It was early Sunday morning in the park. A refreshing breeze wafted from the foggy river as the sun rose above the horizon. Joe was setting up his chess board at his usual bench, hoping to engage someone in a friendly match.

Soon enough, another old-timer comes along and asks Joe if he wants to have a game.

Joe: Sure. What’s your name?

Old-timer: Call me Don. I should warn you, though. I’m the best chess player that’s ever been. The only way I can lose is if you cheat. 

Joe: Well, I’m not sure how one can cheat in this game, but I can’t miss the opportunity to play the best that has ever been. What’s your rating?

Don: 5000.

Joe: Really?! I’ve never heard of a rating for a human player above 2900. 

Don: The international chess community has conspired to ignore me because I make all other players look like amateurs.

Joe (shaking his head): White or black?

Don: I prefer white.

Joe: Have a good game.

Don: Pawn to king four.

Several passersby ask if they can watch the match. No problem.

It’s forty-five minutes later.

Joe: Knight takes bishop, Checkmate. Can’t believe I’ve beaten the best that’s ever been.

Don: You didn’t win.

Joe: Your king is under attack, with no square to move to where he would not be under attack. Game over. How can you say I didn’t win?

Don: You cheated.

Joe: How?

Don: You must have made a couple of moves while I wasn’t looking.

Bystanders 1 and 2: Sir, we were watching the whole time, and we didn’t see him make any extra moves.

Don: You’re friends of his, aren’t you?

Bystanders 1 and 2: No, this is the first time we’ve visited this town.

Don: You took too long to move.

Joe: This was an informal game with no time limit for moves.

Don: I never agreed to that. You rigged the game. 

Joe: Have you ever heard the words “sportsmanship” or “fair play”?

Don: I’ve heard of them. They’re words for losers.

Joe: Good grief! I didn’t know I was playing a nut case.

Don. You all heard that. I’m suing this guy for defamation. Joe, you old bag of bones, I’ll see you in court.

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

Like many other families—perhaps most—I have experienced excruciating heartbreak from losing family members because of mental illness and addiction issues. Pain from such losses never ends. 

Recent data shows that U.S. deaths from suicide, alcohol and opioids totaled more than 156,000 in a one-year period. Numbers have risen for a variety of reasons—Covid, access to fentanyl, border security issues, and more. 

Some users and abusers have been saved thanks to rehabilitation, counseling, therapies, and support groups. Hunter Biden is one of the lucky ones. Read his book Beautiful Things: A Memoir to learn how serious his addiction was and how arduous his road to recovery. That is why I find jokes and wisecracks about Hunter Biden’s addiction unconscionable, heartless, and just plain wrong. 

Should Hunter Biden pay taxes he owes to the federal government? Absolutely. (And he has.) Should Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine and China be analyzed and must he be brought to task for any wrongdoings? Absolutely. And trust me, no stone is being left unturned. 

But is it wrong to mock Hunter Biden for his former drug use? To make jokes about the cocaine packet found in the White House? Is it wrong to suggest that President Biden should hide his troubled son from public view? I say a resounding yes. 

As a nation, we must celebrate those who have conquered their demons and come out victorious on the other side. We should encourage their continued sobriety and do whatever is in our power to promote a continued and sustained recovery. Many of us reading this article know loved ones who have reached a recovery status only to stumble and fall back into the abyss of alcohol or opioid addiction or acute depression. Remember the struggles of Heath Ledger, Kurt Cobain, Whitney Huston, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and River Phoenix to name only a few. 

It is a tenuous and arduous task to sustain sobriety. Constant ridicule and mocking insults are not helpful. They harm and they hurt. 

Joe Biden has been a good father to his son. He has supported him and stood by him in times of trouble. He applauds his son’s sobriety as he should. And he understands that addiction is a disease—not evidence of lack of character. 

The State of Maryland is not immune to the trauma of substance abuse. In 2021, Maryland recorded 2,460 opioid overdose deaths. Such drug induced deaths in Maryland exceed the national average. One study reported that more than eight percent of Marylanders reported using illicit drugs in the past month. 

So instead of criticizing the shortcomings of those who suffer from these maladies, what steps should we as a nation take to reduce the preponderance of such dreadful statistics? Here are just a few suggestions from various mental health organizations.

Expand access to substance use prevention programs and mental health programs in schools.

Increase access to mental health and substance use healthcare through full enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act.

Reduce availability of illicit opioids. 

Limit access to lethal means of suicide.

Expand efforts to combat stigmas about mental health issues.

Expand the mental health and substance use treatment workforce.

Build community capacity for early identification and intervention with individuals who require mental healthcare.

And finally, and most importantly, show compassion, kindness, and support for those who travel that difficult road to recovery. Dusty Springfield said it best: Let’s “put a little love in our hearts.”   

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, music, reading, gardening, and nature. 

Is your house hosting an unprecedented mob of persistent ants?  Ours definitely is. However, when the cats started complaining about ants in their food bowls and most irritating, in their cat box, I was told this problem had to be addressed and solved.  

The first facts I uncovered were not encouraging: colonies generally contain from 20-100,000 ants with a possible life span of 20 years.  And like humans, their general health and longevity can be influenced by their place, called caste, in the matriarchal ant class system.  Adult males live only a few days after mating with a female, but Queen Ants, the egg laying members of the colony, live the longest, even decades. Non-reproducing female Worker Ants spend their time serving the community and if food becomes scarce, it’s the Worker ants who will voluntarily stop eating.  No surprise, they usually die of exhaustion or malnutrition, in a few weeks or months.   

Reading further, I found ants are ectotherms and unlike humans, their body temperatures automatically adjust to that of their environment (within limits), no winter or summer wardrobes required.  

Is Global Warming the reason there are ant infestations like never before? Partially, but until Earth has moved further into the permanent heat wave,  the ants will adapt and continue spending time with us. However, when temperatures get above 120 degrees or below 10 degrees Fahrenheit, they will expire. So Phoenix, Arizona probably doesn’t have this problem. 

However, the series of 90 plus degree days we’ve been having dry up a number of the usual natural sources of water outside our houses. Moreover, it will deplete their food supply and cause them to venture outside their normal safe habitat and go where humans and animals congregate.  In these circumstances, ants will establish their colonies in or near human habitation to have better access to food and water. 

Why do we notice the ants? Because other insects don’t have the heat/cold tolerances the ants do and react differently. Termites find water by burrowing deeper into the ground, while Cockroaches already have their places staked out in our houses or offices. Neither, of them move in masses.  Thus, we see the ants, who are looking for our crumbs and the cats’ food and water.   

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

 

 

It’s great to see Spy readers up in arms about the development at Lakeside, but this is nothing new. There have always been plenty of naysayers, bystanders, and active opponents of this huge development folly ( all bristling with outrage and fury).

For the many of us that have hung in there, we donated thousands of volunteer hours given to steer this tawdry unimaginative, out-of-character development to a better place, to no avail. Talbot County Planning and Zoning, through its three different Planning directors, all caught in the project crossfire, all horrified by the County Council’s behavior and then ultimately resigned, showing the pressure and disrespect for planners in the process.

The Council was always ending in the corner, protecting the profit motive of the landholders and the developers, which would profit from development, and denied any power to the controlling document that was the Comprehensive Plan. For the most part, The Talbot Council has been hugely unresponsive, unhelpful, caught like a deer in the headlights, indecisive between pro and anti-development forces, and by and large, very unaccommodating to low-end development despite the best intentions of the Comp plan, it was easily to route the interests of the people in favor of the almighty dollar.

And so this goes deeper into the question about who is in control, why land owners’ rights are more important than democratic plans adopted by elected officials, and why elected officials who vote against the documents and citizenry they have pledged to protect can so easily avoid legal accountability. 

I, for one, as a dedicated urbanist and local architect who has tried to practice good design, amplify the character of the Chesapeake, always promote historic preservation, and sell history as a draw for local business, have fought this dreaded development. It is located in my own neighborhood, no far from where I live, and it’s a reminder of what unregulated profit-hungry developers do when lawyers yield the power, not planners, that should be in control and refuse these kinds of projects. 

My neighbors have endeavored since the project’s original inception in 2006 and have tried to steer it in a better direction, never saying no, just saying give us a better product, now for almost twenty years. I have to admit that, sadly, we have lost. But as a lesson in bad land management, this debacle should not go unheeded, it should stand as a lesson to be learned; we could rise from these ashes and do better. Can we all agree it has been a horrible mistake? I can think of only one person that thinks it isn’t and many that have profited greatly from the mistake. 

Constructive efforts to shape development in Maryland have always failed precisely because the zoning and land ceding system in an “Annexation” request in Maryland is so terribly flawed against the County in favor of the Towns and Cities. 

The origins of this planning problem go way back to Britain and the land grant process, where the original land grants, many of them from Lord Calvert, gave counties most of the control. In open rebellion after much bad history with Britain and its merchant class, later as colonial cities that sprang up on the Eastern Shore were Chartered (or incorporated), Towns and cities were hoping not to repeat the mistakes of the past. 

Unfortunately, this was also an overcorrection and an equally bad mistake. With the Cities now having more power to grow larger than the Counties to control them, the Counties were powerless to resist growth. This condition still exists to this day; the Maryland Municipal League fights tooth and nail Maryland leadership and is dead set on keeping things that way. The cities will always win the conflict in an Annexation. This has dreadful consequences and did so in Trappe. 

Trappe is actually an incorporated town, which means it has its own planning and zoning, its own city administration, and its own world that it can manipulate as it likes. In the 2006 annexation of some 900 acres, the County was again caught flat-footed in this transfer, made the transfer because it had to, but then revised its comp plans ( too late) to correct its mistakes. So while the developer took the decade off and more or less vanished between 2008 and 2017, where we all thought he had gone elsewhere, but no, he came back! He contested he had been given approval for a wastewater system when he had not, claimed he had approval for the whole 2501 units when he did not, and with skillful misdirections from lawyers, bluffed his way back into the game of project approval, all catching poor Talbot county off guard. This ruse should have been stopped right then and there, but no, it actually worked! 

While this detail might all seem trivial, it is not. In an annexation request made by a city to the County, the County has very little power to resist the request. It must cede the property, but it leaves a gaping hole open to interpretation. The Annexation must follow the comprehensive plan and must comply with the comprehensive sewer and water plan the County is legally bound to create. Herein lies the problem, Talbot had not updated their wastewater “tier plan,” so there was confusion in the application process and, ultimately, a train wreck of sorts. 

In this case, Talbot updated their overall comprehensive plan but not their comprehensive sewer and water plan, and why not, you’d ask? Because it provided a loophole. Here the developer was allowed to slip between dimensions to say he had the rights to develop when clearly the main comp plan said he did not. So it was a well-orchestrated wreck. I suspect this; I don’t know this. 

In summary, all this extraordinary effort to arrest or redefine the development was pretty much undone by the sloppy administering of the comprehensive sewer and water plan by the County Engineer. One has to ask that if this one small loophole ( an unforced error) allowed such a repugnant development to occur, there has to be something very wrong with the process. And that is proven true; Comprehensive plans are no match for skillful or devious developers and clandestine lawyers. A better system is badly needed, but take heart, not all is lost; we are only forty years behind the times in the planning world; some consolation. 

We tried our Darndest to fight Trappe’s Levittown

We need to tell the story through chapters of this fateful episode of Government dysfunction. 

Chapter One: In the beginning, our neighborhood came together to form a community organization called “Friends of Trappe” in the early days of 2006, later known as “The Downstream Alliance” 2018, trying to slow and make the County rethink the Trappe development. People with strong legal standing and adjacent historic properties, after exhaustive testimony, opinions were overridden and executed with disregard by the County County. Early on, our local neighborhood team and the “friends of Trappe” tried desperately to solicit a local vote via an internal town voter referendum ( a way for townspeople to weigh in on just one topic, the Lakeside project) to slow the progress. This effort failed because the developer and his attorneys promised local grocery stores to be built; the only reason locals were in favor of the project ( people were tired of driving to Easton for necessities). Later, his developer offer was rescinded. Another feigned promise was broken by a developer, not that surprising actually, but a fatal mistake for a small, unsophisticated town, trusting a developer’s word. 

Chapter Two: After many, many meetings with MDE ( Maryland Department of Environment) where our group, backed by local environmental groups, presented evidence to MDE that the spray irrigation septic system was bound to fail ( we actually cited places where MDE violated their own policy) we cited evidence of failed system design, as many in the County were already doing ( In Wye, St Michaels, all were doomed to a very short and polluted lifespan).

Despite evidence that spray irrigation systems were underperforming, the MDE ( in their infinite wisdom) increased the capacity requirements of these spray systems and literally doomed the systems to failure. Their caution actually caused the failure, showing that their expertise needed to be questioned. This was the case in Wye, a system that the County had to bail out the developer who had long since departed. We tried to convince the developer to export Lakeside effluent to Easton or Cambridge, but none were publicly acknowledged despite the fact that the Town of Easton had plant capacity.

Chapter Three: Then, We tried through the Talbot County Public Works advisory committee to reject the permit application; this professional Advisory Board all voted unanimously to block the Lakeside application but was later overruled by the Council that refused to take their own Committee’s professional advice. You can’t make this stuff up! Dysfunctional government is nothing new, but the County just attained new heights. Nothing we tried worked. 

Chapter Four: Then the Talbot Integrity Project ( TIP) emerged, a strong and very experienced leader, and we thought we had a stand against the developer, but when all was balanced on the campaign for Council and their respective pro or con votes, once elected candidates now Councilmen reversed course, dooming the Lakeside resistance. TIP sued in Circuit Court, and amazingly the decision was thrown out; local judges in Circuit Court rejected our citizen pleas. Lakeside has proven to be unbeatable and unstoppable by normal channels. 

Lessons learned: The state MDE administrators for wastewater never saw a development they could not approve. And the comprehensive plan that was lovingly created to deal with this threat of unrestrained growth that developments like Lakeside posed proved to be no match for legal maneuvering. And what exactly did we learn? We learned our approach using normal channels in zoning ordinance wasn’t working; the Town and County had no tools to do the job to guide development. We all learned ( cynically) that planning is not an imaginative exercise for lawyers; it is fraught with problems, does not understand in the least about community character, and ultimately is a way for lawyers to bill by the hour and have little care for the results, sometimes laugh at the stupidity of its citizens for being so easily conned. Can we at least earn not to trust lawyers to do the business of planning or zoning? Can we leave that to planners, please?

Failure of Imagination: 

The question we pose here and now is this; why make a big deal out of crafting skillful comprehensive plans ( wordsmithing ad nausea) if they simply don’t work to control and regulate growth, and if developers can literally drive a truck through the regulations, can find ways to taint the Council and to overrule public opinion, why do we insist that this is all we have to shape development? It’s not! Much of the problem is that we are stuck with a system that doesn’t work, but most are afraid to try another that would require learning how to use it! 

Besides, Is it right to leave the magnitude of the decision up for the Town or City Council to decide? Does anyone in Council have any academic background in Planning? Do they think they can solve problems with local expertise, namely lawyers? Do they know how other areas have solved their growth problems? Are they interested enough to even look? Do they listen to their planners more than they listen to their constituents? Should we be leaving these decisions to planners in our area who haven’t been schooled in modern development warfare? 

Answers, answers ….yes, despite a huge majority percent of community pushback, opinions are all against the large unbounded development; Lakeside still survives, if not legally, through sheer persistence. The tools to shape good development are not currently in our grasp. So why do we bother with bolstering a failed system? We don’t want to recognize this because we don’t have other tools to replace the ones that aren’t working.  

Is this not a failure of imagination? Is it really a fight to the death at the end after all the big decisions about where, when, how big, and how much has already been made? Are we getting the order of this all wrong? Shouldn’t this big a problem be solved on the front end, not the back end, when it’s too late to make a difference, when money and effort have been expended, and heels are dug in? This sounds e bit like good national diplomacy that could avert warfare; we know this works or can work in skillful diplomatic hands. The unequivocal answer is yes, it can and should be solved at the beginning, not in the end, and developers go way too far and way too fast before people know what they are doing. The community needs better design guardrails upfront. 

Pattern Books as a solution:

The same developer, Rauch Corp, came in and tried the same shenanigans in Denton, Maryland, but they underestimated a very sharp shrewd town planner who, after seeing the plan for the Ruach project, applied for twin grants and hired a nationally prominent planning firm “Urban Design Associates” from Pittsburgh, to do a better development plan. Wisely the Planner in Denton did not fight the project but struggled mightily to reshape it. And this is exactly what needs to happen in Lakeside and in all developments in the region. We have to recognize growth is coming to the shore; we simply have to have the smarts to shape it, not stop it, and if we set the development bar high enough, a lot of the mediocre shlock will go elsewhere. 

It’s a proven fact; stepping up the regulations in the front end means you have fewer battles to wage in the back end. The funny thing is, something you wouldn’t expect, that developers actually want these regulations; they know what to expect, and they don’t have to fight for every inch because it’s spelled out for them what they can do if they follow the guidelines. People want this because they can reasonably safeguard their property within the towns they love. One added advantage is that these new three-dimensionally regulated planning guidelines, or form-based zoning regulations, are legally enforceable; they are not optional; they are law. No way to dodge them. This works for developers and for citizens; it’s no longer a game of who you know that you can bend to your will. 

The project that emerged from the Denton Experience was “the Denton Pattern Book,” which was a blueprint or “template” for how Eastern Shore towns should grow and how they can retain their character without fighting without confrontation. The beauty of these Pattern books is they lay down the law that lawyers, with only pretend experience in planning, have no idea how to write and are clueless about new form-based zoning regulations. In a way, Denton walked into the next millennium by hiring real Urban design professionals ( yes, we have urban spaces in towns) and left behind a strong template for the growth of any city or town to use free of charge. 

My point is that the failure of imagination, the failure to grasp the idea that there are other ways, other planning tools to get what your town wants and needs are out there, just look around, and don’t for a minute assume that you have no options. You have one that is free right in your own backyard that is working in Denton. One problem is new systems require learning how to use them, but the stakes are high here and now; getting better form-based zoning planning tools is the future. 

And… If you don’t care enough to research this, to look for other answers, to encourage your county and city planners to adopt these codes, then you deserve the ugly conundrum you will face when developers turn this into a stark profit-driven landscape; remember, New Jersey used to be beautiful too. The goose that laid the golden egg sometimes never realizes it’s gold. 

BTW: Urban Design Associates designed Easton Village, which you will have to admit is another universe distant from Lakeside. 

LINKS: and required research: Urban Design Associates, Denton Pattern Book ….This is the town website; you’ll have to claw through to find the Denton pattern book reference. 

This is for the Urban Design Associates website and the host of successful pattern books they have published and areas they have saved. 

Jay Corvan is a Talbot County architect who specializes in historic work and commercial work, imaginative infill buildings that play on local architectural patterns.

 

When the Equal Employment Opportunity Act was passed by Congress in 1972, I was a Senior Development Engineer in Black & Decker Product Development, a department comprised of about sixty designers, fifty-nine of which were white males. We had one black male designer. If I count engineering support people (secretaries, model shop, records, whiteprint), we had one black designer in a department of about 125 whites. I believe that equates to less than one percent.

We had black workers in our cafeteria and maintenance departments, even our mailman and CEO’s chauffeur, but only one black in Engineering.

Was this a problem? No one gave it much thought. It was business as usual, wasn’t it?

Our VP of Product Development called a meeting for folks who were either hiring managers presently or might soon be. I was invited. 

He informed us of the new law, and said that it would do B&D a world of good if we complied with it. To his credit, he appealed to our consciences as much as the legal imperative. He said he was not recommending the hiring of any minority person (black, female, Asian, Hispanic) who was not qualified. I don’t remember his exact words, but the gist of it was “You engineers are smart enough to solve this problem.”

I noticed progress almost immediately, but it was slow. Roughly three years later I attained a position high enough to have final say for new hires in my small group of four people. I should mention that at B&D the interview process in Engineering suggested only two interviews for non-degreed applicants, but typically five for Development Engineer or higher. The title of Development Engineer was the starting position for new college grads. 

It was up to each hiring manager to select his interviewing team, which always included himself. After completion of the hour-long interviews, and getting feedback from all, the hiring manager made the final decision to extend an offer or not.

By the time I retired in late 1999, I believe I held the record for most minority hires by any hiring manager in B&D Product Development history: two black male drafters, two white female drafters, one black male Indian engineer, and one white male Korean engineer. I had also hired four white male engineers. Other managers had hired minorities, but I held an inner pride that I was making more of a difference. Is that too egotistical?

My criteria when considering all interviews was this: Was the interviewee qualified for the job? Was it close to a tie between applicants? If so, the tie went to the minority person. I figured that natural bias should direct a couple of extra points to the minority person (I hadn’t heard the term “affirmative action” at that time). If you think you are among the few unbiased people on earth, I’m extremely skeptical of that assertion.

Why is some measure of affirmative action necessary? While it may be true that Dr. King’s arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, couldn’t that bending use a little assistance?

In her dissent to the latest ruling of our conservatively-biased SCOTUS, Justice Jackson wrote:

“It is no small irony that the judgment the majority hands down today will forestall the end of race-based disparities in this country, making the colorblind world the majority wistfully touts much more difficult to accomplish.”

The conservative justices on the present SCOTUS, following their own ideologies, may be conforming to the strict letter of the law. But I found in my early life that traffic court judges, for example, often exercise compassion and common sense in their decisions. Isn’t that what good judgement is about?

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 long and winding road to electing a president in 2024 has a most interesting unpredictable curve. The curve is No Labels, a national movement who has branded themselves as concerned citizens working to bring America’s leaders together to develop common-sense two-party solutions to America’s biggest problems. While No Labels does not identify itself as a third political party, they may nominate a No Labels candidate for president in 2024.

Their candidate could be Larry Hogan who recently confirmed he may agree to that.

Hogan’s links to the No Labels movement are strong. He has been and is their national co-chair.

No doubt Hogan is encouraged by polling results done by Gallup indicating 41 percent of voters identify as Independents versus 28 percent each for the Democrat and Republican parties.

Despite his interest, Hogan may be overcome by circumstances beyond his control.

One circumstance beyond Hogan’s control is a decision by the No Labels movement to stay out of the 2024 presidential election. Carter McHugh, writing for POLITICO predicts that No Labels is unlikely to run any candidate if Donald Trump is not the Republican nominee.

Another circumstance beyond Hogan’s control is the unintended consequence of a No Labels Presidential campaign if Trump is the Republican nominee.

Recent polling by Data for Progress suggests in a three-way presidential race that includes Hogan, he would pull more votes from the Democratic nominee than the Republican nominee. It is hard to fathom that Hogan would be involved in any effort that could result in his arch-nemesis Trump being only the second person in American history to serve non-consecutive terms as president.

The third and most daunting circumstance beyond Hogan’s control is No Labels concluding the 2024 presidential election results for third party candidates will repeat history. Despite the Gallup polling results mentioned above, in past elections where voters expressed their discontent with the two major parties, many of those voters “came home” to voting for the candidates nominated by the two major parties. The reality is the widely and often predicted death of the two-party dominance of Presidential elections in America has been greatly exaggerated.

The observations of Nikolai Machiavelli, are as relevant today as they were when he wrote them more than five hundred years ago:

“It must be remembered there is nothing more difficult to carry out, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain of success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. The innovator has enemies in all those who have done well under the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who may do well under the new order, in part from fear of their adversaries, who have the law in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience with it.”

On the question … will Larry Hogan run for president in 2024 … the answer is no.

On the question … does Larry Hogan have other options going forward … the answer is maybe.

To position himself to maximize those other options. I suggest the following key messages:

“I remain deeply committed to making a difference on the public policy deliberations and decisions in Washington DC. Elected twice as a Republican to serve as governor in a deep blue state, I governed as a pragmatic moderate, enjoyed high job approval ratings during all eight years in office, and was a champion of fiscally responsible budgets, and no tax increases.”

With these messages it is not inconceivable that Hogan could be chosen as a running mate to a Republican presidential candidate other than Donald Trump. It is also not inconceivable that Hogan could be appointed to a cabinet position or comparable position if a Republican other than Trump is elected next year.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.

Ever think your creative juices are all used up?  Maybe you’re over-the-hill and your best years are long past? Think again. I have been ruminating about older women who are crazy talented and chock full of grit and determination. I wish the world valued their gifts more than they currently do. Many of these women are role models for younger women who are moving on to that stage where they are seen as “past their prime” (as former CNN commentator Don Lemon might say). How misguided is that thinking? It is important to appreciate these women with special gifts who gained even deeper insights as they aged. 

If you haven’t watched the Paramount series 1923, I highly recommend it. It’s a prequel to Yellowstone and follows the series 1883. The series 1923 features Harrison Ford, Helen Mirren and Timothy Dalton, to name a few cast members. It’s well acted and has a compelling plot. In my mind, the star of the series is Helen Mirren. At age 77, Mirren is at the top of her game. She is a phenomenal actress and has won American Academy Awards, British Academy Awards and the Laurence Olivier Award. She’s best known for her portrayals of Queen Elizabeth and for her role in Prime Suspect. Mirren was appointed a Dame for her services to drama in 2003. She is the absolute best actress!  And I might add, her talent only seems to grow as she ages.

Maggie Smith is my second nominee for stellar performances by older actresses. Love, love, love her. Who wasn’t charmed and delighted by her character Violet Crawley in Downton Abbey? At age 88, she too doesn’t appear to be slowing down. She has won two Academy awards, a Tony Award and four Primetime Emmy Awards. She’s best known for her roles in The Prime of Miss Jean Brody, the Harry Potter film series, and Death on the Nile. Let’s hope she continues to add to this amazing acting repertoire.

One of my favorite writers of all time is Maya Angelou. Angelou, considered a poet, memoirist and civil rights activist, died in 2014 at age 86. With her publication of I know Why the Caged Bird Sings in 1969, she told of her life up to age 17. In addition to her prolific writing career, she made several appearances on the lecture series each year and continued doing so well into her 80’s. She recited her poem On the Pulse of Morning at Bill Clinton’s inauguration. Angelou appeared in a supporting role in the series Roots and later became a friend and mentor to Oprah Winfrey. At the age of 85, she published the seventh volume of her autobiography. Her words continue to resonate with so many of us. She was simply amazing. 

I just finished reading the novel Demon Copperhead by Barbara Kingsolver. At age 67, Kingsolver has written a true masterpiece. I found the novel in short, brilliant. Kingsolver took the plot of Dickens’ David Copperfield and transferred it to the plight of a boy growing up in rural Appalachia where she lives. The novel is powerful and an intense description of the plight of the downtrodden in terms of education, healthcare, and discrimination. It also is a novel about salvation. Kingsolver won the Pulitzer Prize for Copperhead as well as the Women’s Prize for Fiction. She is the only woman who has received that award twice. Born in Canada, Kingsolver is a novelist, essayist, poet, literary critic, teacher, environmentalist and inventor. Her best-known works include The Poisonwood Bible, and Animal, Vegetable Mineral.   

For the last few years, I have had the pleasure of attending several Chesapeake Chamber Music Festival Concerts at Easton’s wonderful Ebenezer Theater. If you haven’t gone to one of these concerts, please do. They are spectacular and inspirational. One truly inspiring contributor is Marcy Rosen.  She is the Founder and Artistic Director of the Chesapeake Music Festival, and an outstanding cellist. Every time I hear her play, I am transported. Rosen made her career debut with the Philadelphia Orchestra at age 18. Currently age 66, she has appeared with numerous symphonies and served on the faculties of several schools of music. She is considered one of the most respected musicians of her day and The New Yorker Magazine called her “a New York legend of the cello.”  She has released recordings of Mendelssohn, Strauss and Grieg, and many more, and has collaborated with the world’s finest musicians. Rosen is currently a professor of cello at the Aaron Copeland School of Music at Queens College. We are extremely fortunate to be able to hear her play the cello locally. Her mastery of the cello is beyond impressive. And her familiarity with so much of the music draws you in. It’s as if she’s coming home each time she plays one of her standard favorites.

I applaud the accomplishments of these women who have continued their creative pursuits as they aged. And one could argue many have improved with years gone by. The author Herman Melville once wrote, “To know how to grow old is the master work of wisdom, and one of the most difficult chapters in the great art of living.”  Perhaps we can all take a page from these amazing women’s chapters. 

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, music, reading, gardening, and nature. 

Five years ago today, an angry, deranged man entered the Annapolis Capital Gazette newsroom and killed five defenseless journalists. It was gruesome.

It shattered a sense of peace in Maryland’s capital city. It brought grief to the city.

The killer was upset that the paper had run a column about his harassment of a woman. He sought and failed to gain legal recourse. He then systematically pursued his grudge by blasting away with abandon in a newsroom.

Jarrod Ramos is now spending the rest of his life prison. He leaves a legacy of five dead people and a few survivors scarred for life. He showed no remorse during his trial. He confessed his crime. He claimed insanity as his defense.

Mass shootings are commonplace in our nation. We seem to become inured to the multiple tragedies, the senseless loss of life and community disruption.

Freedom of the press is our primary defense against anarchy and government corruption. The Annapolis Gazette Capital could not defend itself against an assault by a man firing a shotgun filled with hatred and revenge. The victims were faceless victims to the shooter.

A memorial in downtown Annapolis pays tribute to the five journalists and the First Amendment right of free speech. It marks an act of terror. It ensures that a rampage of murder will not be forgotten.

What the tasteful memorial does not do is describe the impact of the violence on the victims’ families, friends and associates. It does not address the human damage to a community’s sense of stability.

A coffee shop now occupies the former site of the Capital Gazette newsroom. Life goes on, as it must. Painful memories remain.

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. After 44 years in Easton, Howard and his wife, Liz, moved in November 2020 to Annapolis, where they live with Toby, a King Charles Cavalier Spaniel who has no regal bearing, just a mellow, enticing disposition.

Why do so many of my fellow citizens like and support Donald Trump? I have worked on this puzzle off and on for the last seven years.

The little I get from MAGA friends is indirect, by inference. That’s because we want to remain friends, and we have agreed to make discussion of Trumpian politics taboo.

But I read articles and listen to Trump supporters on TV. When my Trump pieces are published in The Spy, I save dissenting comments to a Word log that I continue to build – anything that will add another piece to the puzzle.

As an engineer, I have a propensity for analysis, and I know that to understand any difficult problem, especially one involving human views, I must be as objective as I can be. With that in mind, in this piece I take the position of trying to see Trump through the eyes of a MAGA person.

I decided to present my analysis in the form of a top ten list of reasons to like Donald Trump. Note that this list is a compilation of inputs, not all held by every supporter. As with most top-whatever lists, the order will be from least to most important. The order is rather arbitrary, my thinking at this moment. That is, except for Reason #1, which all my data says is deserving of that exalted position. Try to restrain yourself and not skip ahead.

Okay, here goes.

Reason #10 – His physical appearance is attractive. He is tall, large, white, and, though a little overweight, appears physically fit for his age. He is not skinny or obese. He is always well-groomed. He looks good in well-tailored suits. He looks “presidential”, especially beside other world leaders.

Reason #9 – He was good at foreign policy. It was America First, and he called out our NATO partners for not contributing their fair share. He knew how to control authoritarian leaders through a combination of flattery and fear. He admires Vladimir Putin because (a) he is a powerful leader and (b) he helped the right American candidate win in 2016.

Reason #8 – He is an astute communicator. He understands the symbolism of our flag and the Bible. He was quick to grasp the power of Twitter in talking directly to his audience, bypassing the filter of liberal media. Overall, his writing is succinct and not atrocious. It’s never hard to get his meaning. His speech is easy to understand; he doesn’t mumble, slur or stutter.

Reason #7 – He is good for business and our economy. He worked diligently for America. He lowered our personal taxes and excessive taxes on corporations. He was not given enough time to prove that the “trickle down” economics of Reagan and Bush Sr can actually work. He was trying to drain the DC swamp.

Reason #6 – He defends American values and conservative principles. He is a patriot. He wants to return us to a time when America was respected, when certain types of people were less vocal, disruptive, and knew their place. He defends our borders from illegal intruders. He is good at exposing conspiracies against the US (vaccines, deep state rigging of our elections, big pharma, climate change, green energy, and witch-hunters). He agrees with Bobby Kennedy Jr who exposed Dr. Fauci as one who pushed the covid hoax for his own enrichment.

Reason #5 – He is tough, a strongman, an alpha-male with a certain charisma. He is not too nice (think Jimmy Carter). He is a street fighter. If you hit him, he will hit back twice as hard. He knows how to stick it to wokey liberals who play identity politics. He knows how to demean his political opponents by giving them memorable nicknames. Let a criticism go unanswered? Nope. Admit he’s wrong? Never.

Reason #4 – He is sincere. What liberals call lies, he truly believes are not lies. He is not faking it when he says things that seem to have no basis of fact or evidential support. In his mind, these things are true, and I believe that in most cases he is at least partly right. You can trust that he won’t discard you as long as you stay loyal to him.

Reason #3 – He is resolute. He exudes strength of purpose and self-confidence. He is committed to what he believes in. He is not a flip-flopper. He does not equivocate.

Reason #2. He is useful. He works tirelessly to promote long-term conservative principles. He won’t allow liberals to take my guns away. He is pro-life. He appointed dedicated conservative judges. Though he may have a few personal flaws (no one is perfect), the ends justify the means. He is not a liberal, a progressive, or a Democrat.

Reason #1 – He tells me what I want to hear. “Covid will be over by Easter, like a miracle,” and “If re-elected I will end the Ukraine war in 24 hours” are examples.

To explain Reason #1, I am morphing from MAGA avatar back to me. There are two human qualities at work here. The first is that people don’t want to hear bad news, so a potential leader who bears bad tidings will have a hard time getting elected in a democratic society. Al Gore’s “inconvenient truth” of climate change was a good example. The second is “confirmation bias”. People want to believe that which reinforces what they already hold. Thus, MAGA folks are predisposed to believe what Donald trump expounds.

Couple these qualities in a political system where folks are forced to choose (in practical terms) between two less-than-perfect (I’m being kind) candidates, and it helps me understand why so many of my fellow citizens prefer Donald Trump.

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

In a previous commentary, I shared my reasons for my prediction that Donald Trump will not be the Republican nominee for president in 2024. In this commentary, I will share my reasons for my prediction that Joe Biden will not be the Democrat nominee for president in 2024. My reasoning on the Biden prediction is based largely on a review of the 1968 Presidential election.

In 1968 Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) was the incumbent Democrat president. Prior to serving as president, LBJ was a U.S. Senator and ran for the 1960 Democrat presidential nomination in a field of seven candidates. He lost to John F. Kennedy, who then selected LBJ as his running mate. After Kennedy’s assassination, Johnson automatically succeeded him. In 1964, LBJ ran for re-election and branded his Republican opponent – Barry Goldwater — as a radical unhinged ultra conservative who was not fit to serve as president. Johnson won in a landslide. LBJ then immediately and aggressively pursued a very liberal public policy agenda – “The Great Society.” Implementing that policy resulted in inflation, budget deficits, economic turmoil, and civil strife that included rioting in many urban areas. On the foreign policy front, Johnson oversaw a huge buildup of American involvement in the Vietnam war that resulted in heightened tension between America, the Soviet Union, and China.

The parallels to this history recap of 1968 and 2024 are striking. Biden served in the United States Senate and lost to Barack Obama in a bid for the 2008 Democrat presidential nomination. Obama in turn selected Biden as his running mate. Biden served in that role for all eight years of the Obama presidency. In 2020, Biden was nominated by the Democrats for president. Like LBJ, the Biden campaign launched a campaign branding Donald Trump as an unhinged, hot tempered, boorish, loose cannon who was not fit to be President. The media also dutifully advanced a false narrative that Biden would govern as an even tempered and bipartisan moderate. He has not done so. From day one in the Oval Office, Biden has aggressively and unapologetically pursued a robust progressive agenda on domestic affairs. I predict he will not pivot to the center going forward. He simply cannot risk incurring the wrath of the progressive wing of the Democrat Party, plus, at his core, he is and always has been a progressive.

While I have no doubt Biden’s support with the progressive wing of the Democrat Party is deep and solid, I predict his governing record will result in a measurable drop in support from conservative and moderate Democrats who vote in primaries.

Just as in 1964, the top campaign issues in 2024 are likely to be the economy and public safety, with world peace, a third.

I predict Biden’s record, particularly on domestic issues, will lead to the same result in 2024 as Lyndon Johnson’s failure to secure the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968. That is not Republican wishful thinking. The American electorate is shifting.

Results from recent Gallup polling indicate the American electorate is becoming more conservative. Thirty-eight percent of poll respondents said say they are conservative on social issues, up from thirty three percent last year. Forty four percent say they are economically conservative, the highest level since 2012. Voters saying their social views are very liberal or liberal has dipped to twenty nine percent from thirty four percent in each of the past two years, while the portion identifying as moderate (thirty one percent) remains near a third.

Gallup reports further there have been double-digit increases in conservative social ideology among middle-aged adults — those between the ages of 30 and 64. At the same time, older Americans’ ideology on social issues has been stable, while there has been a modest increase in conservative social ideology among young adults.

That reality is also occurring in deep blue Maryland albeit it to a lesser degree.

A recent statewide Gonzales poll indicated that fifty two percent of respondents approved of the job Biden is doing; a six -point drop from January polling results That drop was driven by a nine point drop in support among unaffiliated voters.

A pivot by Biden to a more moderate governing style before the 2024 elections will not happen. A pivot will alienate the progressive wing of the Democrat Party, which is a crucial element of Democrat Party support, especially in primaries. Secondly, moderate and conservative Democrats who vote in primaries will view a pivot to the center as too little, too late.

The recent actions of Biden to reach a compromise on a debt ceiling limit with House Republicans does not foretell more bipartisanship by Biden going forward. This one-off occurrence was the result of grudging acceptance by key decision makers in Washington that failure to enact a debt ceiling limit increase would have resulted in a catastrophic impact on the American and world economy. It is telling that immediately following signing of the debt ceiling limit bill, Biden resumed his take-no-prisoners approach to advancing a progressive agenda.

Last, but certainly not least, is another significant obstacle on Biden’s quest for the 2024 nomination is a replay of events from 1968. In the 1968 New Hampshire Democratic primary, Eugene McCarthy captured a stunning forty two percent of the Democrat primary vote while LBJ got forty eight percent. Soon thereafter, Johnson announced he would no longer pursue, nor would he accept the Democratic presidential nomination.

Earlier this year, Robert F Kennedy Jr. son of Robert F Kennedy, announced that he will challenge Biden in the 2024 New Hampshire primary. The Democrat Party leadership is so concerned about this challenge they changed their primary calendar so that New Hampshire’s long held position as the first in the nation primary will now follow South Carolina. This is telling as South Carolina played a critical role in rescuing a floundering Biden primary run in 2020. Troubling news for Biden is polling reports of polling in New Hampshire showing RFK Jr. getting nineteen percent of the vote. More troublesome for Biden is speculation that his name may not even appear on the New Hampshire Democratic primary ballot so he could lose there by default. Most troublesome for Biden is the fact that three times in recent history, incumbent presidential candidates who survived serious challenges in the primaries leading up to the general election, ended up losing the general election.

The bottom line is Democrat party power brokers understand and embrace the timeless wisdom of George Santayana – “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”.

They may not say it publicly yet, but I am sure they are learning from history. As a result, I predict individually and collectively they are concluding that Joe Biden is unelectable in 2024. Accordingly, they will do whatever they deem necessary to ensure Biden is not their presidential standard bearer in 2024. You can bet on it.

David Reel is a public affairs/public relations consultant who serves as a trusted advisor on strategy, advocacy, and media matters who resides in Easton.