Hope and Shame

If as to prove that most local Democrats do in fact make up the gang that couldn't shoot straight, Annapolis Democrats lost their Mayoral nominee tonight:

Zina C. Pierre, a virtual unknown in Annapolis politics whose primary victory this week put her on track to become the city's first African-American mayor, dropped out of the race Friday evening in the wake of revelations of personal financial problems.

Pierre was besieged with questions about the foreclosure of her Bowie home and several state tax liens.

"Zina Pierre has decided that for personal reasons she will withdraw from the race for the city of Annapolis," said her spokeswoman, Michael Matthews, who declined to comment further.

According to city code, the Annapolis Democratic Central Committee must choose a replacement nominee by early October. Nick Berry, the chair, said the group will move "expeditiously" to appoint a nominee.

Go figure...a Clinton Administration figure with character issues. Who'd have thunk it?

To his credit, our sometimes nemesis Paul Foer broke the story this afternoon:

Zina Celestine Pierre, the recent upset winner in the Democratic Primary for Mayor, has a lengthy history of legal troubles that have repeatedly landed her in court for issues such as mortgage foreclosure, tax lien and a credit union judgment.

According to state records easily available online, Zina C. Pierre is listed as a defendant in 18 civil lawsuits and 3 traffic cases in Prince Georges County, the earliest being 1990 and the most recent two being filed in March of 2009. In all cases she is the defendant.

Five of the civil lawsuits are listed as still active and involve a mortgage foreclosure, a credit union judgment against her (over $6,000), a State of Maryland tax lien ($653), another approximate $6,000 judgment against her and what looks like her company, and another lien. These are just the active and open lawsuits. Among those listed as closed are lawsuits involving Hecht's and Jaguar Land Rover of Annapolis.

managed to not see any reporting, any campaigning, or any discussion of this issue until three days after the Democratic primary. I am completely flabbergasted that a mayoral primary that seemed to have lasted almost a yearEspecially when you consider all of these records were easily accessible via computer.

Looks like Annapolis Democrats were incredibly under served, not just by the other six Democrats who ran for Mayor, but also by local media. The Sun and The Capital managed to completely fumble this story and run no stories about Pierre's background until after her withdrawal from the race. Given how much ink was (rightfully) given to the Sam Shropshire sexual assault allegations, you would have thought that somebody in these journalistic institutions would have thought to sit at the computer and do this basic research.

Score one for the blogosphere, but what a complete embarrassment for the city of Annapolis...

Maryland Democrats catch the Stupids

We rail a lot about Maryland Democrats and their poor decision making, but nothing could possibly have prepared us for the nonstop festival of stupidity and lack of judgment that we have seen from Maryland's Democratic elite in the past week.

First, it all started off with the now infamous marriage proposal of Delegate Jon Cardin, who of course had to invoke the use of the police to propose to his wife in one of the most dangerous, crime ridden cities in America. While this stupid misuse of police resources is obvious to everybody, apparently Cardin's proposal was a hit with Democratic legislative buddies at the Maryland Association of Counties (MACO) Conference in Ocean City last weekend. More curiously the House Ethics Committee, which of spent untold millions investigating Governor Bob Ehrlich's legal hiring and firing of at-will employees, has decided to punt on doing an investigation of this actual ethically challenged decision.

Speaking of MACO, then we come to the first Facebook fiasco of the week. First reported by Adam Pagnucco were the pictures posted from MACO of Governor Martin O'Maley and Mayor Sheila Dixon and other Democratic pols hamming it up down in Ocean City. The pics were posted by Jeremy Rosendale who works in the Governor's office. I know Jeremy, and Jeremy is a good guy, but this was just a bad choice in posting these pictures to Facebook for the entire world to see. But that really isn't biggest issue here; the issue is that elected officials, despite assurances to the contrary, decided to go down to OC and partake in the usual debauchery that happens every year during the MACO conference. And it was because of that debauchery and the presence of these photos that the story really, really blew up.

And while we are talking about special Facebook moments, that brings us to Democratic Delegate Saqib Ali. Ali's Facebook status updates have been interesting insofar as that in the span of three days he called opponents of Obamcare terrorists, and followed that up with a really stupid and offensive joke about Glenn Beck's grandmother.

On top of that, apparently Sun reporter Michael Dresser seems to think Ali's offensive comment is funny.

What has gotten into Maryland Democrats that has made them lose even more of their common sense? While thes transgressions are little more than blips on the political radar, they are more indicative of a dangerous arrogance seen in Maryland Democrats. These Democrats seem to think that they can do no wrong, that they are above reproach, and that nothing can stop them from doing or saying whatever they want, regardless of the ethics or the consequences of the situation. It is a key character trait from people who believe that they are entitled to lead in a single-party state.

It's just a sad, sad state of affairs that elected officials believe that this kind of behavior is acceptable (and, apparently, approved by Baltimore Sun reporters).

Bombastic Pomposity

We all know and accept that Dan Rodricks cannot put a logical argument together if he saved his life. But please read his column on gun violence today and try to make some sense of his idiotic conclusions regarding how gun control impacts law abiding citizens.

"REALITY killed the gun control debate," Volensky, the e-mailer from Alabama, went on. "People are finally realizing how foolish 'gun control' is and that they have a RIGHT if not a duty to take responsibility for their own safety. They are finally realizing that criminals are criminals and are not going to obey the laws that hack politicians put in place to appease people such as yourself. They are finally realizing that the only people affected by gun control laws are the law abiding."

There's some truth to that, Bruce.

I'm sure the 13 people who were shot to death at the immigration center in Binghamton were law-abiding, maybe even perfectly peaceful, people. I'm sure the children of Christopher Wood, the Middletown dad who apparently shot them before killing himself, respected the laws, as much as they even had an awareness of them.

Indeed, law-abiding people are profoundly affected by our gun-control laws - the lack of them.

So to recap Rodricks point, the lack of gun control laws are responsibile for senseless killings. The lack of gun control laws, not law-breaking murderers, are responsible for their deaths. And that additional gun control laws would have stopped the Binghamton shootings, shootings that took place in a state with some of the most draconian gun control laws already on the books.

It's not that Rodricks support for gun control offends me so much as his complete lack of logic and a basic understanding of human reasoning. Clearly, in Rodricks elementary view, America needs more of whatever is not working. But taking what isn't working and doing more of it, it will solve the problem.

Riiiiiight.

Then, let's move on to this nugget:

We can keep arguing about this - that it's people, not guns, that cause all the violence. But guns make it easier for disturbed people to kill their spouses or children. Guns are behind most of the gang terror in America, and guns make the mass killings possible.

The following items also make it easier for disturbed people to kill their spouses or children

• Cars
• Knives
• Rope
• Chains
• Cords for Window Blinds
• Icepicks
• Hammers
• Screwdrivers
• Gasoline
• Box Cutters

This would probably be a good time to also point out that the largest mass murders in American history took place because terrorists used boxcutters to hijack planes. The second largest required a nut job who bought fertilizer and rented a truck. Good times Should we have draconian, unconstitutional on all of those items. Of course not, because that would be idiotic. Just like Rodricks suggestion about guns.

Maybe this would be a good time for Rodricks to actually read something other than the Journolist talking points.....such as yesterday's decision on the right to bear arms from the Ninth Circuit!(!) upholding gun ownership as an individual right, and maybe that will educate him a bit as to why we aren't trying to hinder the basic constitutional rights of Americans.

Not the very model of a modern Money Manager

By now you are probably familiar with the fact that I don't find Dan Rodricks to be particularly bright, insightful, or generally having any grasp of common sense. And while today's column does not rival his several treatises on involuntary servitude, Rodricks again shows his complete lack of understanding of the theory of money as it relates to corporate bonuses, hoarding, and the fall of Western Civilization:

It's not just greed that drives this behavior, though greed is certainly part of it......

There's something else going on. I call it: hoarding up for the apocalypse.

I have been watching the concentration of wealth in this country accelerate during the past 10 years in particular. The gap between middle class and rich has become wider and wider, and the gap between rich and poor has become so vast as to be immeasurable.....

Knowing that it wasn't always so, I've tried to figure out why so many millionaires of the corporate class do everything within their power to become multimillionaires and even billionaires, piling on layer after layer of wealth, beyond anything most people can imagine as necessary in a lifetime.....

...Hoarding for the apocalypse calls for belief that the end is coming and that wealth will insulate the wealthy from the misery that will befall the rest of us. (The rest of us might harbor apocalyptic fears, from time to time, but we haven't figured out what to do about them. We're wage-earners, for the most part, or the owners of small businesses. We haven't all that much to hoard - not enough to make a difference, anyway - so we keep working to keep the bills paid and the kids fed.)

The apocalyptic rich have hoarded cash and assets - and they continue to accumulate as much as possible - and they've built retreats to allay a deep fear that, when the world starts to fall apart, they will be at the top of a mountain, in a secure compound with its own source of energy and potable water (and a decade's supply of cabernet), isolated from the screaming, rioting masses.

As the world's population grows, as the recession expands and unemployment worsens, as the globe continues to warm and the oceans rise, as questions about the future of energy and natural resources become graver, as civil unrest becomes a greater concern, the masters of the universe grab all they can. It's an Idaho panhandle mentality on Wall Street - hoard money and assets, and enough golf balls to ride out the coming cataclysm. There's social Darwinism at play in this, to be sure - survival of the richest - but it's the most cynical and self-centered kind, based not on enterprise or capitalism, but on a dark view of the future. Their concept of the greater good is gone, and they certainly display nothing you might call civic-mindedness or patriotism.

Now, if you follow Rodricks' logic here, the rich on Wall Street are hoarding money and resources to stave off the collapse of civilization (at least that's what I think Rodricks means; you've got to do a good job of suspending belief in logic and reason because this guy is a few peas short of a casserole).

Now I'm no expert on the end of the world, but I have read Lucifer's Hammer several times. And in that apocalyptic, post-civilization landscape, the last thing that was of any use to anybody was paper currency or money that was accounted to them in a computer system that was no longer functional. And while the accumulation of resources such as non-perishable food, water, guns, and ammo are important to surviving the end of the world, it's not exactly like there has been a demonstrable run on most of these things. And what increases there have been in the sales of guns and ammo have more to do with concerns over the Obama Administration's warped view of the Second Amendment more than it does with an impending breakdown in law and order.

What's equally absurd is Rodricks assertion that these folks are building such compounds, stocking up on supplies and "upgrading their corporate jets." It seems like Rodricks imagined these so called trends of the rich while on whatever planet he just checked back in from and didn't bother to supply one iota of even anecdotal evidence to back up his point. It's not like there are a multitude of hedge fund managers wandering the streets in Brooks Brothers suits buying ammo, 4 tons of beef jerky, and a subscription to Soldier of Fortune.

Truth be told, I think that Rodricks issue here has little to do with bonuses, survivalism or "the concept of the greater good." I think that the probleme here is actually jealousy. Dan Rodricks is a hack writer for a failing, increasingly irrelevant newspaper. His tv show stunk. He hosts a show on a radio station nobody listens to. And it's quite apparent that his ideas for nationalized forced servitude, nationalization of industry, and wealth equalization are mocked and not accepted by the preponderance of the middle and working class readership that see through his shtick. Rodricks probably was the guy who made fun of people in high school who worked hard and paid attention to their studies, and those are the guys getting bonuses. Meanwhile, a guy with no demonstrable skills, original ideas, or clue like Rodricks can't get ahead and it drives him crazy. Rodricks is living a freaking Morrissey song, and it eats him up.

I'm not going to argue that the bonuses Rodricks rails against are a good idea, good policy, or good public relations for the companies that are or were considering offering them to employees. Companies look silly for offering them, and the Government looks silly for companies receiving government funds to allow them. But to extrapolate and accuse "the rich" of hoarding and preparing for an imagined apocalypse is a bridge too far, and proves that the crackpot ideas being put forth by Dan Rodricks are not to snuff even for an increasingly less relevant Baltimore Sun.

The Sun never shines on education

I am only somewhat puzzled and surprised by The Sun's editorial this morning on the positions of Senator McCain and Obama on Education.

First off, the editorial notes the following truism about the boondoggle known as No Child Left Behind:

Senators Obama and McCain also both acknowledge that the federal No Child Left Behind Act passed under the Bush administration is inadequate. The law requires schools to make steady improvements in instructional quality each year as measured by student performance on standardized achievement tests. But it doesn't provide money for schools to hire better teachers, upgrade curriculum and equipment or create after-school enrichment programs. The law is a classic example of an unfunded mandate that leaves struggling states and local governments to pick up the tab for costly federal initiatives.

Yes, everybody on both sides can agree that No Child Left Behind is a cataclysmic failure of trying to solve local-level problems with national-level solutions. And I will concede that NCLB is a large unfunded mandate that is really putting a crimp into budgets at the state and local level.

And then, the Sun goes off the reservation:

And that's where the main difference between the candidates lies: Senator Obama promises to fully fund the NCLB law and make quality public education available to every child.

It is completely illogical (other than nothing that the fact that the Sun is in the bag for Obama) to insinuate that Obama clearly has a workable plan. Just one paragraph before, the Sun alluded to the fact that NCLB is a failure. Now, somehow, through the magic of The One, NCLB will suddenly work solely because he will "fully fund" it, whatever that means. Pay no mind to the fact that it is an unworkable, liberal solution to the problem that was strangely championed by George W. Bush. Never mind the fact that both conservatives and liberals dislike this law. The Sun somehow thinks that fully funding it will create a magic solution for education, and that money will make NCLB's problems vanish.

Of course Obama's plan goes a little beyond that, proposing all sorts of feel-good programs that will bankrupt the budget, including compulsory pre-school and a national "Zero-to-Five" education plan that sounds like federalized education taken to all its Marxist glory.

So naturally, when Senator McCain proposes something really different, the Sun throws him under the bus:

Senator McCain, by contrast, says the law's shortcomings merely show that parents should have more choice about where to send their children to school; that's why he favors giving money directly to parents, in the form of vouchers, to pay for private school tuition

God forbid Senator McCain and those in favor of school choice actually want to get kids, you know, educated. But the editorial was not content to stop there, no, the race and class card was next out of the deck:

In a city such as Baltimore, the problem with Mr. McCain's plan is obvious. Even if substantial numbers of parents took advantage of vouchers to flee to private schools, there still would be tens of thousands of children trapped in troubled or failing public schools. And those schools would have less hope than ever of getting federal help to get better. In a reprise of the racially segregated school systems of the past, such a plan would re-create a dual school system, based on class and funded by taxpayer dollars, that would benefit a lucky few at the expense of the vast majority.

Of course, what the ivory tower crowd fails to realize is that there is already a dual school system; private schools for those who can afford it, public schools for those who can't. And guess what? Those private schools are, currently, benefiting a "lucky few" even while those parents still have to pay taxes to fund the schools attended by the vast majority. And her is an interesting quote from Senator McCain's website which should really illuminate the issue for everybody:

If a school will not change, the students should be able to change schools. John McCain believes parents should be empowered with school choice to send their children to the school that can best educate them just as many members of Congress do with their own children. He finds it beyond hypocritical that many of those who would refuse to allow public school parents to choose their child's school would never agree to force their own children into a school that did not work or was unsafe. They can make another choice. John McCain believes that is a fundamental and essential right we should honor for all parents.

Does it not make more sense to ensure that more children have the opportunity to improve their station in life? Isn't it more important to provide more opportunities for children to learn, succeed, and avoid being drawn in to urban drug culture and criminality? Apparently not to the Sun's editorial board, who would rather continue throwing money at policies and programs that don't work as opposed to trying something to benefit the children.

The Sun should be ashamed for expressing support for Obama's so-called education plan. Continuing what has failed generations of school children sentences a new generation of students to the continued acceptance of failure in the public classroom....and it's certainly not a change that anybody can believe in. Senator McCain's plan is certainly not a panacea, but it does not accept continued failure in the classroom as an option, which Barack Obama seems content with.

Off the Needed Path

Somehow, the ever sanctimonious Michael Dresser seems to think this is a feasible alternative to a new Bay Bridge:

Perhaps, as a toll agency, the authority feels an affection toward its counterpart in Delaware. But the combined toll for a weekend jaunt to the beach using the authority's suggested route comes to $13 for a passenger vehicle ($5 for Interstate 95 in Maryland, $4 for the Delaware Turnpike and $4 for Delaware Route 1). Hardly an incentive to avoid the $2.50 toll on the Bay Bridge, is it? Here's a modest proposal: Shift traffic to the northern route by reversing the toll incentives. The authority could adopt a modified version of congestion pricing on the bridge, raising the rate at times of peak weekend congestion to, say, $10 (exempting commuters and other frequent users).

Then, when emergencies close lanes, the authority could jack those prices up to truly demand-dampening rates. Let's say $20. That's still a pretty good deal when the previous alternative was a ferry.

That's the stick. The carrot would be to refund tolls on Interstate 95 and other toll facilities to motorists who use those alternate routes to reach the Eastern Shore during peak bridge travel periods. (There are ways.) Once you have the toll incentives in place, you stop giving Marylanders bad advice on reaching the beach and instead provide smart directions -- such as cutting over to U.S. 40 to avoid the Delaware Turnpike.

So instead of building a new bridge, Dresser would rather create a confusing myriad of "solutions" of allowing people to reach the beach. Of course, the cornerstone of this idea of is to really jack the tolls up at the existing Bay Bridge, but like any good liberal he completely ignores local economic factors in creating such a decision. With so many people living on th Eastern Shore who work on the Western Shore, it would virtually create a new tax aimed specifically at people who live and work on opposite shores. When you factor in the number of businesses in Greater Annapolis and Kent County that have business relationships with each other, Dresser's cockamamie idea really starts to become absurd and unfair tax on Anne Arundel and Kent County residents who already can factor in existing tolls into their household or small business budgets.

Don't worry though. Dresser's silly ideas don't end there. Because when in doubt, why not spend more taxpayer dollars:

Here's how the authority could spread out the traffic and lure people away from the Bay Bridge: There are two stops along I-95 where many travelers already pause for a cup of coffee and a bite to eat: the Maryland House and the Chesapeake House. The authority could set up kiosks there to distribute "goody bags" including directions to different Delmarva destinations and coupons good for gas and goods and services at the beach and at businesses along the different routes. Throw in claim forms for Maryland toll refunds and vouchers to cover tolls along Route 1 in Delaware.

How about a stuffed "Cecil the Bridgeless Bear" to honor the intrepid beast who made it to the Shore last week without paying a toll? The goal should be to make the northern route the No. 1 choice for Baltimore-area leisure travelers (and truckers). That frees up a more costly but less crowded Bay Bridge for folks from Annapolis and Washington while taking traffic pressure off Kent Island.

This is useful dialog? I don't think so.

It continually and constantly befuddles me that a so-called "expert" in transportation like Dresser would continually propose all sorts of off-the-wall solutions, but not endorse the most obvious, most useful solution of all to Bay Bridge traffic....

Crybaby

Apparently Susan Reimer never learned the Golden Rule: "treat others as you would like to be treated."

After Reimer's hateful, bitter, pathetic, puerile, lame hate screed against Governor Sarah Palin published in Monday's paper, she seems legitimately shocked that people were offended, and she was the subject of hateful attacks against her person.

Now I'm not going to defend personal attacks made by readers against Reimer. Just because Reimer launched a series of unnecessary personal shots at Senator McCain and Governor Palin doesn't mean people should respond in kind. But questioning Reimer's charachter and judgment are completely in line, and can be expected after the kind of crap that she wrote under her own name.

One line that did give me a chuckle was this:

So much pent-up anger, so much barely concealed hate was released in those e-mails and those postings. I wonder where next they will find a vent.

Gee, I wonder who unleashed pent-up agner and barely concealed first? Perhaps in was an in-over-her-head Baltimore Sun columnist maybe?

Obviously, given Reimer's column, this is clearly how she wanted to be treated though. Otherwise, she would not have subjected Senator McCain and Governor Palin to this kind of treatment...

The Real Letter to the Editor

The Sun published my letter to the editor yesterday regarding Susan Reimer's hateful, bitter, pathetic, puerile, lame column from September 1st. Of course, certain part of the letter just didn't make it into print. Included the sections that were bolded. I wonder why.....

Susan Reimer's column of September 1^st is one of the more patently offensive pieces printed in the Baltimore Sun in some time. While Reimer is free to support whichever candidate she pleases, her puerile and shallow rant against the selection of Governor Palin should not pass by without rebuke.

In one disturbing swoop, Reimer takes unnecessary cheap shots at Senator John McCain's age and health, Governor Sarah Palin's gender, Governor Palin's education at a public university, and most shockingly, Governor Palin's young child with Down's Syndrome. I find it hard to believe that the Sun thinks that such discrimination on the basis of age, gender, class, and developmental disability should be promoted and encouraged in its pages by its columnists.

It is unacceptable and inappropriate to demean Governor Palin in this manner, particularly when her qualifications, experience, ethics, and judgment far exceed those of Barack Obama.

Unfortunately, I have come to expect such unenlightened drivel from certain Sun columnists, particularly Ms. Reimer. The Sun should no longer tolerate the blatant and unacceptable discrimination Susan Reimer promoted in her column, particularly in light of the Sun's prior dalliances with discrimination against Lt. Governor Michael Steele on the basis of his race during the 2002 gubernatorial campaign.

Brian Griffiths Pasadena

Gee, couldn't imagine why the Sun wouldn't want to revisit that episode. What bothers me is the fact that I spoke with Franz Schneiderman, the editor of the letters page, on Wednesday regarding my letter. He had issues with the fact that I pointed out that Reimer's column was sexist, something that Schneiderman said "he didn't see." At no point did he ever indicate that he planned on removing my factual statement against the Sun'sSun's hateful and bitter tirade against Lt. Governor Steele. It's disappointing that Scheniderman, in his capacity as letters editor, would try to flush the Sun's past hatefulness down the memory hole, yet sadly I am hardly surprised anymore....

Rodricks a waste of printable space

Dan Rodricks, as usual, proved he's not that smart today with his column regarding Michael Phelps and the drinking age.

Rodricks tries to make the argument that because Michael Phelps was arrested for drunk driving at 19, clearly it proves that the drinking age should not be lowered from 21 to 18.

That's his entire argument. As illogical as it is. Never mind the fact that drunk driving is a crime separate from that of underage drinking. Never mind the fact that he makes no other connection between Phelps' arrest and the drinking age. Rodricks just wants the reader to make some sort of unspoken, innate connection between drunk driving and lowering the drinking age.

It is reasonable to believe that the drinking age should remain 21. Rodricks argument, however, is somewhere between ridiculous and nonexistent.

Maybe if the Sun really wanted to attract readers, they would stop redesigning the paper every six months and instead replace columnists like Rodricks with reasonably talented, reasonably intelligent writers who can defend their positions in a logical, reasonable manner. Because let's face it, printing a Rodricks column is little more than a waste of paper and ink.

The Bay Bridge, Traffic Safety, and the Human Condition

A couple of stories tie together here today.

First off, the Sun's resident totalitarian Michael Dresser wants to turn the Bay Bridge into Big Brother's Rumpus Room:

That's why there is nowhere in the state where the case is stronger for vigorous use of video technology to enforce the law. Not just to issue automated speeding tickets but also to identify other offenders who can be pulled over once they're off the bridge. I'd like to see a defendant in District Court try to explain away video evidence of tailgating.

There's also a strong argument that traffic violations on the authority's bridges and tunnels deserve tougher sanctions. If fines are doubled in work zones, why not triple them on the Bay Bridge and other toll facilities? (The Harbor Tunnel, Fort McHenry Tunnel, Key Bridge, the U.S. 40 bridge over the Susquehanna and the U.S. 301 bridge over the Potomac. I'd exempt the toll section of Interstate 95 because it doesn't raise the same issues.)

It wouldn't take long before folks absorbed the message that Maryland toll bridges and tunnels are someplace where you drive as if your mom were in the car.

Of course, what Dresser suggests is patently illegal under state law. And frankly, it's a bit Pollyannaish too. Only a liberal would dare suggest that the presence of a camera is going to deter insane or criminal behavior. If they did, the areas around police cameras in Baltimore would be the safest places in Maryland. Why is that not so? Because cameras can only punish the act. They do not prevent the act itself and thus do nothing to protect the public safety, as liberals like to suggest.

Using technology to catch drivers on the Bay Bridge would be no different, and would probably serve only one purpose; revenue enhancement. We have see speed and red-light cameras across the country installed in places where they serve little purpose but to line the pockets of local government, to say nothing of the fact that they create traffic headaches and likely cause accidents. Of course, facts never stopped Dresser from promoting nonsense before...

While Dresser wants to baby us, an article in the Wilson Quarterly goes in a....different direction:

In the last few years, however, one traffic engineer did achieve a measure of global celebrity, known, if not exactly by name, then by his ideas. His name was Hans Monderman. The idea that made Monderman, who died of cancer in January at the age of 62, most famous is that traditional traffic safety ­infra­structure—­warning signs, traffic lights, metal railings, curbs, painted lines, speed bumps, and so ­on—­is not only often unnecessary, but can endanger those it is meant to protect.

As I drove with Monderman through the northern Dutch province of Friesland several years ago, he repeatedly pointed out offending traffic signs. “Do you really think that no one would perceive there is a bridge over there?” he might ask, about a sign warning that a bridge was ahead. “Why explain it?” He would follow with a characteristic maxim: “When you treat people like idiots, they’ll behave like idiots.”

Emphasis mine....and read the whole thing. Because Monderman was right. The nanny state, in all of its forms, creates nothing but babies, people who cannot function without government oversight. Overregulation, overprotection dumbs us down. It's why kids who used to ride their bikes without helmets in the middle of the road to play ball at a neighbors house stay inside because parents are afraid of getting sued for a cut sustained on their property and overprotective parents want to dress their kids up enough pads before getting on a bike to take part in a jousting event. Is it any wonder kids are sedentary and show no interest in fiddling with things, and no interest in being outside?

And that is the kind of logic that people like Dresser wants to apply to the highways, and people like Dresser want to apply to every situation. They want to over-regulate to the point where nobody is safe. Sure, Monderman's principles on traffic control are revolutionary and perhaps a little too over the top. But are they really any different, as I noted before, from the laws of the Autobahn which has few regulations, but find those regulations strictly enforced? At the very least, Monderman's ideas appeal to our basic principles that the government that governs best governs least, and idea subscribed to by the majority of averaged Americas.

Finally, as a tribute to Monderman and finger in the eye of Dresser, I heartily endorse this idea from Donald Sensing:

So it's less polluting to drive than fly, right? And it appears that is is rapidly becoming just as quick to drive as fly on not only short-range flights, but increasingly on medium-range flights as well.

So here's my global-warming-fighting plan: significantly increase the speed limits on the nation's interstate highways. That will make driving rather than flying even more appealing, more financially attractive and less time consuming.

By "significantly increase" the speed limits, I mean to triple-digit speeds. The present limit in Tennessee in 70 mph. So let's reset it to 100, minimum.

Here, here. A plan that fights global warming, a plan that provides for greater national security, and a plan that embraces Monderman's idea for relatively unregulated roads. Quite Panglossian.

When can we sign up?

What remains unsaid

The Sun again realizes something that has existed for quite some time:

Maryland's rural areas are likely to have a serious shortage of doctors in coming years, the state's medical establishment has warned.

Two government panels that are preparing recommendations on the problem for the governor and the 2009 General Assembly are studying the conclusions of a report by the Maryland Hospital Association and MedChi, the Maryland state medical society.

The report, known as the Maryland Physician Workforce Study, concludes that a shortage of doctors in rural Maryland is likely to worsen significantly by 2015 as older physicians retire and new ones choose to practice elsewhere.

Of course this is almost identical to an article they wrote in January that said the same thing.

But more troubling is the fact that, like the January article, the Sun provides political cover for the Democrats. What remains unsaid is that t was the Democrats, remember, who objected to Governor Ehrlich's medical malpractice reform during the 2004 Special Session. It was the Democrats who wanted to allow for unlimited caps on lawsuits against doctors and medical practitioners. And it was the Democrats whose obsequiousness to the trial lawyer lobby led them to create a situation like this one, that encourages doctors to pack up and leave the state.

And that's to say nothing about higher taxes...

That's what is pathetic about the Sun's article. The failed medical malpractice reform, combined with higher taxes and higher expenses, are driving doctor's out of the state. Like just about every problem facing Maryland right now, the cause for this one can be laid squarely at the feet of the Democratic majority...

Taking the good with the batty

Noted lefty-loon Michael Dresser actually looked like he was starting out with something interesting and sensible this morning:

Tom Hicks knows almost everything there is to know about Maryland highways. He's 75, and has been the State Highway Administration's chief traffic safety engineer for 40 years. He's as frisky and energetic as a new recruit and isn't planning to retire "till I get it right."

Hicks is a passionate advocate of safer roads but not a by-the-book devotee of current posted speed limits. In fact, he's all for raising the speed limit on some Maryland highways.

"We're really somewhat fraudulent in our speed limits - like on the Beltway," Hicks said during a recent extended chat at the highway administration's safety office near BWI.

OK, that's a good start. What was next?

Hicks said that on limited-access highways, it's safest for drivers to go with the flow rather than stick to the legal limit. Based on years of study of driver behavior, he has a high degree of confidence in the judgment of most folks on the road. Except for a stubbornly fast 10 to 15 percent, he said, drivers tend to choose a sensible rate of speed - regardless of the posted limit.

"The motorist is setting a pace based on conditions at the time, no matter what the signs are," Hicks said. What matters most to safety, he said, is "relative speed." That is, the less difference between thee and me and all the others on the road, the better.

Hey, it looks like somebody is finally starting to make sense when it comes to traffic policy, speed limits, and law enforcement. And of course, it is a traffic engineer. It's nice to see that somebody who has the experience and the background on speed limits and traffic flow is speaking out so publicly about how bad state policy is in setting speed limits on limited-access highways.

Of course, never one to actually make a lick of sense, Dresser pipes in with his own poppycock:

My suggestion, for which Hicks is blameless: Increase the prevailing speed limit on roads such as the beltways, Route 32 and Route 100, but couple that with stiffer enforcement, including the use of cameras. Cut the unofficial police zone of tolerance, now 10 to 15 mph, roughly in half.

Next, establish 80 mph - or 20 over the limit - as the Line of Doom for Maryland roads. Mandatory court date for reckless driving. No probation. Big insurance bills. Big billboard campaign.

Yes, this is no less crazy than when Dresser floated such nonsense on Christmas Morning 2006. Of course, this is completely insane assuming that the highest threshold would be 85 MPH on a posted 65 MPH roadway. One can easily and safely negotiate most highways in the region that are outside of the immediate metropolitan areas at speeds of 85 or higher. Artificially limiting speeds at 85 will do nothing but exacerbate the existing problems. It still takes the judgment away from the driver and the police officer and immediately creates a crime that may or may not be happening at the time.

Dresser's cockamamie plan will accomplish nothing but higher court fees, higher administrative costs and, somewhat ironically, fewer cops on the street to enforce his silly idea.

Opposing Mass Transit is not racism

The always clueless Michael Dresser of the Sun uses a "progressive Democrat" to mock the people of Carroll County:

Last week's column on commuter bus routes - and the mortal fear they strike into the hearts of some in Carroll County - brought this from Neil M. Ridgely of Finksburg:

"When I first moved here there were still Klan meetings in Gamber and a bar under the Bagel Shop in Westminster that closed rather than integrate.

I've run for County Commissioner twice as a progressive Democrat. Unsuccessfully - no wonder - although land use, not race, was the major topic in each campaign.

Mass transit in Carroll County is just code for "them people," meaning anybody other than us Anglo-Saxons. It's a hard place to adjust to. Some never do make the adjustment after as many as 30 years."

Give yourself another 30, Neil, and maybe you'll fit in.

The Sun should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this kind of drivel to run in their paper. As someone who has spent a lot of time in Carroll County, the issue with mass transit in Carrol County has nothing to do with race and everything to do with land use and growth. The fact of the matter is that the preponderance of Carroll County residents are tired of seeing growth with the flight of suburbanites from the inner suburbs to places like Finksburg and Eldersburg, only to have them come out to Carroll County and complain about all of the things they don't have in the suburbs. I haven't seen race baiting this bad directed at Carroll County since last summer.

And for Dresser to use the words of a frustrated Democrat who twice got his ass kicked running for County Commissioner because his views are so far to the left that folks in Montgomery County may wince is bad form.

True, the issue of race in Carroll County has not always been pleasant. But county opposition to against mass transit is about problems with growth, not race. As usual, Dresser lets his liberal political bent cloud a column when it's not appropriate....

Illegal still means Illegal

Unsurprisingly, the Sun Editorial Board has a problem with the Anne Arundel County Police arresting people accused of committing crimes:

Mr. Leopold's comments play well in this conservative county, but they do a disservice to residents who may be unfairly targeted because of their ethnicity. His rush to judgment rouses less kind emotions.

Mr. Leopold says his even-handed approach to immigration helps those who play by the rules and is tough with those who don't. Providing $14,000 in county funds to an organization that helps legal immigrants navigate the citizenship bureaucracy will have benefits. But his decision to refuse grant money to a group that couldn't identify the citizenship status of its clients will likely drive those immigrants further into the shadows.

The Annapolis raid was part of the Bush administration's stepped-up enforcement at workplaces. But these raids aren't the answer to the estimated 11 million people who live here illegally. The country can't arrest its way out of this problem. And local efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants have more political impact than practical effect. This is a national problem that demands a comprehensive federal solution.

Of course the Sun is completely glossing over the fact that illegal immigrants are still in this country illegally. While the editorial is correct that the country cannot arrest its way out of the problem, and that business owners who knowingly employ illegal aliens should face consequences for their actions, that does not mean that police officers should turn a blind eye to the enforcement of our immigration laws.

Illegal immigration is a severe problem in this country, and clearly not enough is being done across the board. Illegal immigrants should not be immune from prosecution and deportation due to their crimes merely because immigration policy across the nation is broken, as the Sun seems to suggest.

Additionally, the enforcement action has nothing to do with racial politics, as the editorial board sheepishly insinuates, nor is it because John Leopold is playing to the voters in our county. Obfuscation of the immigration issue behind such political excuses further cheapens the immigration issue, and unnecessarily adds a racial and political component to what is clearly an issue of national security first and foremost.

As a nation of laws, it is absurd that the Sun would suggest that these laws be ignored without a national solution. The law is in place, and jurisdictions at the local, state, and federal levels all need to step up to ensure its enforcement.

Puff Piece

The Sun today ran a pretty irritating puff piece about the new members to the Anne Arundel County Board of Education. Not irritating because a piece ran, but irritating because reporter Susan Gvozdas manged to go the entire article without actually calling unregistered Democratic lobbyist Teresa Milio Birge an unregistered Democratic lobbyist.

Sure Gvozdas talked about all of Birge's service as a Democratic committee staffer in Annapolis, serving as the lobbyist of the Maryland Municipal League, and her "part time as a government relations consultant and as special assistant to the director of state relations for the University System of Maryland" all without actually mentioning that Birge was working as a lobbyist.

Of course, what little things of substance that Birge talked about in the article are pretty irritating too:

Birge, 36, who has two children, said she hopes to use her background working with the House of Delegates' Appropriation Committee to help demystify the budget process for her constituents in West County. After watching the county executive and the superintendent battle over budget items, she wants to find a way to tone down the rhetoric and work together.

"That was very difficult for everyone," Birge said. "I would hope in the future we could avoid that."

Read as: "I am going to stand for the status quo and support whatever Superintendent Maxwell wants me to support. I would hope in the future we can tone down the rhetoric by having the County Council and County Executive roll over and die and do whatever the Superintendent asks."

As expected, it looks like the Sun will be in the bag for the retention of Birge and the continuation of this cockamamie "retention election" farce...

What's the Big Deal?

Catching up from yesterday, the Sun had an editorial bemoaning the Supreme Court's decision in an Indiana case requiring voters to identify themselves before casting their ballot:

By upholding Indiana's voter identification law, the U.S. Supreme Court has virtually ignored the nation's ignominious history of disenfranchising certain groups and sanctioned an overly restrictive solution in search of a problem. While the court's 6-3 ruling is not expected to have a major effect on the coming presidential election, it is likely to encourage more states to follow Indiana's lead, guaranteeing that more Americans could be denied one of the most basic rights in a democracy. Maryland should stick to its convictions and continue rejecting stricter voter ID requirements.

I am extremely confused by the Sun's logic on this one. On one hand, the Sun wants to protect "one of the most basic rights in a democracy" while simultaneously refusing to support ID measures that would strengthen that right. The fact of the matter is that when somebody casts their vote illegally, it cheapens the vote and diminishes the rights of all of those individuals who do the right thing, follow the law, and only vote legally.

Furthermore, the argument that ID requirement would negatively impact the poor and the elderly is just spurious. How in the world can anybody logically survive these days without some sort of identification card? And when you consider that the Motor Vehicle Administration issues non drivers-license identification cards, I'm not sure what the argument is.

Finally, the Sun trots out this silliness:

Rooting out voter fraud may be a legitimate concern, but ID laws such as Indiana's have taken on a distinctly partisan cast - generally favored by Republicans and opposed by Democrats - and seem to be more about limiting the right to vote. In a nation where voter participation is pretty pitiful, states such as Maryland that have successfully resisted stricter voting requirements come closer to the democratic ideal.

Again, there is no logical sense in this argument either. While sometimes the arguments for voter ID take on a partisan take, they really should not. It's not about limiting the right to vote, it's about limiting voter fraud, something that is all too common in places like Maryland, that do not have strict voter ID requirements.

If we all want to protect the sanctity of our votes, we all should support common sense voter ID laws like the Indiana law the Supreme Court just upheld.

Two Days Late

Two days after reading it here, the Sun finally gets around to reporting John Flynn's departure (without crediting me, of course):

Party seeking new director

The Maryland Republican Party is looking for a new executive director after John Flynn resigned this week to take a job as general counsel for Americans for Prosperity, a public interest group in Washington.

Flynn became the party's executive director in January 2007 as Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley took office after defeating former Republican Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.

Later that year, the party reported that it was nearly broke. State GOP Chairman James Pelura said yesterday that Flynn helped rebuild the party and draw more small donations that allowed it to pay off debts.

"I was left with a lot of debt and very little fundraising ability in the way of large donors," Pelura said. "The Republican base is excited and energized again, and John was instrumental in helping me see that through."

I'll let you interpret the comments that you just read regarding the state of the party for yourselves...

The Morality of Taxes

Sun reporter Michael Dresser provides virtually glowing commentary in beginning his article about the new "Millionaire's bracket":

It's quite an exclusive club, Maryland's new millionaires' tax bracket. A little more than 6,000 households statewide qualify for the distinction - more than 40 percent of whom reside in Montgomery County....

...With the General Assembly's passage of the new 6.25 percent top tax rate on incomes above $1 million, and Gov. Martin O'Malley's signing of the bill yesterday, Maryland has apparently become the first state to create an actual millionaires' bracket.

Some other states have created high-income tax brackets - some paying rates that make Maryland's levy look like a bargain - but they kick in at lower thresholds. For instance, New Jersey residents in the top income bracket pay a rate of 8.97 percent but don't receive the cachet of being in a millionaires' club because it applies to all income above $500,000.

Democrats even found the opportunity to trot out cheerleaders to talk about how great it was that Annapolis was going to screw them tax them more:

"I've had numerous people come up to me in the course of these last few months and whisper to me that they are in that highest bracket of millionaires and they are willing and they are able to pay their fair share," he said.

By the end of the session, the idea of taxing the rich wasn't looking so bad to many of the Assembly's leaders. O'Malley jumped aboard the repeal bandwagon and re-endorsed the millionaires' tax.

Ed Hale, chief executive of First Mariner Bank in Baltimore, said he told O'Malley the computer tax had to go - even if he had to pay more in income tax.

"Any self-respecting person that was wealthy enough could pay more tax just because of the quality of life in the state of Maryland," he said. "It's much ado about nothing for a very few people."

Which is fantastic. Maybe Ed Hale can pay my taxes too if he thinks it's so awesome. And just to prove the point how awesome this all is in the eyes of the Sun and the eyes of Annapolis Democrats, let's go to an example:

The average income reported by those in the new bracket was $3.1 million. That translates to an extra $15,000 a year for three years until the surcharge sunsets - or just about the $45,000 that would put a mid-range BMW in the three-car garage - compared with the law at the beginning of the session. (In some cases, some of that extra cost could be offset by federal tax deductions.)

That argument is, of course, ridiculous. It is ridiculous to think that a millionaire is being hosed out of a BMW because of the new O'Malley taxes. The millionaire's are going to miss the money just like anybody else is. Of course, what cheerleaders for the O'Malley tax won't tell you is the fact that $45,000 out of the pocket of somebody who qualifies for this tax bracket may be reducing that individual's capability to send that money directly back to the community, whether it be in the form of charitable donations or continued reinvestment into the local economy. That $45,000 could be better spent on job creation in the private sector than it will certainly be spent in the black hole that is Annapolis.

But the conversation we need to be having here has nothing to do with how poorly government wastes money, or how much better the private sector can spend it. It actually deals with the moral questions of taxes. How can government retain the moral high ground, particularly a government that claims that it is for the working men and women of Maryland, when most of the impact of the O'Malley Recession is being felt by these same work class folks? To paraphrase George Bailey, the working class people who are most hurt by what O'Malley and company are doing, they are the ones who do most of the working and paying and living and dying in this state.

So how come a disproportionate burden is placed on the middle and working class families of Maryland to pay for programs that make rich urban liberals feel better?

What we have right now in Annapolis is a situation involving taxes and the question of morality. How can government remain moral when government is doing its part to make it impossible for Maryland's working class families to survive financially? Why should parents who want to raise their children in the same communities in which they grew up be forced to choose between making ends meet or moving to another state in order to relieve themselves of the financial burden of living in Maryland? Why should the middle and working classes be forced to pay for unnecessary programs to which they receive no benefit? And how can Government maintain maintain its own sense of morality when it continues to ask more and more of citizenry in the middle of an economic downturn when this same citizenry is already overburdened with oppressive taxation at all levels.

The moral question of taxes is whether or not taxes in and of themselves are moral. The question is whether or not those who make tax policy, those who think that the citizenry is nothing more than a checkbook, those who believe that by taking more and more money away from taxpayers government can make taxpayers more economically viable, have the moral compass to do the right thing and reduce the oppressive burden on Maryland's taxpayers. And given the position of O'Malley and the legislative leadership, by their actions to raise more taxes and spend more money when we can least afford it, I think we have the answer to those questions.

In the Bag

Once again, the Sun thinks you're stupid:

There's likely enough good news coming out of the recently completed legislative session to soften the blow of last fall's tax increases and return a bit of luster to the image of Gov. Martin O'Malley, who took a subsequent beating in opinion polls.

What good news? How can any objective individual see any good news coming out of the recent session? Taxes are going up. Spending is out of control. The General Assembly paved the way for electric ratepayers to pay even higher electric bills than ever before. The annual tradition of the transportation trust fund raid came once again.

There is but one line of obvious truth in this editorial:

Mr. O'Malley recently told The Sun's editorial board that his first 14 months in office have been "difficult and often miserable."

Yeah...even O'Malley knows how bad of a job he is doing as Governor.

Hypocrisy in Action

A Sun editorial on the oral arguments from yesterdays District of Columbia v. Heller hearing had this gem:

Outlawing a city's ban on handguns would unfairly strip citizens of their collective ability to make their communities safer.

Of course, does not a city's ban on handguns also unfairly strip citizens of their individual ability to make their families and property safer? Of course it does, but the mental midgets on the Sun editorial board don't see it that way. They see gun ownership as a collective right; the only piece of the Bill of Rights, incidentally, that they see as a collective right. Because I have a feeling that a city banning a third-rate newspaper that serves as the propaganda arm of one of the major parties to allow citizens the collective ability to get lies and deceit off of the street is going to get a lot of support from the Sun's board.

Fortunately, it looks like the Supreme Court is leaning towards doing the right thing...

Because clearly the gun acted alone

The Sun this morning once again blames violence not on criminal psychopaths, but on an inanimate object:

A great deal is not yet known about the horrific quadruple murders in Cockeysville that have led police to charge a 15-year-old honor student with murdering his parents and two younger brothers. But this much is clear: The presence of a gun in the house did not protect the Browning family; it put them at a greater risk of violence.

That's a pretty cool leap in logic. The Sun basically says "we don't know enough, but we know enough to know that it was the gun's fault." Never mind the fact that the presence of a knife, hatchet, sledgehammer, or other large sharp or blunt object could have come to the same result.

Baltimore County police say Nicholas W. Browning used his father's handgun to kill his family on Friday night. While such familicide is hardly common, numerous studies have shown that having a gun in the home can be exceedingly dangerous. In fact, a firearm is far more likely to be used to shoot a family member or acquaintance than to defend the home against an intruder.

Of course, there are also numerous studies that show such ideas are poppycock.

We do not advocate the banning of all guns, but there are measures government can take to reduce their risk. Maryland has a law requiring adults to store guns in a place that is inaccessible to children. Perhaps that rather open-ended and rarely enforced requirement needs to be strengthened.

First off, I do not believe for a second that the Sun editorial board does not want to ban all guns, given some of their past editorial stances. However, the Orwellian nature of their next sentence (because lord only knows how they want to enforce this gun storage law otherwise) is immediately negated by their next comment.

Such legislation wouldn't necessarily have spared the Brownings, of course.

So what the hell are we arguing about? Gun laws such as the ones the Sun wants to enforce would not have prevented this instance of violence. Nor, potentially, would a ban on guns either given the number of other dangerous objects available to folks inside the home

Clearly the circumstances of this murder are tragic and sad. However, the Sun's rush to judgment is amazingly short sighted and well beneath the standard of a newspaper that considers itself a "major" daily.

Reading into it

The Sun also has a long story today about speeding tickets, and how the percentages of tickets given for certain speed ranges vary between counties. Of course, the story tries to draw conclusions out of thin air that cannot logically be proven by statistical data:

The discrepancies from county to county raise questions about unequal treatment of speeders in different parts of the state. For instance, the records suggest that a driver going 76 mph in a 55 mph zone on the Baltimore Beltway in Towson faces a strong possibility of severe penalties - including points that can drive up insurance rates. Meanwhile, a motorist going 76 mph in a 55 mph zone on the Capital Beltway in Bethesda has much better odds of getting a slap on the wrist.

Except, it really doesn't, because none of this data can be put into context. We don't know how many folks were doing 76 in a 55 in Montgomery County or Baltimore County. We don't know if other speeding violations were going on at the time. We don't know the traffic patterns that existed when these tickets were issued. It's somewhat of a meaningless conclusion to even suggest that these percentages and records lead anybody into any meaningful revelation.

The remainder of the story goes on to list some of the issues that may come up regarding why there are drastic differences between counties: driving environment, priorities, etc. But it makes no sense why Michael Dresser would reach such a conclusion so early in a story when there was no statistical data existent that could realistically justify his claim.

Change of Heart

Remember how the Sun used to kvetch and moan about how it was Governor Ehrlich's fault that energy rates were going up? Remember how the Sun waxed poetic about their joy that Martin O'Malley was going to fight for the little guy to keep energy rates lower? Well......never mind:

Meanwhile, the public can't lose sight of two hard and cold facts. First, BGE rates are a product of a global energy market and, as such, they aren't likely to go down - ever. And second, Maryland faces a potential energy shortage in the not-too-distant future. It's important that this be addressed, and Constellation's proposed expansion of certain generating facilities - most especially Calvert Cliffs - ought to be encouraged.

Maryland's "regulatory environment" hasn't become the calamity that Constellation executives are now telling analysts. But we acknowledge that a few more confrontational weeks like this past one could push it strongly in that direction. Those involved need to tone down the rhetoric, take the lawyers off speed-dial, and have a respectful dialogue about the state's energy future. Too much is at stake to do otherwise.

It's hard to believe that these words are coming out of Calvert Street, except for the fact that the O'Malley Administration has pushed the situation in this direction and obviously the Sun wants to provide political cover for their guy as they are always wont to do. But maybe, just maybe, the folks up there will realize that energy rates are not the fault of Republicans in Annapolis or in Washington, and maybe they will begin to help us pursue creative solutions to fix this problem for Maryland's taxpayers.

But probably not if it makes Martin look bad...

Plain Silliness

The Maryland Transit Administration already has a hard enough time running an operating system, and is a complete failure when it comes to keeping passengers safe. But that doesn't stop the Sun from wanting to expand the MTA's role where it does not belong:

Simply put, it says that the creation and support of transit-oriented development should be a priority for the Maryland Transit Administration. That's not a new concept, but the O'Malley administration bill marks the first effort to set the goal into law. And while there are numerous such projects in the works, support for them - political and financial - has not always been as strong as it should be.

Transit-oriented development should be a no-brainer. Building projects with retail, offices, residential and parking facilities immediately adjacent to rail or bus service increase ridership and better serve the community....

...But promoting development is quite a departure from the traditional role of the MTA as merely a builder and operator of transit lines. It means, for instance, forging agreements with developers and local government to encourage visionary projects. That may involve promoting tax abatements or zoning exceptions, the standard tools of local government-fostered economic development.

Of course, the MTA has absolutely no business in working on the kind of projects the Sun suggest that they work on. Suddenly though, the Sun seems to think that the MTA is the kind of effective government agency that should use its vast experience in development issues to help plan transit oriented development.

Of course, when you consider that the MTA can't get the easy stuff right, can't protect their customers even after promising solutions, and wants to spend billions upon billions of dollars on 28-year plans, I can see where the Sun would get that idea. I mean, they are such an effective organization and they clearly have no problems with their system. The MTA is surely the organization to lead Maryland into the next 25-years of urban policy.

Sarcasm aside, the Sun's rah-rah support of this is a complete joke, albeit unsurprising given that the bill in question is being pushed by the O'Malley Administration. And check out this nugget from the legislation:

"TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT" MEANS A MIX OF PRIVATE OR PUBLIC PARKING FACILITIES, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND USES, IMRPVOEMENTS, AND FACILITIES CUSTOMARILY APPURTENANT TO SUCH FACILITIES AND USES.

So by definition, we're going to find ourselves with the MTA as a new de facto MEDCO type outfit, creating development projects that are going to be competing directly with the private sector. And those of us in Anne Arundel County know what happens when those projects, as one would suspect they would, go south, though we know that O'Malley and his team never learned those lessons.

The Administration and the Sun both seem to lack the understanding that when an organization is failing to do the job that they were created to perform, it is then probably not a good idea to task that organization with different, completely unrelated responsibilities and expect anything good to happen for our state and certainly the taxpayers.

Sun moves on to shocking naïveté

In a rant about the alleged benefits of socialized campaign funding, the Sun pulls out this one:

Under legislation expected to be introduced soon in Annapolis, the program would be entirely voluntary. Candidates would qualify by raising initial seed money and then receive $40,000 to $50,000. The program would be financed chiefly by a $9 million annual withdrawal from the state's abandoned property account.

Is it a perfect solution? Probably not. But it's better than anything else yet devised. While spending government dollars on political ads may give some people pause, it's a clear-cut bargain if it promotes a better and more ethical legislature.

As I have noted before, given Maryland's historical problem with corruption, anybody who believes that socialized campaign funding is going to eliminate corruption in state government is either naïve, ignorant, or stupid. Take your pick.

Even for the Sun this is stupid

Wow:

If a Democrat wins the presidency in November, the overwhelmingly Democratic city of Baltimore could have a unique way to celebrate: by removing that silver elephant otherwise known as Male/Female from in front of Penn Station. More than any other artwork in the city, that sculpture seems to exemplify the era of the Bush administration.

How so? First, it was foisted upon the people in a technically legal but generally galling way. What the Supreme Court did for George W. Bush in December 2000, the Municipal Art Society did for Male/Female in 2004. Second, it's big and brash and totally insensitive to the reality that surrounds it. Third, its much-vaunted heart is artificial, and its brain is pretty well hidden. Also, its approval ratings are minuscule.

Defenders of Male/Female love to sneer that any criticism of it is unsophisticated. People used to think that criticism of the Bush administration was unsophisticated, too. This sculpture perfectly caught the essence of its time - and we believe that by next year that time will have passed. Send it over to MICA, where the art students can study an artifact of a bygone era.

What an immature, petty, stupid rant. Words can't even describe how lame this is, and pretty much sums up in three asinine paragraphs how devoid the Sun's obstinate Editorial Board is of even vaguely intelligent or critical thinking.

Rodricks Drafting Again

It's been a while, but Dan Rodricks has once again pulled out his call for a return to involuntary servitude. The thing is so silly that I'm not even going to bother quoting it.

Of course this is not the first time that Rodricks trots out the idea of forced servitude, though his call for compulsory military service is different than his November 2006 call for mandatory volunteerism, or his May 2006 for forced "national service." And as usual, he glosses over the 13th Amendment conundrum.

Still, I always get a funny feeling when somebody in the "mainstream" media calls for a return to this kind of serfdom, because let's face it, there is no real benefit to the kind of compulsory service that Rodricks demands. There is absolutely no need for it, no desire for it, and it will do nothing for our country other than to force more and more able bodied citizens into positions where they are doing the bidding of the government. Such a cockamamie scheme takes money and jobs out of the economy and will negatively impact the education of our next generation.

Besides, if Rodricks wants folks to serve so bad....he can volunteer to go first.

The Sun doesn't learn

The Sun carries the flag again for Governor O'Malley today on the budget issue:

True to his word, Gov. Martin O'Malley yesterday unveiled his plan to keep a lid on overall state spending next year. Even his Republican critics will have to concede that while he may have recently raised taxes, he's not exactly a big spender, at least not in fiscal 2009.

Not only does Mr. O'Malley's proposed $31.5 billion budget fall well within the state's long-standing affordability guidelines, but it also reflects the smallest year-to-year increase in five years. And it does so by broadly reducing the growth of spending, including eliminating tens of millions of dollars in Thornton aid that was due to local school systems in the coming year.

Now, of course, the Sun thinks that this is a good thing

The 4 percent budget increase reflects the unpleasant reality of last year's tax increases - most of it was needed just to keep vital services such as education, transportation, health and public safety at existing levels, not to expand them.

Of course all of us on both sides of the aisle realize that current spending in those core issues need to be adjusted for the rate of inflation.

However, what about the Governor's discretionary spending? What cuts were made, other than 500 jobs that are being eliminated? Other than Sellinger formula money, what other spending levels were held in check as compared to the FY 2008 budget? If discretionary spending remains high, how can O'Malley say that we are in bad fiscal shape?

When you get down to it, the budget is four percent higher than it was last year. Which makes you wonder how anybody could objectively say that the massive historic tax hikes O'Malley and the Democrats just rammed down are thoughts were ever necessary at all.....