of the antibodies produced by our immune systems. But that’s a footnote to this story. What remains most true is that we will remain vigilant because Covid is no longer an abstraction; it is a real and powerful enemy and we all must do our part to finally slay the beast.

One final thought: Broadway plays, large sporting events, crowded museums; everything is reopening to great fanfare. But are we really ready for large crowds in close quarters? Like everyone else, I’m all for a return to our pre-pandemic “normal,” but my recent experience is a cautionary tale. We’re into our fourth Covid surge. Last week, 10,000 more people died from Covid, the highest toll in the last 6 months. I believe we need to pump the brakes on America’s great reopening; there will be time enough to enjoy life when it’s truly safe to be together.

Praise to all the caregivers who helped my wife and me. Thanks to all of you who wished us well. Special thanks and much love to my wonderful private-duty nurse. I’m eternally grateful you were there for me when I needed you most. I’m positive about that!

I’m very happy to report that I’ll be right back.

Jamie Kirkpatrick is a writer and photographer who lives in Chestertown, MD. 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

Out and About (Sort of): Military Conundrum by Howard Freedlander

September 21, 2021 by Howard Freedlander Leave a Comment

Revelation of the decision by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, to assure his counterpart in China that he would circumvent any decision by President Trump to use nuclear force to attack our nation’s Asian rival strikes at the core of the primacy of civilian rule in our American democracy.

However, I am torn about whether to condemn or praise our top military officer as he dealt with the threat of potentially destructive actions by a president engaged in increasingly erratic actions during the last few months of his term in office. It was this president who was seeking to overturn a legitimate election, claiming fraud where there was none, going so far to incite an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

Still, Milley overstepped his authority by thrusting himself into politics. He circumvented his chain-in-command. He did what he thought was best to protect our country amid the unpredictable, impulsive behavior of a madman.

“Perils,” a book written by the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, along with another book and “New Yorker” article, discloses two conversations that Milley had with his counterpart, one before the election and one after the Jan. 6 assault on the nation’s capital. He initially sought to assure General Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army that he need not worry about aggression by the United States.

Context is important.

Trump’s propensity to act against accepted norms and entangle his subordinates in questionable, unethical behavior was well-known. The reputations of his associates were always at stake. Many chose to resign, such as Gen. John Kelly, his chief of staff, John Bolton, his National Security Council advisor, and Gen. Jim Mattis, his secretary of defense.

The question then arises whether Milley should have resigned and written a sharply worded letter as Mattis did to express his criticism of Trump’s decision to withdraw all forces from Syria and betray our Kurdish allies. Mattis’ letter so infuriated the president that he demanded that Mattis leave his position as secretary of defense earlier than the agreed upon time.

After spending more than 30 years in uniform, I view the premise of civilian control of the military as inviolate, established by General George Washington’s resignation at the end of the Revolutionary War. Political considerations must come into play at times during go or no-go tactical decisions. Though I well understand the natural tension between civilian leaders and high-ranking generals, I have always considered the fraught relationship as necessary and useful as a check and balance.

I still do.

Though Trump had no respect for the appropriate use of the military, as demonstrated by his enlistment of General Milley in his walk in June 2020 to St. John’s Episcopal Church amid the Black Lives Matters protests in Washington, he served as commander-in-chief, albeit an irresponsible one.

Milley was sworn to protect our country and Constitution, as he understands fully well. His service has been superior. Unfortunately, he violated the separation between civilian control and military acquiescence.

While I commend President Biden’s support of, and admiration for Milley, I question the general’s ability to remain as Joint Chiefs chair. His credibility, unfortunately, as an apolitical military officer has diminished.

General Milley must resign. He did not commit treason, as Trump alleges. Just the opposite. Instead, he committed an act of honor and integrity. He acted heroically. He no longer could trust his commander-in-chief, understandably so. Nonetheless, he crossed the line of propriety.

He was right to disrespect a reckless president. He was wrong not to resign and state his reasons as forcefully and honorably as he believed necessary.

He made the wrong decision for the right reasons.

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.

Sections

More