“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The words of our forefathers are a breath of fresh air. We’ve come a long way since 1776, but we’re now hearing suggestions from a recently formed organization, Battlefront, that “those of us temperamentally disposed must lay siege to our nation’s institutions.”  It’s time, they say.

Back in 2012 Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institute and Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute had suggested, “The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme, scornful of compromise, unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science and dismissive of the legitimacy of political opposition.”

We were awarding Pinocchios then, but it has since become clear that our Grand Old Party no longer finds it convenient to hold truths self-evident or derive its powers from the consent of the governed. As former acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen and deputy Attorney General Richard P. Donoghue have testified, advised that he had lost the 2020 election, President Trump instructed his Department of Justice, “Just say it was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.”

The violent insurrection on January 6, 2021, the first of its kind since 1812, resulted in nine deaths, 114 officers injured, and $1.5 million in damages.

Representative Adam Schiff echoed our forefathers at a recent January 6 Congressional Committee hearing: “For more than 200 years, our democracy has been distinguished by the peaceful transfer of power. Raising their right hand and taking the Presidential oath of office transforms an ordinary citizen into the most powerful person in the world, the President. This is an awesome power to acquire. It is even more awesome when it is handed on peacefully. When George Washington relinquished the office of the presidency, he set a precedent that served as a beacon for other nations struggling against tyranny.”

It might also be worth noting that this bipartisan commission, formed by a government deriving its power from the consent of the governed in order to secure our rights, is relying in large part upon sworn testimony from Republicans and members of President Trump’s inner circle. This hearing has also been a profile in courage about women. Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson are being compared to Margaret Chase Smith.

White House lawyer Pat Cipollone warned that Trump would be charged with “every crime imaginable” if he were to go to the Capitol on January 6. Cipollone has been invited to either confirm or deny that account under oath.

Assured of no evidence of voter fraud by Trump campaign lawyer Alex Cannon, former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows concluded, “So there’s no there, there.”

Respected lawyer and former judge J. Michael Luttig, long a pillar in conservative legal circles, professed his loyalty to our Constitution and warned, “Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present danger to American democracy,”

Requests for preemptive pardons suggest laws have been broken. Attorney John Eastman emailed his request to the White House, and Mo Brooks took the extra step of requesting “all-purpose” pardons for himself and “every Congressman and Senator who voted to reject the electoral college submission of Arizona and Pennsylvania.”

Adam Schiff also reminded us, “The system held, but barely. And the question remains, will it hold again? If we are able to communicate anything during these hearings, I hope it is this: We have been blessed beyond measure to live in the world’s greatest democracy. This is a legacy to be proud of and to cherish. But it is not one to be taken for granted.”

These are challenging times, but things may be trending in a positive direction.

Cassidy Hutchinson, a dedicated young Republican who had interned with Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) before becoming an executive assistant to former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, offered this testimony:

With evidence that the Trump administration had been warned of violence and was aware of weapons in the crowd on January 6, President Trump told officials, “You know, I really don’t care if they have weapons. They’re not here to hurt me. Take the mags away, and let my people in.”

He then went onstage told them several times, “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol.”

Trump criticized her. That was expected, but Fox News anchor Bret Baier noted, ”She’s under oath, and he’s on Truth Social.”

Let justice and our democracy prevail.

Carol Voyles is a graphic designer/illustrator who retired to the Eastern Shore and became interested in politics. She serves as communications chair for the Talbot County Democratic Forum and lives in Easton.

***

Federal insurrection statute, 18 U.S. Code § 2383, applies to “whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.”

Federal seditious conspiracy statute, 18 U.S. Code § 2384, applies to persons who “by force prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”

Federal perjury statute, 18 U.S. Code § 1621, finds anyone “guilty of perjury shall, except as otherwise required by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.”

In six years – roughly covering one presidential and approaching an off-year election – we’ve witnessed two of the three branches of the federal government subvert foundations of our democracy, seeking in their arrogance and disrespect for the constitution and legal precedent to place personal ambition and bias – whether political or religious – over the majority will of the people. Abetting the executive and judicial branches in their lust for imposing authoritarian power, the legislative branch, particularly the U.S. Senate under the Republican leadership of Mitch McConnell, usurped the prerogative of two U.S. presidents – each elected by popular-vote majorities – to nominate associate justices to open Supreme Court seats.

As a result, a Supreme Court with a 6-3 majority of Republican-nominated justices, made two of the most egregious decisions in high-court history on back-to-back days near the end of its delegitimizing term. But then, the “Ruthless Six” – made possible by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and, ironically, that of her friend and judicial opposite, Antonin Scalia – capped that pair of undemocratic and essentially  unconstitutional atrocities with a decree crippling the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to curb fossil-fuel burning that threatens human habitability of our planet. And, oh yes, just to thumb their noses at the fundamental constitutional principle separating church and state, the 6-3 majority sanctified the Christian right to hold prayer vigils at midfield of high school football games. What if the case involved an Hispanic coach conducting Voodoo sacrifice of hens instead? Would Justice Clarence Thomas and others in the majority vote to protect that religious practice? I suspect not.

It’s doubtful that these cases, risking loss at the highest level, even would have been presented had the first Trump pick (Neil Gorsuch, whose mother sought to defund the EPA as Ronald Reagan’s pick to run the agency) and the last (Amy Coney Barrett, a follower of Christian charismatics espousing “Handmaid’s Tale” anti-feminism) had been nominated instead by Barack Obama and Joe Biden – and had received constitutionally required consideration.

Here’s how Republicans cheated us – a clear majority of Americans – of our rightful day in the Supreme Court. When Associate Justice Scalia, an “Originalist” mentor to fellow ultra-conservative Thomas, died of natural causes on Feb. 13, 2016, Obama nominated U.S. Appeals Court Judge Merrick Garland, now the U.S. Attorney General, to Scalia’s seat. But McConnell claimed a made-up precedent in refusing Garland even so much as a hearing, much less an up-or-down vote, with nine months left before Election Day, and 11 months remaining in Obama’s term as president. In fact, McConnell said of his defiance: “One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, ‘Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.’ ” This is the same guy who said in more-or-less the same terms that his top legislative priority shortly after the 2009 inauguration of Obama and the 2021 inauguration of Biden was to make each one a single-term president.

My thought at the time of the McConnell-initiated stalemate was that Obama, arguing that the Senate abdicated its constitutional advice-and-consent duty, should APPOINT Garland and let judges sort it out. With the Supreme Court, short-handed with four justices leaning conservative and four leaning liberal following Scalia’s death, any decision by lower courts might have prevailed. But with everyone, including FBI Director James Comey, expecting Hillary Clinton to be elected president, Obama’s people figured such a provocative step would benefit Trump. And then Comey reopened the email investigation of Clinton just over a week before Election Day 2016.

McConnell and Trump celebrated their undeserved presidential/Supreme Court bonanza by granting Gorsuch an associate justice seat he would not have received except by circumstances including, among other things, Vladimir Putin’s hacking to Trump’s electoral benefit.

Now, let’s turn to the very end of Trump’s two-impeachment/deserving-of-three single term. Ignoring the so-called precedent he deployed to rob Obama of his Supreme Court nomination, McConnell shamelessly jammed through the nomination of Barrett barely a week before Election Day 2020. Never mind his 2016 Presidential Election Year “precedent” that left incumbents, apparently only Democrats, ineligible to make a Supreme Court pick. 

So that’s how we got to a place where the Supreme Court ruled on successive days that babies not otherwise likely to have been born in certain states might live just long enough to be shot in grade school. The grisly irony, I suppose, is that AR-15s may be hard to conceal, letting these Second Amendment Supremacists off the hook. Think of the rich hypocrisy. For the near-half-century since Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, opponents cried foul over judges who made law from the bench while ignoring states’ rights. And now they rule from the bench that states who passed laws protecting its citizens from those who carry concealed firearms on the streets must now submit to the opinions of judges protected by round-the-clock U.S. Marshals Service. Worse, if that’s possible, four male justices, one faith-based female and a semi-concurring white male chief justice presume to rule for all women who face what should be her choice of procreative prerogative. Freedom of religion, anybody? Six Catholic justices of nine on the Supreme Court. (One Catholic, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, issued her vociferous dissent.) Let’s rebalance the court by adding one atheist, one Jew and a Muslim. Oh no, but that would be an even dozen. So throw in a Unitarian to break the tie.

***

Regarding RIP Roe v. Wade: My wife’s personal experience and my participation in her decisions inform me in just a few of the myriad issues facing many pregnant women. My wife is and was then a mature adult with the full support of a then-gainfully employed, now-retired husband. Still, our difficulties were not insignificant. Her (I like to say “our”) first pregnancy went very well until delivery, when our soon-to-be-first-born’s shoulders and turn of the child’s head were not aligned with the birth canal. After 18 hours of pushing so hard the whites of her eyes turned bloodshot-red, her obstetrician declared a C-section emergency. Another two hours later our son was delivered, unscathed, while my wife looked as though she’d been in a prize fight.

“Our” second pregnancy ended way too prematurely. Ignominiously, for sure, if you consider a three- to four-week embryo a viable human life. For my wife it was a sharp pain in the belly and a trip to the bathroom where she expelled a pool of blood. Summoned as a witness, I could detect nothing more definitive than a bloody swirl in the toilet. Our pediatrician told us the expelled embryo would have been between the size of a pinpoint and a poppy seed at the time. Ours was a shared disappointment, for sure. But we never considered it the loss of a human child. More likely this was a rejection, common with any introduction of foreign organisms into one’s body, resulting in this case in miscarriage. Bur imagine women in some states being prosecuted for suspected abortion under such circumstances. Or their enablers. Outed by nosy neighbors with an agenda.

With no possibility of criminal investigation back there in the more enlightened 1980s, we recovered from our early miscarriage disappointment quickly enough to achieve a third pregnancy. Again, it went well until a procedure known as amniocentesis to detect birth- and life-threatening defects that might risk either or both the fetus and the mother. As it happened, my wife again felt a sharp pain one evening and, during a scheduled pediatric visit the next day, no fetal heartbeat was detected. The four-and-a-half month fetus was dead, strangled we later learned by strands of the amniotic band that also cut off formation of its hands and feet. But my wife still had to deliver the body. I alone asked to see it. Him it turned out. He would have been a son. I secretly named him Luke. As I viewed Luke’s pre-born remains, my wife was still sleeping in recovery of her 40-hour delivery alleviated only by drugs that might now have been unavailable to her had a half-formed fetus maintained a heartbeat.

“Our” fourth pregnancy in four years took my wife past her 40th birthday. Medical notations cited “advanced maternal age” as a recommendation for amniocentesis. Despite bad previous experience, we needed to know what we might expect in terms of health and survivability on what was likely our last chance. No problem on that account, we were told. But we also wanted my wife’s mother, in leukemia death throes, to hear the name and gender of her second grandchild. That part was achieved. However, unexpected spotting revealed that my wife was exhibiting “low-placenta” symptoms possibly resulting in her bleeding to death if such an episode were to occur when someone else was not available, such as myself, who was then working full-time. As a result of her diagnosis, my wife was confined to Stony Brook Hospital for nearly three months, alternating between pediatric and delivery floors, where she was pharmaceutically discouraged from delivering a baby with under-developed lungs. With no family on Long Island where we lived at the time – her parents and mine lived in Maryland – we sent our 3-year-old son to live with my parents in Easton. I visited him only for his birthday on Dec. 3, not long after preparing a Thanksgiving dinner shared with my wife at the hospital. My parents drove our son to Long Island on Christmas Eve in time for our daughter’s birth on Dec. 27. Choosing vaginal birth over another cesarean, my wife and baby were home in one day instead of six.

***

Ours was a happy ending with two healthy babies, now 30-something adults, and complications not uncommon in pregnancy. Yet a court, any court, but particularly one of mostly elderly males, including one likely misogynist and pornography pervert, presumes with no credentials other than a law degree and a warped sense of Christian morality, to stand between a woman, her womb, her doctor and the presumed father-to-be. Listen to what Clarence Thomas says comes next on the nullification list: same-sex marriage, contraceptives (sex for pleasure or love to be reserved only for begetting birth) and certain sex acts labeled “sodomy” – even in the privacy of consenting adults’ bedrooms. If you want a Supreme Court definition of obscenity, this is it. Everything we can horribly imagine is on the wish list of Clarence Thomas, excepting that of his miscegenist marriage. Perhaps he and his wife qualify for the “Insurrection Exception.” Ginni Thomas’ husband was the only justice to vote against forcing Donald Trump to surrender documents that the Jan. 6 Committee is now using to make its case against presidential treason.

Impeaching Clarence Thomas, a richly deserving but ultimately futile congressional effort, would nevertheless send a warning shot to get the attention of the chip-on-his-shoulder justice who now favors hearing a case favoring state legislatures over courts in deciding election disputes. (Presumably that would not apply to 2020, but no affront to legal precedent would shock me with this cadre of life-appointed anti-(D)democrats – small and capital Ds intended. Other than that, the best remedy is to vote, Vote, VOTE for Democrats in any election for any office. Republicans have grotesquely abused their unearned minority power, amplified by House district gerrymandering, the Electoral College and the two-votes for every state represented in the U.S. Senate. Not to mention the filibuster.

Here’s what’s at stake and can be, even if it’s a long shot: Democrats, with the White House and the deciding vice-presidential tie-breaker on their side, could pass laws codifying national abortion-rights if two more Democrats were elected to the Senate. Filibuster objections by Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema be damned. But perhaps the longest shot: Democrats must prevail in holding the House majority. Beyond that, each state and local race requires every American who values preserving democracy and the freedom of women to choose and the rest of us to choose against a gun-toting carnage of children and innocent bystanders to stand and be counted. You can choose an attorney general who will decide against, regardless of Roe v. Wade’s demise, criminally prosecuting women seeking abortions or those charged as “accessories” for giving them a ride to a clinic or  to cross state lines.

Beyond that, we as the “American Majority” can decide to engage in nonviolent civil disobedience in the Martin Luther King Jr. tradition. We can encourage prosecutors in states where abortion is now a crime to issue tickets to violators instead of imprisonment. And then suspend the fine. Take that Justice Samuel Alito! Or how about flooding districts in which such abortion-related prosections are being pursued with prospective jurors who can exhaust voir-dire exceptions, thereby guaranteeing a hung jury or acquittal. Not to mention the futility – considering our generations-long losing war on drugs – of preventing medical abortion pills from being sent to women in need, even if they have to spring for a post-office box drop-off. Go ahead and try to raid the post office, Republicans. That’ll work in your local community.

The Supreme Court, no doubt unintentionally in its grab for moral power, has gifted Democrats with just what they need to survive and even benefit from a bleak midterm-election prognosis. Everybody assumed Hillary would win in 2016. Now everybody assumes Republicans will prevail in the 2022 midterms. The Supremes may have vetoed that assumption if Democrats, particularly women, show up in record off-year numbers.

It can be done. Republicans may well have overplayed their hand – particularly if they think Trump is a trump card.

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

I have become weary of the unending hyperbole. Every ad. Every Instagram posting—it is the finest, the most exquisite, unique—one of a kind (hello, it means the same thing). Sometimes I read seven adjectives before I get to the noun it modifies—venerable, historic, breathtaking, refined, decadent, esteemed, noteworthy, rarified, bold yet understated. What? I long for the unadulterated concise sentence. Where is it?

The irony, of course, with all this extreme adulation about ice cream, dinner, jewelry, wine, automobiles, or cellphones is that the noun in question often disappoints. Truth be told, it would be hard for most anything to live up to such embellishments. 

Many products we consume in today’s marketplace are of lesser quality than they were in bygone days. But you would never know it to hear the accolades on radio, TV, websites, and Instagram. 

Harvard Business Review published an article sometime back about the eight dimensions of quality:  performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics, and perceived quality. For example, Japanese vehicles focus more on reliability and conformance and less on options and aesthetics. The premise of the article is that because it is difficult for a product to be ranked superior in every attribute, it is smart to focus on one or two attributes, while keeping the others in mind. 

The issue of quality is interesting. Some mansions, automobiles, spirits, and purses sell for ridiculously expensive prices. When you read Friday’s Mansion section of the Wall Street Journal, you see stunning estates for $300 million, $240 million, $125 million. (Bill Gates’ house called Xanadu 2.0 is 66,000 square feet, is worth $127 million, and has an annual property tax bill of approximately $1,154 million. It has been reported that Melinda Gates never really liked the mansion that once caused her to have a “mini sort of personal crisis.”) A McLaren Speedtail, an exotic sports car, sold for $3 million at auction. A bottle of Macallan M Scotch sold in a Hong Kong-based auction for $628,205. Melania Trump’s Hermes Birkin purse was valued somewhere between $75,000 and $100,000. Louis Vuitton sells a skateboard for $8,250.

A while back I authored an article about the importance of quality versus quantity. I believe that to be true. But there is a dramatic difference between working hard and striving to own wonderful things that you care for and treasure for a lifetime and ostentatious consumption. This difference becomes even more disturbing when you consider the tremendous income inequality in this country. At the end of 2021, the top one percent in the U.S. owned. 32.3 percent of the nation’s wealth, one of the reasons you see such outrageous spending on items with astounding price tags. 

My point is not only that it is mind boggling that someone would pay $100,000 for a purse. But that most ultra-expensive purchases are not worth their exorbitant price tags. Surely, a Birkin bag is well made. But is it worth 85 percent more than another handbag that is handcrafted from the finest Italian leather and costs $1.000? There comes a point of diminishing returns. A survey from the American Affluence Research Center found that the affluent believe most luxury brands are “overrated.”  

Several surveys have been conducted where avid scotch drinkers taste test scotches ranging from modest prices to bottles worth several hundred dollars. Tasters could differentiate from the lower-cost scotches but had trouble discerning the expensive versus the ultra-expensive ones. Distinctions were small. The same goes for expensive wines. We all love a great crisp chilled white wine but how much more enjoyable is that $800 bottle? 

All this excess makes one long for the short honest descriptions for which Hemingway was famous. 

Here is a quote from Hemingway’s A Moveable Feast: “Sometimes when I was starting a new story and I could not get it going, … I would stand and look out over the roofs of Paris and think, do not worry. You have always written before, and you will write now. All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know. So finally, I would write one true sentence, and then go on from there.”

Let us celebrate the one true sentence—a rarity in this world of overwhelming hyped-up social media. 

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.

 

You may have seen segments on late-night TV where hosts go out on public streets and ask passersby questions like, “What’s the capital of Italy?” Or “In what continent is Australia?” Later, when given the correct answer, the responder says, “Wait, you mean Australia is a continent?” The audience roars with laughter. Is this funny or embarrassing? Our ignorance is mind boggling. How can we have the so-called best education system in the world and yet have so many uninformed people?

And things are getting worse. Now we see people proud of their ignorance openly castigating experts in their fields. The number of anti-vaxers during the height of the pandemic was astounding. After millions of Americans were vaccinated, they still doubted the experts, refused to protect themselves, and put others in danger. 

Early election returns have Sarah Palin ahead for the Alaska congressional seat vacated by Representative Don Young (R) who died earlier this year. This is the case even though she was unable to name a single newspaper that she read when she was ran for vice president on the GOP ticket with John McCain. Her lack of foreign affairs knowledge during the debates was beyond frightening. Enter Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) who speaks of “Peachtree dishes” and “Gazpacho police.”

This is a particularly frightening phenomenon given that public officials, who are supposed to consult experts and determine appropriate laws, are incapable or resistant to making informed thoughtful decisions. 

And then there are those policy makers who have Ivy League educations but refute facts and create alternative realities to explain away truths when the facts present themselves. Ted Cruz (R-TX, Princeton, and Harvard Law) said guns were not the problem in the recent school shootings in Uvalde. Instead, he suggested that shooters can be stopped by locking all but one door and posting guards at schools. Immediately after the January 6 insurrection, fist-pumping Josh Hawley (R-MO, Stanford, and Yale Law) voted not to certify Biden’s election, even after no election fraud was detected. Governor Ron DeSantis (R-FL, Yale, and Harvard Law) stirred up a big brouhaha about critical race theory, all the while knowing that it was not a big issue in Florida schools’ curriculums. So why did these three take such positions knowing that the facts did not substantiate their points of view? To play to their base—saying what they knew their base wanted to hear, taking calculated positions to ensure their reelections. 

Many young people today do not read newspapers or watch any news programs. They get their information from the Internet, social media, Facebook, TikTok and various chat rooms. Many of them do not read substantive books. When they pick up a book, it is some fantasy escape or manga cartoon. 

This social media obsession has created an environment where Americans skim the surface of critical issues, develop uninformed opinions and then mock experts who explain in detail the various permutations of different subjects. (Just remember the hatred the masses had for Dr. Fauci.) We have now reached a point where we are proud of our ignorance and refer to those who have done the “deep dive” on particular subject as “elitists.” 

This is a dangerous situation. America seeks to be entertained rather than informed. The inane premises of some recent TV shows are depressing. A new TV show premiering on ABC is called The Final Straw where apparently four teams of contestants pull items from towers of kitchen appliances and basketballs. The winning team is the one whose tower stands the longest. Seriously? Also, speaking of inane TV, on The Masked Singer, Palin was disguised as a bear and Giuliani was a Jack-in-the-Box.

We live in a world of increasing complexity. We must trust scientists, engineers, doctors, who are experts in their various fields. Do these experts sometimes get it wrong? Absolutely. But, at the end of the day, do they know more than average citizens about the issues at hand? Yes. It is the height of ignorance to celebrate ignorance and mock intellectualism. When you do not believe in climate change, even when presented with indisputable facts (Death Valley, CA reached a record high of 130 degrees.) When you continue to believe the election was stolen, even when recount after recount proves otherwise. When you believe lies scripted by QAnon about secret Satanic child-sex trafficking rings or Marjorie Taylor Greene’s false claims that more votes were cast than there were voters in Pennsylvania. Or that straight people face extinction. Or Paul Gosar’s (R-AZ) claim that the Texas shooter was a “transsexual illegal alien,” let us admit that we have issues.

Yes, some may laugh at the insanity of these comments. But we are heading to a seriously bad place, and the rest of the world is watching.

To quote Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov, “Above all, do not lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect, he ceases to love.” 

How close are we to that exact situation today? Please, America take heed. 

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.

 

A resolution to reclassify two properties to immediate priority sewer status was considered at our county council’s June 14 meeting. Having originally been classified at a lower priority in 2006, and with concern for a possible delay of up to 2 more years, council president Chuck Callahan made this request of county attorney Patrick Thomas, “Explain to us what’s happening here. Dig into the weeds with me.”

This process can be complicated. Two properties on the Matthewstown Rd. subdivision, a development of 200 homes previously classified as S2 would move to S1, immediate priority. This requires an amendment to our comprehensive water and sewer plan. There are “lots of hoops to go through,” but Resolution 331 will now go to the planning commission, and assuming approval, return to the council for a vote.

Our county’s population, currently 37,502, is up around 3,700 since 2000; and the Maryland Department of Planning has forecast population growth of 2,000 for Talbot County by 2030. With the addition of 200 homes at the Gannon Farms development, we can expect a modest increase in our population of around 440.

And our next decade? Gannon Farms will be contributing 200 homes. Poplar Hill on Oxford Rd. will add 439; and Lakeside anticipates building 2,501 homes. A total of 3,140 homes translates to population growth of around 6,900.

5,500 from Lakeside alone would be a level of population growth never before experienced in Talbot County – and all the more reason for environmental concerns in a county with over 600 miles of shoreline.

On May 27 a group of Talbot County residents joined the nonprofit Talbot Integrity Project to file suit against the Maryland Department of the Environment. This complaint contends that construction for the connection of 120 Lakeside homes to Trappe’s outdated wastewater treatment plant should not continue without our Talbot County Planning Commission’s approval.

The planning commission’s approval is required for approval of resolutions by our county council. Our public works advisory board voted unanimously against Lakeside, but Resolution 281 was initially approved by the planning commission and passed by the council.

A public hearing was also required, and a lawsuit would be filed before a hearing was be granted five months later. The data submitted on October 12, 2021 included transcripts from past county meetings, an independent wastewater treatment plant inspection report, findings of environmental organizations, and reminders of Maryland code.

Witnesses were granted more than three minutes to speak; but responses from the council included questions concerning veracity, an assertion that the county had no authority over the town of Trappe, and a suggestion that any wastewater treatment system “passing muster” would be sufficient.

Maryland Environmental Code requires counties to be in charge of planning for development. State agencies and others might assist; but this responsibility is assigned to counties, with jurisdiction over towns and villages. And our comprehensive plan requires “the state’s most recent standard” of wastewater treatment for new development.

Following the public hearings our planning commission rescinded its approval of Resolution 281.

In a March 14 interview council president Chuck Callahan suggested, “If we’d have been a bit more proactive, we could have resolved all of this 3-4 years ago…The environmental community should have been more proactive. They’ve been doing their own thing, so there’s a little bit of blame on the other side for not doing their homework.”

The county wasn’t aware of issues regarding the performance of Trappe’s aging wastewater treatment plant when Resolution 281 was approved, but the shortcomings of this aging plant have since become clear. Environmentalists have also offered testimony and public comments at council meetings and hearings, but were not invited to participate in the council’s work session.

ShoreRivers is testing water samples regularly. Swimming remains restricted in 8 locations around our Chesapeake Bay – and those locations include the Choptank River and Trappe Landing, a stone’s throw from the Lakeside development.

In order for Lakeside’s first 120 homes to be connected to Trappe’s underperforming plant in compliance, council member Laura Price had introduced a resolution requiring our current state standard, Enhanced Nutrient Removal (ENR), at Trappe’s plant, possibly with the assistance of modular wastewater treatment until either the development’s spray wastewater plant could be completed or Trappe’s plant upgraded. This was not approved,

We heard a suggestion that modular units on trucks would dump wastewater into manholes. Curiously, we had also heard at the public hearing that Trappe’s wastewater treatment is negatively impacted in that manner by rainwater.

MDE has requested guidance from our county, but turned down an opportunity to find a solution outside of court. Our courts will surely move us in the right direction again.

Talbot County Council Vice President Pete Lesher recently reminded us that our comprehensive plan is being revised, and “this is a time to be paying attention.” A vision of where we’re going is fundamental to a positive outcome.

The June 14 meeting was productive.The county’s ethics code will move to a “third reader” for consideration of updates to comply with state standards. Resolution 328 will allow amendments introduced by the county to be submitted on any legislative day. Habitat Choptank will receive a grant for a renovation on Locust Lane, and BAAM will receive assistance in the construction of a new academic center. The description of country clubs for zoning purposes and amendments concerning piers and related structures will also be considered, as will a resolution to raise county council salaries from $14,400 to $25,000.

That will be voted upon at a public hearing in July, and the meeting adjourned in a timely manner at 7:41 pm.

Carol Voyles is a graphic designer/illustrator who retired to the Eastern Shore and became interested in politics. She serves as communications chair for the Talbot County Democratic Forum and lives in Easton.

I’m trying to understand why guns are so ingrained in American culture, why gun possession is one of our defining characteristics. Is it residual from our frontier-taming history? Does it reflect our passion for individual liberty? Is gun-collecting a hobby or investment? Or is it darker drives bordering on paranoia or the need for macho expression? Carry a big stick. Don’t tread on me!

Why do citizens need military-style assault rifles? It can’t be for target shooting because rapid-fire guns with high-capacity magazines are not at all necessary to test one’s accuracy. Nor can it be for hunting because those types of guns only indicate that the hunter is not very skilled.

I was once a gun collector. I owned several pistols, a couple of shotguns, three assault rifles, and a World War 2-era German machine gun (deactivated so it could not fire). As an engineer, army veteran, and student of military history, there was a sort of beauty, an artistry of mechanical design function that I admired. I rationalized that I had acceptable reasons for owning weapons of war. I am still a gun owner today. I own one pistol. Do I need it? Not really. Do I want it? Yes, for the same reason I gave above.

Now, most of us agree that we have a gun violence problem in America. Gun murders in the streets of our large cities have become so common that they are hardly newsworthy. Business as usual. When our kids are mass-murdered our hackles raised a little more – but only for a short while. Our outrage quickly subsides, only to reappear the next time. It’s a reoccurring nightmare that we seem powerless to end.

I will illustrate our situation by analogy.

There is a large boat which has sprung a leak in its hull and is sinking. The people on the boat are divided on what to do. One group says “We have to bail out the water”. Another group says “Good idea, but while we’re bailing out the water, we should be working to plug the leak.” Another group says “We should call the Coast Guard.” A fourth group says “Why not do all of these?” Which is the most sensible group?

Gun people adamantly insist that the gun is off limits; the problem is with the shooter. He should be our sole focus. They demand that there be no legislation on gun control, none, zero, nada, no way. Let there be more guns. Arm teachers. Hire retired soldiers and police for school security. Gun-makers, their stock-holders, and Fox news-junkies couldn’t be more pleased.

But isn’t the problem complex enough that it requires a (forgive the simile) shotgun approach? If we really agree that we have a serious problem, why not attack it with everything we’ve got?

Restrictions or banning the purchase of weapons optimally-designed for killing the most people in the shortest time, and background checks on all gun purchasers should be part of the fix equation. That seems clear to me. The other part, the mentality of the shooter, is another. But how do we predict when someone who has been acting normally, up to a point, is suddenly going to freak out? Are danger signs always telegraphed? And even when they are, history shows that we have not done a good job of reading them and reacting. Besides, how can we arrest or order someone to accept psychiatric help before they commit a crime? I am not skilled enough to suggest answers to the shooter part, but somebody wiser should be.

Should we excoriate lawmakers for not helping with this problem, for putting job security over conscience? Remember one thing: Their jobs depend on our votes. If gun violence was considered a priority problem in this country, the representatives we elect would be forced to accede to our demands to fix it. Apparently, it is not a priority problem for lawmakers. Maybe the problem is us!

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Cambridge City Council is going into the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget decision making process. The Council’s
recent concerns on whether we need a Mayor or a Council lead government or whether trash removal should
be done by a contractor or City employees are interesting questions, but they are not the ones that bother most
people. What people want is “Safety”.

What does that mean in real terms? First, there are four areas of concern:

1. The Police Department is down to 32 officers from 52 in 2017. Crime is up especially in areas for
narcotics and illegal firearms. The Council needs a bold plan to stop the drain of officers and to
refocus efforts in those two areas plus school and community interaction. A plan needs to be
developed on how we get back to normal.

2. The Fire Department needs new equipment. We are spending $100,000 to repair old vehicles when they should have been replaced years ago. A plan needs to be laid out to ensure our Volunteer Fire Department has the proper tools to do the job. Historically, the fire department has asked for one or two vehicles at a time and since they are very expensive, the Council has focused on one vehicle at a time. Now is the time to do a comprehensive review and set up a capital replacement plan.

3. Code enforcement. Cambridge needs to beef up its code enforcement in order to reduce fires and health hazards. The rental stock needs interior and exterior inspections to ensure the safety of our citizens. Cambridge has far too many fires that are deadly to the inhabitants and their neighbors. Let’s do all we can to ensure our citizens are protected as much as possible.

4. Sewage into the Choptank River. Cambridge was fined $68,000 last year and has $70,000 set aside this year to pay to the State in fines for dumping raw sewage into the River. This is a health hazard to our Citizens and shows extremely poor stewardship of our most important natural resource. A plan needs to be developed to ensure the problem is corrected now and into the future.

Cambridge City revenue is growing because of higher assessments on the housing stock, which is a good thing,
and the receipt of $6 million this year and another $6 million this summer from ARPA funds from the federal
government. This should be enough to begin capital improvements in these areas, but the Council needs a
strategic plan of how to get from here to where we want, and need, to go.

While there are a multitude of issues facing any City Council, safety of the Citizens should be of the highest
priority to the Council. Let’s develop plans for the basic safety issues first and work on the other stuff later.

Chuck McFadden is the president of Cambridge Association of Neighborhoods.

Bellevue, Maryland is one of the nation’s few remaining historically African American maritime communities in Talbot County, Maryland. The history of Bellevue is at risk for accelerated erasure. Within the past 20 years, Bellevue lost landmark public buildings and the retirement of its independent Zip Code. A barely visible roadside marker is the only indication that Bellevue was once a historically African American community.

But the biggest threat to date is the recent acquisition of a tract of land along the Tred Avon River by Paquin Design Build (Grasonville, MD) with the intent to build 14, $1.5 million dollar homes along the shoreline.

The Builder chose to name this development, situated in the heart of Bellevue “North of Oxford”. Bellevue constituents were unaware of these actions until advertisements appeared in media outlets.

A community meeting was held at St. Luke’s United Methodist Church on April 26 where constituents presented their concerns to Mr. Paquin. Leading concerns were the development’s name, disregard for and erasure of Bellevue’s black culture and history, environmental concerns, and the economic impact on elderly residents. Most egregiously, and an affront to Bellevue, the developer chose to name the proposed community “North of Oxford with”, the intent to establish an independent homeowners association, turn a private community road into a driveway for three of the new homes, and to place physical barriers to set it apart from Bellevue.

Mr. Paquin did not concede much, if anything, but indicated that he might consider changing the name, planting saplings to replace the 100+-year-old trees he intends to cut down, paving a private road for access by his construction equipment, and renaming the streets in favor of former Bellevue residents.

However, the property is still marketed as North of Oxford on Zillow, and the street address for a few of the homes is listed as Orchard Terrace, though the residents who currently live on Orchard Terrace have not consented to turn a street that allows all residents of Bellevue to easily access the waterfront into a private driveway.

Multiple Organizations & Community Members are Fighting for Bellevue

All of this is happening amidst major projects to preserve Bellevue’s rich history.

The Bellevue Passage Museum + Water’s Edge Museum

The creation of the Bellevue Passage Museum from a rescued historical property in Bellevue is underway. Work for the museum is in progress, funded by the African American Heritage Preservation Program, cash, and in-kind donations. In collaboration with Barbara Paca, Ph.D., and Philip Logan, founders of the Water’s Edge Museum in Oxford, MD, the two museums will create an immersive educational experience in African American History on Maryland’s Eastern Shore for students of all ages.

Washington College

The Black Life in Bellevue Field School July 5-29, 2022 is a partnership with Bellevue Village and Washington College’s Center for Environment and Society. Led by Michael J. Chiarappa, Ph.D., and Janet Sheridan, the Field School is supported by the Vernacular Architecture Forum and the University of Virginia’s School of Architecture through funding provided by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. The field school attracted domestic and international undergraduate and graduate students.

Residents & Neighbors of Bellevue Maryland

Bellevue residents share a strong sense of community and regard it as a peaceful, beautiful, historic village. A grassroots movement has started to take action to preserve the character and culture of Bellevue. The goal is for accountability from the developer(s) to the goals and vision of the Bellevue Master Plan, and that “improvements preserve the village’s character that will attract a new generation of devoted residents”.
Currently, many residents of Bellevue and surrounding neighborhoods have banded together to fight this erasure of history and this new threat to the Eastern Shore’s delicate watershed environment. A task force with subcommittees has been formed to take action.

The Disappearing Roots of Bellevue’s Legacy

Bellevue, Maryland is one of the nation’s few remaining historically African American maritime communities. This village of approximately one square mile or four city blocks is rich in history.

Once a self-sufficient African American Community with a school (a Rosenwald School), place of worship (St. Luke’s United Methodist Church), general store, post office, four restaurants, Knights of Pythias Lodge, recreation center, gas station, and doctor’s office. The major employers were the Valiant Packing House and Cannery, and the renowned African American-owned Turner Seafood Company.

With the exception of the William H. Valliant Packing House and Cannery, and the General Store, all businesses were owned by African Americans. This small community was home to a baseball league, Boy Scout troop, and produced an above-average percentage of black college graduates that went on to serve the community and our country in the military, as primary and secondary educators, health care workers, clergy, and business owners.

Dr. Dennis M. De Shields is founder of Bellevue Passage Museum and fourth-generation Bellevue resident

Earlier this month I wrote about the City Council considering our current trash collection contract and the possibility of bringing the service back into the city as the manager. I did not realize that City Council had made some decisions the night before I wrote my earlier Cambridge Matters that impacted what our new city manager would be called upon to do and how quickly council wanted him to do it.

I provided the members of City Council and Mr. Carroll copies of the documents that the prior city council had considered in determining the need to move to a private contractor. The issue for me is not that the city should not spend the gift from the federal government but how city council might spend it the most wisely.

There are several places where I think the money could be better spent or put in reserve for future spending. In no particular order, the first is the police department. In an earlier article, I suggested that another way to get and keep good officers is to provide housing for some of them based on criteria that the city council could establish in conjunction with the police chief. Using some of that money to purchase homes that could be rehabilitated that are on the tax sale list would be one good way to do that and then rehabilitate them for some of our officers either new or long term.

Another place where the city must step up, and appears to be planning to do so, is to help fund programs for nonprofits here in the city. Helping to fund on a long-term basis programs for children and families is critical to improving the lives of the people who live here. That is a much better investment than buying trash trucks. Just remember what has happened in the past few years in the way of tragic deaths of children and adults as the result of fires and gunfire. Putting money into effective programs for children and code enforcement for safe homes can help ensure that children are given things to do, jobs as they get in their teen years, and safe places to live. They are more important than spending more money than is needed to bring trash collection in house when there will still be complaints from some homeowners or businesses.

The final place where this money could be better spent is to fund a long standing but, to my knowledge, never used program that is imbedded in our city code to address improving and maintaining our sidewalks. City Code Section 3-36 – https://library.municode.com/md/cambridge/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTITHCH_S3-36SI

And Section 16-21

https://library.municode.com/md/cambridge/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIITHCO_CH16STSIPUPL_S16-21SICOGE

are relevant here. I will let you read them for the details, but they lay out how the city can require sidewalks to be build, maintained, and repaired and includes the ability to create a fund that can be used to repair or replace sidewalks where property owners fail to do so and then assess the costs against the property owner. In the time that we have lived here, I have never seen the city either fund that program or repair sidewalks when property owners fail to do so. I have seen the city place some property owners on notice about the need to repair the sidewalks on their property. While there are some additional ways to make these code sections even more effective, I will leave that for another day.

While trash pick up is an important part of the responsibility of city government, we now have even more important and long-term problems and challenges that need to be addressed. I think that it would be prudent to give the newly hired city manager the opportunity to fix what may be a problem with the current trash company, which could be resolved more quickly and much less expensively than what the city commissioners appear to want to do.

If you agree with me and others that may be supporting other uses for the available monies that the city has, please let your commissioner know. Your silence could tell them the wrong thing. It is usually those who have complaints that are heard. Now is the time for the rest of us to speak out.

Thanks for reading.

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