--The state oversight board that governs Maryland’s public defender’s office may be able to avoid answering questions about its sudden firing of the agency’s head, Nancy Forster, by hiding behind the state law protecting personnel decisions from public disclosure. But that does not absolve it of the duty to inform the public about its intentions for a vital agency that ensures the fairness and equity of our criminal justice system.

The only hints we have about what led two of the three board members to fire Ms. Forster come from a memo written by Ms. Forster listing changes she says they wanted in the department, including the disbanding of the capital defense and juvenile protection divisions of the office; closing a community defenders operation; outsourcing Child in Need of Assistance representation to private attorneys; and firing the Baltimore County public defender, Thelma Trilpin.

If, in fact, the board wants those changes made, members need to say so and explain why. A July 2 letter from board chairman T. Wray McCurdy indicates dissatisfaction with the rate of growth in the office and its focus on assisting clients beyond their immediate legal needs. If this heralds a major shift in focus for the agency, the oversight board should explain its wishes in public so they can be properly debated.

--It sounds like an attractive idea for a cash-strapped government: Offer amnesty to businesses and individuals who owe back taxes so they can pay without penalty and only half of the accrued interest. The state gets a quick boost of funds that it may or may not have gotten, and delinquent taxpayers get to clear the slate. But coming just five years after the last such amnesty, the plan sets a disquieting precedent. Will businesses and individuals now expect amnesty programs to be a regular occurrence, and will that lead to even more tax avoidance in the future?

Posted by Andy Green at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (12)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Other times, men and women are emotionally, mentally, physically or monetarily hurt because of words published online, with little recourse, unless they can find out who their cyberbullies are.

There's been a lot said recently about the Vogue model Liskula Cohen, and her suit to discover the identity of a blogger who called her a "skank." After a judge determined that Ms. Cohen had a legitimate claim of defamation, Google gave the blogger’s information to the court, and Rosemary Port, an acquaintance of the model’s, was outed. Meanwhile, Ms. Cohen has dropped her defamation case, forgiving Ms. Port, and making this story feel more appropriate for the gossip column.

Many are hollering about this case and its implications for free speech and privacy on the Internet. The fact that Ms. Cohen has now reached out to the mother of Megan Meier, the teen who killed herself after a classmate’s mother cyberbullied her — under the guise of the fictional teen boy “Josh” — highlights the simultaneously tragic and ridiculous nature of cyberbullying. Mrs. Meier lost a daughter, while Ms. Cohen has gained a newfound career in activism, plus some name recognition.

However, Ms. Port’s case highlights the many legitimate and lesser-known issues, in which a person’s right to anonymous speech — treasured since the days of Publius and Silence Dogood — clashes with healthy, democratic discourse and U.S. libel law.

In the landmark 1995 ruling in “McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission,” the Supreme Court recognized that “protections for anonymous speech are vital for democatic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views. ... Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.” While few care about New York fashionista infighting, everyone should be concerned about Google handing over its customers’ private information. Many anonymous bloggers hide their true identities as protection against vengeful employers, governments, exes or stalkers.

Today, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that defends citizens’ rights on the Internet, is fighting the Bush administration-era warrantless wiretapping, seeking the release of FBI surveillance rules, and investigating the Google Book Search settlement, which threatens to strip away the privacy and anonymity of readers everywhere. These are the cases that Ms. Cohen’s lawsuit should bring to the forefront. They illustrate how precious our privacy is, and why we should fight for it, while underlining that we must keep in mind what’s good for the people and the safety of all.

Our whistle-blowers, victims of domestic abuse and community activists need to be protected with anonymity, just as our bullied minors and libelled businessowners need to be able to defend themselves from malicious liars. These are serious issues that deserve a deeper conversation than the cheap jokes inspired by this Page Six scandal. 

(AP photo)

Posted by Nancy Knight at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Here are some more things we're covering for the weekend's editorial pages. We welcome your comments on these topics and will publish some of them in the paper.

* SPEED CAMERAS. Baltimore County will vote this week on whether to allow speed cameras in school zones within the county. As we have pointed out before, it would be absurd for any jurisdiction not to take advantage of this tool to deter scofflaws and protect children. Anyone driving more than 12 miles per hour over the limit near a school deserves a ticket.

Posted by Michael Cross-Barnet at 11:47 AM | Permalink | Comments (12)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Three hundred dollars? That's all Baltimore County Del. Jon S. Cardin ends up owing the Baltimore City Police Department for the marine police boat, the helicopter and the officers manning them who took time off from their duties to help the lawmaker make a splashier marriage proposal? Why can't I get a deal like that?

The Sun's Julie Bykowicz reported Thursday that Mr. Cardin paid 300 smackers as reimbursement for a "mock police raid-cum-marriage proposal" at the Inner Harbor this month that a friend arranged so he could pop the question to his girlfriend. While a Foxtrot hovered overhead, two marine police officers boarded the friend's boat where the couple was lounging and pretended to search it for drugs. When one of the officers ordered the girlfriend to turn around so he could cuff her, she discovered Mr. Cardin behind her, on his knees holding out a ring.

Never underestimate the romantic ingenuity of a lovestruck politician. Of course the girlfriend said "yes" -- what woman could resist being the center of so much macho attention, especially with the pounding blades of that whirlybird overhead?

But all for $300? That hardly covers dinner for two at some restaurants around town, let alone renting an aircraft, a boat and your own private theatre troupe-cum-security detail. Something here doesn't add up, and Mr. Cardin owes the citizens of Baltimore more than just a few hundred bucks: He owes an explanation.

Who was the "friend" who made all this possible, and what strings did he pull -- or rather whose? How much did it really cost to stage this elaborate bit and who in the police department authorized spending officers' time and taxpayers' dollars to pull it off? Helicopters cost hundreds of dollars an hour to operate, not including salaries of the pilot and observer. Who told them it was OK to burn up fuel lollygagging over a pleasure boat in the harbor that just happened to have a state lawmaker with a famous family name on board? 

Until such questions are answered, Mr. Cardin can hardly claim to have discharged his debt to this city. It's time for him to acknowledge that he needs to pay up.

Posted by Glenn McNatt at 7:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (23)
Categories: City talk
        

Here's some of what's coming for the weekend. As always, please share your thoughts with us about these issues.

CASINO: Slot machines at the Arundel Mills Mall are being held up by a dithering Anne Arundel County Council that apparently is hoping that the state slots commission will first award a license to David Cordish's slots proposal for the mall. This delay is inexcusable. It's time for the council to break this stalemate and take action on the Cordish plan.

ONLINE PRIVACY: On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. But if you call someone else a dog -- or, perhaps, a "skank" -- it turns out your anonymity might not be as protected as you think in an area of law and ethics that seems to be evolving by the day. Meanwhile, interactive encyclopedia Wikipedia has tightened its standards to require that editing of entries about living people must pass muster with a moderator before being posted. A look at the state of privacy and protection on the still-wild frontier of the Web.

Posted by Michael Cross-Barnet at 6:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Here are the editorials we're planning for Friday's paper. Let us know your thoughts.

* SWINE FLU PREPARATION. Reports earlier this week that up to half the population could be infected with swine flu in the coming year, with as many as 90,000 deaths, were quickly followed with more reports stressing that those figures represent a worse-case scenario and the actual effects of the disease could be much less severe. But it is the government's responsibility to be prepared for just such a worse-case scenario -- while at the same time avoiding conditions of overreaction and panic. This will be a major test of the Obama administration's ability to manage a public health crisis.

* E-ZPASS CHARGES. The fuss over the new E-ZPass policy of charging tagholders a monthly fee always was a tempest in a teapot. Sure, a few thousand motorists have turned in their tags in protest. These are probably the same people who believe that any increase in fees, taxes or tolls is inherently "unfair." But the fact is, EZ-Pass customers have been getting a fantastic deal for years now -- and they still will be, even with the implementation of the small monthly charge. The relatively small number of protesters shows that most drivers understand this.

Posted by Michael Cross-Barnet at 11:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (6)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Ted Kennedy was an important person in my household when I was growing up. We didn't live in Massachusetts, and we weren't Catholic. But Mr. Kennedy seemed to represent something special. My dad felt that most elections were a choice between "Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee." But I remember how excited he was when Ted Kennedy ran for president in 1980, and how disappointed he was, for many years afterward, that his political hero had failed to rise to the heights to which his brother John had ascended.

I finally met the man in the early 1990s, when I was a young reporter for a suburban Boston newspaper. Mr. Kennedy stopped by the office for an interview. His new wife was with him. He spoke that day about tax policy and health care reform, and although I don't remember many of the details, I do recall that he was friendly, down to earth and polite, even with a young reporter for a paper with a circulation of about 10,000.

Nonetheless, I was well aware that not all Americans held Mr. Kennedy in high esteem. One of my first-ever reporting jobs was covering a speech in northeast Ohio by Leo Damore, author of "Senatorial Privilege -- the Chappaquiddick Cover-Up," one of a virtual cottage industry of anti-Kennedy books and articles produced over the years.

And when I was editor of a newspaper in an extremely conservative area of Louisiana, Mr. Kennedy was so unpopular that his name was almost an epithet. I vividly recall bumper stickers reading, "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun."

Of course, Senator Kennedy's behavior in the Chappaquiddick incident was disgraceful, as he has admitted, and the full truth of his responsibility for Mary Jo Kopechne's death may never be known. But one gets the sense from his more virulent critics that Chappaquiddick was never the real motivation for their fury. Rather, their beef with Mr. Kennedy was always ideological. He was an unapologetic liberal, a firm believer in the role of government in helping people in need. For some people, that was enough to mark him as the devil. And yet, even his Republican foes in the Senate acknowledge, with near-unanimity, that he never let party labels stand in the way of friendship or common humanity.

Just another of many, many reasons he will be greatly missed. 

Posted by Michael Cross-Barnet at 7:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
Categories: National politics
        

This is what we're writing about for Thursday's editorial page. Please weigh in with your thoughts  about these topics, and we will publish a sample of responses along with our editorials.

* Senator Kennedy: People overuse the phrase "end of an era," but with the passing of Ted Kennedy, this has indisputably occurred. For more than 40 years, no one commanded the American political scene the way he did, and no one was responsible for more important legislation. His was an epic life, and his compassion and expertise will be missed as the country wrestles with the issue that was perhaps dearest to his heart: guaranteeing health care for every American.

* AP tests: The number of Maryland students taking and passing an AP exam rose significantly this past school year, with a 9 percent increase in passing scores. This reflects well on the state of educational progress in Maryland at a time when SAT scores (which held stable) are losing some of their previous significance and AP tests are gaining increasing prominence.

Posted by Michael Cross-Barnet at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

I'm no medical expert, but even I can see that the cocktail of powerful sedatives Michael Jackson's physician administered to his patient over the 24 hours before the star stopped breathing last month ought to have been considered a potentially lethal brew. On Monday, the Lost Angeles Country coroner ruled Mr. Jackson's death a homicide and the doctor, Las Vegas cardiologist Conrad Murray, is now the target of a manslaughter investigation by the Los Angeles Police Department.

What was the good doctor thinking when he acceded to Mr. Jackson's "repeated demands/requests" for a shot of the drug propofol, an intravenously administered hypnotic agent whose use as a general anaesthetic normally is restricted to hospital settings, on top of tabs of Valium and injections of Lorazepam and Midazolam given only hours before? As a self-indulgent world celebrity, Mr. Jackson may have believed he had a right to take any drug he pleased if it would help overcome his chronic insomnia, but his doctor should have known better. Clearly, in this case just saying no would have been the best medicine.

Did the physician play along against his better judgment for fear of losing such a rich and famous client? Or was he merely incompetent -- or worse, criminally negligent? These are the sorts of questions Los Angeles authorities will have to sort out before deciding whether to bring charges against Mr. Murray. But from all that is known about the case so far, at least one thing seems clear: Whatever the outcome of the investigation, it's likely neither Mr. Jackson's family, friends and fans nor Dr. Murray and his defenders will end up completely satisfied that justice has been served.

Posted by Glenn McNatt at 7:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (139)
Categories: Health and mental health
        

Here's what we're working on for Wednesday's editorial page. Let us know your thoughts on these issues; the best comments will be included in tomorrow's paper.

* State budget cuts: The O'Malley administration today is announcing a package of $470 million in budget cuts, which will include furloughs for 70,000 state workers. More than $250 million of the total will be carved from aid to local governments, and the remainder could come from state services like health care. Because funding for public education from kindergarten through high school won’t be affected, the cuts are likely to hit a handful of other services hard. Instead of across-the-board spending reductions that target crucial and unnecessary programs alike, we hope the governor will focus on eliminating things that the state simply can't afford in these austere times, such as legislative scholarships and a continuing freeze on state tuition increases.

* Controversial club: The Suite Ultralounge in the Belvedere Hotel, which has been the scene of violence on multiple occasions, will remain open, for the time being, despite the city liquor board's attempt to shut it down. A judge ruled that the board must first establish rules about when a bottle club's license may be revoked. That leads us to wonder: Why doesn't the board charged with enforcing liquor laws already have such rules in place? Meanwhile, if problems continue at the
Ultralounge, the Police Department might have to step in and padlock the place as a public nuisance.

Posted by Michael Cross-Barnet at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Here's what we're writing about for Tuesday's editorial page. Let us know what you think. A sample of the responses will be published in tomorrow's paper.

* CIA abuses: The Justice Department plans Monday to disclose many details on prisoner abuse that were gathered by the CIA's inspector general but have never been released. At the same time, the department's ethics office has come out in favor of reopening nearly a dozen cases of alleged detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are welcome developments that signal an opportunity for the Obama administration, and in particular Attorney General Eric Holder, to make a clean break with Bush administration policies that ignored or even condoned torture and other abuses.

* Raven arrested: Not all the facts are known about the arrest of Anthony "Tony" Fein, a rookie at Ravens training camp, Sunday night at an Inner Harbor restaurant. But initial reports suggest that the police acted appropriately in response to a report of a possible firearm in the restaurant. Indeed, the police have promised to be more aggressive in confronting potential violence in the harbor, a position we have supported. But whether the officer behaved correctly or not, there can never be any excuse for pushing or hitting a police officer.

Posted by Michael Cross-Barnet at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Color me shocked, too, when I heard about Whole Foods CEO John Mackey's opposition to President Obama's health care plan. Not because of his quirky views on alternatives to the public option but because his exercise in free speech could cost his company a whole lot of money.

When the nation's chief granola-eater and avatar of environmentally friendly farming comes out against a plan that's likely supported by a majority of the arugula-and-endive-eating liberal Democrats who flock to his stores, in part because they pride themselves on holding progressive views, Mr. Mackey's mind has got to be a long way from his bottom line.

His own company tried to distance itself from the remarks he made in a recent Wall Street Journal commentary critical of "Obamacare," which infuriated long-time customers and sparked a boycott movement on Facebook that 18,000 people reportedly have joined. You know it's serious when people are willing to give up their imported Italian balsamic vinegar, creamy French cheeses, vegetarian soybean sausages and curried lamb kebab to protest their greengrocer's  musings on health care policy.

 Marketing experts say Mr. Mackey risks running his business into the ground on a shockwave of "brand dissonance" -- the disconnect between what people think a product stands for and how its makers actually behave. Most Whole Foods customers are the sort of people who probably would never be caught dead plopping nonorganic bananas into a plastic bag at Wal-Mart. But now that Mr. Mackey has ticked them off royally, there's no telling what the company may have to do to assuage their ire, let alone what might turn up on their dinner tables tonight.  

Posted by Glenn McNatt at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (29)
Categories: Health and mental health
        

Last week in Phoenix, Ariz., cable television broadcast the image of a man toting an assault-style rifle stood outside of a health care "town hall" event featuring President Obama. He was one of a dozen people openly carrying firearms in what was apparently a staged demonstration.

This would seem bizarre enough except it seems to be something of a trend. A protestor was seen carrying a handgun strapped to his leg outside a similar event in Portsmouth, N.H. At a town hall meeting in Memphis, Tenn., police escorted a man with a handgun out of the room.

In most, if not all of these incidents, no laws were broken and no arrests were made. The people involved had either legal permits to carry concealed weapons or were demonstrating in a state that allows people to carry firearms out in the open.

But what a colossal lack of judgment. One shouldn’t have to be old enough to recall the John F. Kennedy assassination or even the shooting of Ronald W. Reagan to be uncomfortable with the notion of presidents in close proximity to strangers with guns.

U.S. Secret Service agents may claim that President Obama is not put in danger by such behavior when it takes place outside their secure perimeter, but surely it doesn’t make their job any easier. You can bet that police have to keep on eye on everyone they spot packing heat.

It’s hard to imagine any reasonable justification for carrying loaded weapons into a testy crowd. Recent public forums on health care have proven to be heated and confrontational enough without risking life and limb of everyone in attendance.

The National Rifle Association and its supporters have long maintained that most anyone should be permitted to carry a firearm in most any circumstance. They’ve also taken the extreme position that concealed carry permits issued in states with lax gun laws should be honored in states with stricter controls.

But as data collected by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives demonstrates, a nation besotted by violent crime can ill afford less restrictive gun laws. The most recent statistics show that gun dealers in states with weak gun laws are supplying criminals with firearms at a rate 5 times greater than their counterparts in other states.

When is enough enough? If people can’t be counted on to be rational and leave their loaded guns at home when they’re in proximity to the leader of the free world or in some other government-sponsored public forum, they’ve made the case for stronger gun control laws all by themselves.

(AP photo)

Posted by Nancy Knight at 11:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (23)
Categories: Tomorrow's editorials
        

Baltimore may be the pick of Indy Racing League, but is Baltimore ready to embrace Indianapolis 500 cars zooming down city streets at 180 miles per hour? Baltimore Racing Development's announcement Monday that the IRL is ready to roll through Baltimore in 2011 is great news, but only if organizers can make their case that the benefits outweigh the headaches.

Small wonder that Mayor Sheila Dixon was left waving the caution flag. "The city must carefully consider the costs of this event ... against the competing economic interests," the mayor's statement explained.

Running Indy cars around the Inner Harbor would no doubt disrupt downtown traffic and create a substantial (and noisy) ruckus. It also costs money to properly pave the streets involved (although some repaving is already planned for the area). But the benefits are considerable: Up to $100 million in spending over three days. That's more than the Preakness-related events generate each year.

Posted by Peter Jensen at 1:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (8)
Categories: Sports
        

Give Del. Jon S. Cardin credit for this much: His marriage proposal was original.

And it went over well with his girlfriend, who seems to agree with the Baltimore County Democrat that nothing says romance like a faux police raid.

Cardin and Megan Homer were aboard a friend’s boat in the Inner Harbor Aug. 7 when on-duty city marine officers boarded the vessel. Pretending to search for contraband as a city police helicopter whirred overhead, the officers reportedly told Homer to turn around so they could handcuff her. When she did, there was Cardin down on one knee.

Homer said yes. But for the rest of us, the proposal went down about as well as the one in Woody Allen’s Everyone Says I Love You, when the ingenue swallows the engagement ring her boyfriend tucked into her fancy-restaurant dessert.

Cardin issued a statement this week saying that he should have “considered that city resources would be involved and used better judgment.” The statement also said he would reimburse the city for “whatever costs they deem appropriate.”

That’s a start, even if the statement fell short of true contrition. (It described the marine unit’s involvement as a “routine 5-minute safety check of the boat” and neglected to mention the helicopter entirely.)

Cardin still needs to explain just how he or his friend — the boat owner’s name has not been made public — managed to get police to go along with the ruse. A police investigation into the matter should answer those questions eventually. Cardin would be smart not to keep us waiting.

Posted by Nancy Knight at 11:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (10)
Categories: Tomorrow's editorials
        

The honorable Robert C. Nalley, former chief administrative judge and tire deflator of the Charles County court, has been suspended pending an investigation into allegations he let the air out the tire of a cleaning worker's car that was parked in a restricted zone near his courthouse in La Plata. Last week, Judge Nalley told a local newspaper that he deflated the tire when notes left for the car's driver failed to produce results.

By the end of the week, Mr. Nalley had submitted his resignation as chief administrative judge, though the letter made no mention of the tire incident and did not affect his position as a trial judge. But on Friday his supervisor suspended him from hearing criminal cases anyway, at least until the police investigation is resolved, saying that was standard procedure for judges accused of crimes.

Deflating someone else's tire in what appears to have been a fit of pique was clearly a violation of the judge's solemn oath to uphold the law, but we're not sure it constitutes a firing offense unless it can be shown it was part of a broader pattern of flagrantly unlawful conduct. A state judicial review board will likely review the case and it has the power to recommend sanctions ranging from a reprimand or fine to dismissal. Meanwhile, Judge Robert Bell of the Maryland Court of Appeals will decide whether to accept Mr. Nalley's resignation as an administrative judge.

In any case, on Friday, in a meeting with his supervisor, Judge Nalley reportedly said he didn't think taking the law into his own hands by deflating the offending' car's tire was a "big deal." We hope that in light of his subsequent suspension he will now rethink that position. His actions may have been merely thoughtless, but they nevertheless did real damage to the courts' reputation for impartiality and fairness. Even if local prosecutors decline to press charges and the review board lets him off with a warning, some show of contrition on his part -- including an apology to the woman whose car he vandalized -- would still seem to be very much in order.

Posted by Glenn McNatt at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)
Categories: Law and criminal justice
        

The big news during the weekend was the Obama administration's signals that it would be willing to compromise on what had seemed a central element of his proposed health care overhaul: the creation of a public health care plan to compete with private insurers. The idea has been encoutering massive resistance from Republicans and some conservative Democrats, and on Sunday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that as long as a health reform bill ensures competition in the health insurance market, the president could support a bill that doesn't contain a public option.

The leading alternative to a public option is the idea of health cooperatives. The idea is that doctors and hospitals would band together to provide nonprofit health cooperatives that would be owned and managed by their consumer members and, presumably, be a friendlier version of private insurance. The political calculus appears to be that they could provide the same sort of competition as a government option but without the stigma of "government" attached to it and all the ensuing hystrionics about socialized medicine.

That would be great if there were any indication that health cooperatives could work on the scale necessary to provide meaningful compeition to the private health insurance juggernaut.

Health cooperatives were a popular idea during the Depression -- the time when rural electric cooperatives were stringing wires to underserved parts of the nation -- but the vast majority of them failed. A few survived, most notably the Group Health Cooperative of Seattle. That cooperative, after 60 years of existence, has grown to about 500,000 members. The largest private insurer in America, Wellpoint, has about 34 million. It woud take an awful lot of Group Health Cooperatives, all of them providing uniformly lower rates, to make big insurers like that pay attention.

It's hard to understand why people who are skeptical about the government's ability to set up a workable public health insurance plan would find the cooperative idea more palatable. Under that scenario, the government would provide about $6 billion in seed money and create a temporary government agency to help set the plans up. It seems much more likely that the government could set up one workable health insurance plan than that it could successfully oversee the creation of dozens, perhaps hundreds of individual cooperatives on the state, regional and local levels.

All of those new cooperatives would have to raise capital, set up administrative structures and information technology, recruit participating physicians and more. The government, on the other hand, already has decades of experience in doing those things through Medicare and Medicaid and could likely get a plan up and running quickly.

But would that lead inevitably to a government takeover of health care? Not likely. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only about 10 million people would enroll in the public plan by 2019. Opponents of the public plan have a curious logic -- they say on the one hand that it would be so attractive to consumers and businesses that it would drive private insurers out of business but that it would be so terrible at delivering health care that no one would want it. If a government competitor in the health insurance industry provides better are at lower cost, what's wrong with that?

That said, President Obama is right to signal a willingness to compromise on this point. Allowing critics to kill health reform overall would be a monstrous setback that would preclude the possibility of real reform for years. But if Congress passes a plan with health cooperatives that don't work well, it would create a political dynamic down the road that would make the creation of a government plan more feasible. And if the health cooperatives work, that's fine too. President Obama is right about one thing: The goal is to get competition into the health insurance system. How we get there isn't important.

Posted by Andy Green at 8:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (27)
        

Charles County Judge Robert C. Nalley may have had a legitimate gripe about the car parked in a restricted area a few steps from his courthouse, but that didn't give him the right to take the law into his own hands by letting the air out of one of its tires -- then boast to a newspaper he had nothing to apologize for.

Vandalize someone's car, then claim you were just doing a good deed?

Judge Nalley told the Maryland Independent that he was irked by the person who repeatedly parked in the restricted zone, and that he had left notes for its driver to cease and desist. When that didn't work, he said, he flattened the tire.

That sounds like Mr. Nalley took upon himself the role of judge, jury and executioner. Why couldn't he have just alerted police to have the car ticketed or towed?

Turned out the vehicle belonged to Jean Washington, 51, a part-time cleaning worker at the court. Ms.Washington said she didn't realize the space was restricted and used it because her shift ends after dark, and other lots were further away. And she claimed she never saw the judge's note. 

A supervisor told Ms. Washington to report the incident, which was witnessed by at least one sheriff's deputy. Police are investigating the matter and William D. Missouri, chief administrative judge for Maryland's 7th Circuit, which includes Charles, said Judge Nalley could be sanctioned.

Too often, the wheels of justice grind slowly, but in this case the perp himself may have speeded things up. On Thursday, Judge Nalley submitted his resignation as chief administrative officer of the court in La Plata, where he manages budgets, planning, personnel and other matters. But he could still remain on the bench as a trial judge.

In the letter to Robert M. Bell, chief judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals, Judge Nalley never mentioned the tire incident, which was probably just as well. He's already embarrassed himself and the court enough. His superior, Judge Missouri, may have put the best possible spin on the whole imbroglio when he told the Washington Post on Thursday, "I suspect [Bell] will accept the resignation, and make it effective immediately."

Posted by Glenn McNatt at 1:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Categories: Law and criminal justice
        

Here's a preview of an editorial we're working on. Let us know what you think. The best comments will appear alongside it in the print edition.

Beans & Bread, a soup kitchen in Upper Fells Point, feeds 300 people a day. That’s not expected to change, even if Beans & Bread wins city approval to build an addition. What would change is that the people who already line up for food would get to queue up inside the building instead of out on the sidewalk. They would have a place to shower and wash their clothes. The expansion also would give Beans & Bread staff offices rather than cubicles, so when they’re trying to help someone find services for, say, AIDS treatment, they can discuss that in private.

Some neighbors and area businesses fear an expanded Beans & Bread will draw more homeless people the area. But St. Vincent de Paul of Baltimore, which has operated the soup kitchen at Bank and South Bond streets for the past 17 years, insists that will not happen. The dining room will not grow, it says, and the showers and other services will only be available to people who eat there.

Neighbors and businesses who feel the homeless population is growing and dragging the area down are understandably wary. But those 300 people aren’t going away. What’s the downside to getting the line off the sidewalk, helping the homeless clean up and getting them services that could get some off the streets?

Posted by Andy Green at 6:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (31)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Here's a preview of an editorial we're working on. Let us know what you think. The best comments will run alongside it in the print edition.

Maryland, birthplace of Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass and Thurgood Marshall, is endowed with one of the richest legacies of African-American history of any state in the union. Before the Civil War, the state was home to the largest population of free blacks in the country, and it also sat squarely athwart a major route of the Underground Railroad through which thousands of slaves escaped to freedom in the North. After the war, new African-American communities sprang up across the state, centered around hundreds of small, fiercely independent churches that provided their congregants with a sense of belonging and a spiritual and physical refuge in an often hostile world.

Such was mission of the Cherry Hill African Union Methodist Protestant Church, a little building with a big name that reflected the fervent hopes of its founders for a better life in this world and salvation in the next. Established in 1887 in Granite, Md., in southwestern Baltimore County, the tiny, 650-square-foot structure erected on a stone foundation had a peaked roof, three rows of pews, a pulpit and a piano to accompany its chorister’s lilting hymns.

But the community that sustained the church for so long dispersed decades ago, and the building fell into neglect. Now a preservationist group wants to restore the old structure and convert it into a museum commemorating the role it played in the lives of generations of black Marylanders. That’s a laudable goal, but it won’t be easy: Across the country, museums large and small have been hit hard by the economic downturn. Raising funds for construction and operating costs has been a struggle because private donors are tapped out and government has cut back support for the arts and culture. For a new institution just trying to get off the ground, it’s likely to be an uphill climb.

The Friends of Cherry Hill Church can take heart, however, from the fact that there are a wide range of resources they can draw on to realize their goal. The Kennedy Center in Washington, for example, offers workshops that instruct fledgling institutions in the skills and tools needed to operate effectively. And there are any number of smaller institutions, such as the Banneker-Douglas Museum in Annapolis, that can serve as models of how to develop exhibition programs and sustainable funding plans. The Cherry Hill group may decide it can benefit from partnering directly or indirectly with one of these, or with a larger institution such as the Reginald F. Lewis Museum of Maryland African-American History and Culture in Baltimore.

There’s growing interest in African-American history and tourism, and Maryland is uniquely situated to take advantage of both. If the proposed museum’s backers can get enough people engaged, they can succeed even in these tough times, so long as they keep in mind that partnering with others probably will get them a lot further than trying to go it alone.

Posted by Andy Green at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Here are previews of editorials we're working on. Let us know what you think. The best comments will run alongside them in the print edition.

--The move of the proposed Baltimore City slots parlor onto a parcel on Russell Street may, ultimately, be a good thing for the city. A higher profile location surely would make for a better, more successful slots parlor, and that, in turn, would increase the amount of property tax relief city residents could see and the amount of revenue that would go to the state’s coffers.

But the way it came about only adds to the queasiness that’s been building in the months since bidders first started trying to grab the potentially lucrative slots licenses.

The land now reserved for the proposed casino had previously been slated for another development, a massive “sportsplex” envisioned by a group of developers including Raven Ray Lewis. How exactly the slots developers, the sportsplex developers and the city came to an agreement is unclear, and that raises questions about how transparent the negotiations for a Baltimore slots parlor have been. Other developers declined to bid on a city slots site at least in part because that piece of land was said to be unavailable. That left the city with only one bidder, a politically-connected group that includes former Maryland Democratic Party head Michael Cryor whose initial proposal was for a disappointing 500 machines. Now, with the new land, the group plans to expand its proposal to 3,750 — and stands to make a lot more money.

Is this a case of an astute and lucky business group? Of a city realizing its hopes for meaningful property tax reduction were at risk and brokering a deal to help the developers? A fix from the beginning?

Whatever the case, it certainly would have been better if the possibility of this site being used for slots had been known from the beginning. Baltimore and the state would be in a better position if there were more competition for the site to make sure Baltimore gets the best possible slots operation.

--There are plenty of reasons to be upset about what’s going on in the Congo. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s angry response to a student who asked her what her husband thought about a matter of local importance is not one of them. For more on this, click here.

Posted by Andy Green at 12:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

The UN reports that there have been 200,000 acts of sexual violence in the Congo since 1998, 65 percent against children. Since January, more than half of the thousands of rapes reported were perpetrated by the Congolese army, according to Human Rights Watch. That is to say nothing of the more than 2 million displaced citizens, and 5.4 million who have died in connection with the war waged against rebels backed by Rwanda and Uganda.

 An AP report which detailed the $17 million of aid the U.S. has pledge to end such violence described the scene at a refugee camp Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited.

"Residents told Clinton that women and young girls and boys are often victimized by rape when they leave the camp to gather wood or tend to outside gardens. One camp official said a young boy had been raped on Monday.

"One of the two victims Clinton met had been gang-raped after her husband and four children were killed. The other, eight months pregnant at the time, lost her baby and was found by hospital workers in a forest where she had stumbled."

 There are no words for the horrors these people have faced in the past decade.

But if you've watched the news those horrific statistics and stories didn't register. That's because Secretary Clinton's umbrage over a question about a Chinese loan offer became the story, instead of the corruption of officials and the sexual warfare being waged throughout the country.

At a news conference, a student in the audience asks Ms. Clinton what Mr. Clinton thinks about a disputed Chinese contract, and she reacted harshly. It's unclear what the student was thinking -- did he misspeak, meaning to ask for President Obama's opinion, instead of Bill Clinton's? Did the translator ask the wrong question? Did one or the other of them think it appropriate to question our top diplomat about her husband's opinion, rather than her own? But the point is that the narrative has switched from life-and-death issues that everyone should be united against, to another "Shrill Hill" sound bite.

 "Poor Hillary," her detractors and supporters both say, "She was just so tired! And it must be so hard to see Obama light up the world in his travels; and that Bill, saving those journalists from North Korea, stealing her thunder."

 To which I say, give me a break.

Hillary Clinton has been a professional politician, a U.S. senator, a presidential candidate and she is now the secretary of state of the United States of America. She has nothing to prove to the commentators and the pundits; her job is to advise the president on foreign affairs and enforce the policies of the USA.

She was not a petulant child craving recognition, nor does she need your defense. Secretary Clinton had a point to make, and it was this: I am the representative of the most powerful country in the world, and you will respect both my office and me as a human being. While you're at it, why don't you show that same respect to the women of the Congo?

In a country where being female might be a death sentence and rape is used as a weapon against the population, this is not a point to be made lightly. Perhaps it wasn't diplomatic, but it was entirely appropriate for Clinton to defend her position and her dignity in a place where so many wives and daughters have no defense or recourse.

So don't pity Hillary, who in your mind has to compete with her powerful husband and boss. Pity the millions of Congolese who are suffering. And get alongsde her, whether as a feminist or a human being: There's plenty to find offensive in this situation without falling back to either Clinton hatred or misogynistic punchlines.

(Getty Images photo)

Posted by Nancy Knight at 6:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)
        

Here are previews of editorials we're working on. Let us know what you think. The best comments will run alongside them in the print edition.

--It's unlikely that the General Assembly will seriously consider any tax law changes this year -- the leaders of the House and the Senate say they won't raise taxes after doing so two years ago, and Gov. Martin O'Malley has said the idea is a non-starter. Still, a movement is brewing among progressives inside and outside the legislature to consider "combined reporting," a complicated corporate tax law change they say would make sure everyone pays their fair share. That, supporters say, is always good politics. But tackling such a complicated issue in an election year is a recipe for bad policy. For more on this topic, click here.

--Attorney General Eric Holder appears poised to name a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of abuses by the CIA under the Bush administration. This development is important for two reasons. First, it shows that no one – including the CIA – is above the law. And second, it shows some measure of independence by the Justice Department from the White House; President Obama has been none too keen to spend time, energy or political capital on investigating the Bush administration. At a time when recently released e-mails show the depth of Bush adviser Karl Rove’s role in Justice Department firings, evidence that the attorney general keeps his own counsel is a very good thing.

Posted by Andy Green at 11:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (14)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

When you get caught red-handed by Baltimore's top cop, you'd think some time in the slammer was a pretty sure bet.

 But that's not what happened to two brothers, Devin and Davon Rogers, who were arrested New Year's Day by none other than city Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III, who chased the men down and slapped the cuffs on them after spotting them firing shotguns into the air while he was on patrol in the Shipley Hill neighborhood. On Monday, a city judge accepted a plea deal putting  both men on probation but allowing them to avoid prison time.

Mr. Bealefeld declined to comment on the disposition of the case other than to say police would continue to focus on getting illegal guns off the streets. But it was pretty clear he was irked by the judge's apparent leniency. Who wouldn't be, after risking your life to make an arrest, only to have a court refuse to back you up?

On the other hand, a spokeswoman for City State's Attorney Patricia Jessamy said she was satisfied with how things turned out. She said prison should be reserved for violent repeat offenders; neither brother had a serious criminal record.

With all due respect to Commissioner Bealefeld, we think Ms. Jessamy is right. Celebrating New Year's with firearms is dangerous and against the law, but it doesn't necessarily make you a serious bad guy; and unfortunately, it's not that uncommon in Baltimore. We hope the brothers learned their lesson and stay in line from now on. If they don't, you can bet Mr. Bealefeld will be ready to cuff 'em again -- and next time make sure they end up in the pokey.

Posted by Glenn McNatt at 11:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)
Categories: Law and criminal justice
        

It's a long-held axiom that increasing taxes in an election year is bad politics. But the nascent debate over enacting "combined reporting," a corporate tax law system that supporters say ensures corporations pay their fair share, suggests that it could make for bad policy as well.

Combined reporting is hugely complicated, and it's not clear that it's always a better way to tax the economic activity of corporations. The idea is that companies would have to report their earnings in all states and designate what portion of that comes from Maryland. It's supposed to be a means to prevent companies from hiding profits in states with lower corporate income taxes, or no corporate taxes at all. (Delaware: this means you.) Maryland would hardly be the first state to enact combined reporting, but the experience elsewhere doesn't suggest this system would necessarily be a huge boon. Some companies pay more under the system, but some pay less. It might make Maryland corporate taxes fairer, it would certainly make them more complicated, but it might not be a windfall. The state estimates it could generate $20-$150 million a year, not insubstantial, but hardly enough to fix our budget problems.

Nonetheless, the idea is getting a big push from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and other liberal groups who say Maryland should enact combined reporting this year before it considers more cuts to services, layoffs or furloughs to employees, or other cost-cutting measures. Supporters say raising this particular tax in an election year would actually be good politics; it would send a strong populist message, they say, for Maryland to make corporations pay their fair share rather than cut services to its citizens.

The problem is "a strong populist message" and "a sober, detailed debate about the implications of a complicated tax law change" generally do not go together. If Maryland does adopt combined reporting, it needs to do so carefully to make sure it creates a system that meets its goals of fairness without unintended consequences. An election year, when legislators are too often interested in looking good for voters, is not the best time for that.

Posted by Andy Green at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Categories: State House
        

Here are previews of editorials we're working on. Let us know what you think. The best comments will appear alongside them in the print edition.

--Sen. Ben Cardin's health care town hall Monday night was a sign that opponents are interested in using cynical ploys to defeat any chance of reform and not in debating the details of the proposals before Congress. For more on this topic, click here.

--The announcement of a second free summer arts festival at Inner Harbor in August to complement the well-known Artscape festival in July can only burnish Baltimore’s luster as a cultural destination and give a boost to local museums and galleries from another influx of art tourism. The new Inner Harbor Art Festival scheduled for the weekend of Aug. 22 near the Power Plant and Power Plant Live retail centers was put together by a local developer and a Florida-based events organizer with a national track record for producing juried art and craft shows, and it’s expected to draw up to 50,000 visitors to view works by about 150 local, regional and national artists. That’s great news for the city’s visual arts community, which will now have another well-attended venue to display and sell locally produced artworks, and the spill-over effect on the city’s musical and theatrical performing arts groups could also prove substantial if they can find a way piggyback on the buzz created by the new festival’s marketing effort.

Posted by Andy Green at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Ellen Sauerbrey, you are a disappointment.

It's theoretically possible that some of the ordinary citizens who showed up at Monday night's town hall meeting with Sen. Benjamin Cardin about the plans for health care reform might actually believe that the proposals under consideration would include government ordered euthanasia of the elderly. It's hard to believe that they have not seen any of the many concrete debunkings of this myth, and even harder to believe that they would imagine their fellow citizens who represent them in Congress and work in the federal government would be capable of such a thing. But it's theoretically possible that the jeering woman waving a "Let my parents live" sign outside the meeting was sincere.

Ms. Sauerbrey, on the other hand, should definitely know better. She has served in the government at the state and federal levels for the better part of the last 30 years and, moreover, knows Mr. Cardin personally -- he was speaker of the House of Delegates when she was minority leader. She should know good and well that the mild-mannered Mr. Cardin is not the kind of person who would blithely kill off granny. Yet there she sat in the audience at the meeting wearing a button that read "euthanasia."

One more time, here's what the reform proposals would actually do: They would allow the federal government to reimburse doctors for talking with patients and their families about end of life options, such as living wills and hospice care. Rather than some ugly Orwellian conspiracy, this would shore up the very doctor-patient relationship that health reform opponents profess so much concern for maintaining. Under the current system by which we pay for health care, doctors are forced to spend little time talking with patients about anything except their chief complaint. Deeper, more nuanced discussions about health, secondary ailments and, yes, a patient's wishes for how he or she should be treated at the end of life, are given short shrift. The idea of reimbursing doctors for an activity that patients scream out for more of is one of the best elements of the health reform package, not its most terrible.

The fact that opponents would seize on that part of the health plan and twist it into something frightening leads inevitably to the conclusion that they are not interested in a genuine debate about how best to reform our health care system but are instead attempting to use whatever cynical exploitation of emotion they can muster to defeat it.

Ms. Sauerbrey, who came within a hair of becoming governor, has tremendous standing in the community and a responsibility to elevate the debate. Based on her life's work in Maryland, she would be ideally suited to lead a discussion about the expense of the heatlh reform proposals and whether they do enough to control costs. Instead, she and other opponents of the health reform proposals have chosen a cheap, snide attack that gives a bad name to all those who have honest misgivings about the plans under debate. Ms. Saurbrey, the people deserve better.

Posted by Andy Green at 9:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (47)
        

Here's another excellent article about health care reform, written by physician Atul Gawande for the New Yorker a few weeks ago. This article has gotten lots of buzz and, reportedly, was must-reading in the White House. Sadly, the ideas don't seem to have permeated the debate in Congress much. It's long (did I mention it was in the New Yorker?) but definitely worth a read:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

Posted by Andy Green at 2:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)
Categories: Health and mental health
        

One thing about the current health reform debate that's certain is that things are pretty confusing. There are three different bills in the House of Representatives and two in the Senate, one of which hasn't seen the light of day, plus plenty of speculation and innuendo floating around. For those trying to make sense of things, here's a link to an article in this morning's New York Times that seeks to shed light on some of the questions about the various reform plans. I'll try to post more of these links as I come across them:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/health/policy/10facts.html?ref=us

We've also gotten a tremendous number of letters to the editor on the topic over the last few days. See what fellow readers are saying here.

Posted by Andy Green at 1:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
Categories: Health and mental health
        

Here's a preview of an editorial we're working on. Let us know what you think. The best comments will run alongside it in the print edition.

Too bad the city is just breaking ground on a new homeless shelter and not opening it today – with temperatures climbing into the dangerous range for the first time this summer, it's a reminder of how important it is to make sure all of the city’s residents have proper shelter. The construction of the shelter downtown is the most important and concrete step yet in Mayor Sheila Dixon’s laudable effort to end homelessness in Baltimore. She has tackled an issue that is unlikely to win her votes and guaranteed to cause headaches in a way previous mayors have not. For example, not only has her administration has taken steps designed to clear out the eyesore homeless encampment at the foot of the Jones Falls Expressway, but she has coupled that with efforts to find permanent, appropriate shelter for the city's homeless. It’s a refreshing change. There will certainly be plenty of obstacles – lack of funds, opposition among neighbors to any new shelters, resistance from the homeless themselves – and Ms. Dixon’s goal may ultimately be unachievable. But the fact that she’s trying says a lot.

Posted by Andy Green at 11:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Here's a preview of an editorial we're working on. Let us know what you think. The best comments will run alongside it in the print edition.

--Gov. Martin O’Malley’s on-line suggestion box for ideas to trim the state budget is a nice thought, but it would have been much better if he had constructed it so that people could see what their fellow citizens came up with. He plans to release the list eventually, but the opportunity for a real dialogue about state spending was lost. When he does enact the next round of budget cutting, Mr. O’Malley should make sure to identify exactly which ideas came from the citizen suggestions and how much they’re going to save. That would not only be transparent but it would also give people an idea of the enormity of Maryland’s budget problems.

Posted by Andy Green at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Here are previews of some editorials we're working on. Let us know what you think. The best comments will run alongside them in the print edition.

--Despite all the hysteria about wise Latinas and activist judges, the Senate – including a number of Republicans – is poised to confirm an experienced, thoughtful, mainstream judge to the Supreme Court.

But contrary to the hopes of the political left and the fears of the right, it looks like Judge Sonia Sotomayor's chances to steer the course of jurisprudence in this country are limited. She replaces Justice David Souter, a Republican appointee who turned out to be a relatively liberal voice, and confronts a court divided between four liberals – herself and Justices Stevens, Breyer and Ginsberg – and four conservatives – Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas. In the middle but leaning increasingly rightward of late is Justice Kennedy. Let’s hope Judge Sotomayor can pull him back.

--The circumstances of Tuesday’s death of a bicyclist on Maryland Avenue are still somewhat unclear – John R. Yates somehow became entangled in the wheels of a panel truck turning right onto Lafayette Avenue, and it’s uncertain whether the driver of the truck ever knew what was going on. But it points to the need for cyclists and drivers alike to become more aware of the rules governing their uneasy coexistence on the roads, especially in urban areas like Baltimore where narrow streets, potholes and storm drains make riding more dangerous.

In the long run, Baltimore’s plans to add more bike lanes will help, but in the meantime, we need a public awareness campaign to make sure everyone knows how to prevent accidents. In particular, situations like the one Mr. Yates found himself in are particularly common. Trucks making wide right turns are disproportionately represented in fatal bicycle accidents; we need to do more to make both truck drivers and cyclists aware of the danger and teach both how to avoid collisions. Baltimore’s cyclist in chief, Mayor Sheila Dixon, would be ideally suited to publicize the issue.

Posted by Andy Green at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Nearly two weeks ago, Baltimore County Councilman Stephen G. Samuel Moxley was involved in a four-car accident in West Baltimore and subsequently charged by police with driving under the influence.

This is the second such charge he has faced in four years. In 2005, he crashed a county-owned vehicle into a stopped car on the shoulder of the beltway. He was charged with DUI in that case, too, but was sentenced to a year of probation before judgement.

What is the councilman's explanation for his actions? So far, he has offered none. His only comment to date -- supplied before this week's council meeting -- is that he does not intend to resign.

Mr. Moxley owes county residents more than that. One DUI charge may represent a momentary lapse in judgment but two suggests a pattern.

(Photo: Baltimore County Council)

The councilman has not been convicted, of course. But this is a serious matter and it's difficult to understand how Mr. Moxley's continued silence serves the public interest. If he is innocent, he should say so. If he is not, he ought to offer a reason why he should continue in such an important post.

This has been a difficult summer for the county council. Last week, Councilman Kennth Oliver pleaded guilty to pocketing $2,300 in campaign donations. He has also refused public comment and to step down.

What are voters to think of all this? At the very least, it suggests there's not much interest in accountability on the council. 

Posted by Peter Jensen at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (9)
Categories: Baltimore County
        

Here are previews of some editorials we're working on. Let us know what you think. The best comments will run alongside them in the print edition.

--Maybe it was too good to be true. A few weeks ago, leaders of the state agency responsible for Maryland’s foster care system came to The Sun’s editorial board with the attorneys who have spent more than two decades in federal court trying to make sure that the state’s most threatened children receive appropriate care. In a stunning turnaround, they announced a consent agreement that resolved longstanding issues with the management of the Department of Human Resources and promised an end to federal oversight in as little as 18 months.

State officials said they finally concluded that what the advocates wanted was what the state should be doing anyway. The advocates said they believed the state would finally make good on its end of the bargain because they trusted the people now in charge. Had a guitar been in the room, kumbayah would no doubt have broken out.

But now the Attorney General’s office is in court trying to get the federal oversight of the foster care system thrown out immediately. The state’s lawyers believe that a recent Supreme Court decision is like a get out of jail free card for them. Even if the ruling allows the state to get out of the federal supervision, that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. Indeed, the court oversight is a drain on resources that, in an ideal world, would go to caring for children. But after the agency’s long and troubled history, it’s hard to believe that every problem has suddenly been solved.

Advocates were willing to accept on good faith that the state would make the necessary improvements and document them. But that good faith is now broken, and it’s hard to know what it would take to get it back.

--Maryland Natural Resources Police Cpl. Jeff Sweitzer was patrolling Deep Creek Lake in the early morning hours last Saturday when he saw a fast-moving boat speed dangerously close to a fishing boat. He took up pursuit and soon encountered a man in the water screaming for help.
Turns out, the terrified swimmer had fallen off the speeding boat intoxicated, disoriented and without a life jacket. The operator of the boat never noticed. If not for the officer’s intervention, the 23-year-old Montgomery Countian might have drowned.

Such incidents are a big reason why Maryland’s boating season could turn out to be the deadliest in four years. So far in 2009, 10 people have died in boating-related incidents. That’s already one more than last year and there are still three months left in the boating season.
While the state has endured much worse fatality rates as recently as 2005, the numbers should be a cause for concern. Police have investigated enough near-drownings this year to suggest that only law enforcement vigilance (and perhaps luck) have kept the fatality rate from climbing much higher still.

What can be done about it? More Maryland boaters need to wear life jackets, particularly children. Under current state law, only children under age 7 on a boat that is 21-feet-long or shorter are required to wear an appropriate personal flotation device.

Wearing life jackets in boats ought to be regarded as the equivalent of wearing seat belts on the roads. Their effect is much the same. According to U.S. Coast Guard statistics, 90 percent of boating accident drowning victims were not wearing a life jacket.

DNR officials say they are considering asking the Maryland General Assembly to raise the standard for life jacket use next year so that all youngsters under age 13 must wear them. That action is overdue. It’s already the federal standard — and the standard held by most states.

Regulations alone are not the answer, however — many boating accidents involve reckless behavior beyond the failure to wear a life jacket. Inattention, careless behavior by the operator or passengers, speeding and alcohol use are also considered major factors in accidents. People must be made to understand that boating can be as perilous as driving on land and should not be taken lightly.

Maryland already requires most boaters to complete an 8-hour safety course. That requirement has proven helpful, but the burden is still on boaters to act responsibly on the water. That should start with wearing a life jacket whether those on board are age 7 or 77 or in-between.

Posted by Andy Green at 10:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Here's a preview of an editorial we're working on. Let us know what you think. The best comments will run alongside it in the print edition.

When it comes to what people put on the roofs of their houses, ugly is in the eye of the beholder. Some people love rooftop decks. Some people think they’re eyesores that destroy the historic nature of Baltimore’s waterfront communities. (And some people love their rooftop decks and hate everybody else’s.)

But what if the structure you’re trying to put on top of your house has a purpose more noble than providing a good place to drink beer and watch the fireworks? That’s a question that’s dividing Federal Hill over the plans of one homeowner, Marsha Vitow, to install a small wind turbine on top of her rowhouse. The eight-foot-tall vertical structure probably won’t generate enough electricity to take her off the grid entirely, but it would help reduce her carbon footprint and, if it became a trend, could make a measurable difference for the environment. Some of her neighbors are dead set against it, but others have signed a petition backing her efforts.

Trouble is, the city’s laws don’t anticipate this kind of thing, and the Board of Municipal Zoning Appeals has a tough task in front of it to decide whether to approve her request or not. Provided she can give assurances that the turbine will be safe and not harm the structure of her home – which shouldn’t be a problem, given the experiences of residents in other cities – it’s hard to see how the board could deny her request when it routinely allows decks, antennas and additions that exceed the 35-foot residential height limit. This may not be the kind of structure people are used to seeing on top of houses, but if we’re going to get serious about changing our energy use, we’re going to have to get used to some new things.

Regardless of how the board rules, Mayor Sheila Dixon’s administration, which has made environmental sustainability a hallmark, should take the lead in developing a set of policies to govern the installation of turbines, solar panels and other new-energy technologies. It’s unclear whether wind turbines would be a practical way to change Baltimore’s carbon footprint – they usually do best in wide-open spaces, but then again, the presence of so much water nearby might change the calculus. But the only way to find out is to try it. If homeowners like Ms. Vitow are willing to put forward the investment for experiments like this one, the city should find a way to make it happen.

Posted by Andy Green at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (19)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Here's a preview of an editorial we're working on. Let us know what you think. The best comments will run alongside it in the print edition.

When World War II soldiers returned home, they had an astonishing and fitting opportunity awaiting them — their tuition, books and even a monthly stipend paid in full by the United States government, ensuring that the veterans who risked everything for their country had every opportunity to prosper.

There is no more fitting memorial to the Greatest Generation, with apologies to the stirringly beautiful monument recently erected on the National Mall, than a continuation of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the GI Bill.

And so we applaud the Post-9/11 GI Bill, introduced by Vietnam veteran Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, backed by then-Sen. Barack Obama and signed into law by President Bush. The payments, the first of which were sent to universities across the country this week, give veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan the same benefits their grandfathers received: An investment in our troops and in our country’s success.

In today’s economic climate, which is hostile even to college-educated workers with years of experience, it is vital that the men and women of our armed forces are provided for, just as they provided for us.

While the middle class struggles to keep their jobs, their homes and their life’s savings, the new GI Bill begins to rebuild the American dream this recession has ripped from so many.
With the adoption of this bill, the federal government acknowledges the importance of higher education.

But this is true for every American citizen, not just our soldiers. This is the first step to making college — and all the benefits that come with it — accessible to more citizens, not fewer.

The Greatest Generation would be proud.

Posted by Andy Green at 7:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
Categories: Upcoming editorials
        

Here are previews of some editorials we're working on. Let us know what you think. The best comments will run alongside them in the print edition.

--The Senate should act quickly to extend the cash for clunkers program, which ran out of money almost immediately amid a flurry of car buying across the nation. The program is an excellent example of stimulus spending in that it achieves multiple goals from one investment: It helps the economy through the increased sale of cars; it supports an industry that we’ve already invested billions in; it improves the environment by getting inefficient cars off the road; it helps consumers’ long-term finances by getting them into cars that will cost them less for gas; and it does all of that almost immediately with little bureaucracy.

The House of Representatives has authorized the transfer of another $2 billion into the program from another part of the stimulus package (meaning, continuing the program won’t add more to the federal deficit), but without Senate action, the program could end on Tuesday. Some senators are pushing for stricter environmental standards for the cars people purchase through the program, and that would certainly be a welcome development. But it seems that car buyers are coming to that decision on their own – the most popular car to be turned in at Ford dealerships was the Explorer (about 16 miles per gallon combined city/highway) and the most popular car bought was the Focus (better than 29 miles per gallon).

--The impending deadline for Baltimore County middle and high school students to prove their residency is a reminder of an ugly tendency in the County Council. For years, councilmen have been pushing the school district for an accounting of how many students from other jurisdictions (read: Baltimore City) are sneaking across the county line every morning to attend school. The councilmen are pandering to a group of constituents who apparently treat the issue with the same vitriol that has dominated the right wing attitude toward illegal immigration in recent years, with many apparently assuming that these interlopers are a major drain on the county’s finances and a cause of much strife in the schools.

What’s telling, though, is that the school district has never been the source of the complaints. If a massive influx of city students was straining the budget, wouldn’t the school system say something about it? If these students were causing massive disciplinary problems or dragging down test scores, wouldn’t the superintendent have every incentive to crack down?

There is every indication that students crossing the border for school is a minor problem – Baltimore County’s finances are the envy of the region, and its schools continue to fare will on standardized tests. Moreover, recent improvements in Baltimore City schools suggest that the influx of city kids in county schools is unlikely to get any worse.

Posted by Andy Green at 11:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (8)
Categories: Upcoming editorials