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?
Monday, September 21, 2015
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.
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Politics of Nutrition
Here it is, my first official correction. On May 28th in my post titled “I Aimed For The Public's Heart, And. . .Hit It In The Stomach” in reference
to the nutritional standards legislation and the science that supports it, I
stated that “I am frustrated with the
science here because it makes for, at best, mediocre politics.”
According
to the poll announced here
by the Horizon Foundation, apparently it makes for pretty good politics. OK that’s not really a correction but
whatever I stand by my statement. Both
of them.
A lot of
people disregard polls, usually saying something like “you can get a majority
of people to agree to anything if you frame the question right.” Mildly good point, imaginary curmudgeon. Additional skepticism could be raised because
the Horizon Foundation commissioned the poll here. Well, these are concerns easily assuaged as
the actual text of the questions asked can be found here. These are the three questions relevant to
this exercise:
Assess three specific components of the
legislation, indicating whether you feel it is a “good idea or a bad idea.”
1) This law would require all vending
machines on County property like parks, libraries, and recreation centers to
provide at least 75% healthier food and drink options. 25% of the offerings
would be less healthy, like regular soda, chips, and candy bars.
2) This law would require the County to
offer or sell only healthier food and drinks to children during programs when
their parents are not present.
3) This law would exempt special events
like the 4th of July and Wine in the Woods from its requirements, and would
also exempt non-profits like booster clubs who want to sell food and drink on
County property.
The results were resounding with 68%
thinking components one and two were good ideas and 78% thinking component
three was a good idea. So, it turns out
that this is only, at best, mediocre politics if you put forth straw man
arguments based on preconceived notions of what this legislation does rather
than the reality of what it does. I
worked this sentence over and over before I ended up here and I am not totally
happy with it. However, I think to make
it clearer I would have to list and debunk the most egregious of the straw man arguments. After deliberating I decided that was a bad
idea because every time one repeats an argument, even if to debunk it, the
argument gains a hold in people’s minds.
(Think weapons of mass destruction or was Obama born in America?) So, I decided the only thing you would read
in this post is what the bill ACTUALLY does.
Here is my biggest annoyance. Setting up straw men like that, playing
political games, scare tactics, and obfuscating the facts just to further an
agenda. In my book there is a phrase to
describe this type of “policy making”.
Washington style politics.
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Children in Poverty and the #HoCoMD
I had several ideas bouncing around my head for my next
post, none earth shattering. I was going
to write about nutritional standards, but Councilman Ball wrapped that up very
nicely here[1]. Then I thought I should stay focused on the
nominations process and maybe dig up a cornucopia of troll comments from
Housing Commission nominee Chris Oxenham.[2] Finally, I saw a lot of potential for
snarkery with the free Wi-Fi in Ellicott City story and resulting silly
editorial, but I yawned even writing this sentence.
All of this was in my head when this
came across my screen – The Annie E. Casey Foundation 2015 Kids Count Data Book
which reveals and analyzes statistics and trends on children’s well being. I have a long way to go before I am done
reading and digesting all of it. I
actually hope I can put some of the stuff I find most interesting up in future
posts. In the meantime, one statistic I
came across early brought me to my knees.
22% of American children live in poverty. Let’s be “generous” and say 1 in 5 US
kids. As a quick refresher, the poverty
line for a family of four in 2013 was $23,550.
If that information doesn’t break your heart, then you do not have one.
I put this number into the context of our community. We here in Howard County should be in a much
better position to help make things better in our region. In my view, this is similar to the U.S. role
in fighting both climate change and nuclear arms proliferation. In both of these issues, the U.S. is in a
very strong position to take a leadership role and we bear some level of responsibility
for getting everyone into this mess in the first place. Same goes for affluent suburbs outside of
large urban areas. Of course Howard
County does not have quite the redlining history as other jurisdictions, but nevertheless,
we are still on the winning side of the same interdependent economic system
that put one in five children in poverty.
Three items in our recent history got me kind of angry thinking about
this:
1)
The Susan Garber led assault on the new Day
Resource Center
2)
The nomination of a rich white man[3] to
the Housing Commission to replace an African American woman who has dedicated
her career to affordable housing.
3)
The push in Oakland Mills by mostly liberal
Democrats to fight to create a country club like sports complex to attract “high
end condos” to replace housing that currently works for less affluent people of
color.
WE
ARE
HOWARD
COUNTY
This isn’t an attack on any politician current or past;
truthfully it’s not a great political issue.
Especially in Howard County, we like to care on a conceptual level. If you get a moment, talk to the leaders at
the Community Foundation of Howard County about Howard County’s philanthropy as
it relates to other jurisdictions. It is
shameful. Both of those statements being
said, poverty in the region is an all hands on deck issue. Every organization and institution in this
County needs to engage, and our government should be leading that collective
effort.
[1]
Also feel free to read the comments anywhere that article exists or is shared
if you find yourself low on bile #thanksobama I mean Communist Calvin
[2]
They’re remarkably easy to find but worth noting that his blog commenting got A
LOT more polite of late. I wonder why?
[3] A
rich white man who has shown himself to (being generous) not fully grasp issues
around poverty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)