In many ways, at the Council session last week, what we saw at the very end of the session was a relatively calm look into what democratic checks and balances look like. Nobody got hurt in the process and the end result is one that I’m actually pretty happy about. The issue at hand was the selling of the “Hurst property” near the corner of Rt. 1 and Whiskey Bottom Rd.
I talked about this and the other property sales in this post. I am not going to re-hash all that I talked about in that post but for this post’s purpose the relevant piece of information is that, under the Ulman Administration, this particular property was purchased with the intent of having a project developed that would assist in revitalizing Rt. 1. The current administration appears to have determined that the potential a project on this site has for revitalizing Rt. 1 is not out weighed by the County’s need to supplement our budget in every way possible (specifically in these somewhat difficult times).
As I said in that last post, I honestly believe that the justification for buying it and the justification for selling it are valid and simply indicative of two different governing styles. So, County Executive Kittleman, following his style, proposes in his now approved budget that this property be sold to generate revenue. Procedurally, disposing of any real property requires Council approval and so a resolution allowing for the sale of the Hurst property is what was up for vote Monday night.
That’s where the democratic checks and balances piece comes onto the scene. The Council, led in this instance by Councilwoman Terrasa, wanted to follow through on the potential for that site to spur Rt. 1 revitalization and so passed an amendment that puts together a specific process for reviewing and determining who purchases the property. Without getting into too many details, the core concept is that, with the assistance of a community input, each proposal will be considered primarily for the project it proposes and its potential for positive impact on Rt. 1 rather than simply offer price.
Councilman Fox did discuss his concern that this might take away too much of the County’s potential revenue from the sale and then introduced and got passed an amendment to limit the time the process can take. He also introduced but failed to get passed a somewhat convoluted amendment that pushed offer price to a more prevalent position in the consideration. The amendment to change the process to include the community and to prioritize revitalization potential in the sale as well as the whole resolution passed 5-0.
There are numerous examples of how a single piece of property became a cornerstone for the revitalization of a surrounding neighborhood. Certainly Harbor Place in Baltimore, the Verizon Center in DC and AFI Theater in Silver Spring jump to mind. While those are big examples and I doubt anyone wants a sports arena here, they do show that it is possible. I also want to be clear that I see this as a beautiful example of creative and successful government intervention. The County purchased a distressed piece of property and is now selling it in a way that maximizes its revitalization potential. THIS is what democracy looks like.
I have no concept as to where the administration stands on including this process in the sale of the property but I do want to be clear in that, I am not establishing the administration as the antagonist in this story. This story, at least as it stands now, shows that true and effective check and balance government can create winners all the way around. Everyone, including the politicians and the community and the county as a whole, will be getting the lion’s share of what we/they could ask for and so . . . it was a good day.
Friday, October 16, 2015
Friday, October 2, 2015
Islamaphobia, Coming to a HoCo Near You
I said in September I would get back to 2-3 times a week but here’s my problem: Nominations and budgets and hyper-local things have been flowing onto the page, but I want, desperately sometimes, to talk about the bigger and harder issues. Every time I do, though, it feels somewhat incomplete, choppy, and stunted. I’ve contemplated shelving these issues, but they are too important to wait for better writing.
So shortly after I posted about Ahmed Mohammed, the kid who was arrested for making a clock, I read about this. A “far-right patriot group” is hosting a protest outside Howard County’s very own Dar Al-Taqwa because, as they put it, “WE ARE INVOKING OUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT ABOUT OUR FEELING OF ISLAM IN AMERICA”.
The first thing I thought about when I saw this was all of the (mostly national) Republicans who demanded moderate Muslim leaders vociferously denounce radical Muslims and Muslim terrorists. This argument is bunk for too many reasons to count, but I couldn’t help but be overwhelmed with a healthy dose of quid pro quo. I want to demand that more mainstream conservatives actively and publicly denounce this radical arm of their ideology lest they be accused of being complicit. In Howard County Dar Al-Taqwa is in the districts of Greg Fox, Trent Kittleman, Warren Miller, and Gail Bates.
The argument is bunk when applied to “moderate Muslim leaders” and so it’s not fair to apply it to those elected officials mentioned above, unless they themselves have called on moderate Muslim leaders to denounce radical Muslims. Additionally, I’m not fond of over politicizing this, this should be an opportunity to stand up against hate across party lines. I also have little doubt that the abhorrent reception Dar-us-Salaam received from our community when they proposed moving into Woodmont Academy spread across the political spectrum.[1]
It is also worth contemplating, although important to admit that it is just speculative contemplation, whether or not this is another example of the community at large reaping what we sow. Of all the mosques in America or even in the DC area, why did this group pick Dar Al-Taqwa? Is it possible that they believed, based on the opposition to Dar-Us-Salaam, that they might receive support from the community?
On how we should respond as a community, I am truthfully torn. On the one hand I feel like this group should just be completely ignored. Their viewpoints and their little rally are so far out of mainstream society that doing something in response gives them a level of validation they do not deserve. Additionally, it’s likely what they are hoping for because then they will get attention, which is clearly a primary goal for the group.
On the other hand, does ignoring them send a message to their targets that we do not care or even do not disagree with their hate? Should we instead organize a counter rally in support of Dar Al-Taqwa with political leaders, civic leaders, and religious leaders gathering as one to surround Dar Al-Taqwa with love instead of hate?
The answer must lie with the leaders of Dar Al-Taqwa. My hope is that all of the above mentioned leaders would reach out to them in the next week and show them love and support and ask them how they want us to proceed. Simply put, this is their call and any well-intentioned move done without their leadership nearly defeats the point.
[1] Two things worth noting about this article. The first is that the lawyers for the group fighting Dar-Us-Salaam were Joan Becker and Paul Skalny and the quoted member of the group is David Yungmann. All of them are noted Howard County Republican activists. The second thing is that everyone in this article (and others) stay pretty much on message that the issue is traffic and such and to be sure this was a legitimate concern. However, if you attended any of the meetings or hearings the Islamaphobia was, at best, thinly veiled.
So shortly after I posted about Ahmed Mohammed, the kid who was arrested for making a clock, I read about this. A “far-right patriot group” is hosting a protest outside Howard County’s very own Dar Al-Taqwa because, as they put it, “WE ARE INVOKING OUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHT ABOUT OUR FEELING OF ISLAM IN AMERICA”.
The first thing I thought about when I saw this was all of the (mostly national) Republicans who demanded moderate Muslim leaders vociferously denounce radical Muslims and Muslim terrorists. This argument is bunk for too many reasons to count, but I couldn’t help but be overwhelmed with a healthy dose of quid pro quo. I want to demand that more mainstream conservatives actively and publicly denounce this radical arm of their ideology lest they be accused of being complicit. In Howard County Dar Al-Taqwa is in the districts of Greg Fox, Trent Kittleman, Warren Miller, and Gail Bates.
The argument is bunk when applied to “moderate Muslim leaders” and so it’s not fair to apply it to those elected officials mentioned above, unless they themselves have called on moderate Muslim leaders to denounce radical Muslims. Additionally, I’m not fond of over politicizing this, this should be an opportunity to stand up against hate across party lines. I also have little doubt that the abhorrent reception Dar-us-Salaam received from our community when they proposed moving into Woodmont Academy spread across the political spectrum.[1]
It is also worth contemplating, although important to admit that it is just speculative contemplation, whether or not this is another example of the community at large reaping what we sow. Of all the mosques in America or even in the DC area, why did this group pick Dar Al-Taqwa? Is it possible that they believed, based on the opposition to Dar-Us-Salaam, that they might receive support from the community?
On how we should respond as a community, I am truthfully torn. On the one hand I feel like this group should just be completely ignored. Their viewpoints and their little rally are so far out of mainstream society that doing something in response gives them a level of validation they do not deserve. Additionally, it’s likely what they are hoping for because then they will get attention, which is clearly a primary goal for the group.
On the other hand, does ignoring them send a message to their targets that we do not care or even do not disagree with their hate? Should we instead organize a counter rally in support of Dar Al-Taqwa with political leaders, civic leaders, and religious leaders gathering as one to surround Dar Al-Taqwa with love instead of hate?
The answer must lie with the leaders of Dar Al-Taqwa. My hope is that all of the above mentioned leaders would reach out to them in the next week and show them love and support and ask them how they want us to proceed. Simply put, this is their call and any well-intentioned move done without their leadership nearly defeats the point.
[1] Two things worth noting about this article. The first is that the lawyers for the group fighting Dar-Us-Salaam were Joan Becker and Paul Skalny and the quoted member of the group is David Yungmann. All of them are noted Howard County Republican activists. The second thing is that everyone in this article (and others) stay pretty much on message that the issue is traffic and such and to be sure this was a legitimate concern. However, if you attended any of the meetings or hearings the Islamaphobia was, at best, thinly veiled.
Monday, September 21, 2015
See Something . . . Say Something
See something . . . Say Something
I see these words all the time. They are on metro ads, electronic highway signs, and tv commercials.
See something . . . Say something
I want to be shocked and outraged at the treatment of Ahmed Mohamed. The 14 year old boy who built a clock, gave it to his teacher and was promptly suspended and arrested.
See something . . . Say something
I desperately want to remove all of the context of this story, the nagging catch phrases and simply consider this the acts of one overly edgy and clearly racist teacher.
See something . . . Say something
The teacher saw a brown kid who (s)he didn’t know well. The brown kid was named Ahmed Mohamed. Ahmed Mohamed brought a present for his teacher, a clock he made at home. Sure if it were a bomb it would have to be made by the acme company for wile e coyote but how many bombs have you seen that didn’t have a clock on them?
See something . . . Say something
I’m not excusing their behavior, really I’m not. It is reprehensible to punish him and to take it as far as they did when he clearly never said or did anything threatening. I’d like to think that I would never EVER be that bad BUT . . . haven't we been trained to be afraid of 14 year old boys, especially 14 year old brown boys, especially 14 year old brown boys named Ahmed who brought you a ticking present.
See something . . . Say something
Isn’t that what the teacher did? She saw something and she said something. I would never be like that right? Yet, I remember my first reaction when I saw the representatives of the mosque trying to move into Woodmont Academy. Their outfits, their beards, their hijabs. I shuddered at my own reaction even then but my “instinct” was undeniable. The metro ads and message boards work, and we have all been trained to react in fear.
Could something like this happen in HoCo schools? Probably. I doubt it would escalate quite as far but it certainly could happen. Plus, just to broaden it for a second how many other preconceived assumptions box 14 year old (and 5 year old and 7 year old) boys and girls in? While they might not be taken away in cuffs aren’t we obligated to fight this inside the school system? I know it’s a lot to ask of our system but who’s if not HoCos? What better time than now? What better place than here?
I see something . . . Now I’ve said something. When does action happen?
I see these words all the time. They are on metro ads, electronic highway signs, and tv commercials.
See something . . . Say something
I want to be shocked and outraged at the treatment of Ahmed Mohamed. The 14 year old boy who built a clock, gave it to his teacher and was promptly suspended and arrested.
See something . . . Say something
I desperately want to remove all of the context of this story, the nagging catch phrases and simply consider this the acts of one overly edgy and clearly racist teacher.
See something . . . Say something
The teacher saw a brown kid who (s)he didn’t know well. The brown kid was named Ahmed Mohamed. Ahmed Mohamed brought a present for his teacher, a clock he made at home. Sure if it were a bomb it would have to be made by the acme company for wile e coyote but how many bombs have you seen that didn’t have a clock on them?
See something . . . Say something
I’m not excusing their behavior, really I’m not. It is reprehensible to punish him and to take it as far as they did when he clearly never said or did anything threatening. I’d like to think that I would never EVER be that bad BUT . . . haven't we been trained to be afraid of 14 year old boys, especially 14 year old brown boys, especially 14 year old brown boys named Ahmed who brought you a ticking present.
See something . . . Say something
Isn’t that what the teacher did? She saw something and she said something. I would never be like that right? Yet, I remember my first reaction when I saw the representatives of the mosque trying to move into Woodmont Academy. Their outfits, their beards, their hijabs. I shuddered at my own reaction even then but my “instinct” was undeniable. The metro ads and message boards work, and we have all been trained to react in fear.
Could something like this happen in HoCo schools? Probably. I doubt it would escalate quite as far but it certainly could happen. Plus, just to broaden it for a second how many other preconceived assumptions box 14 year old (and 5 year old and 7 year old) boys and girls in? While they might not be taken away in cuffs aren’t we obligated to fight this inside the school system? I know it’s a lot to ask of our system but who’s if not HoCos? What better time than now? What better place than here?
I see something . . . Now I’ve said something. When does action happen?
Thursday, September 3, 2015
Council has the Trump Card
I’ll be honest; I’m not much of a card player. I played gin rummy with my family growing up and had some rousing games of Uno in my day. I wasted some time in college playing hearts or spades but like I said, I’m not really much of a card player.
Anyway, I want to talk about a trump card for reasons I will explain in a minute. I thought I knew what a trump card was. I assumed it was a card you inherited from a previous hand but had to pretend you earned during the hand being played. I thought it was trimmed in a tacky gold leaf and continually tried to reject any cards that came into your hand during play. Turns out I was off on that. Here it is straight from Wikipedia “(in bridge, whist, and similar card games) a playing card of the suit chosen to rank above the others, which can win a trick where a card of a different suit has been led.”
If you read the August 20th Flier, or caught the article here, you not only got a chance to see my name in print, but learned that the nominations issue continues to loom large. My coverage was on the Hartman nomination to Local Children’s Board and I was happy to see the abhorrent nature of Crisis Pregnancy Center’s in print. That is not what I am writing about today.
I advocated earlier that the Council should table all board and commission nominations until County Executive Kittleman agrees to work WITH them in a bipartisan manner for the nomination process. That suggestion wasn’t taken and it seems to me much to the detriment of the whole process on both sides. Now we will continue to have partisan gamesmanship. It would appear, in HoCo’s case, it will be under the surreal veil of not playing politics with political appointments.
There is good news though; I can tie my two non-sequiturs together. As I see it there are three currently serving board members who the administration has proposed replacing:
Regina Stone-Mitchell, Housing Commission
Josh Tzuker, Planning Board
Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, Human Rights Commission
While each of these has had different paths to this point in all three cases the Council holds the trump card. They can guarantee any or all three of the above continue to serve without any horse-trading with the Executive. It’s actually very simple. All they need to do is declare that the only nominations that will receive three votes are Ms. Stone-Mitchell for the Housing Commission, Mr. Tzuker for the Planning Board, and Ms. Walker-Lightfoot for the Human Rights Commission. Any nominee that is NOT one of these three will get rejected.
As I understand the law and process, if this generates a stalemate then the above three simply continue to serve. Just to be clear, let me pull the language from, as an example, CR18-2010 “A RESOLUTION confirming the appointment of Genevievette E. Walker-Lightfoot to the Human Rights Commission.” The final sentence reads “…the following person is appointed as a member of the Human Rights Commission to serve from the passage of this Resolution to March 1, 2015 or until a successor is appointed and confirmed:” (emphasis added)
The case for allowing dedicated volunteers to continue serving has been made, admirably in many locations. The case for a truly cooperative bipartisan process for appointments to boards and commissions was made and apparently rejected. By my book that leaves two options for the Council. They can play this trump card or fold the better hand[1].
[1] I’m pretty sure now I’m mixing card games but the metaphor is too pretty here even if mixed.
Anyway, I want to talk about a trump card for reasons I will explain in a minute. I thought I knew what a trump card was. I assumed it was a card you inherited from a previous hand but had to pretend you earned during the hand being played. I thought it was trimmed in a tacky gold leaf and continually tried to reject any cards that came into your hand during play. Turns out I was off on that. Here it is straight from Wikipedia “(in bridge, whist, and similar card games) a playing card of the suit chosen to rank above the others, which can win a trick where a card of a different suit has been led.”
If you read the August 20th Flier, or caught the article here, you not only got a chance to see my name in print, but learned that the nominations issue continues to loom large. My coverage was on the Hartman nomination to Local Children’s Board and I was happy to see the abhorrent nature of Crisis Pregnancy Center’s in print. That is not what I am writing about today.
I advocated earlier that the Council should table all board and commission nominations until County Executive Kittleman agrees to work WITH them in a bipartisan manner for the nomination process. That suggestion wasn’t taken and it seems to me much to the detriment of the whole process on both sides. Now we will continue to have partisan gamesmanship. It would appear, in HoCo’s case, it will be under the surreal veil of not playing politics with political appointments.
There is good news though; I can tie my two non-sequiturs together. As I see it there are three currently serving board members who the administration has proposed replacing:
Regina Stone-Mitchell, Housing Commission
Josh Tzuker, Planning Board
Genevievette Walker-Lightfoot, Human Rights Commission
While each of these has had different paths to this point in all three cases the Council holds the trump card. They can guarantee any or all three of the above continue to serve without any horse-trading with the Executive. It’s actually very simple. All they need to do is declare that the only nominations that will receive three votes are Ms. Stone-Mitchell for the Housing Commission, Mr. Tzuker for the Planning Board, and Ms. Walker-Lightfoot for the Human Rights Commission. Any nominee that is NOT one of these three will get rejected.
As I understand the law and process, if this generates a stalemate then the above three simply continue to serve. Just to be clear, let me pull the language from, as an example, CR18-2010 “A RESOLUTION confirming the appointment of Genevievette E. Walker-Lightfoot to the Human Rights Commission.” The final sentence reads “…the following person is appointed as a member of the Human Rights Commission to serve from the passage of this Resolution to March 1, 2015 or until a successor is appointed and confirmed:” (emphasis added)
The case for allowing dedicated volunteers to continue serving has been made, admirably in many locations. The case for a truly cooperative bipartisan process for appointments to boards and commissions was made and apparently rejected. By my book that leaves two options for the Council. They can play this trump card or fold the better hand[1].
[1] I’m pretty sure now I’m mixing card games but the metaphor is too pretty here even if mixed.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Apologize and correct your errors, have some fun with people who challenge you and your opinions . . .
In my last post, I clarified the truth about who precisely Mr. Oxenham was replacing on the Housing Commission – as originally proposed and as finally approved. I continue to stand 100% behind my statements of fact as fact [1]. However, at the end of my post I launched into theory as to WHY the Kittleman administration made the change. Through the device of rhetorical questions, I put forth two theories.
My primary theory was that the administration had decided (better late than never) that racial diversity actually is important for the Housing Commission and so re-arranged nominations to reflect that. My second theory was that the Kittleman administration maybe in fact wanted to work with the Democratically controlled council and show actual bipartisianship and so this was an agreement between them.
As it turns out, the manifestations of the lack of diversity were quick enough to clarify that no, the Administration’s change in plans was not based on a realization of the importance of diversity nor a commitment to bipartisanship, but rather it was simply a practical response to changing circumstances. The other nominee, Brad Myers, got another opportunity that upon reflection was the opportunity he preferred [2]. My theories actually gave the Administration the benefit of the doubt. I stand corrected.
Now let us break down each of the three comments. They’re pretty long so I won’t paste them whole in this post but you should definitely read them here. All three seem to employ the tried and true strategy of manufactured outrage, strawmen, and anything ranging from true passive aggressive to outright aggressive slights.
Ox was up first and the most straight forward and reasonable of the three. He starts by dismissing my theories as “conspiracy” theories. It is clearly the word conspiracy that is wildly out of place here. I did put forth theories, though hardly conspiracy–based, and by most objective standards, were either of my theories to be true it would have put the Executive in a FAR better light than what Ox claims to be the true reasoning.
Ox then tells me where I “went wrong”. This one I will quote directly “instead of using to resources to find out what happened you chose to make an accusations about me being rich without any knowledge of my income or tax bracket. Then tried to make bogus racial claims to stir up trouble.” [3] I want to take specific exception to the very concept that what I did was “make a bogus racial claim.” That’s preposterous. I pointed out that a white man was nominated to replace an African American woman who still had a term to serve. For the record, with the change by the Administration she is now in limbo and it will be interesting to see what the Administration does in either reappointing her or NOW proposing again to replace her.
Ox ends with a little diatribe on the state of blogging and strangely, along with his friends after him, accuses me of lighting fires while clearly holding matches.
Next up was Brad Myers the nominee who withdrew. For those of you playing the HoCo politics drinking game, bottoms up because Brad uses our favorite pejorative while leveling accusations at someone else, “What ever happened to Choose Civility?” Brad spends most of his time explaining his decision to withdraw, all of which is fine and good. I will reiterate that my statements of fact were 100% accurate at the time I wrote them and that I put forth theories as to the reason for the change. Both Brad’s and Ox’s claims that my theories over politicize the situation are off base. Brad goes further saying that it is “disgusting and should not be tolerated by the citizens of Howard County.” While I was desperately hoping he would end with a Hitler reference, I guess I will settle for this metaphoric dive to the pitch like an Italian soccer star.
Honestly, David Yungmann’s is my favorite. My theory is that since he is neither a new appointee nor the name on every Kittleman campaign piece, he felt less inclined to code his language. Of course my theories have been proven wrong so what do I know? He starts out of the gate by declaring that publishing something factually inaccurate is misinformation and fiction. I agree with that of course, but again, what I published was 100% accurate at the time it was published.
He next dreams up a response from me to Ox with two statements of interest to me. First, that “…it doesn’t matter that he was at some point weeks earlier slated to replace her.” This statement is WILDLY off base because it most definitely does matter. I am putting forth that I believe racial diversity on the Housing Commission is extremely important AND that Ms. Mitchell has, as far as anyone I know of every political persuasion is saying, served quite admirably. [4]
He follows that up with another reference to my calling Ox rich and declares that means I, as a progressive, think that disqualifies Ox. Classic conservative assumption. I explained in footnote 3 how I came to that conclusion, it was not meant as a pejorative any more than calling him white or a man was [5]. All three were used simply as a point that we have rich white men who are represented in abundance in Howard County (of all political parties and persuasions).
After a kind of long diatribe attacking me for what he perceives as an attack on Ox which is kind of silly and not worth the time to dispute he makes the following accusation:
“This blog is so obviously being run by someone in the inner circle of the anti-Kittleman camp and will be used to spread negative information, whether accurate or fiction, about Allan and everything he does.”
Here is where I am terribly torn. On the one hand Mr. Yungmann clearly does not know or understand the Democratic Party in general or more specifically the Howard County Democratic Party. The idea that they are organized enough to create an anti-Kittleman camp with or without an inner circle or that a campaign is being waged three years early is . . . hilarious [6]. On the other hand, evidence is showing that this idea is making the Kittleman Administration chase its tail a bit so . . . sure, I am part of the inner circle of the anti-Kittleman camp. I’ve been put in charge of the secret handshake.
---------------------------------------------------------
[1] More on this in a moment as I will address the statements of all three commenters to the post.
[2] Leadership does seem like a perfectly great opportunity, and I certainly see how he would only have time for one or the other.
[3] Although this may be a rabbit hole from which we never return, I will address my characterization of Ox as “rich”. It is true that I don’t have any knowledge of Ox’s income or tax bracket. I do know his home address (which he gave at the public hearing) and what he paid for the house (which is public record available on the State Department of Assessment and Taxation website). “Rich” is both subjective and relative, and it is a term that makes many of us of higher economic status rather uncomfortable for some reason. I seem to have struck a nerve here – that was not my intent, but I’m not apologizing either. For a long time, I have believed it doesn’t serve anyone for us liberal do-gooders to ignore how the system works to our personal benefit. I think the same applies to conservative do-gooders too.
[4] I do not know Ms. Mitchell. I have never met her. I do not know what her political persuasions are. My understanding from those who have worked with her, including folks INSIDE the Kittleman administration, is that she is a great resource on the Housing Commission.
[5] I am fairly certain from his conservative lens he thinks that I meant all three as a negative.
[6] It is certainly possible that such a thing exists and is happening though it would literally shock me. Contrary to what these commenters or anyone else may think, I personally have not been involved in ANY inner circle meetings (or outer circle meetings for that matter) and have had no contact with County elected officials any more than the average County resident.
My primary theory was that the administration had decided (better late than never) that racial diversity actually is important for the Housing Commission and so re-arranged nominations to reflect that. My second theory was that the Kittleman administration maybe in fact wanted to work with the Democratically controlled council and show actual bipartisianship and so this was an agreement between them.
As it turns out, the manifestations of the lack of diversity were quick enough to clarify that no, the Administration’s change in plans was not based on a realization of the importance of diversity nor a commitment to bipartisanship, but rather it was simply a practical response to changing circumstances. The other nominee, Brad Myers, got another opportunity that upon reflection was the opportunity he preferred [2]. My theories actually gave the Administration the benefit of the doubt. I stand corrected.
Now let us break down each of the three comments. They’re pretty long so I won’t paste them whole in this post but you should definitely read them here. All three seem to employ the tried and true strategy of manufactured outrage, strawmen, and anything ranging from true passive aggressive to outright aggressive slights.
Ox was up first and the most straight forward and reasonable of the three. He starts by dismissing my theories as “conspiracy” theories. It is clearly the word conspiracy that is wildly out of place here. I did put forth theories, though hardly conspiracy–based, and by most objective standards, were either of my theories to be true it would have put the Executive in a FAR better light than what Ox claims to be the true reasoning.
Ox then tells me where I “went wrong”. This one I will quote directly “instead of using to resources to find out what happened you chose to make an accusations about me being rich without any knowledge of my income or tax bracket. Then tried to make bogus racial claims to stir up trouble.” [3] I want to take specific exception to the very concept that what I did was “make a bogus racial claim.” That’s preposterous. I pointed out that a white man was nominated to replace an African American woman who still had a term to serve. For the record, with the change by the Administration she is now in limbo and it will be interesting to see what the Administration does in either reappointing her or NOW proposing again to replace her.
Ox ends with a little diatribe on the state of blogging and strangely, along with his friends after him, accuses me of lighting fires while clearly holding matches.
Next up was Brad Myers the nominee who withdrew. For those of you playing the HoCo politics drinking game, bottoms up because Brad uses our favorite pejorative while leveling accusations at someone else, “What ever happened to Choose Civility?” Brad spends most of his time explaining his decision to withdraw, all of which is fine and good. I will reiterate that my statements of fact were 100% accurate at the time I wrote them and that I put forth theories as to the reason for the change. Both Brad’s and Ox’s claims that my theories over politicize the situation are off base. Brad goes further saying that it is “disgusting and should not be tolerated by the citizens of Howard County.” While I was desperately hoping he would end with a Hitler reference, I guess I will settle for this metaphoric dive to the pitch like an Italian soccer star.
Honestly, David Yungmann’s is my favorite. My theory is that since he is neither a new appointee nor the name on every Kittleman campaign piece, he felt less inclined to code his language. Of course my theories have been proven wrong so what do I know? He starts out of the gate by declaring that publishing something factually inaccurate is misinformation and fiction. I agree with that of course, but again, what I published was 100% accurate at the time it was published.
He next dreams up a response from me to Ox with two statements of interest to me. First, that “…it doesn’t matter that he was at some point weeks earlier slated to replace her.” This statement is WILDLY off base because it most definitely does matter. I am putting forth that I believe racial diversity on the Housing Commission is extremely important AND that Ms. Mitchell has, as far as anyone I know of every political persuasion is saying, served quite admirably. [4]
He follows that up with another reference to my calling Ox rich and declares that means I, as a progressive, think that disqualifies Ox. Classic conservative assumption. I explained in footnote 3 how I came to that conclusion, it was not meant as a pejorative any more than calling him white or a man was [5]. All three were used simply as a point that we have rich white men who are represented in abundance in Howard County (of all political parties and persuasions).
After a kind of long diatribe attacking me for what he perceives as an attack on Ox which is kind of silly and not worth the time to dispute he makes the following accusation:
“This blog is so obviously being run by someone in the inner circle of the anti-Kittleman camp and will be used to spread negative information, whether accurate or fiction, about Allan and everything he does.”
Here is where I am terribly torn. On the one hand Mr. Yungmann clearly does not know or understand the Democratic Party in general or more specifically the Howard County Democratic Party. The idea that they are organized enough to create an anti-Kittleman camp with or without an inner circle or that a campaign is being waged three years early is . . . hilarious [6]. On the other hand, evidence is showing that this idea is making the Kittleman Administration chase its tail a bit so . . . sure, I am part of the inner circle of the anti-Kittleman camp. I’ve been put in charge of the secret handshake.
---------------------------------------------------------
[1] More on this in a moment as I will address the statements of all three commenters to the post.
[2] Leadership does seem like a perfectly great opportunity, and I certainly see how he would only have time for one or the other.
[3] Although this may be a rabbit hole from which we never return, I will address my characterization of Ox as “rich”. It is true that I don’t have any knowledge of Ox’s income or tax bracket. I do know his home address (which he gave at the public hearing) and what he paid for the house (which is public record available on the State Department of Assessment and Taxation website). “Rich” is both subjective and relative, and it is a term that makes many of us of higher economic status rather uncomfortable for some reason. I seem to have struck a nerve here – that was not my intent, but I’m not apologizing either. For a long time, I have believed it doesn’t serve anyone for us liberal do-gooders to ignore how the system works to our personal benefit. I think the same applies to conservative do-gooders too.
[4] I do not know Ms. Mitchell. I have never met her. I do not know what her political persuasions are. My understanding from those who have worked with her, including folks INSIDE the Kittleman administration, is that she is a great resource on the Housing Commission.
[5] I am fairly certain from his conservative lens he thinks that I meant all three as a negative.
[6] It is certainly possible that such a thing exists and is happening though it would literally shock me. Contrary to what these commenters or anyone else may think, I personally have not been involved in ANY inner circle meetings (or outer circle meetings for that matter) and have had no contact with County elected officials any more than the average County resident.
Monday, August 17, 2015
Ox, You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In this case the word is “fact”.
So there I was staring at the Casey Foundation report that I mention here, trying to put together a cogent post while clearly having summer brain. Then, almost at that exact moment I get a comment posted from “Ox” the online moniker for Chris Oxenham, newest appointee to the Housing Commission. Here is the comment in its entirety:
“This post was just brought to my attention and it should be pointed out that misinformation is being spread. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for local issues you have a point marked there that states "a rich white man to the housing commission to replace an African American woman who has dedicated her career to affordable housing" aside from me wondering how you got access to my tax returns to be able to make a comment about me being "rich", it should be pointed out that I did not in fact replace who you said I did. While you may personally dislike me which is fair game and I have no problem taking hits from you about my postings and comments, facts should still triumph over fiction.”
What is simply amazing to me is that Mr. Oxenham could have simply given an update and left it at that but instead choose to outright state that I was providing misinformation and “fiction” in my declaration on who he would be replacing on the Commission. Of course I cannot know his intent but I suspect that there was a good deal of hubris in making such an accusation towards me when the facts are easily discernible through public information.
So, first of all, he is correct when he states that he “did not in fact replace who you said I did.” However, my statement that he was nominated to replace her specifically is ALSO correct. His statement is, at best, an update not a correction.
Mr. Oxenham was originally nominated to replace Ms. Mitchell, but the Administration eventually changed its mind and decided to have him replace the term limited Mr. Riemer. The Council discusses this briefly when Mr. Oxenham is approved [1]. If you go to the page with the supporting documents on his nomination resolution you will find a memo from Chief Administrative Officer Lonnie Robbins to Council Chair Mary Kay Sigaty dated July 30 [2]. Here is the word for word text of the memo:
“The Administration requests that Council Resolution No. 109-2015 be withdrawn at the Council's next legislative session.
Also, with regard to CR 110-2015, the appointee, Christopher Oxenham, will be replacing Michael Riemer. Mr. Oxenham will not be replacing Regina Mitchell as previously indicated.”
I will not be so bold as to presume it was my blog post which convinced the Administration of the error of its ways. It was much more likely the result of negotiations with Council members who are, as they should be, taking the responsibility of approving such nominations seriously. Like I said, Mr. Oxenham’s comment is, at best, simply an update. His referring to my post as misinformation and fiction over facts is blatant obfuscation. Pretty quickly and easily proving one of the reasons I was so uneasy with his nomination to the Housing Commission in the first place. The comment, however, does highlight a whole series of new questions for me.
Mr. Oxenham said, “This post was just brought to my attention”.
Was the attention bringer a member of the Kittleman Administration?
If so, did they also request that Mr. Oxenham obfuscate the history as he so clearly did?
If so why would the administration run from the change or want to pretend this wasn’t a change? Are they afraid to admit they made a mistake or yielded to pressure? Are they afraid to admit that they gave into pressure to keep racial diversity on a County Commission?
All just questions, for now without answers.
[1] I believe you can find it at the 12-minute mark.
[2] My post in question was dated July 23
So there I was staring at the Casey Foundation report that I mention here, trying to put together a cogent post while clearly having summer brain. Then, almost at that exact moment I get a comment posted from “Ox” the online moniker for Chris Oxenham, newest appointee to the Housing Commission. Here is the comment in its entirety:
“This post was just brought to my attention and it should be pointed out that misinformation is being spread. While I appreciate your enthusiasm for local issues you have a point marked there that states "a rich white man to the housing commission to replace an African American woman who has dedicated her career to affordable housing" aside from me wondering how you got access to my tax returns to be able to make a comment about me being "rich", it should be pointed out that I did not in fact replace who you said I did. While you may personally dislike me which is fair game and I have no problem taking hits from you about my postings and comments, facts should still triumph over fiction.”
What is simply amazing to me is that Mr. Oxenham could have simply given an update and left it at that but instead choose to outright state that I was providing misinformation and “fiction” in my declaration on who he would be replacing on the Commission. Of course I cannot know his intent but I suspect that there was a good deal of hubris in making such an accusation towards me when the facts are easily discernible through public information.
So, first of all, he is correct when he states that he “did not in fact replace who you said I did.” However, my statement that he was nominated to replace her specifically is ALSO correct. His statement is, at best, an update not a correction.
Mr. Oxenham was originally nominated to replace Ms. Mitchell, but the Administration eventually changed its mind and decided to have him replace the term limited Mr. Riemer. The Council discusses this briefly when Mr. Oxenham is approved [1]. If you go to the page with the supporting documents on his nomination resolution you will find a memo from Chief Administrative Officer Lonnie Robbins to Council Chair Mary Kay Sigaty dated July 30 [2]. Here is the word for word text of the memo:
“The Administration requests that Council Resolution No. 109-2015 be withdrawn at the Council's next legislative session.
Also, with regard to CR 110-2015, the appointee, Christopher Oxenham, will be replacing Michael Riemer. Mr. Oxenham will not be replacing Regina Mitchell as previously indicated.”
I will not be so bold as to presume it was my blog post which convinced the Administration of the error of its ways. It was much more likely the result of negotiations with Council members who are, as they should be, taking the responsibility of approving such nominations seriously. Like I said, Mr. Oxenham’s comment is, at best, simply an update. His referring to my post as misinformation and fiction over facts is blatant obfuscation. Pretty quickly and easily proving one of the reasons I was so uneasy with his nomination to the Housing Commission in the first place. The comment, however, does highlight a whole series of new questions for me.
Mr. Oxenham said, “This post was just brought to my attention”.
Was the attention bringer a member of the Kittleman Administration?
If so, did they also request that Mr. Oxenham obfuscate the history as he so clearly did?
If so why would the administration run from the change or want to pretend this wasn’t a change? Are they afraid to admit they made a mistake or yielded to pressure? Are they afraid to admit that they gave into pressure to keep racial diversity on a County Commission?
All just questions, for now without answers.
[1] I believe you can find it at the 12-minute mark.
[2] My post in question was dated July 23
Thursday, August 6, 2015
The Last . . . Bite on Nutrition
Barring something unforeseen this is definitely the last I
will be talking about the CB-17 and honestly I am going to keep it short
because it has ALL been said. Listening
to the session from last week really only one sentence stood out as summing up
the entire debate.
Councilman Fox, in a lengthy and relatively rambling defense
of his vote not to override the veto, honed in on two key arguments. The first was that old trope of stealing our
freedom. The second was that the bill,
as amended, did nothing. He tied those
two together with the age-old “slippery slope” argument. I am open to discussion on this but as far as
I can tell the “slippery slope” argument is a fallacy 99.78% of the time.
So back to the one magical sentence, it came from
Councilwoman Terrasa and it was the first thing she said “I find it hard to
understand how a bill that does nothing takes away the freedoms you are talking
about.” The statement was followed by
what sounds like fairly robust laughter from the studio audience and some
mutterings of protest from Mr. Fox.
It was a good line but it struck me as a pretty earnest
statement as well and it highlighted the logical flaws in the opposition to the
bill. The arguments against the bill
appear to be based on what opponents believed the bill was or based on other
bills it looked like, not what was actually within this bill. Truth be told, it is pretty difficult to see
through to what the actual objections are to the actual legislation. If you, Mr. Fox, object to what you believe
will inevitably come next as we careen down the slippery slope, the appropriate
time to argue is when it comes along.
Support for A does not in any way indicate permissiveness for B. That’s a tired argument without factual
support.[1] Oh and just for the record, I agree that Diet
Monster has no redeeming nutritional value for kids (or adults). However, that still places it as a better
option than those that have been found to be the leading cause of the biggest
epidemic facing our children. How gross Diet Monster looks or tastes or seems is simply not relevant. Also I just tried Diet Monster and yeah it’s
disgusting. Anyway, all appears to be
well that ends well and it will be interesting to see how such legislation is
implemented in this environment.
With it being August, I suspect I will stay at a slowed down
pace, hopefully still posting at least once a week. I will shoot for some of those 30,000 feet
issues or side projects I have been looking at.
[1] If
you argue back with Chamberlain’s appeasement of Hitler, I’m throwing you out
of my corner of the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)