As much as I have a warm spot for the Maryland National Guard (MDNG) after 30-plus years of service, I was dismayed to learn of its participation in a ridiculous mission in early June in the District of Columbia to project domination in the streets in early June, as directed, I believe, by our foolhardy president.

The MDNG sent 116 troops to protect national monuments supposedly in jeopardy after protests and illegal vandalism of Confederate and Christopher Columbus monuments in cities throughout the United States. This destruction was shameful.

To show strength, even when provocative and ill -advised, Trump unilaterally decided to request the MDNG to support the DC National Guard and park police in protecting cherished monuments. But our impulsive, vote-seeking president, forgot one important task:

Ask Mayor Bowser if she wanted or needed federal assistance. A rather serious omission.

A Maryland Senate Committee conducted a hearing last week to investigate why the Guard troops went to help its neighbor. Was it necessary? This was the first that I heard about this wayward mission.

Undeniably, the District of Columbia is a federal jurisdiction. It lacks the protection and prerogatives of statehood. Therefore, it is subservient to the president and Congress.

So, the White House and the Pentagon had no legal obligation to seek Mayor Bowser’s opinion or agreement. However, it would have been the decent, collaborative thing to do in a city with a professional police force. Probably sounds old-fashioned.

Back to the mission. It was manufactured by Trump to exhibit muscular control of the streets, to show Democratic mayors like Bowser he had the gumption to protect invaluable monuments.

The president and the Pentagon committed an egregious mistake. Use of the military, whether the active or Guard or Reserve forces, for blatant political purposes demeans the expertise and neutrality of the Armed Forces. We all recall the use of troops to clear peaceful protesters when Trump decided to take a stroll to St. John’s Episcopal Church at Lafayette Square carrying a bible.

Under any threatening circumstances, domestic or foreign, deployment of military forces should happen only after exhaustive deliberation. What shouldn’t take too much thought is the ill-advised, politically motivated use of the uniformed services. A military uniform connotes public service of the highest caliber to respond to domestic terrorism, natural or man-made disasters and foreign combat undertaken for national security purposes.

Not political gambits justified only by a “king of the mountain” mentality.

When the president and the Defense Department requested the National Guard for duty in the District of Columbia, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam said no. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan said yes. Hogan did say no when the president requested Maryland National Guard units to be sent in June 2019 to the Mexican border to thwart crossings.

An implicit trust must exist between civilian political leaders and top military officers. The former must expect readiness and expertise; the latter must expect sound, reasonable thinking and decision-making. This trust has eroded during the past nearly four years. Trump can only think transactionally, not sensibly and respectfully.

The Maryland National Guard should have stayed home and avoided being political pawns in Washington, DC. Trump misused the Guard. That’s regrettable.

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.

Sometimes, I must admit, when I see political signs on neighbors’ properties, I think about defacing those that support a candidate whom I oppose. Then, I realize that I would be guilty of vandalism and breaking the law.

I do some quick soul-searching. I appeal to my well-ingrained sense of law and order. I tell myself that democracy spawns wholly different political points of view. I welcome a sense of serenity.

When I read last week in The Star Democrat about the numerous instances of the wanton theft and destruction of Biden-Harris and Trump-Pence signs in Talbot and Dorchester counties, I felt sickened by the unbridled anger and spite on the Mid-Shore and our nation. It just seems irrational.

To assuage my disgust, I accessed my typical default: self-righteousness. That offered no comfort. Then, I sought solace in humor. That worked and distracted me.

H.L. Mencken, the acerbic, Baltimore-based journalist and keen political observer, opined, “Every election is a sort of an advanced auction of stolen goods.”

While I don’t share Mencken’s cynical, trenchant perspective, I do understand that some might consider politicians dishonest and devious, making promises they can’t keep and often unable to avoid the temptation of self-aggrandizement. The body politic becomes suspect about a candidate’s motivation.

What I find distasteful in the political arena is the theft–by political expediency–of dignity, civility and character. For example, since the death of Republican Senator John McCain more than two years ago, the Republican Party has lost its moral anchor. Silence has replaced disappointment in the unconscionably reckless behavior of the president.

The voice of honor disappeared upon McCain’s death. McCain was a maverick who refused to be hamstrung by the party line. He spoke out regardless of the circumstances. Courage was his constant companion.

Fear has supplanted moral outrage.

Amid an avalanche of ridiculous tweets by the president, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has dared to question the president’s competency and mental stability. Consequently, she then must withstand silly personal attacks; she refuses to be intimidated.

Unfortunately, I’m not surprised by the destruction and defacing of political signs. This blatant disregard of private property signifies the unleashed anger that has manifested itself in innumerable communities throughout our emotionally divisive country. My research reveals a comparable pattern of illegal behavior in communities small and large

Will Rogers, the great humorist, once said, “Elections are a good deal like marriages. There’s no accounting for anyone’s taste. Every time we see a bridegroom we wonder why she ever chose him, and it’s the same with public officials.”

Humor is an effective antidote in our distressing political climate. Signs and friends are destroyed by partisan strife. Our national dignity is shattered. Spineless politicians have watched and done little to obstruct our dangerous shift in values.

Political courage is in short supply.

“A politician is an animal which can sit on the fence and yet be able to keep both ears to the ground,” according to Mencken. At this time in our history, satire, though biting and bitter, can be good for the soul.

In three weeks, on Nov. 3, our presidential election will dominate our attention. Regardless of the humorous disparagement of politics and its practitioners by H.L. Mencken and Will Rogers, I suggest one thing above all else:

Vote. No excuses. It’s your right. If it rains, take an umbrella.

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.

I learned again last week that conservatives who adamantly oppose Democratic control of our national government instinctively use the threat of socialism as their rallying flag, their philosophical fear and loathing of a potential change in leadership in our nation’s Capital.

The anti-socialist sentiment emanates from intelligent, worldly folks who suffer from a distinct lack of knowledge and historical context. They use socialism perhaps as a euphemism for communism. Their thinking is thoughtless, if not foolishly dangerous.

Socialism is a rhetorical tool that bears no resemblance to reality. It’s misused and misunderstood.

The conservative commentator, George Will, writing in 2016, opined that socialism—if defined by redistribution of wealth— would apply not only to the poor but also the wealthy who benefit from farm subsidies and land preservation, corporate bailouts, Social Security, Medicare and favorable tax programs.

Wills wrote, “Time was, socialism meant thorough collectivism: state ownership of the means of production (including arable land), distribution and exchange.” This concept morphed under Lenin into government ownership of the economy’s “big entities,” according to Will. It then transformed into “having government distribute, according to its conception of equity, the wealth produced by capitalism. This conception is shaped by muscular factions: the elderly, government employee unions, the steel industry, the sugar growers, and so on and on and on.”

Will explained that “two-thirds of the federal budget (and 14 percent of GDP) goes to transfer payments, mostly to the non-poor. The U.S. economy’s health care sector (about 18 percent of the economy) is larger than the economies of all but three nations, and permeated by government money.”

And I don’t begrudge economic stimulus programs that might aid corporate America. What rankles me is a mean-spiritedness disguised as a discussion about small versus large government.

I believe we as a country have an obligation to the unprivileged; that’s who we are as a caring country, as I view our national soul.

Socialist governments such as Russia and China, where state control of media and utilities is suffocatingly pervasive, compare unfavorably to our free-market economy and democratic elections.

Even with the availability of Obamacare, private medical care is alive and well in our country. Choices are many.

Am I then a Socialist? Hell no. Democracy and capitalism are a potent combination for “doing good while doing well,” as Ben Franklin stated so adroitly in the late 18th century.

While I think that free community college or free four-year college is a good idea in terms of economic development, I seriously question how it can be funded. Tax the rich? Why should the rich, however defined, be responsible for this enormous expenditure?

If free education is considered a nationwide priority, why shouldn’t all Americans support it through a special tax or tax credit?

When I think about the use of socialist ideas, I think about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal during the Depression in the 1930s and its effectiveness in thwarting entrenched economic distress. FDR faced anger and accusations for his employment of programs viewed as socialistic.

Unemployed Americans earned wages and self-respect.

When conservative Republicans attack big government programs as wreaking of socialism (and its ugly overtones), I suggest they look honestly at corporate buyouts and stimulus programs and farm subsidies and ask if these too are onerous.

Fairness is the common denominator. Is government catering to the public and our view of ourselves or simply enacting wasteful and expensive initiatives? That’s the question, unburdened by provocative, useless labels.

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.

Ever since Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died 11 days ago at age 87 of pancreatic cancer, I have become engrossed in this legal giant’s life and career. My wife and I watched “On Basis of Sex,” the movie about Ginsburg’s career to remove barriers to equal rights based on a person’s gender. And we also watched the “RBG” documentary, which confirmed for the most part the Hollywood version.

Memories then began to flow about one of my mother’s dear friends in Baltimore, Judge Mary Arabian. They were both determined, goal-oriented women.” Judge Mary” was a frequent guest in my parents’ home.

Like Ginsburg, whose father was a bookkeeper, Arabian also rose from modest circumstances as the daughter of an Armenian rug repairer.

Arabian too shattered some traditions. She became the first woman named   to the Municipal Court in Baltimore. This judicial setting is akin to today’s District Court. She later was promoted to the Supreme Bench, which is comparable to today’s Circuit Court.

I recall that Arabian, a graduate of the University of Maryland Law School, telling a story about how she could not get a job with a top law firm, being asked rhetorically by a partner at one of these firms: “Mary, what would one of our clients think?” Her application was rejected. 

According to the Ginsburg film, the former Supreme Court justice encountered the same reaction after graduating from the Columbia University Law School following two years at the top of her class at Harvard Law School.

Both Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Mary Arabian could only have felt insulted and demeaned by this typical reaction at the time.

Judge Mary eventually got a job at a law firm that included William Donald Schaefer, who eventually became mayor of Baltimore, governor of Maryland and state comptroller.

When Arabian retired from the bench in 1990, some blue-chip law firms in Baltimore invited her to join, if only for her name to be on the letterhead. She declined.

A year after being named to the Supreme Bench, Arabian had to run for election for a 10-year term. Most judges intensely dislike engaging in the often messy political process and possibly hindering their objective judgments. But Judge Mary had the good judgment to seek help from Leah Freedlander, who was well-versed in city politics. Early on, when my mother urged her friend to campaign in the powerful union halls, she resisted, concerned that she might run into people whom she had sentenced. Though I suspect that my equally resolute mother understood Mary’s reasoning, she asked: “Well, Mary, do you want to win?”

Judge Mary reluctantly went along. She knew better to question my mother’s political savvy.

No movies will be made about Judge Mary Arabian, whose rise to judicial prominence happened on a local stage. However, her being named as the first woman on the Municipal Court was rather significant in 1961. I regret that I never asked the judge how she felt about her precedent-setting appointment. I suspect she may have changed the subject.

Circling back to Judge Ginsburg, I must concede that I find disturbing the opinions of some that she should have stepped down as her illnesses increased and worsened. The thinking goes that should she have retired after an illustrious career, President Obama could have named a younger, still liberal justice and avoided the current nomination of a conservative justice and woman who will feel no obligation to side with her predecessor’s opinions.

Why do I find this thinking bothersome? Because I never heard similar retrospectives about aging men who faced medical challenges. Also, had Judge Ginsburg retired for political purposes to give Obama the opportunity to appoint a younger person, she would have placed a political stamp on the Supreme Court. Some may say that already happened after the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000.

Nothing I have read or heard convinces me that Judge Ginsburg was unable mentally or physically to perform her duties as an associate Supreme Court justice despite several bouts with cancer. Her opinions in the majority or in dissent were well-written and well-reasoned, as well as respected by her peers on the nation’s highest court.

Judge Mary Arabian broke the glass ceiling in Baltimore. Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg helped remove legal barriers as a civil rights attorney, winning five out of six cases before the Supreme Court. Her intellect and character shone brightly on a court once dominated completely by men.

Mary Arabian was a towering figure to me. As was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Each combined abundant brain power and effective willfulness.

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.

 

In mid-June I came late to the realization that the inequality represented by the phrase “digital divide” applied to Talbot County as well as it does to counties and cities throughout our country. Fortunately, I could join others to address the problem.

For full disclosure, I am a member of the Talbot County Public School Education Foundation’s (TCPSEF) advisory board. This group went to work when we learned from Superintendent Kelly Griffith that roughly 300 families could not afford internet connection fees.

Covid-19 showcased the economic distress experienced by families forced to provide at-home online schooling for their children. Hundreds of students were hard-pressed to participate. Public school education became inaccessible to many.

The education foundation understood the urgency to ensure that families in need were not shut out from virtual schooling. It set a goal of $60,000 to provide critical educational opportunity during a crippling health crisis when access to in-person school was severely limited.

As of last week, the hitherto unknown education foundation had raised $90,000 from 268 individuals, businesses and private foundations. The community response was astounding, centered around an easily understood need.

For years I read or heard about the nationwide “digital divide” crisis. Through ignorance or naïveté, or both, I never thought that Talbot County encompassed the same inequality that existed in urban areas. I was dead wrong.

Poverty, with its disabling socio-economic consequences, afflicts every corner of our nation, regardless of the wealth that is abundantly apparent in our county. It cannot be ignored.

I watched admiringly as members of our advisory board vigorously sought donations from friends, neighbors, family members and local businesses. The response, as noted, was just incredible, if not heartwarming

Donations ranged from $10 to $7,000. Normally I would scoff at small contributions, wondering how in the world would we reach our goal. Not this time. I was overwhelmingly impressed by the grassroots foundation of this 2-1/2-month campaign.

Much has been written about the inequality in health care, jobs, social justice and education revealed during a pandemic that has removed any doubt about the alarming lack of equity in our nation.

I believe, however, that one silver lining in this crisis has been the pervasive role of philanthropy. Those who can, have stepped forward, not only to support their favorite non-profits, but have parlayed their generosity to human services causes. I’ve seen it repeatedly in our community.

“Digital Divide” obviously carries more heft than simply being a nice-sounding alliterative phrase. It speaks succinctly to a serious chasm in our technology-driven country. Academic and professional success depends heavily on internet literacy.

When an invisible but harmful wall stands between children learning math, reading, science and foreign languages, then our nation suffers dearly from unequal learning opportunities. We who can should pitch in to close the gap, if possible.

That’s what the Talbot County Public School System, working with local providers like Easton Utilities, Delmarva Wi-Fi, Verizon and Atlantic Broadband, has done with an immediate sense of urgency for the fall semester and beyond. The foundation raised private funds to complement government grants.

The problem will remain unsolved until all families in need of financial and technological support have an internet connection—when no school-age child falls behind due to lack of access to virtual learning  While a potential Covid vaccine could reopen America to life as we knew it, repair of educational inequality must remain a priority.

Our community deserves commendation, as does the education foundation and its advisory board. Upcoming stories of families and students connected to online teaching will convince donors and educators alike that the Digital Divide campaign reaped invaluable dividends.

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.

He epitomized grit and determination. He epitomized the value of preparation. He epitomized the potent mixture of pure athleticism and hard work to maximize natural talent. He epitomized respect for the fans.

Of course, I’m talking about Cal Ripken, Jr., the Baltimore Orioles phenom who broke on September 6, 1995 the long-held record of 2,130 consecutive games played by a Major League Baseball (MLB) player by adding “1” to a milestone that many thought would never be surpassed.

He and the baseball world celebrated nine days ago the 25th anniversary of a record that likely will go unbroken. In an era of specialization and multi-millionaire ballplayers fearful of career-ending injuries, longevity is not necessarily an aspiration.

When he played his 2,131st game on Sept. 3 against the California Angels at Oriole Park at Camden Yards near downtown Baltimore, Ripken replaced the legendary New York Yankee, Lou Gehrig, as baseball’s heralded “iron man.”

He played 501 additional games after his mountain-top experience.

In reading the recent tributes to Ripken and his memories of an unprecedented achievement, I was reminded of a constant drizzle of criticism during “The Streak”: Cal was being selfish not to sit out games when he was injured and presumably unable to contribute fully to the team’s performance.

When I heard the criticism then and ponder it now, my reaction is still the same. Hogwash.

Ripken instilled in the game a steadfast commitment to working every day to help his team, to forgo days off for plying his trade and earning his salary in an honest, dignified manner. 

He expected much of himself. Perhaps his teammates were equally conscientious because of the example he set. Maybe not. They may have considered him an unusual force of nature.

The former shortstop converted into a third-baseman is now 60-years-old. He lives in the same community in Annapolis as my daughter and family. His second wife is a circuit court judge in Anne Arundel County.

Cal Ripken has always been a gentleman who treats fans with down-to-earth humility. He’s easily likable and approachable. 

My grandchildren could care less about this large man prowling the neighborhood with his dog. My daughter and son-in-law, however, remain in awe of this MLB Hall of Famer. So do I.

Some months ago, my son-in-law was installing a make-shift tree swing for his son and daughter. The challenge, of course, entailed tossing the rope over the high limb. As my son-in-law was hurling the rope over the limb, the Ripkens walked by. Somewhat tongue-in-cheek, my son-in-law asked Cal Ripken if he would like to toss the rope (with a ball attached). He immediately said yes. His wife said no, either trying to preserve her husband’s arm or his pride

Aloofness has never been part of Ripken’s personality. A native of Aberdeen, Maryland, he’s always handled his fame with modesty and poise.

The 25th anniversary of Cal Ripken’s singular accomplishment, garnered after 13 years in the major leagues, brought back wonderful memories of the night that this remarkable athlete captivated 46,000 fans in the stands and millions watching on TV. His jog around the perimeter of the ballfield was magical. He didn’t want to do it; his teammates prodded and pushed him to do it

Not all anniversaries are joyful. Some remind us of horrendous events. That wasn’t true on Sept. 6, 2020.

Though Cal Ripken may not be a hero, he represents an ideal. Hard work and single-mindedness in the presence of injuries and criticism are undeniable virtues.

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.

When I read last Friday about President Trump’s confirmed comments about veterans buried in military cemeteries as “losers” and “suckers,” I so wanted to believe that I had had a bad dream. After all, who would make such demeaning remarks about members of the Armed Services killed in combat or training accidents?

I decided I wouldn’t write a column condemning our nation’s top-elected political leader, who in the past also characterized the late Sen. John McCain, a tortured prisoner of war during the Vietnam Conflict, as a “loser.” 

Trump has no shame or conscience. His comments consign him a to category occupied only by himself; any semblance of dignity and class has eluded him in a painfully public way.

I prefer to use this weekly space to extol the men and women who have served and continue to do so in horribly dangerous parts of the world. They seek no transactional reward. They expect fairness and clarity up and down the chain of command. If medals come their way, so be it.

When a member of the military services takes an enlistment oath, he/she understands that the possibility of death is an implied consequence. If death or maiming hopefully doesn’t result, deprivation often does. Time away from family is difficult.

Why does a person serve when not compelled by a draft? The answer is complicated.

Many don the uniform in allegiance to their parents or grandparents or best friends. Some are looking to leave home and lives promising restricted opportunity.  Some ache to serve their nation, as was the case after our homeland was attacked on 9/11/2001. Some believe that military service is a requirement of good citizenship.

In my scorebook, anyone who serves our country (or the Peace Corps or other forms of national service) is a winner. The choice demands discipline and dedication.

In the history of our country, many have chosen to serve a cause above themselves. Selflessness outweighs selfishness. It just seems right and honorable.

President Trump only understands fealty to the dollar and the deal. He seems oblivious to non-transactional choices. Comments in a recent Atlantic article portray a person uncomfortable in a cemetery marked by reverence to mostly young men and women who died in service to the United States.

Through the years, as an officer in the Maryland National Guard, I met many World War II veterans. Many of them spent their youth on Omaha Beach on D-Day, June 6, 1944 and beyond on Europe’s fighting fields as part of the 29th Infantry Division (Blue and Gray).

As I’ve written previously, these were ordinary men who performed extraordinary deeds. Many lost close friends in vicious combat on the Normandy beaches and places such as St. Lo and Bastogne.

They would cringe at hearing that their buddies buried at the Normandy American Cemetery in Coleville-sur-Mer in France were called “losers” and “suckers” by the current UI.S. president. While Trump may deny these words, others caught in shocked disbelief heard them.

A visit to a military cemetery elicits sympathy and appreciation. I look particularly at the deceased’s age and wonder how they died: What were their life stories? How were their families affected? What were their dreams about life after military service?

World War II veterans were especially stoic. They talked little about their combat experiences. Maybe they shared their stories in their later years. They wanted to move on with their civilian lives. Unfortunately, they did not seek solace or professional help when they returned, still bedeviled by flashback and fear.

Our military cemeteries, such as Arlington National Cemetery, reflect American values at their most basic level. Whether drafted or volunteer enlistees, the men and women who reside in calm and peace bespeak a willingness to go in harm’s way and leave the comfort of home.

A winner doesn’t criticize those who died in combat or a training accident.

A winner honors and reveres those who sought to serve bravely and selflessly. 

A loser condemns what he doesn’t know.

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.

Tomorrow marks the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, which claimed the lives of roughly 60-80 million people. Yesterday was my 75th birthday, a milestone for anyone who has spent three-quarters of a century living on our delightful, yet contentious earth.  

Instead of fighting a war against a vicious despot, we are at war with ourselves. A national consensus that undergirded our years of struggle against Nazi Germany and Japan is elusive, if not attainable, except briefly, in our United States. 

Raised by parents and grandparents who believed anything was possible with hard work and education, I’ve learned that that vision is an illusion in 2020. A country that triumphed in Europe and Japan and then reinvented itself as a world power–economically, politically and militarily–is viewed as morally bankrupt, economically vulnerable and culturally divided.

As I celebrated my birthday primarily with family due to social distancing dictated by the coronavirus that has changed our lives during nearly eight months, I wondered about our disjointed response to the pandemic. Our national leadership has been sadly lacking, if not pathetically shameful.

We have no national will because our president believes that Covid-19 will simply go away, science be damn. And magically a vaccine will materialize. We’ll all live happily ever after.

Though hardly a social historian, I believe that in the America that strode purposefully and effectively after the end of World War II until 2000, confidence in combating a pandemic would have been possible. A U.S. president intent on leading, not deluding our citizenry, would have created a non-adversarial relationship with states and scientists to minimize as far as possible the deadly effects of the coronavirus.

Truth and credibility require no vaccine.

Character and concern require no social distancing, just a sincere soul and working heart.

While a sense of gloom created by our seriously constrained lives and a sham residing in our once respected White House hovers over our daily activities, I happily turned 75. Not too long ago I wondered if neurological problems with balance and dizziness would rule my 70s and beyond.

As I scanned the birthday celebration and watched family members devour lobsters and delicious chocolate cake, I smiled as the current patriarch of our small tribe, observing friendly chatter. The personalities are vastly different. Love provided the glue for the joy and harmony that permeated the noisy dinner table.

Memories dominate your thinking as you rise up the aging ranks. You inevitably think of your ancestors. Their spirit permeates the festivities. I think about my immigrant grandfather who tasted the fruits of success and liked nothing better than overseeing a table filled with grandchildren who mostly got along.

The end of World War II ushered in a truly incredible expanse of achievement and prosperity in our striving nation. Not all partook of the financial rewards, as we know. Racial inequality existed then; it surely does now.

Optimistically, I believe our country is enduring a bad patch. Our president is incompetent and amoral. His loyalty is self-directed. His ability to speak the truth is frighteningly scarce. 

Born in Boston, sharing an apartment with my parents and older brother, I faced an uncertain world. For the most part, the journey from infancy to senior status has been a happy one. Disappointment mixed with flashes of glee were constant ingredients in a fulfilling life.

I remain hopeful that my future birthdays on the last day of August will be numerous despite the mathematical limitations. I am hopeful that the upsurge of optimism and achievement that followed the end of World War II on September 2, 1945 can somehow resurface in our fractious country.

And I hope that November 3, 2020 will bring a refreshing change in the occupancy of the White House. I will feel as if I were born again.

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.

 

Covid-19 continues to hover over our lives. We all cope in our different ways. As readers know, my wife and I have responded to health-caused restrictions by immersing ourselves every evening in watching mostly old movies.

I cannot claim that we are challenging our intellectual capacities. Nor has the pandemic, now seven months-old and still thriving, prescribed strenuous mental exercise. It seems more important to attend to our emotional well-being.

In past columns, I’ve reviewed with decidedly pedestrian skill 12 movies that fascinated me. They were thought-provoking, if not simply wonderfully entertaining.

For this commentary, I will remain fixed on my self-imposed limit of six films reviewed with an imperfect eye and muted criticism. I’ve learned that movies that we have enjoyed have often been scorched by critics. 

So what? Critics feast upon flaws that only they might observe and even care about.

Here we go, Spy readers:

“Saving Private Ryan,” starring Tom Hanks and Matt Damon, is a thoroughly absorbing film that offers an unvarnished view of deadly combat beginning on Omaha Beach during D-Day, June 6, 1944. Hanks’ character, Captain John Miller, becomes an increasingly hard-edged platoon commander dedicated to a questionable mission. This is not an easy movie to watch. It strains your belief in the goodness of war.

An unabashed fan of the peripatetic Robin Williams, I was moved by his portrayal of an unconventional prep school English teacher in “Dead Poets Society,” a film that shakes your faith in hide-bound school administrators and parents who view with trepidation an educator who challenges students to think and act for themselves. I just loved this movie. It reminded me that a good teacher can have a huge influence on his/her students if allowed to use different but effective methods of stirring the minds of sometimes resistant teenagers. 

If still disturbed by the physical and material atrocities committed by the Nazi forces during World War II, readers will enjoy the painful story embodied in “Portrait in Gold,” starring Helen Mirren, who never fails to imbue her character with strength and sensitivity. An Austrian Jew who flees Vienna amid the Nazi crackdown and settles in Los Angeles, she becomes obsessed with gaining possession of her aunt’s portrait, “Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer”. This compelling tale succeeds not just because of an incredible actress, but also a tone-perfect performance by Ryan Reynolds and the lovely scenic role played by Vienna.

Few films so inspire and engage me than “The King’s Speech. “ Queen Elizabeth’s father, King George VI, overcame a dominating father, a reckless and irresponsible brother and a debilitating stammer to become a king that helped lead Great Britain during the Nazi blitz and World War II. This movie tells the all-too-human stories of the dysfunctional royal family against a backdrop of political and global chaos. The relationship between the king, known as Bertie, and a commoner who helps him speak more comfortably is almost too good to be true. Colin Firth is exceptional, as exemplified by his Oscar as Best Actor in 2010. The king’s struggles mirror the awesome challenges faced in a wartime Britain.

To erase any perception that my wife and I only enjoy gut-wrenching drama, I must confess that we found “The Proposal”, featuring Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds, funny and creative. While the film’s conclusion may have been predictable (a constant bugaboo for paid critics), I thought the plot was innovative and the chemistry between Bullock and Reynolds a real plus. The dichotomy between New York City and a beautiful village in Alaska underscored the tension between Bullock and Reynolds. The light touch provided by this romantic comedy was a welcome break from our usual diet of serious films.

Finally, “A Beautiful Mind,” winner of the Best Film in 2001and featuring Russell Crowe, is a must-watch for anyone who appreciates excellent acting, sensitive treatment of mental disease, the demands and competition of an elite education and insight into genius. The fragile thread separating uncommon intellect and emotional stability underscores the true story behind this superb cinema. Direction by Ron Howard nearly guarantees a thoughtful and critically successful movie. Crowe fills the screen with his touching portrayal of a man blessed with a first-rate brain and a vulnerable soul.

If I were to review COVID-19, I regretfully would rate it a smashing success in disturbing our lives and causing unfortunate morbidity. It’s like nothing any of us have experienced. It rules everything we do and don’t do.

A chronic obsession with escapist cinema helps alleviate the stress of coping with a stubborn disease.

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.

 

 

After listening for 39 minutes to the video recording of last week’s Talbot County Council discussion and vote on removal of the Talbot Boys Monument from the grounds of the county courthouse, I was more disappointed than surprised by the backward thinking of Councilpersons Chuck Callahan, Frank Divilio and Laura Price.

I’ve read comments commending this threesome for resisting the nationwide tide of removing Confederate statues in towns and cities along the East Coast. For many in our community, Callahan, Divilio and Price are heroes for honoring the past and refusing to give into “leftist” criticism and pressure. They successfully voted in the majority against the removal.

On the other hand (right or left), Council President Corey Pack and Councilperson Lesher, representing the two minority votes, were viewed as following their consciences and supporting the position that the Talbot Boys Monument represents white supremacy and its ugly byproducts: hatred, bigotry and oppression.

As I’ve written before, I support the removal of a monument that blatantly counters those virtues—such as friendliness, compassionate citizenship, generosity of spirit and community betterment–that engender pride in our county. The 3-2 decision offers a different impression, one that tolerates a symbol of hostility and prejudice.

What the decision and preceding dialogue conveyed was a sad lack of leadership. Callahan and Divilio explicitly proposed evading their responsibility to make reasoned decisions by recommending a referendum in 2022 to enable the people to decide. That’s gutless.

Price focused her opposition on procedural grounds that made sense only to her. To this observer, her argument wreaked of stall tactics and legislative minutiae. She chose process over substance in opposing the resolution calling for the monument’s removal.

All three opponents then suggested that the time was wrong to make a decision as monumental at this. They played the Covid-19 pandemic card, saying that restrictions against public input by citizens forbidden to attend meetings negated a thoughtful decision. Under current circumstances, the public has been vocal.

Divilio, Callahan and Price opted for distraction and fatuous arguments. And they succeeded. The democratic process places a premium on majority votes.

Pack and Lesher showed courage. The former apologized for his vote five years ago opposing the removal. Apologies typically are in short supply in the body politic, for fear that contrition connotes weakness and possible legal consequences. In fact, it recognizes poor judgment.

Since it’s easy to criticize politicians who are making well-considered decisions based on their own convictions and their awareness of constituent concerns, I believe that the time has come for a creative approach that appeals, if possible, to both sides of the argument. 

The public flogging by advocates needs to come to a stop.

I recommend creation by the county council of a blue-ribbon commission headed by someone respected for his/her objectivity and thoughtfulness, leading a group representing concerned segments of our community. I further suggest that the county council direct this commission to submit a proposal by Dec. 31, 2020.

If the proposal calls, for example, for the removal of both the Talbot Boys and the Frederick Douglass monuments to non-public space, one that captures the whole, unvarnished history of Talbot County, then that is something that the public and its public servants can debate. 

This idea is not mine. Two writers have offered this idea in letters and comments in The Talbot Spy.

While this column has criticized Callahan, Divilio and Price and commended Pack and Lesher, I believe that the entire council would like to find a solution to a controversy that will not vanish without a palatable resolution. A future that combines creativity and tolerance, while enhancing the county’s image and tourism, should be the goal. 

Discussion is healthy. Varied voices, even if discordant, are integral to the democratic process. Our elected representatives need to find a compromise proposal that allows all segments to feel that their input was valued. 

Leadership can fill the current void and allay the dissension. A blue-ribbon commission that moves quickly to design a solution that solicits public input could clear the logjam.

The time is now. Not 2022.

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.