The current turbulent social, political and moral environment in which our representative democracy exists,  threatens, I believe, the resilience of our Constitutional democratic principles and institutions of governance. The extreme seriousness of the threats arises from: (1) the gradual acceptance by mainstream Americans of violence as a political tool, (2) the easy access to private armed militias and (3) the ubiquitous presence of social media and customized apps. The latter enable plans to be made, actions coordinated and operations to proceed in real time with instant communications involving hundreds of people in real time. 

The violent January 6, 2021 insurrection and assault on the US Capitol revealed clearly that America’s long tradition of democratic elections, followed by peaceful transfers of power, can no longer be assumed. Two of the largest armed militias, Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, actively engaged in the attacks. Stewart Rhodes, founder of the Oath Keepers, was just convicted in Federal Court of Seditious Conspiracy. 

Why the US Capitol? Because on January 6, 2021, members of both Houses of Congress were assembled in the House Chamber, led by the President of the Senate (US Vice President), to take the ceremonial final step in the election of a US president: the acceptance of the certified state votes of the Electoral College.  However, a group of senators and House members used a perverse interpretation of the enabling legislation (1887 Electoral Count Act), to challenge some of the certified state tallies. Their likely purpose was to overturn or delay the confirmation of America’s new president. 

The partisan mob broke into the Capitol building around 1PM on January 6th and then forced their way into the House Chamber. Minutes before, the Capitol Police and Secret Service, had led the  members of Congress to protected locations. Once the Capitol was secured, hours later, the Congressional deliberations resumed circa 8PM and early on January 7, the electoral votes were accepted and Joe Biden became the 46th President of the United States. 

To prevent a future misuse of the legislation, a draft amendment to the 1887 Act will be introduced and voted on by Congress, in December 2022.  

Deeply unsettling as well, were the 2 years of false claims in courts and elsewhere, that the 2020 Presidential Election was a fraud.  It is estimated that as many as 18 million Americans believe and support these lie-based assertions. This extended mass citizen effort to reverse a presidential election is unprecedented in American history. It  reflects a sad fact:  past generations of Americans’ ingrained acceptance of and participation in, our Constitutional democracy, is no longer predictable. 

And violence has become part of today’s deeply divided political reality. 

Does Something need to be Done? 

In my opinion, Yes. 

Anyone who has built or remodeled a house, knows that many licenses and inspections are required. And if there’s a problem with the work or the licensing, there’s a state commission or the courts to appeal to for redress. 

However, political parties and their successful national candidates are elected to powerful positions, from which they determine the future of 330+  million Americans. But, unlike roof repairs, this  immensely important process and its participants are essentially unregulated. There are no comparable (to roof repair) standards of competence or performance and no means easily available to voters, to appeal violations, even if there were any regulations..  

There is one exception: candidates and their campaign committees must submit to election boards at the state or national level, multiple reports of money’s received, from whom (with addresses) and how spent. However, corporations and unions (SCOTUS 2010: Citizens United vs FEC) can contribute, possibly anonymously, unlimited amounts to PACs and political parties. 

The following are suggestions based on vulnerabilities identified over many decades, particularly the last ten years.  Some may be politically impossible, but they are offered for consideration and comment. 

• • Vote Count Act – Congress during their December 2022 session passes the amendments to the 1887 Vote Count Act.
  • Federal Election Commission – The Federal Election Commission is substantially strengthened and given an expanded mandate. Current commission has six members, 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans, a prescription for dysfunction.  The Commission in recent years has been tied or absent a quorum frequently.
    
  • Technology and Security – 
  • The Federal Government should provide the same safe computers, software, and election security to all the states and territories for all general elections.
  • Note: Art I, Section 4 of the Constitution: (1) The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.

• Presidential/Vice Presidential Elections

• • • The popular election for the president/Vice President should be take place separately from the general election for members of Congress and for state and local positions. The selection of the most powerful  executive in the US Government and his/her understudy, are far too important to be included in the  confusion, even chaos and inefficiencies of the much larger general election. It should have customized procedures and reinforced protections. 
    • Note: The Constitution sets out no description of the process or timing for the popular election of the president and vice president. It does provide detailed guidance for the Electoral College.  

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.

.  

 

Last night, Easton’s Prager Family Center for the Arts held a concert featuring Venezuelan pianist Gabriela Montero, violinist Joshua Bell, and soprano Larisa Martinez. It was, in short, magic. The featured musicians were at the top of their game. The program was eclectic and charming. The acoustics were superb. I felt privileged to be in attendance.

During one introduction to the selected program, Joshua Bell mentioned that he had never played in a venue quite like this one. It reminded him of the salons of days gone by. He is right.  It is a unique experience to be so close to the artists in an environment with such amazing sound quality. 

Gabriela Montero is a renowned pianist who gave her first concert when she was only five years old. She has performed at the Kennedy Center, Carnegie Hall, as well as concert halls in Munich, Berlin, Bern, Amsterdam and other venues across the globe. Montero sometimes introduces improvisations into standard classical pieces, a practice that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart also incorporated into their concerts. Montero also has composed many original compositions and released several albums. Her 2015 album won her the Latin Grammy award for best classical album.  Her mastery of the eclectic pieces played on Saturday evening was pure perfection. 

On Saturday’s performance, Joshua Bell was not front and center, as the concert truly showcased his wife, soprano Larisa Martinez. But, as usual, he did not disappoint. Bell made his Carnegie debut at the age of 17. His instrument is the Gibson ex Huberman, a Stradivarius made in 1713 during the Stradivari’s Golden Era. The violin was stolen twice and is the subject of a documentary The Return of the Violin. Bell, considered one of the greatest violinists of all time, has won numerous awards and has produced albums featuring Brahms, Prokofiev, Gershwin, Bernstein, Vivaldi, Mendelssohn and many more. 

In 2019, Puerto Rican-born soprano Larisa Martinez made both her Kennedy Center and Carnegie Hall debuts—the same year she married Bell. Martinez appeared in her first opera when she was 19 as the shepherd in the third act of Tosca.  She studied vocal performance at the Conservatory of Music in Puerto Rico and obtained her master’s degree from the Mannes School of Music in New York City. Martinez has performed in New York and other operatic stages in the United States and Europe.  In recent years, she has performed with Andrea Bocelli where she typically sings one aria and then joins the tenor in four operatic duets. 

Saturday’s program at the Prager included works by Mendelssohn, Schubert, Chopin, and Bernstein, as well as some Spanish and Puerto Rican pieces. The standouts of the evening were the Chopin Sarasate I Nocturne, Op. 9, No. 2, and the concluding Bernstein West Side Story suite with outstanding performances by Montero, Bell and Martinez. 

Easton owes a debt of gratitude to the Prager Family for bringing these amazing artists to a truly outstanding venue. Thank you. 

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of a federal human capital practice at an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, piano, gardening, and nature.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

“We may also suspect that they (majority opinion) suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies.” Supreme Court Justice Jackson  (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 1952)  decided President Truman did NOT have the power to take over US steel companies.

Few Americans outside a gaggle of scholars, Constitutional law savants and national security buffs could possibly be familiar with the easy availability US presidents have to broad “dictatorial” powers. They have been drawn on by chief executives throughout US history, usually sparingly, but sometimes not. Last year’s January 6, 2021 insurrection and assault on the US Capitol generated, for different reasons, considerable attention to them.    

Wanting to learn the reality and extent of these powers, I did some research. What I found was startling. The President can do virtually anything, if s/he words it right. In past years,  Presidential applications of these authorities have at times, seriously, even severely affected the lives of numerous Americans. And appeared to others then, to contradict citizens’  traditional beliefs in their Constitutional and statutory rights and privileges. 

In general, Americans and our political leaders have successfully relied on the probity and moral judgment of our Chief Executives to avoid misusing these literally extraordinary, latent powers. There have been a few exceptions. 

However, we’re now in a somewhat distorted political environment featuring personal vitriol and at times, brutality. it seems prudent to understand the nature of these very potent presidential action-options when an increasing number of  Americans believe violence is acceptable to correct even false assertions of political wrongdoing. These conditions, unless countered, could worsen and lead a president to draw on these powers. 

Martial Law

What does it actually mean?  Simply put, it refers to those times when an American region, state or municipality or the entire country (only once, during Civil War), is placed under the control of military forces. Both the President and Congress have the authority to impose martial law, because both can assert control over national guard units. And in the case of the President, over Federal Forces as commander-in- chief. There are some constraints (Posse Comitatus Act -1878), but Congress has given considerable latitude to the White House. Governors, within their state borders, can also declare martial law.

In the United States, martial law has been imposed infrequently over 2 plus Centuries (68 times) usually in times of war, public unrest/conflict/violence or in cases of natural disasters. Some examples: New Orleans during War of 1812,  the Great Chicago Fire (1871), the San Francisco Earthquake (1906), the Omaha Race Riot (1919) and the  West Coast Waterfront Strike  (1934) and after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (1941). 

And more recently, to enforce Federal school integration laws in Little Rock ,Arkansas (1957) and to counter violence in the Cambridge, MD. racial riots (1963).

Habeas Corpus and the 5th Amendment 

Conceptually, the declaration of martial law is tied to the suspension of the Constitutional right of Habeas Corpus (Art. 1, Sec. 9) , guaranteeing US citizens, a hearing and trial upon lawful arrest. Section 9 states this right “…will not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.” 

The most egregious example of misuse, occurred in 1942 when President Roosevelt issued executive order #9066 suspending 120,000 Japanese-Americans protection under Habeas Corpus and the 5th Amendment.  The latter holds  that: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.”  The last Japanese Americans were released from US internment camps in March, 1946. 

Some commentators also include President G.W. Bush’s introduction of a torture program after the 9/11 attacks,  in this category of excessive use of these powers.. 

Emergency Presidential Authorities

During the late 18th, 19th and the early 20th Centuries, Congress passed laws giving the president (Executive Branch) considerable flexibility of action when confronting military, economic and labor crises. Prime among them, is the 1807 Insurrection Act that allows the president to deploy Federal troops either upon the request of a state governor or legislature, to stop an insurrection within their borders. Or if s/he believes it is impractical to use normal courses of action, Federal forces may be used to suppress: “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination or conspiracy that impedes the course of justice.” Last Century, these legislated powers became more operationally formalized with the passage of the National Emergencies Act, requiring the president to declare a state of National Emergency before drawing on them. Once invoked, chief executives over many years seldom terminated them. One example, President Truman’s use of the National Emergencies Act (1950) – Korean War -was still in force, and was used during the Vietnam War. 

These Emergency Powers address more than the military and can include agricultural exports and the validity of public contracts. Curiously, there is no requirement that the powers used, be related to the rationale behind the Declaration of a National Emergency. And there are other laws that allow the Executive Branch to take extraordinary action under certain conditions, without a declaration of emergency.  It’s complicated.

Cyberspace, the Communications Act of 1924 and Twitter

In 1942, Congress amended the Communications Act to give the president the authority to close or take control of “any facility or station for wire communications”, upon his proclamation “that there exists a state or threat of war involving the United States.” Finding a “threat of war” in 2022, is not a problem.

If Elon Musk proceeds to liberate Twitter from any constraints and President Biden or his successors decide as President Trump did, that the “…search engines were RIGGED to serve up negative articles about him”, maybe Musk or other big internet companies should  become concerned about a possible application of Emergency Powers, including a 21st Century reinterpretation of the Communications Act.  

On November 8, 2022 the Midterm Elections will take place across the United States and determine the composition of the Congress, the occupants of various governors’ mansions, state legislatures and multiple local offices. 

For weeks, media commentators and multiple social media platforms have been reminding Americans of the increasing levels of politically related violence and last year’s January 6 insurrection. Many candidates have been asked:i “will you accept the results of the election, if you lose?” The absence of a loud YES from many has led to speculation that accusations of Voter Fraud will surface again as they did in 2020, and lead to similar instances of  mob violence.  

And then on October 28th, the husband of Speaker of the House,Nancy Pelosi, was viciously attacked in their San Francisco home by a hammer-wielding man yelling “Where’s Nancy?”

None of the foregoing has anything to do with the presidency or the incumbent’s special powers. True, but the current political atmosphere is infected with hatred, anger and a growing fear or  anticipation that more violence will erupt following November 8th.  Absent, some “deus ex machina”, it is unlikely all popular political attitudes will substantially moderate before the 2024 Presidential Election. 

And who knows how a new president will view these dormant extraordinary powers after January 20, 2025? 

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.

 

Just when you thought we could not stoop lower, think again. The vitriol and cruelty coming from comments on the attack on Speaker of the House’s husband, Paul Pelosi, are beyond the pale. What have we come to as a country? What happened to empathy, compassion, caring, kindness, and just, in general, overall good will? 

The horror and shocking actions of a perpetrator entering a home by crashing into a glass door with a hammer, slinging a hammer at an 82-year-old’s head, while armed with zip ties, and ranting, “Where’s Nancy” and later telling San Francisco police, “he wanted to break her kneecaps if she lied to him,” is bad enough. But the ensuing comments and jokes that followed are cruel, heartless, and patently immoral. 

Some Republican members of congress, including McConnell and McCarthy, condemned the violence. But it did not take long for other opponents of Nancy Pelosi to begin making cruel comments and completely inappropriate jokes at Pelosi and her husband’s expense. 

Here are just a few examples. Virginia governor, Glenn Youngkin, said this. “I want to stop for a minute…there’s no room for violence anywhere, but we’re going to send her (Nancy Pelosi) back to be with him (Paul Pelosi) in California. That’s what we’re gonna go do. That’s what we’re gonna do.” Donald Trump Jr. retweeted a photo on Sunday of a piece of underwear and a hammer that was captioned. “Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready.”  Kerri Lake, Republican candidate for governor of Arizona, drew laughter at a campaign event in Scottsdale, Arizona, when she said, “Nancy Pelosi, well she’s got protection when she’s in DC.  Apparently, her house doesn’t have a lot of protection.”  Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene claimed that nothing would have happened to Pelosi if he carried a gun with him. And during a debate, Republican Ohio senate candidate J. D. Vance blamed Democratic immigration policies since he claimed that the perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. Apparently, the perpetrator entered the country 20 years ago from British Columbia. 

And then, of course, the conspiracy theories began. One promoted by many of the far-right persuasion was that the attacker and Paul Pelosi were gay lovers who had gotten into a fight. Elon Musk did nothing to squelch the ridiculous conspiracy theories but instead posted, “there is a tiny possibility there might be more to this story than meets the eye.”  Fox News commentators also insinuated that this was a lover’s spat. Donald Trump Jr., later claimed that the intruder was breaking out—not breaking in. Trump himself repeated that claim on a radio show. (For the record, Capitol Police camera footage released this week shows the perpetrator entering the house from the outside by smashing glass doors with a hammer.)

Seriously? Is this who we are now? It is beyond disgusting. It is pathetic that people joke about a horrible assault and spin all kinds of bizarre false narratives and then post and repost. 

 I am aware that there was hatred and contempt in America before Trump became president. But I am also aware that Trump legitimized mocking disabled people, criticizing women’s looks, giving competitors’ cruel nicknames, condoning violence, spinning outrageous false claims, and eventually making all these vicious attacks become business as usual. 

It is a sad, disappointing, and embarrassing commentary on our society today. Let’s just say this. It is never OK to encourage violence, invent and perpetrate outrageous lies, mock those who are less fortunate, and celebrate an opponent’s adversity. It just isn’t. 

Maya Angelou said, “I’ve learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel.” When we celebrate others’ misfortunes and mock their struggles, we diminish ourselves and our society. Please let’s just stop spewing negative and cruel comments at someone’ else’s expense. And please let us not support, elevate, and celebrate those who do. 

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of a federal human capital practice at an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, piano, gardening, and nature.

Just so you know where I’m coming from, I’ll tell you at the start that I think MAGA, in the World According to Trump, should stand for Make America God Awful. Now all you folks who refuse to read or listen to any opinion contrary to his Gospel of Lies can check out. Because that’s what you’ve been doing for six years.

Early voting in Maryland begins on Thursday, Oct. 27, and I’m not optimistic that Democrats will keep MAGA Republicans from taking over one or both houses of Congress. In my humble but at least informed opinion, America has gone mad if it goes all-in-MAGA. Donald Trump is the worst thing to happen to America in my lifetime. And if you don’t believe me, I’m confident that Donald II in ’24 would, God forbid, prove to all but the most insane or invested Trumpists that he’s a vile abuser of your support.

Yes, I know Donald is not running in 2022. But his suffocating influence on midterm ballots, enabled by sycophants who call themselves Republicans, may be the Democrats’ best hope of surviving what pundits predict will be a Red Wave. Remember, Donald almost single-handedly fueled, with his narcissistic final-day campaigning in Georgia after his 2020 presidential election defeat, all that Democrats needed to take both U.S. Senate seats up for election on Jan. 5 – the day before the Capitol insurrection. Now he wants Georgians to vote for a certifiable idiot, liar and serial paternity denier to hold a Senate seat over an African-American incumbent who served as pastor of Martin Luther King Jr.’s former church. Do voters have to be stupider even than Herschel Walker to elect him? Probably not. Just MAGA enough.

So here’s the issue in mostly reliable Democratic Maryland, which generally elects only moderate Republicans, notably Gov. Larry Hogan: Not even Larry supports his party’s candidate to succeed him. Dan Cox, like most MAGA maniacs, claims that the 2020 election was stolen by Joe Biden. In the primaries, Cox even predicted Donald would be reinstated as president. This is crazy and dangerous nonsense. Virtually everything MAGA Republicans accuse Democrats of is projection. Trump plotted with all disregard to the constitution and his presidential duties to steal the election he knew he’d lose long before election day. The only “evidence” that the election was rigged is Donald’s lie. Due to Donald’s dominance over a deliberately misinformed GOP electorate, such notions as voting-machine counts manipulated by Chinese-controlled thermostats or ballots contaminated by bamboo are credible solely to gullible partisans. Then there are Donald’s potentially prosecutable lies. He signed a sworn affidavit to a federal judge, citing made-up thousands of dead people voting in Georgia, which may well prove to be felony perjury. And he’s been deposed in a civil case alleging rape. (Civil because the statute of limitations has passed.) Not to mention Jan. 6 and myriad other criminal and civil investigations.

Cox supports this man he believes should be reinstalled as president, I suppose by martial law. The real insurrection, of course, was incited by Donald Trump himself, weeks in advance of his remarks on the Ellipse that led to the mob assault on the Capitol that narrowly missed assassination of members of Congress and of Vice President Pence. And then, stymied by Secret Servicemen from dropping him off at the besieged Capitol, Trump sat on his butt for four hours in the White House, cheering on rioters and doing nothing to summon local National Guard troops to reinforce the Capitol police. Trump ass-kissers blame Nancy Pelosi, who, along with Chuck Schumer, can be seen on video begging Trump’s third or fourth attorney general or anyone else with plausible clout to send help. Standing over Pelosi’s shoulder is Rep. Steve Scalise, who himself was nearly assassinated in 2017 by a Democratic-leaning fanatic during, ironically, a bipartisan practice for a baseball game. After the confirmation of Biden’s Electoral College victory, Scalise, who voted against it, lied about Pelosi doing nothing to protect the Capitol. Donald, of course, was the one who had all the authority on Jan. 6 but did nothing.

Which brings us to the congressman who represents our district. Andy Harris is another election denier, who, on the day after the 2021 insurrection, tried to carry a gun onto the floor of the House and feebly sought to pass it off to a colleague. More than that, Harris has been for six terms – breaking his promise not to seek a seventh – a useless legislator, sponsoring only one bill to pass Congress. Congratulations, Andy. You renamed a post office. He’s also essentially against all but private medical insurance, which only rich folks or people with good employee benefits can afford. Also, he opposes abortion for any reason after six weeks – before many women even know they’re pregnant.

I’ve seen “God’s abortion,” if that’s what Andy might call it – a microscopic invisible dot in a pool of blood in a toilet. A miscarriage. Should such a woman be prosecuted? You think I’m joking? Anti-abortion zealots would take away birth control, if you let them. Same-sex marriage. Pre-marital sex. Did you think they’d ever overturn Roe v. Wade? MAGA maniacs would take away your right to sex for love or pleasure. I say to them, shut up, go away and mind your own damn business. But they’re not listening to me or anyone else who has a life in the real world.

There are Republicans on the local ballot I could vote for. And ordinarily I would. But as long as the Republican Party kisses Donald’s – I’ll be polite here – kisses his ring, I cannot vote for any Republican because GOP majorities on any level support Make America God Awful. I was always insulted by “Make America Great Again.” America is great, though not always or in all ways. Yet even slavery, in its inhuman degradation, made America a diverse nation in a manner the Old World never was. African-Americans made our nation greater and ultimately more tolerant than we would have been without them. So again, MAGA Republicans are wrong for all the wrong reasons. Immigrants and their diversity are exactly what made this country the greatest democracy ever on this planet. And with all the jobs native Americans won’t take these days, it’s foolish and downright dumb to close our borders to refugees of color for mere political expediency. It’s also racist. Donald devotees would, for instance, welcome blond Norwegians.

But aside from voting against a person or a party, there are ample reasons to vote for Democrats. The bipartisan infrastructure law, decades on the agendas of several administrations, passed under Joe Biden, who also achieved another long-time goal of Democrats – enabling Medicare to negotiate prices with Big Pharma, among many other cost-saving provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act. (Unfortunately, in terms of election timing, most of those benefits don’t take effect until 2023.) And regardless of what Republicans say about the soaring cost of gas, drilling for oil and natural gas in the first year of Biden’s presidency exceeded that of Trump’s first year by 34 percent. Prices at the pump would be much higher, as in Europe, but for the fact that the U.S. is essentially oil-and-gas independent.

Meanwhile, the GOP has no legislative agenda unless you count Speaker-of-the-House wannabe Kevin McCarthy’s plan to end Medicare and Social Security in five years. Republicans have always denounced these overwhelmingly popular government programs as socialist. Now they say they are “communist” schemes and that Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden are “pro China” and “anti-religious.” That’s rich coming from supporters of Donald who used the Bible as a photo-op prop after ordering troops to chase protesters from Lafayette Square while he hid in the White House basement. Both Biden and Pelosi are church-attending Catholics who nevertheless support a woman’s dominion over her womb. And as for the pro-China canard, tell that to would-be Chinese President-for-Life Xi Jinping who was enraged by Nancy’s show of support for and visit to Taiwan.

The return of Trump – along with election or re-election of Q-Anon lunatics to Congress – would put all our constitutional and moral values at risk. Just think, besides separating babies from immigrant mothers without bothering to keep records, had Trump won in 2020 or managed to steal Biden’s election by violent insurrection, who would stand up against his buddy, “Vlad the Terrible” Putin? The U.S. would’ve pulled out of NATO, Ukraine might’ve fallen in weeks and the world stage would be reset to a fascist future in which national borders and civilization as we know it can be violated with little repercussion against mass-murder pogroms.

America is so divided today because we don’t listen to each other. Why is that? My theory: We’re not getting our information from similar sources – too many of them unreliable. I’ve been a newspaperman all my adult life. Even adolescent life. Each newspaper I’ve ever read is different and espouses various political philosophies. All have published untruths. But they don’t stick to their errors. They admit mistakes. But we don’t read newspapers much anymore. (I’m lucky to have completed a half-century career in my chosen profession.) Also, not many of us watch the same network TV news anymore. Walter Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley, Peter Jennings. Today, you can get information on so-called social media to suit whatever it is you are predisposed to believe. Facebook and other truth offenders encourage readers by their inclinations to go further down, via algorithms, whatever conspiracy-theory “news” rabbit hole that nourishes their political prejudices. If you think that’s fake news, then I guess you believe anything posted on Trump’s Truth Social network, more accurately described as Lies Anti-Social.

I read and watch mostly mainstream news media. The usual suspects: New York Times, MSNBC, et al. But I make a point of finding where other people are coming from. I occasionally watch Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity or “Fox & Friends” and check out Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post or Wall Street Journal editorial page. I disagree with most of it. But I try to figure out what they’re saying and why they’re saying it. It’s called listening. The advantage of just listening is you’re not talking back – though sometimes I do shout at the TV screen. But I’m learning that arguing face to face will not change any person’s mind. What might change that dynamic? I don’t know. But there is a difference between free speech and freedom to spread certifiable lies. Trump lost 62 lawsuits on his voter-fraud allegations and won on a single count of a technical infraction that had zero effect on the Pennsylvania result. I see why people might fall for Trump’s lies the first time. Shame on him. Wake up and pay attention or be fooled again by anything or anyone Trump endorses. In which case, shame on you.

Steve Parks is a retired newspaper journalist now living in Easton.

During this election season, the most frequent attack you hear from Republican candidates is that Democrats are soft on crime. Elect Republicans, they say, and rid the country of crime. Think again. Let’s review the facts.

A study released from Third Way found that per capita murder rates in 2020 were 40 percent higher in states that voted for Donald Trump than in those that voted for Biden. The study also found that eight of the 10 states with the highest per capita murder rates in 2020 voted Republican in every presidential election in the century. 

Next, Republicans repeatedly have opposed gun control, allowing people who should never have access to weapons to acquire them. Soon after he became president, Trump rolled back an Obama-era regulation and made it easier for people with mental illnesses to purchase guns. Several Republican candidates running for office propose ways to weaken gun laws if they get elected. Florida Senator Marco Rubio voted against the bipartisan Safer Communities Act which was the first new legislation on gun policy to pass Congress in roughly three decades. And most Republicans are against raising the legal age to purchase guns to age 21. Many of the recent horrific shootings have been done by males under the age of 21. (Remember Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s solution for reducing school shootings—lock all but one door and post guards at schools.)

In addition to an uptick in gun-related crime, hate speech has become mainstream, courtesy of Trump and many of his hand-picked Republican candidates. It is not their country, it is your country, they say. Rants against Jews, immigrants, and minorities in general, encourage violence and motivate others to assume that such acts are justified. Multiple studies have indicated that crime is much more rampant from right-wing extremist groups—Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and others–than from left-wing extremist groups such as Antifa. Data shows that right wing groups are more dangerous and much more active. 

Finally, let us not forget that many of these so-called “law and order” candidates encouraged the attack on the Capitol on January 6. Some marched with them. Some helped organize the insurrection. And then there was Missouri Senator Josh Hawley’s famous fist-pump to the perpetrators who killed police, chanted “hang Mike Pence,” wore swastikas, smashed windows, and desecrated the Capitol. On many occasions, Trump has called these perpetrators patriots, and he has promised to pardon them should he get re-elected. Tough on crime, you say?

Democrats are not soft on crime. In the coming days until the mid-term elections, Democrats must do a much better job of changing the narrative and communicating their positions to voters. Some Democratic candidates, like Florida senate candidate Val Demings, are starting to discuss solutions to reduce crimes such as community funding intervention initiatives rather than simply echoing their Republican opponents’ claims that they will be tough on crime. Democrats must continue to do so. It will be a crime if they do not. 

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of a federal human capital practice at an international consulting firm. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on writing, reading, piano, gardening, and nature.

The recent resignation of British Prime Minister Liz Truss after only six weeks in office prompted me to think about the trauma associated with forced changes in leadership be they at the highest levels of government, in the corporate world, or at non-profit organizations. 

Over many years, as a trustee or director of several organizations I have been privileged to be a participant in, and observer of, board culture.  

There is little doubt that the most important step a board ever takes is to choose its leader—chief executive, president or whatever title may be given to the person in charge

There also is no doubt that most boards absolutely shudder at the notion of having to fire their CEO.  They have invested too much in that person, not just in money, but in time and personal relationships. They approved strategic plans presented to them, financial arrangements, deals that were recommended, and key personnel who were hired. 

But, as time went on, board members became dissatisfied with the leadership. At a business, sales were not hitting forecasts. At a college, enrollment was sharply down.   There was too much talk about process and not enough action.  Performance of certain individuals on the management team was disappointing. There was a growing sense that the organization was losing its direction, losing money or straying from its mission. 

What is the board to do?  Most boards have small subcommittees that have a special relationship with the CEO, a group that provides an annual review, advises, recommends, encourages, dissuades, flags missteps, tries to keep the leader on course. It’s a good venue for explaining concerns and renewing expectations. 

But many organizations, particularly small, volunteer–driven ones, don’t have such formal mechanisms. When the trustees are confronted with executive actions that make them uncomfortable there is not an easy way to deal with the leader. 

Things fester. Individual board members begin to tell themselves that the organization needs a fresh start, a new person at the helm but making that decision is so painful that action is delayed. 

Finally, the accumulating doubts about leadership are evident among nearly all board members and the difficult decision is made to sever the relationship with the CEO.

And the process begins again—searching, interviewing, vetting, negotiating, hoping that this time the new leader will be better than the one before. 

Can this trying circumstance of delay and procrastination in dismissing a chief executive be avoided? Maybe not in every instance. However, on nearly every board there are one or two, thoughtful, dedicated members who are willing to step up at the early signs of difficulty to make the case for change and urge a course correction before years of time, money and psychological energy are wasted on a leader who is not able to fulfill the opportunity he or she was given by the board.  The advice of such individuals needs to be taken seriously and acted upon without delay. 

Yes, it is difficult to dismiss a leader. It is even more difficult to retain someone who cannot meet a board’s expectations. 

Ross Jones is a former vice president and secretary emeritus of The Johns Hopkins University. He joined the University in 1961 as assistant to President Milton S. Eisenhower. A 1953 Johns Hopkins graduate, he later earned a Master’s Degree at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.

 

Maybe it’s because Halloween is lurking, but I am scared that something creepy is going on in our public schools. I’m referring to the mission creep that is occurring as teachers are asked more and more to add mental health and social-emotional learning to their already grueling workloads.

Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore) recently identified school mental health as a priority in the wake of the pandemic. The U.S. surgeon general warns that “the challenges today’s generation of young people face are unprecedented and uniquely hard to navigate. And the effect these challenges have had on their mental health is devastating.” Students’ anxiety, depression and suicide symptoms doubled during the pandemic.

The saving grace is the remarkable policy response. In Maryland, federal COVID and state funds are dedicated to a dizzying array of programs, including school-based health coordinators, teacher training, community schools and partnerships linked to schools, restorative practices, and social and emotional learning (SEL) in classrooms.

SEL, which has the most potential direct impact on classroom teachers, has been around for decades. The leading national organization on SEL calls it the process through which students “acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions.”

In an article “Should Schools Embrace Social and Emotional Learning?” Johns Hopkins expert Robert Balfanz notes the “strong case for taking an integrated approach to the social, emotional, and academic development of children rather than focusing on academics in isolation.” It should be a win-win for students and teachers.

Yet, it isn’t that simple. SEL and related mental health programs raise vexing questions. Are they a proper role for schools or should they be left to families, communities, and mental health providers?

And no surprise, SEL is now a political flashpoint. One prominent conservative opponent told a New York Times reporter that while SEL “sounds positive and uncontroversial in theory, in practice SEL serves as a delivery mechanism for radical pedagogy, such as critical race theory and gender deconstructionism.” Republicans are far more disapproving of SEL than Democrats.

However, apart from its political weaponization by conservatives, it’s hard to know what is really going on because there are so many question marks. How is SEL delivered? Do teachers have the right training and skills? Is it effective? (The scant research on effectiveness seems divided.)

And, in my view, here’s the toughest question of all: is SEL diverting teachers from their core academic mission? Does it change the role of the teacher, as one analyst pondered, “from a pedagogue to something more closely resembling a therapist, social worker, or member of the clergy?” In one poll, 81% of teachers said they were spending more time than ever on SEL.

Teachers had back-breaking jobs before the pandemic. According to a recent survey, “a typical teacher works a median of 54 hours per week. But just 46% of their time in the school building is spent teaching.”

No wonder the mental health of teachers, like students, is going downhill. Another survey revealed that teachers and principals suffer from job-related stress at a rate roughly double that of other working adults.

It’s also hard to predict the future course of SEL and related programs. SEL, in particular, comes in many different modes. For example: specialized SEL curricula, teacher-led discussion groups, and the infusion of SEL into all school courses.

Student mental health problems and programs are soaring in Maryland. Inquiries to several local school districts reveal an impressive assortment of efforts, notably SEL in the early grades where relationships between teachers and children are especially crucial.

One thing for sure: teachers strongly support the goals and values of SEL and other mental health programs. The kids need SEL. But that still begs vexing questions about its net effect on classroom teaching and student achievement.

Fortunately, there are straightforward ways to take the time and pressure off of teachers. One is for SEL and related mental health services to be provided largely by inside school staff who are mental health specialists like social workers, psychologists and counselors. Better still, the full panoply of mental health services can be best provided outside the regular school day.

The Blueprint for Maryland’s Future commendably blazes the outside trail, expanding “Coordinated Community Supports” and especially outside “wraparound services” for families and children. The rub, as I’ve analyzed elsewhere, is that wraparound programs compete with in-school academic instruction and mental health specialists for scarce education funds.

How, then, should the mental health crisis of students be resolved? Throughout U. S. history, reformers have often tried to lay society’s ills on the doorstep of the schoolhouse and on the shoulders of teachers. It typically hasn’t worked well, and today, more than ever, public schools face existential challenges.

That’s why policymakers must not be Halloween scaredy-cats and shy away from the challenges of mission creep. At the very least, the next Maryland governor and General Assembly should substantially increase funding for in-school psychologists, social workers and counselors, while sustaining support for outside wraparound programs. An analysis of federal data shows that Maryland ranks near the bottom of all states in the ratio of psychologists and counselors to students.

And the Maryland State Department of Education must follow through on its recent thorough overview of ongoing mental health efforts. There should be follow-up comprehensive planning, collection of data, monitoring and evaluation, including whether in-school mental health programs like SEL put undue pressure on teachers at the expense of academic instruction.

We’ll all be feeling healthier about the future of our schoolchildren if these challenges are met.

Kalman Hettleman was a member of the Maryland Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education (also known as the Kirwan Commission), a former Baltimore City school board member, a former deputy mayor of Baltimore and a former Maryland secretary of Human Resources.