From a reader named Joyce Kelly:

"I just read your article Stem Cell Ideology Trumps Reason on an MS website.  You see my husband and his sister both have MS.   I would like to hear and read this comment more often: "If you don't believe that discarded embryos should be used for stem cell research then you should not support In-Vetro Fertilization." How can these individuals support In-Vetro Fertilization when leftover embryos are eventually discarded?  What hypocrites.  Or don't they realize what they are saying?  I don't hear this comment enough in articles or on the news.  A teacher who works with my daughter said she doesn't support embryonic stem cell research because 'they kill babies.'  People just don't know."

Actually, Joyce, judging from the e-mails I've received the last three days, I'm surprised we don't hear or see more right-to-lifers raiding IVF clinics to save "leftover" frozen embryos. Please recall that there was a huge fight in this country -- very similiar to the one we have now -- over IVF when it first emerged as a scientific advance. You might further note that more than 60 percent of Americans -- and a higher percentage in Maryland -- say they support research into stem cell therapies.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 9:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                    

I have actually read every e-mail that arrived here about Sunday's column on the promising but controversial field of embryonic stem cell research. All but one of the e-mailed letters were from opponents of this research and emerging therapy. (See an example below.) All of the e-mails professed belief that the fertilized egg -- smaller than the period at the end of this sentence -- is a human life that must not be destroyed, and several likened embryonic stem-cell research to human experimentations conducted by the Nazis.

Oh, well. It is as predictable as it is tiresome. It is the same argument we've heard from the anti-abortion crowd for years, except that here the argument is presented to stifle research into a promising field of medical science that could improve or save lives.

Opponents of the use of embryos in research -- even if many will be otherwise discarded from fertilization labs -- say this is a moral or ethical issue. Indeed. It was. Congress wrestled with it and decided that limited use of some embryos would be allowed to develop new stem cells. But Bush vetoed the legislation, and Michael Steele ultimately -- not a first -- said he supported the president in this matter.

The extreme and irrational embrace of fertilized-egg-as-human being is a view grounded in religious doctrine. We have separation of church and state for many good reasons, and this is one of them. The ideal should be a progressive and civilized society that considers the potentials of objective and responsible science -- not religious doctrine -- as well as a government that is informed by science and that acts in the best interest of the public welfare.

Listen, folks, thanks for your letters -- even the really long ones, and the ones that mentioned the Nazis. You have every right to vote for Michael Steele, and I'm sure you will.

One of many e-mails on Sunday's column:

Your column about stem cell research continually pits science against ideology. Every definition of ideology I checked says something about ideas, values, and beliefs, but no definition refers to God.
Science is something that supports our God-created universe. It always has. Science is not something that exists on its own, outside of "things that are created". Nothing that science can "discover" is ever a surprise to God, who made things that science simply finds, deduces, or realizes. Only God can make the embryos to which you refer. If you disagree with that, go find a scientist who can make one --- or for that matter, have a scientist make one blade of grass. But remember, nothing outside what God has created can be used. Kind of limits the scientists, don't it?
Those who speak against destroying something that only God can make from "scratch" that has potential to become a full human being are not against science.
I applaud Michael Steele for his directness in answers to this question.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)
                    

Here's a suggestion: Help out with the St. Frances Community Center's Halloween party for underprivileged kids next Tuesday. Donate some candy, or call Ralph Moore (443-255-5600) to lend a hand. This the fifth annual party for kids in the 'hood. "For many of the children who attend," Ralph tells me, "the large number of vacant houses in the area nearest the school and the uneasy nature of life on Greenmount Avenue make trick-or-treating unsafe and unlikely for our children." So they set up a haunted house at the community center, next to St. Frances Academy, and they host neighborhood children from 5-8 pm on Halloween. Feeling generous? Get in touch with Ralph.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
                    

In the debate that will air tomorrow night, Governor Ehrlich claims not to know what Martin O'Malley is talking about when the mayor says this:

"How costly is it for the mom and dad who spend more time in traffic on I-270 each day than they do with their kids? If we don't start making better investments in transportation to benefit the whole state including Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore, the future growth that is coming is going to determine Maryland's character rather than Maryland's character determining future growth."

Says the dismissive Ehrlich: "I don't understand what that means."

I'll tell you what it means, governor. It means if we don't manage how we develop the land and plan roads as Maryland's population grows, Maryland's character will be forever changed, and not for the better. We're going to have one sprawling mess on our hands.

It's not hard to understand. There's a reason why Maryland established critical areas around the bay for protection. There's a reason why, in most opinion surveys, Marylanders say they want development to slow down and for Smart Growth principles to prevail.

Of course, we shouldn't be terribly surprised by Ehrlich's attitude. He abolished the state's Smart Growth office and, in recent months, during a major test of both critical areas and Smart Growth principles, the governor took a walk . . . .  He took no position on the Blackwater Resort project near the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge and Cambridge. Fortunately, Maryland's Critical Areas Commission said no to such dumb growth. At least someone in state government understood what was at stake.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 3:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
                    

In yesterday's taped debate -- the one you won't see until Monday night at 7 -- the O'Mayor slipped when he said city police had lowered Baltimore's homicide count to below 200 a year. Everyone knows that was a slip, that he meant below 300. Didn't matter to the Ehrlich camp, which sent out a scathing e-mail an hour later dumping on O'Mayor for the slip.

"O'Malley said violent crime is down in Baltimore, but didn't mention Baltimore is the deadliest big city in the nation (FBI Crime Stats) with a murder rate six times higher than New York City. O'Malley deliberately misled the citizens of Maryland by saying murders in Baltimore were under 200, but here are the facts: 261 killings in 2000, 256 killings in 2001, 253 killings in 2002, 271 killings in 2003, 278 killings in 2004, 269 killings in 2005."

O'Mayor is fair game on this count. He pledged to bring homicides down to 175, probably an unrealistic goal.

But whenever someone -- particularly Republicans who have shown little interest in city affairs until this election year -- want to pound the guy for missing that goal, I like to remind them about the pre-O'Malley years, the 1990s, the Schmoke years. There were more homicides -- above 300 -- and more shootings, and a city leadership that seemed resigned to it. Greater population loss, higher addictions numbers, more school failure . . .  Where was all this concern when Baltimore seemed headed for the cliff? Give me a break.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)
                    

Ernie Banks used to say, "Let's play two."

So that's what we have today in the Maryland goobernatorial campaign -- two debates in one day. One taped. One live.

I just came from  WJZ-TV, where they taped the first Ehrlich-O'Malley debate. The parking lot at the station was so full I had to park way down TV Hill and walk up. I almost died. It was such a lovely day, WJZ should have set up a portable Jumbo-Tron outdoors so we could have enjoyed the sunshine and mild weather from picnic tables while the goobernatorial candidates debated inside. Anyway, they served a lovely buffet of roll-ups, fruit, cookies and green tea in a conference room. As the chummy governor would have said: "Thank you, Jay!"

How was the debate?

Read tomorrow's column. I'm working on that now. Let me just say this -- O'Malley came across like he was running for president of the United State and Ehrlich came across like he was running for president of Chi Phi. Make sure you read the Sun tomorrow. Our fact-checkers are working on what the candidates said in this debate to sort out fact from fiction, and to highlight exaggeration.

Ehrlich's people have already put out a press release claiming victory. Surprise!

See for yourselves: These two guys are on TV live at 7 p.m. tonight, WBAL and MPT. Then, Monday, you get to see the taped debate that we saw this afternoon. Weird, huh? It's like a double-header where the first game is taped and shown two days later, while the second game is telecast live.

Confused? Welcome to my world.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 3:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
                    

Today is Blackwater Appreciation Day on the Eastern Shore. If you are in the Cambridge area, or just passing through, you might want to head to Stump Farm - 2279 Church Creek Rd. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is throwing a party to celebrate a rare victory -- the vote by the Maryland Critical Areas Commission to allow a developer to build a big, dumb development near the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge and along the Little Blackwater River. The Bay Foundation says: "This is truly monumental and, in fact, the first time a "growth allocation" has been denied by the CAC."

If you were among the 27,000 who signed the CBF's petition against Blackwater Resort, the CBF suggests sending a thank-you note to the CAC for its decision. It never hurts to say thanks, but in my book the CAC did what it should have done all along -- protect an area designated as critical in the Chesapeake watershed. This proposal, which would have doubled the size of Cambridge within a decade or so, countered not only critical areas principles but the goals of Smart Growth. The governor took a walk on the whole thing, saying it was a local issue. But the CAC, appointed by the governor, decided otherwise. The critical areas of the bay are everyone's business and should be protected by the state.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

Looks like I'm going to see two debates between Martin O'Malley and Bob Ehrlich in one day. Here's the announcement that just came from O'Malley's press office.:

Today, Martin O'Malley agreed to participate in two gubernatorial debates this weekend.  O'Malley will participate in a taped debate on WJZ-TV in Baltimore on Saturday, October 14 at 1:00 p.m. that will air on Monday, October 16 at 7:00 p.m.  Members of the media will be allowed to observe the debate, and should contact WJZ for more details.  Later on Saturday, O'Malley will participate in a live debate hosted by Maryland Public Television and the League of Women Voters at 7:00 p.m.  The debate will also air live on WBAL-TV in Baltimore.  The debate will allow both candidates to make opening and closing remarks, and take questions from 3 panelists.   

Are you following along at home? They're going to tape a debate Saturday afternoon to air Monday on one station, and stage a live one on another Saturday night. This is the first I've heard of WBAL-TV's involvement. Up until a few hours ago, WJZ and MPT were the only stations mentioned for a debate. Now, Channel 11 has slipped in and will actually air the first and only live debate Saturday night. Saturday night isn't exactly prime time (at least not for this busy social butterfly!) My hunch is more folks will watch Monday at 7 on 'JZ . . . . By the way, 7 pm is usually when Katie Couric comes on with the CBS Evening News. Interesting. I guess with her (dropping) TV ratings, Channel 13 thinks it will do better with the O'Mayor-Bobby Slots match.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

On today's column -- about the new white-water kayaking course they're building in Garrett County -- let me say clearly: I think it's a 'wow.' I just have a few cautions -- as always -- about how far development goes, particularly in wildlife and forested areas, and about how kids, in particular, are indoctrinated into the natural world. I don't worry about a "disaster" out there.

Anyway, after reading today's column, you can get a live web-cam look at the project by going to this link and looking for the webcam listed under About ASCI: http://www.adventuresportscenter.com/

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 8:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

The President and the White House pulled up a few chairs yesterday and held a conference on school safety in the wake of Nickel Mines and two other recent nightmares, and the event was as superficial as most Americans probably expected it to be. It was a big discussion group that never discussed guns, and the President pretty much dismissed any major role for the federal government in school safety: "It's really important that people not think government is a loving entity. Government is law and justice."

Whatever. This event was as empty as this administration. They don't know how to resolve the bloody Iraq mess they created. They don't know how to get spending under control and deficits reduced. They can't solve illegal immigration issues even with Republican majorities in Congress. And all they can do on school safety is assemble a discussion group that never discusses guns.

It's not just President Empty. The nation continues to suffer from outbursts of violence on school campuses and the frequent use of handguns and other firearms in the commissions of homicides, and no one in leadership even approaches the subject of gun control anymore for fear of unleashing the wrath of the NRA. In the aftermath of the Amish killings, discussions about the out-of-control numbers of guns in our culture has been muted (except in this space!)

The only politician I've heard raise the issue was the one in Wisconsin who wants to arm school teachers.

The battle over guns is over; we live in a violent nation, armed to its teeth. There's no getting over it. There's just getting used to it. And I think we're already there.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 3:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
                    

Check out the posts below for some interesting reader feedback. Keep those comments coming, folks -- guns, Mussina, guns, militia, guns, guns, and great bakeries we have known -- we've had a good run of contributions to this space. Blogs away! Bombs away!

Back Monday night!

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 8:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

I am enjoying this. How about you? The Yankees haven't won the big one since Mike Mussina left the Orioles after the 2000 season. Hee, hee, hee. . . . My friend, Ingmar Burger, claims to have noticed the curse before anyone. "I named the Curse of the Mussino when that sourpuss was here," he says. "And whatever team is saddled with him is doomed. The curse is real."

Go Tigers!

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
                    

What comes from Wisconsin, full of cheese, and a little nutty on the outside?

No, it's not one of those nutty cheese logs you see at football parties.

It's the proposal to train and arm teachers to defend schools against violent wackos loaded with firearms.

Here's one of your great ideas, folks. And you know what? There are probably gun lovers out there who think it's an ingenious plan -- to have teachers and custodians walking around with concealed handguns in school hallways. And you know what else? It would not be a stretch to think of some state assembly -- maybe not Wisconsin's, but maybe Nevada's or Wyoming's or even Pennsylvania's -- passing a law allowing it, maybe even mandating it.

We spoke to this guy the other day on the radio -- a grandstanding Republican state legislator named Alan Lasee (pronounced La-Say). Here's a story from the Wisconsin State Journal. Anybody have crackers?

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 7:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)
                    

People who own guns -- and think more of us should have them -- can't resist arguing their case. In Thursday's column, what did I say? I said spare me. I've heard all the arguments over and over again for not only the right to bear arms but the unfettered manufacture and sales of all kinds of firearms -- even in the wake of tragedies such as Nickel Mines.

But my Sun mailbox is crammed with letters from the gun-obsessed with all the old arguments, including the one about how the Second Amendment guarantees us all the right to own guns, guns and more guns.

You know what I say?

I say, once more, spare me all the blah, blah, blah. If you don't want to acknowledge that the firearms industry and the National Rifle Association have put guns beyond our control and contributed to the firearms violence and death in the United States, fine. And, what's more, you've won the argument. Not only is the gun-control movement in this nation dormant-to-dead, but there are now far too many guns for us to presume to try and control them. You've won the argument. Have a nice life!

There's really only one more other thing I wish to say, particularly to the Second Amendment purists. As the scholar Paul Fussell has argued, only a bit facetiously: What do you say we enforce the Second Amendment as written? That is, you own a gun, fine. Keep it clean and ready because here's the deal: Your gun ownership makes you part of a well-regulated militia, that is, the National Guard. You must show up for training and exercises on a regular basis and, at the moment, be eligible for service in Iraq. That's what the amendment says: A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. What do you say? Are you ready to march on Tehran?

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (22)
                    

Sometimes you're just too damn busy for it to be any other way. Let's face it, shopping for food -- or shopping for almost anything -- is easier done at an all-in-one big-box store, or supermarket, or in a mall. Heading down to Main Street, or one of Baltimore's old, sturdy retail strips, can be a pain in the neck -- finding a place to park, waiting in line for help, actually having to talk to someone. Who needs it anymore? And is the pie that much better?

Well, yeah. It is. And we all need to slow down just a bit and return to these places -- or try them for the first time. You need to buy a pie that a woman with a hairnet places in a white box and ties with red-and-white string.

I have avoided Fenwick Bakery, 7219 Harford Road, on Saturdays because the line for goodies is so long. I hit it yesterday, instead, and had no problem getting fast service from the friendly, chatty women behind the counter. I bought an apple pie -- light, flaky crust, delicious filling -- for $6.25, and something called crimp bread. This looks like it was baked in a 15-inch length of corrugated pipe. It's the way they have been baking white bread at Fenwick for years. (It was established in 1913.) The crimp bread turned out to be perfect for Monday night's supper -- as a round platform for leftover turkey and gravy.

You can still get birthday and wedding cakes made at Fenwick. And the pie is definitely worth the wait. (You might want to go on a Monday.) Each day features a special bread: Monday is crimp; Tuesday is cheese; Wednesday, raisin; Thursday, whole wheat; Friday, rye. The peach pie is gone for the year; it has been replaced by pumpkin.

You never know what you are going to find in these old, familiar places. (Though, in the age of Wal-Mart and the growth of the suburbs, they are not as familiar to as many people as they once were, which is my point.)

I went to Edelweiss Bakery on Harford Road, at the sharp corner of Harford Road and Old Harford Road. The lunch-size portion of sauerbraten, dumplings and red cabbage was delicious, and a crowd of pleasant men and women gathered, as they do each Thursday, to sing along with two accordion players. One of the accordion players wore eyeglasses with no lenses - I think to hold his hair in place. But I'm not sure. I didn't ask. It didn't seem like the time or place.

Today's Buzz:  WBAL-AM, 1090:  11:30 am -- 2:00 p.m.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
                    

Did you try the new Maryland political quiz they've hooked me into producing for the next five weeks?

First day out, I made an error, too. So here I am, fessing up: Question 4, in the elaboration of the answer I made a goof. The subject of the answer -- I'm being careful here not to give it away -- was a candidate in the GOP gubernatorial primary of 1994, not in the general election. Sorry about that.

By the time you read this, the correction might have been made. But The Son -- of the former Rose Popolo -- regrets the error.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 3:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

on the whole Billy Murphy-Ehrlich-O'Malley thing. . . .

From reader Charles Brown:

I'm sick and tired of well-to-do blacks taking for granted that us poorer blacks are their pit bulls who they can sic on whites at their convenience!  We wrestle with, talk and think about, critically and creatively, the social problems of our world every day in between elections.  We don't need "prominent" Blacks or anyone else trotted out to inflame or manipulate our emotions, simply for the sake of doing a favor for a pal behind in the polls.  If Billy Murphy and others have concerns about Zero Tolerance policing in Baltimore or the Broken Window Theory of policing high violent crime rates in big cities, then make that a central topic of debate in the contest.  Don't insult our intelligence by calling it "illegal or unlawful arrests" when they know it's not!  O'Malley was nominated in 1999 with 53 percent of the vote, elected 50-some days lafter with 98 percent of the vote, and reelected four years later with 88 percent of the vote. The citizenry has given him a mandate to implement a policing plan that former Black Commissioner Kevin Clark both lobbied for and explained; and that plan, which is now being forward by Commissioner Leonard Hamm, has significantly reduced the rate of both homicide and other violent crimes in Baltimore over the last six years by any measure.  Be it 23 percent or 40 percent, with a midrange of 32 percent and a 7 percent margin of error, it's still a major reduction in the rate of crime, which is essential to revitalizing the city!  . . . The next time you talk to Billy Murphy, A. Dwight Petit, Clarence Mitchell IV, and other "prominent" Blacks, tell them to stop playing into the hands of the right wing extremists. Let's all focus on the DLC and put our party on the true path of a populist democratic progressive party that will bring us a government that is for and truly by the people.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 10:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
                    

Parts of today's column on Murphy and O'Malley originally appeared in this space on Friday. Here was the first comment on it, from Tom in Lutherville.

Where has Billy Murphy been? I have always felt, however, that Billy has always really only been about Billy Murphy. He asks great, tough questions but then what? He moves on to whatever else can get his name in the papers. I could have supported him for mayor if I had felt there was something more there than, well, Billy looking in the mirror. One only wonders what he is getting in exchange for putting his voice to Bobby Slots commercials.... It just strikes me as more of Billy being Billy. This whole thing with Ehrlich's and Steele's adds are not to turn black voters from O'Malley and Cardin to them as much as it is about getting black voters to stay home on Nov 7.
A key part of the Republican strategy since before Willie Horton has been to turn people off from voting. The fewer people participate the easier it is for a rump electorate to prevail. The less people at the polls, the easier it is for a motivated minority - such as the self-proclaimed "Christian" right - to control the results. Unfortunately, it is easier to turn people off from voting than it is to get them out to the polls. And the more "the media" addresses the attack adds as if they are legit the easier it is for voters to be turned off.
But why don't I ever hear any serious journalist talk about this?
Meanwhile, other than run a couple commercials at election time, what has Bob Ehrlich or Michael Steele (or any 10 Republicans in elected office in Maryland you care to name) done for Blacks and other minorities? And why aren't answers to these questions being required of the accusers? You should not let Ehrlich complete a sentence that is not a direct answer to the question (although, if you did that, Chip Franklin would have a new partner on WGOP, I mean WBAL!).
I would really like to see fewer ads on TV and the radio and more events like the one O'Malley and Ehrlich had at the fairgrounds right after the primary. But we know that won't happen.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:26 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)