MENU

Sections

More

July 7, 2022

Cambridge Spy

The nonprofit e-newspaper for the Cambridge Community

Point of View Al Top Story

Six Hundred Miles of Responsibility by Al Sikes

by
Leave a Comment

It is not clear to me what a resident of Talbot County should expect. But it is clear to me what we should not anticipate.

Talbot County, to quote its website has “the most shoreline of any county in the United States.” Six hundred miles, it is said. The shoreline, our boundary with water-borne grandeur, is the reason most of us are here dating all the way back to the beginning.

We see the Bay through our own interests. Watermen hope the Bay and its tributaries are a plentiful estuary for fishing. International tradesmen recognize it as transportation corridor. But most of us think of it as a recreational mecca. Generations have lived plentiful lives alongside this bounty. 

Most of us, no all of us, are aware of the pressure we are putting on our waterways. The pressure shows up in the price of crabs as it skyrockets because of limited supply. Nature’s filters, the oysters, are mostly not around to do the job nature provided because of pollution. We plan a swim and picnic and get warned off due to poor water quality.

And then headlines capture our attention. The Preserve at Wye Mills (Preserve) is illustrative. Turning theory into practice is often perilous and especially so when citizen government deals with complicated issues, dueling experts and a lot of capital. 

At the Preserve the developer wanted to get a permit to build 67 homes on 480 acres. The waste from the homes was to be treated, stored in a holding pond and then sprayed on the fields when there had been an absence of rain. It didn’t work.

The time-line of failure is especially disappointing and instructive. The first homes were built beginning in 2003 and the initial noncompliance began three years later. Essentially the treatment facility and I quote from public documents: “has been unable to comply with ….[the] discharge permit issued by the Maryland department of the Environment (MDE) since 2006 or 2007.” In short, nitrogen and phosphorus levels that were discharged into Mill Creek flowing into the Wye River were not in compliance for years. 

Recently Talbot County had to take over the Preserve’s Shared Sanitary Facility from its owners. The takeover agreement signed by the owners and county officials noted 15 years of non-compliance!

“Tip of the iceberg” has been a useful metaphor and the slow-motion unraveling of environmental stewardship at the Preserve is instructive. What about the rest of the iceberg?

We are now face-to-face with a gigantic project, Lakeside at Trappe. It has been controversial. Litigation to stop it is underway.

The initial discharges from the first 120 homes will not have to comply with exacting standards. Perhaps there is an arguable case for some standard’s delay, but looking at the history of the Preserve at Wye one might say, “Why?”

Environmental rules without compliance oversight are superficial. To recall a famous line from President Ronald Reagan, “trust but verify”.  The public might well ask is this another development that the County at considerable cost will have to take over down the road?

In two weeks, we will begin voting to select persons to serve on the Talbot County Council beginning in January 2023. The general election will be this November. The members of the Council have an expansive authority over our County. When it comes to environmental leadership they must begin to lead.

If I were a Councilman I would want, as part of my orientation, to know why the Preserve became a case study of poor decisions followed by woeful oversight. I would ask the fulltime professionals what we must do to make sure environmental standards are set, compliance monitored and timely actions taken.

I would look at staffing past, present and future. Do the Departments of Public Works and Environmental Health have the resources to do the job? 

Finally, I would look at the relationship between the County and Rauch Engineering. Rauch represents both developers and local agencies that have environmental responsibilities. This fact makes it doubly important that Town Councils have adequate staff to assure independence and avoid conflicts of interest that compromise decision making. I repeat, when citizen government deals with complicated issues, dueling experts and a lot of capital it must have the resources to find the public interest. 

In short, we have an iconic natural asset and must make sure that our representative government is up to the task of protecting it. We should not anticipate less.

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

 

Thinking About Trump on the Fourth of July by J.E. Dean

by
Leave a Comment

My July 4th was partially spoiled when I encountered a boat displaying three Trump-inspired flags. One read “Joe and the Ho Gotta Go.”  The second was a U.S. flag that transitioned into a confederate battle flag. The third flag was more confusing. It was an American flag with black stripes and a black field for the stars. I am told the flag is meant to signal “Give no quarter,” meaning that the bearer will never surrender and will kill any enemies they encounter. It is based on a civil war flag conjured up by a confederate group when the war “turned south” for them. 

The sight of the flags, these were in Caroline County, was nothing new. But they prompted me to wonder why Donald J. Trump or someone else associated with him has not done anything to condemn the flags. The answer, of course, is that Trump is fully comfortable calling the vice president of the U.S. a whore. It is who Trump is.

Over the holiday weekend, I also read about how Trump and his allies are attacking Cassidy Hutchinson.  He called her “bad news,” “a total phony,” and “a leaker.” He suggested she sought to “go to Florida” with the Trump team but was turned down. In her anger, she turned on Trump, the defeated ex-president says.

The tone of the attacks is fully consistent with the Trump-inspired flags, which is to say juvenile, crude, and demeaning. It was no surprise to learn that an attempt was made to intimidate Ms. Hutchinson before her deposition. It was, however, a pleasant surprise to learn that the attempts failed. I wonder whether that failure prompted yet another plate-throwing incident?

On the encouraging side, the Trump attacks on the January 6 Committee have utterly failed. Even the “denial” of Trump’s temper tantrum in the presidential limo on January 6 has backfired. The agent who rebutted the story is known to lie. Let’s get that man in front of the January 6 Committee under oath!

While Hutchinson’s testimony has renewed calls for the prosecution of Trump, Meadows, Giuliani, and a host of others, I predict that we have not yet seen the Committee’s best work. July is not going to be a good month for Trump, even if he announces his candidacy for president.

The January 6 Committee will deliver at least two big bombshells in July. The first will be direct evidence of the extensive communication and coordination between the White House and the two militia groups that led the January 6 assault—the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. We may learn that Meadows talked to the Proud Boys during the assault and that certain House Republicans were acting as communications conduits between the militia members and the White House. You already know about Rudy Giuliani. Have you heard the names Scott Perry and Jim Jordan? Those are my two best guesses. (Other suspects, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Andy Biggs, and Lauren Boebert may have been deemed too stupid for Trump or Meadows to trust.)

The second bombshell will be evidence of Trump’s complicity in funding the insurrection. I expect to see a financial trail connecting Donald Trump, Jr., Rudy Giuliani, and Mark Meadows to the money that enabled the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and others to get to Washington. 

 Of course, Trump will say all three acted on their own. If Trump does, and when the Trump associates, now with tire tracks on their backs, ponder the prospect of jail time becomes clearer, it is likely that at least one will flip. Remember how Mark Meadows was cooperating with the January 6 Committee until he wasn’t. He is the most likely “flipper.”

We may also hear from White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who the Committee subpoenaed. If Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony was truthful, Cipollone both knew about Trump’s involvement with the January 6 insurrection and warned the president that it was illegal.

And what about John Eastman? Without Professor Eastman’s legal memo suggesting that the Vice President could unilaterally overturn the 2020 election by rejecting slates of electors and substituting others, there may have been no attack on the Capitol.  Did Eastman believe his own theories?   What prompted him to write the memo?

As the January 6 committee moves ever closer to the release of its full written report, Donald Trump’s future will become clearer. Rumors are circulating that he soon will announce his candidacy for president for 2024. If he announces (highly likely), it will be nothing more than an attempt to fend off prosecution. Trump will argue that Democrats are prosecuting him on political grounds. His hope will be to re-energize his base.

Somehow, as I celebrated July 4th, I started to think that won’t happen. Things are not looking good for Trump’s future. Given the strength of the evidence that is emerging about what Trump was up to after he lost the 2020 election, his campaign will be seen for what it is–another abuse of our political system to serve his own ends at the expense of the public good. 

By fall, I expect Trump will resort to campaigning for president at rallies where “Joe and the Ho Gotta Go” signs and confederate flags will be in abundance. He will remind us of what a low life he is. 

The threat of Trump continuing his assault on democracy should frighten all Americans. He reminds us that freedom is not free. Trump is un-American. Trump and his party gotta go, but they will not go unless and until he is held accountable for his actions associated with January 6, 2021. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, birds, and other subjects.

 

The Boy in the Boat by Jamie Kirkpatrick

by
Leave a Comment

This photograph haunts me. It came to me out of the blue, sent by an old pal I haven’t seen in over fifty years. The light is diffuse, almost ethereal; it looks more like a painting than a photograph. It must have been taken in that dreamtime before cell phones, when cameras were really cameras and you had to send a roll film off to be developed. The images would come back a week or two later, 3×5 or 4×6 snapshots, but by then, the moment was already a memory. Little did I know…

I have no specific memory of this moment, but I can tell that’s me—fifty years younger and sixty pounds lighter—sitting in that bleached rowboat, looking back at my now-self. My hair is thick and tousled; my Fu Manchu mustache is faintly visible. I’m not sure exactly where I was when the photograph was taken: Tunisia certainly (I was in the Peace Corps there), maybe relaxing in one of the benign little sea-side towns: Hammamet or Tabarka or Monastir, far away from my little village in the remnants of the Atlas Mountains, close to the Algerian border. There’s a shallow tidal pool, the edge of what appears to be an abandoned building, and, off in the distance, a boat rigged with a lateen sail. That would make sense: lateen sails were an Arab invention. They are triangular, mounted on the mast at an angle, running in a fore-and-aft direction. They were likely first developed by Arab traders in the eastern Mediterranean in the Second Century, and were crucial in the development of ships that were maneuverable and reliable under sail power alone because they allowed vessels to tack against the wind. Lateen sails changed the world.

The more I think about this photo, the more blurred it becomes. Most everything that has been important to me in this life was still to come: marriages, children and grandchildren, friendships, careers. Wins and losses, successes and blunders. I had no clue what lay ahead. If I could wade out to that little boat now and talk to that skinny kid, what would I say? Don’t fret; it will all be OK? I’m not sure I’d be telling him the truth. 

I feel gut-punched. My faith has been shaken by recent events: the political chasms that continue to divide us, sorrowful Supreme Court rulings, this lingering pandemic, our ailing economy, the degradation of the environment, racial injustice, gender bias; the list goes on and on. I said to my wife yesterday that I feel weary in my bones. I meant it. I wish for simpler, happier times. I believe we all do. But that’s not the way of this world. Like the young buck sitting in that rowboat, those days are gone. There’s work to be done and time is running out. Let’s get on with it.

What happens next? I didn’t know then and I don’t know now. There was a time when I trusted the world to be good, but now I’m not so sure. Maybe this feeling will pass, pass like the years that have passed since that photo was taken. None of us can ever be that young again. It’s just good to know that once I was.

We know how to tack against the wind. There’s still time to change the world.

I’ll be right back.

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

 

Out and About (Sort of): What Would Ben Franklin Say? By Howard Freedlander

by
Leave a Comment

Ever pragmatic and goal-oriented, the inestimable Dr. Benjamin Franklin might have little to comment whimsically about in today’s United States. He might find reasons to return to France or even England.

He would look at modern-day politicians and cringe. As much as he viewed John Adams as rigid and puritanical, Franklin would consider 21st century politicians sorely lacking moral centers. Adams would seem Pope-liked in his virtues. His political descendants are eunuchs in comparison.

Franklin understood in his later years that slavery was an inescapable stain on the American social mosaic. The U.S. Constitution, to gain passage and approval by the southern states, left slavery in its heinous state in our new country. It was practical but harmful politics.

He would be struck by the power of political parties and the utter bitterness and rancor that divides them. He would find it nearly impossible to mediate, not only between the parties, but the tribes within them. He might consider it more pleasant and productive to engage his scientific bent than participate in do-nothing dialogue.

His rift with his son, ever loyal to the Crown, would seem mild (and it was anything but) to the irreconcilable conflicts between Democrats and Republicans. Franklin’s diplomatic skills and common sense would seem anachronistic today. He would question a culture that survived solely on differences inured to compromise.

The world and his country respected Franklin’s stature as a “great man,” a person widely regarded for his accomplishments as a businessperson, diplomat, scientist, philosopher and a founder of an increasingly significant young country. Is there anyone in our nation comparable to Franklin? I think not.

He was a prototypical self-made person, equipped when he moved from strait-laced Boston to free-wheeling Philadelphia with abundant ambition, curiosity and work ethic. Opportunities for financial success and civic betterment abounded in Philadelphia, his adopted city.

He relentlessly sought personal growth and professional achievement. He did both.

He epitomized the traits of a go-getter. Would he be equally successful today? Maybe.

 As do many, I wonder if leadership personified by Franklin is even possible today in our fractious country. The need has never been greater or more urgent. At this point, I would care not a whit if the leader were a Democrat or Republican. I would draw the line in the center, excluding the extremists in each party.

I can suggest no possible unifying leaders. I wish I could. I can enumerate traits appealing to me and possibly to others:

Character; honesty; team player; politically savvy; visionary; effective and credible communicator; respected on both sides of the aisle; willing to compromise and share credit; tackle and resolve knotty problems; attuned to problems facing the rich and poor; passionate about solutions; even temperament; accessible as much as possible and resolute. 

This list is long. A person who embodies all these traits may be a figment of my imagination. But I am optimistic that a unifying leader exists. No one comes to mind.

Ben Franklin set a standard for excellence as a public servant. Despite his innumerable accolades and a tendency to pay them too much due, he sought no high office (too old in his opinion). He felt satisfied with a seat at the table in composing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He contributed wisdom and insight. He understood fellowship.

 Dr. Franklin was an optimist, I believe. Guided by 13 virtues, used to measure himself, he strove constantly for self-improvement. Moderation was his lodestar. And he gained financial success and international acclaim. He did so with intelligence and self-awareness.

Anyone out there who wishes to emulate Ben Franklin and unify and lead our country? Step forward please.

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

 

 

An Oath Taken and Kept by Craig Fuller

by
Leave a Comment

Most people witness a President-Elect of the United States stand on the steps of the Capitol and take an oath of office that is prescribed by the Constitution of the United States. What many may not know is that a version of that oath is also taken by senior federal officials serving in the White House, cabinet departments, agencies and the U.S. Congress.

This second oath goes as follows:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

For decades, individuals entering the highest ranks of our government have taken this oath and stayed true to it during their service to the people of the United States.

The hearings last week brought this to mind and took me back to January 21, 1981 when, at the age of 29, I took this oath as I became a senior member of the White House staff. The morning ceremony was solemn. The senior members of the staff assembled in the East Room of the White House. As we settled, President Ronald Reagan, who took his oath of office one day earlier at his Inauguration, entered the room. He stepped to the podium and with no prepared remarks shared his thoughts about the journey on which we were embarking.

Leadership, it is said, starts at the top. That morning, President Reagan wanted all of us to know that we were one group, joined with him to do the work of the American people. He also wanted us to know that we had a higher loyalty than to any one individual. With that, Chief Justice Warren Burger was invited to deliver our oath of office. (In case you are looking at the video, he stood right in front of me.)

Yes, the moment was recorded and can be viewed on a six-minute video:  CLICK HERE.

So, I reflected during the past week on how one individual, Cassidy Hutchinson, who probably was not even senior enough to take this oath, lived up to the oath so many around her took and yet abandoned as they substituted their self-interest for a commitment made to the American people.

No one told Cassidy Hutchinson just what “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” would look like. But, she was clearly certain that encouraging people known to have firearms to march on the U.S. Capitol in an effort to prevent the certification of an election lost by an incumbent President called for actions avoided by others in the White House more senior than she.

The oath is given to impress upon all who take it the importance of their service. Throughout history, our nation has withstood challenges, mostly from foreign threats. The fact that this oath has motivated people like Cassidy Hutchinson and Congresswoman Liz Cheney to accept responsibilities to a higher authority than a defeated President or a reelection campaign suggests the wisdom of our founding fathers in having the belief that if not all, at least most would indeed support and defend the Constitution of the United States.

On this 4th of July holiday, I surely will be saying thanks to all those who took and lived by this oath.

Craig Fuller served four years in the White House as assistant to President Reagan for Cabinet Affairs, followed by four years as chief of staff to Vice President George H.W. Bush. Having been engaged in five presidential campaigns and run public affairs firms and associations in Washington, D.C., he now resides on the Eastern Shore.

Off The Bench: Presenting Evidence by Steve Rideout 

by
Leave a Comment

After being elected by our legislature to be a judge, I began my formal training that was provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts. While I had been a substitute judge for six years, I still had a lot to learn. The training included me holding a mock trial with a seasoned judge watching and critiquing my rulings; learning about all of the types of evidence and when each was or was not admissible; and understanding the value of watching the witnesses including their body language in helping to evaluate the truth of what they were saying.

As I was hearing my first case as a substitute judge, before I had any on the bench training, I came to realize that I was expecting the lawyers to present their case and cross examine witnesses the way that I would have presented my case or cross-examined witnesses. They did not. As a result, I realized that I was missing much of the evidence that I was called upon to use in deciding the case. 

It was a preliminary hearing for a felony shoplifting case, which required that the Commonwealth Attorney establish proof by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the requirement at trial. As I realized that I needed to listen differently, I also realized that the proof of the value of the item stolen had not been made. 

Because the value of the property was critical in either sending the case to the Circuit Court or keeping it in District Court as a misdemeanor, there was a requirement that the Commonwealth Attorney prove the value of the stolen property was over $200. He did not do it with the owner of the store, who was the only witness for the prosecution.

The defense lawyer, however, as part of his cross examination managed to save the day for the prosecution when he asked what the value of the property was. With the witness responding that it was worth more than $200, the case was made to send it on to the grand jury for further action.

Often a case is made or lost because of a single question that should or should not have been asked. One of the classic ones from my days as a trial lawyer was a question asked by a lawyer friend of mine in a robbery case. The state had put on its case, and the time for the defendant came to present his alibi defense.

The defense went in very well from a witness that was the girlfriend of the defendant. She was very convincing as she explained that he was with her at the time of the robbery. There was one bit of evidence that had been left at the scene of the robbery. It was a very unusual hat that the victim said the robber had worn.

As an afterthought by the lawyer, he asked one final question of his excellent witness. He grabbed the unusual hat left at the robbery, turned to the witness, and asked if she had ever seen the hat before that day. It became immediately obvious that he had not asked her this question before trial, as her answer was that her friend did have a hat that looked like the one she was shown and that he lost it just about the time that the robbery had taken place. There went the alibi defense.

Knowing what witnesses will say is vital for a lawyer to know. What is also vital is that lawyers know when to ask a question and when not to ask one. It is an essential part of any trial preparation as the lawyer develops his or her vision of how the case might be presented and won. The lawyer’s silence might be the best thing that he or she can do for their client.

Plato Cacheris was an excellent and nationally known lawyer who practiced in the Washington, D.C. area. One day I was waiting in the Fairfax Circuit Court when he did what is called an “Alford” plea with a client. It, basically, is a guilty plea where the defendant asserts his or her innocence but admits that the evidence presented by the state would likely convince a judge or jury to find him or her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 

After the defendant answered the required questions put to him by the judge, the Commonwealth Attorney presented a stipulation of the facts tat he had prepared without Plato’s help. Plato agreed with those facts. 

When the judge asked for anything further from counsel, Plato then argued that the facts as offered to the court did not support a violation of the law. After hearing the argument and the available caselaw, the judge agreed, and the case was dismissed. Knowing when to elicit evidence, ask questions, or stay silent is an important part of being a good lawyer.

Thanks for reading. Please be in touch.

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. He can be reached at swrideout@aol.com 

Cows on the Lam by Laura Oliver

by
1 Comment

This is about cows with boundary issues, and if you read this column regularly, you’re already saying, “No it’s not.”

Five heifers from my sister’s farm recently went on the lam. The jailbreakers are young, just weaned. They don’t even eat grain yet, but they’re brave and bold and maybe highly incentivized. How’d they escape the pasture? They didn’t jump the fence (though I’ve seen this). They didn’t find a break in the fence. They went under the fence at a stream.

Now they are their own herd of guileless youngsters, out past curfew, and it’s a bigger problem than you would think. They’re black, and even this young, they weigh close to 600 pounds. If a motorist were to suddenly come across one in the road at night, it would not be a good thing. Law enforcement was notified, animal control, neighbors, a veterinarian. It took days to even figure out if they were still on the property. Proximity to an airport precluded the use of a drone and the farm’s 80 acres feature a lot of wooded hillsides and sheltered hollows of oak, maple, and pine. But eventually they were located on a neighboring farm having a drink and some recreational weed which is cow-equivalent to water and real grass though I picture them having a beer and a smoke behind the barn.

It’s a serious problem. I love my sister and brother-in-law and would fix this if I could. As a mother, my theory is that the calves are heading for their mothers on the farm where they were born 100 miles south in Amherst. But that’s because mothers want to believe they are lifetime homing beacons for their offspring when it’s likely your offspring hasn’t thought about you in weeks, maybe months, and rightly so.

So cowgate has become a thing. My other sister and I check in periodically to see if the cows have come home, but I swear every time the answer is no, there is sincere concern for my sister, new brainstorming of solutions, and (I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I’m sorry), a little fist bump for the cows.

As I write this 3 have been recaptured by experienced cowhands. The mastermind heifer and his cohort are still at large. They are all going to be shipped out west. Once a jailbreaker, always a jailbreaker, my brother-in-law says, and he should know. He’s been successfully raising cattle for decades. (Irrelevant fact: he is very handsome which makes you want to believe him.)

The cows can’t run forever. We know their freedom is limited, they’re on borrowed time. But I guess there is something about an underdog we can’t help but champion.

If you are an American, you are here because of another group of rebellious underdogs. The colonies, of which Maryland was the 4th largest at the time, took on an enemy 4 times their size in terms of population and one armed with incomparable resources. American Revolutionaries endured over 1,500 military engagements with a professional army over an excruciating 8 years. And unlike conventional wars, the War of American Independence was fought for an ideal. A principle.

Once declared, there was no going back. We’d be free or die trying. And we did die trying–25,000 men lost their lives in battle or from disease.

A ragtag army fought in below-freezing temperatures without coats or adequate clothing, marched for days without shoes, without medicine, shelter, adequate weapons, or food. Recruits could enlist at 15 years old with parental permission, 16 otherwise. A lot of teenagers fought this war.

George Washington’s biography, which details these years, will bring you to your knees in awe and gratitude. When you come to understand the sacrifice exacted, you come to appreciate more fully the absolute miracle of this or any republic.

We are surely as imperfect as a nation as we are imperfect as individuals. How could it be otherwise?

Yet what an astonishing privilege it is to live in a democracy. Happy Birthday America. I’ll be grateful long after the cows come home.

Laura J. Oliver is an award-winning developmental book editor and writing coach, who has taught writing at the University of Maryland and St. John’s College. She is the author of The Story Within (Penguin Random House). Co-creator of The Writing Intensive at St. John’s College, she is the recipient of a Maryland State Arts Council Individual Artist Award in Fiction, an Anne Arundel County Arts Council Literary Arts Award winner, a two-time Glimmer Train Short Fiction finalist, and her work has been nominated for a Pushcart Prize. Her website can be found here.

 

Delmarva Review: Fried Chicken, 1981 by Louise Robertson

by
Leave a Comment

Author’s Note: “Fried Chicken, 1981” is a portrait of my mother when I was a child. I wanted to say her name the way her mother said her name. I wanted to capture the way she spoke and her mannerisms. I wanted to acknowledge her youthfulness in the context of aging. I wanted to point to the everyday experience of expressing love and care by making dinner. And of course, I wanted to write down how she made fried chicken.

Fried Chicken, 1981

Joanie props her elbows on the table cloth
then picks up a chicken leg-
and-thigh combo, dredges
it through egg and milk, through
breadcrumbs with flecks
of green and black, nestles it
in with the rest of the body. Later, Joanie
hunches over stove and frying pan,
before pushing the tray
into the oven for, oh,
35 minutes, and back to the table
with her elbows
pointer finger,
still unbent by time,
aimed to the ceiling
to mark her words,
and she looks out the window
where we will never build
an addition. This is the process
no one else seems to use
to get their chicken fried
and I know
other people’s recipes
are supposed to be good,
but hers is the greasiest cracked
pepper and salt
love I have ever tasted. 

♦

Louise Robertson serves as the marketing director for Writers’ Block Poetry Night in Columbus, Ohio. She counts among her publications, awards, and honors a jar of homemade pickles she received for running a workshop as well as a 2018 Pushcart Prize nomination (“Open: A Journal of Arts and Letters”) and a 2018 Best of the Net nomination (Flypaper). 

Delmarva Review publishes evocative poetry and prose selected annually from thousands of submissions regionally and nationally. Designed to encourage and present outstanding new writing, it is an independent, nonprofit literary publication. Financial support comes from tax-deductible contributions, sales, and a grant from the Talbot Arts Council with funds from the Maryland State Arts Council. Website: DelmarvaReview.org.

 

 

 

Matthew Tilghman and this Constitutional Time in the USA

by
Leave a Comment

This historical marker stands at the entrance to what was once Matthew Tilghman’s home called “Bayside” and “Rich Neck” on Tilghman Neck, where Eastern Bay and Miles River meet in Talbot County. Photo by Dennis Forney

“A constitution is a set of fundamental principles of government.  In America, those principles, consented to by the people, provide a rule of law for both the government and the people. The rule of law substitutes for the whim of a dictator, the divine right of a monarch, the word from an oracle or seer, the calculations of an astrologer, or the revelation of a priest or prophet.” – Charles Rees, University of Baltimore School of Law, ‘Remarkable Evolution: The Early Constitutional History of Maryland’

With conservatives flexing their majority muscles on the Supreme Court as witnessed by the historic Roe vs. Wade 6-3 reversal, it’s clear that more and more power will be shifting – at least for the foreseeable future – from the federal government to state governments.

Such shifts have long been part of US history: the tug of war between federal power and states’ rights.  Those chronic struggles are as predictable and nearly as seismic and cataclysmic as earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis spawned by the planetary urges of Earth’s shifting tectonic plates.

As a result, we can expect democracy to become much more up close, visceral and personal. In Maryland, we will have to pay closer attention to the state constitution whose origins date back to 1776.

Eastern Shoreman Matthew Tilghman, a prominent planter and alternating resident of Queen Anne’s and Talbot counties, played a prominent role in those origins. Tilghman, by that time, had already been part of Maryland’s governing assembly for more than 20 years. The fact that he was Speaker of the state’s House of Representatives in 1774 when revolutionary rumblings were growing louder shows the faith placed in him by other Marylanders.

A strong proponent of independence from Great Britain, he headed Maryland’s delegation to the nation’s first Continental Congress and supported and voted for the Declaration of Independence. It’s said that he would have been one of Maryland’s signers had he not hightailed it back to his home state to preside over the drafting of Maryland’s first constitution.

On Aug. 14, 1776, barely six weeks after the July 4 signing of this nation’s Declaration of Independence, Tilghman’s Maryland colleagues elected him to chair the committee charged with preparing a “declaration and charter of rights and a form of government” for Maryland.

The opening paragraphs of the constitution demonstrate that he and his compatriots in Maryland and elsewhere believed passionately in a government “of the people, by the people and for the people” as articulated years later by President Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address.

The preamble to that document and its first four articles state:

DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

“We, the People of the State of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty, and taking into our serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare:

“Article 1. That all Government of right originates from the People, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole; and they have, at all times, the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their Form of Government in such manner as they may deem expedient.

“Art. 2. The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.

“Art. 3. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution thereof, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people thereof.

“Art. 4. That the People of this State have the sole and exclusive right of regulating the internal government and police thereof, as a free, sovereign and independent State.”

So, if the nation’s constitution doesn’t allow or prohibit something, Maryland’s constitution says it’s up to the state’s people to decide an issue.

In the case of the Roe vs. Wade reversal, here’s what the US Supreme Court majority ruled: “The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

Maryland anticipated this eventuality in 1991 when its legislators passed laws protecting access to abortion. That instance also demonstrates the limited referendum power given to the state’s residents in its constitution.

The constitution allows the state’s residents to challenge bills passed by lawmakers and enacted by the governor.  Residents can launch an effort to gather a prescribed number of citizen signatures to a petition which would place the challenge question on the ballot during the next US House of Representatives election, which comes in every even year.

That’s exactly what opponents to Maryland’s 1991 abortion protection legislation did in 1992. They gathered enough signatures to have the question placed on the 1992 statewide ballot in their effort to reverse the legislation.  The state’s voters, however, upheld the legislation by a 62 percent to 38 percent margin.

In March of this year, Maryland’s General Assembly – again anticipating the Roe vs. Wade reversal – passed legislation to further protect and increase access to legal abortion.  Through the same referendum provision in the state’s constitution, that legislation could also be challenged and placed on the 2022 statewide ballot.

Maryland’s constitution, however, does not allow the state’s citizens to initiate their own proposed amendments to the law outside of the normal legislative process.  Such “initiated constitutional amendments” are allowed in 18 of the nation’s other states – mostly western and most notably California – but not in Maryland.

If that were the case here, abortion opponents could – for example – petition for a referendum vote on a total abortion ban such as is being discussed for the national level by former Vice President Mike Pence.

What Maryland’s constitution does prescribe, however, is what is called an automatic ballot referral.  That means that every 20 years, a provision is automatically placed on the statewide ballot asking voters whether they want a constitutional convention held to consider revisions or amendments to the state’s constitution.

If at least 55 percent of the total number of voters in that year’s statewide election call for a constitutional convention, then that process could begin which would allow citizens to petition for specific revisions or amendments which would then go to referendum for approval or rejection. The last automatic ballot referral came and went in 2010 with not enough citizen votes to trigger a convention.

The next is scheduled for the 2030 ballot.

It’s all a mouthful and probably more than what Matthew Tilghman envisioned back in 1776.  But he and his colleagues, and those who revised the original constitution in the years after, were wise enough to provide mechanisms for the people to govern, as they intended.

Given the tenor of the times, we can reasonably expect to see those mechanisms used a lot more in the years ahead.

Stay tuned.

Dennis Forney has been a publisher, journalist and columnist on the Delmarva Peninsula since 1972.  He writes from his home on Grace Creek in Bozman.