Reimagining how we elect our local officials…
7 minute read
October 1, 2020, 11:17 PM
There comes a point where you have to admit that a process is broken. In this case, I have reached that conclusion with the way that we elect the county council and county executive in Montgomery County, Maryland. Our current county executive, Marc Elrich, is the result of such a broken system. Elrich is a real stinker in my book for a number of reasons, and I admit that I didn’t vote for him in the primary or the general election, because I saw his being a stinker from a mile away.
But this entry isn’t about Elrich specifically. Rather, it’s about the process that brought him into office. And ultimately, the problem is that Montgomery County is using a bipartisan process for electing its officials when the county is overwhelmingly one party – Democratic, in this instance. The way that it works should be quite familiar to most of you: candidates of a given party run for office and compete in a primary election in the spring to determine who will be the nominee for the general election the following November, where all of the various parties’ nominees compete, and the winner of that contest takes office a few months later. Many, if not most, jurisdictions use this to choose their elected officials. However, it does depend to a large extent on having multiple viable political parties. It starts to fall apart when one party completely dominates the process, and none of the other parties’ candidates have a snowball’s chance in hell of ever being elected. In that case, the dominant party’s primary is the “real” election, and the general election is a formality. In other words, the result is already a foregone conclusion after the primary is done.
This situation is not unique to Montgomery County by any means. DC is similar, with the Democratic Party’s being the dominant political party over everything else to the point that the other parties don’t matter (save for an at-large council seat that is required to be a different party than the others), and the Democratic primary is generally considered to be the deciding contest for the mayoral race.
Continue reading…Categories: Montgomery County, State and local politics
Is it time to replace the national anthem?
5 minute read
July 29, 2020, 10:18 AM
An article from the Daily Mail was brought to my attention a while back about a few people who want to replace “The Star-Spangled Banner” as the national anthem, ostensibly because author Francis Scott Key was a slave owner. Replacing “The Star-Spangled Banner” is something that I have had an opinion about for quite some time, though my own opinions about the song as our national anthem have more to do with the song itself, and not for anything that specifically has to do with Key.
First of all, though, for those not familiar, “The Star-Spangled Banner” originated as a poem about the Battle of Baltimore during the War of 1812. The poem was later given to his brother-in-law, Joseph H. Nicholson, who put the poem to the tune of “The Anacreontic Song“, which is essentially a drinking song that originated in London. If you’ve never heard the tune with its original lyrics, I encourage you to give it a listen, because it’s a good song. Nonetheless, hearing the way bands play the tune with such flourish as “The Star-Spangled Banner” and then remembering that it originated as an English drinking song makes me chuckle.
I take issue with “The Star-Spangled Banner” for a few big reasons. First of all, the song is not about the country, but rather, it is specifically about the flag. Another problem with the song is that it glorifies war. And third, we can’t all see a little bit of ourselves in the song. For the first point, Americans have a very strange fascination with the flag. The thing about the flag is that it’s all well and good as a symbol that is associated with our country, but it’s only a symbol, and not actually the country. Thus I find people who get all up in arms about the way people behave in the flag’s presence to be a bit amusing. Our country is far from perfect. We have lots of problems that we need to sort through as a country, and the flag is often used to represent the country, like when people kneel in front of the flag as a respectful way to express various concerns about the direction that our country is taking. But some people treat the flag like it’s a god in its own right, to be worshipped and adored and held on a pedestal, and that’s not at all what the flag is about. It brings some truth to the meme about the flag that says, “If you don’t stand for the special song, the magical sky cloth won’t freedom.” Because that’s about how it sounds to someone like me, who views the flag as a symbol, separate from the thing that it represents. And then as far as the second point goes, we are altogether too eager to declare war on things. George Carlin put it best when he said, “We like war! We’re a war-like people! We like war because we’re good at it! You know why we’re good at it? Cause we get a lot of practice. This country’s only 200 years old and already, we’ve had 10 major wars. We average a major war every 20 years in this country, so we’re good at it!” And for some reason, people love to glorify it. And in regards to the last point, I feel like the song is distant to a lot of Americans. I can’t see myself at all in that song, being about a battle in a war that happened over two centuries ago, and I see the flag in its standard form most often used as a political statement by factions supporting issues that I don’t typically agree with. It all feels somewhat distant to me. It’s not necessarily the way that I would want to see America represented.
Categories: Music, National politics
A Facebook comment should not bother me this much…
5 minute read
February 11, 2020, 11:11 AM
Recently, I commented on a post on the Facebook page for WHSV, the local ABC affiliate for Harrisonburg, Virginia, and got some unusual feedback. The original post was for an article about Trump’s participation in the “March for Life“, an anti-choice demonstration held annually in DC on the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.
Before I continue, though, it seems worthwhile to explain my stance on the matter of abortion. My stance is that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. But ultimately, it’s not my call. What other people do with their bodies is their business, and it doesn’t affect me.
I also believe that abortion is more or less a settled matter, but that it has value for the GOP as a campaign issue. In other words, the Republican Party will talk a big game about it, but ultimately, no one is going to ban abortion. Ever. Why ban it and settle the matter decisively in your favor, when you can bring it up as a campaign issue every election cycle and raise money and get people to vote based on it? To actually ban abortion would be to kill the golden goose, and also hand a massive fundraising opportunity to the Democrats. Maybe I’m a bit cynical about the whole thing, but I imagine that if they were really going to act on that issue, they would have done it by now, during the various periods where the GOP has controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. That they haven’t done that tells me that they are not interested in settling it.
Categories: Middle school, National politics, Social media, Stuarts Draft
What to do with Columbus Day…
3 minute read
October 29, 2019, 10:25 AM
As the Columbus Day holiday rolled around again this year, we got the usual rounds of people who called the day “Indigenous People’s Day” and denounced Christopher Columbus. This year, the District of Columbia passed short-term legislation declaring the day by the newer name. My feelings on the matter have a surprising amount of nuance to them. But first, let’s make no mistake about it: Christopher Columbus was no saint. From what I’ve read, he enslaved a lot of native people, and killed a whole lot of them as well, both through violence and disease. For those not familiar, the form that this recognition typically takes is that people and organizations eschew the use of the term “Columbus Day”, referring to it as “Indigenous People’s Day” instead.
However, I take issue with the form that this recognition of Columbus’ being less than worthy of the honor of a holiday typically takes. The reason that I don’t like this way of doing things is because it takes the holiday away from one entity and gives it to another entity, treating it as a single either/or issue, rather than treating the declaration of a holiday in honor of an individual or entity as one issue, and treating the removal of a different holiday as its own issue. I also feel that it cheapens the new entity being honored because it makes it seem as though they are a substitute honoree, rather than something worth honoring in their own right. The direct swap also feels too much like overt political correctness, which grates on me. That said, I have no problem with the idea of having an “Indigenous People’s Day” holiday, but doing it as a title swap on the Columbus Day date goes about it all wrong.
I defended my ideas on a recent post on WHSV-TV’s Facebook page (the ABC affiliate from Harrisonburg), on a post running an article about Richmond’s recognizing the holiday under the new name. The comments on WHSV’s Facebook page are typically garbage from very ignorant people, but you do get the occasional intelligent thread in the sea of garbage responses, and this was that latter case.
Categories: Holidays, National politics
Petty tribalism has no place in the 2020 cycle…
4 minute read
July 7, 2019, 10:52 AM
Here we go again.
The 2020 election cycle is very much underway, and one of the top-tier candidates is Bernie Sanders. Sanders, you may recall, is an independent senator from Vermont who ran in the 2016 election cycle, and came in second place to Hillary Clinton, who went on to lose in November. Back in 2016, we saw a lot of people saying, “Bernie Sanders isn’t a Democrat,” and they used that as a reason that people should not vote for him, and how if he wants to run as a Democrat, then he should join the party, for whatever that’s worth. In any case, with hindsight, you can see how well all of that petty tribalism worked out. The Democrats ended up nominating the worst possible candidate in Hillary Clinton, and she ultimately lost the race to Donald Trump, who should have been an easy candidate to defeat, because he’s a complete buffoon who had no experience in government. One could write volumes about what went wrong in 2016, including the complete shutout of the Sanders constituency after the nomination was secured, the choice of a boring vice president who added nothing to the ticket, and so on, but the bottom line is that the Democrats lost, and lost pretty badly. Sure, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but the popular vote unfortunately is not what gets someone into the Oval Office under our system.
And then recently, when a friend posted an article from Business Insider titled “25% of Bernie Sanders’ supporters don’t trust the Democratic National Committee to run a fair 2020 primary“, it generated the following comments:
“Well since he is not a Democrat… or is he now… One cannot run or control something of which one refuses to be a part.”
“If one wants to criticize the DNC process and be taken seriously, one should be a member of the party. It’s their primary, so they get to set the rules.”
Categories: National politics
I want to see a primary challenge in 2020…
6 minute read
February 18, 2019, 2:20 PM
So with the 2018 midterm elections behind us, that means that it’s presidential season again. This one is already shaping up to be an interesting one, with a large field of Democratic candidates, and a few possible primary challengers for Donald Trump.
As of this writing, there are eleven declared candidates on the Democratic side of things. A big field like that should produce a good nominee. By comparison, in 1992, the last time that the Democrats (or anyone) unseated a sitting president, there was a field of nine candidates. At this point, I am taking a watch-and-see attitude, because I consider it to be too early to really judge it all yet. I expect that we will see even more candidates emerge on the Democratic side before it’s over, and there is still much to happen before I really dive in and pay attention to them like I mean it. I’m more hopeful about certain candidates than others, but again, it’s still too early.
In the meantime, I am more interested in what the Republicans are doing at this stage in the process. As I indicated in the title, I want to see Trump fend off a primary challenge from within his own party. I have seen lots of discussion and speculation on possible Republican candidates to primary the president, and they all seem like they have potential. I’ve heard Utah senator Mitt Romney‘s name get thrown around as a potential primary challenger, along with former Ohio governor John Kasich, former Senator Bob Corker, and Maryland governor Larry Hogan. In addition, former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld has formed an exploratory committee, though hasn’t formally declared. All of them seem like decent enough politicians. They should run.
Categories: National politics, State and local politics
I don’t know why anyone expected a different result…
6 minute read
October 11, 2018, 12:11 PM
So in case anyone has been living in a bubble lately, Brett Kavanaugh has been confirmed and sworn in as a Supreme Court justice, after several weeks of hearings, where Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault by several different women. And then in the end, the Senate voted to confirm him, mostly along party lines.
First of all, I have no reason to think that these women accusing Kavanaugh of some very vile deeds are not telling the truth. Based on various posts from friends on social media who have spoken about their own experiences, not reporting these things at the time that they happen is fairly common, for any number of reasons.
What surprises me is how outraged some people are that this nomination went through. My typical response has been, “What did you really expect would happen?” Think about it. Donald Trump is a Republican. The Senate is controlled by Republicans, and they had enough votes to confirm him to the Supreme Court all by themselves, without any Democratic support. And unlike the Democratic Party, the Republican Party won’t eat their own, so this whole abbreviated FBI investigation and senators’ publicly wavering on whether or not they would vote up or down was all a political stunt designed to appease the constituents at home during an election year. And everyone fell for their song and dance, while they knew that they would confirm him all along no matter what. Brett Kavanaugh could have walked up to Dr. Ford and shot her in the head at point-blank range in front of everyone in the hearing room, and the Republicans would have still confirmed him. The Eleventh Commandment, i.e. “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican,” still holds true. I wish that it had turned out differently, but I also kept my expectations realistic. I thought it was a bit naive for anyone to really expect that it would have turned out any other way that it did.
Categories: National politics
Please do not put me in a position where I have to defend Donald Trump…
4 minute read
October 4, 2018, 8:04 AM
At 2:18 PM on October 3, a presidential alert went out to everyone’s mobile phones. It was accompanied by the classic emergency tone, and looked like this:
Categories: National politics, News
When you realize that the unbalanced nature of the electoral college is a symptom, and not the problem…
5 minute read
January 13, 2018, 4:38 PM
With the recent talk about a potential Oprah Winfrey run for president, I started thinking again about how to fix our unbalanced electoral system, and the least difficult way to do it.
But first, since I mentioned it, just to eliminate all doubt: Oprah Winfrey should not run for president, at least not right now, for the same reason that Donald Trump was not qualified for the job, i.e. no experience in public service. If Oprah wants to run for president, she should do like most presidents have done, and run for a local office and start a proper public service career. Even Ronald Reagan, who was an actor prior to entering politics, was governor of California before he was president. A career in public service prior to running for the top spot shows that you’re serious. I’m sure that Oprah would make a pretty good Chicago alderman as a first step, and then on to a state legislature or Congress. Governor of Illinois, maybe not, because most Illinois governors go to jail after leaving office, it seems. But in any case, if you’re serious, and not just doing it for attention, you go through the proper channels. We want to leave Trump as a fluke, and not make this whole TV-personalities-as-president-with-no-public-service thing a trend.
Of course, the whole reason that we ended up with Trump in the first place is because we have a very unbalanced electoral college system. After all, more people voted for Hillary Clinton than Donald Trump, but because of the unbalanced nature of it all, it tipped toward Donald Trump. Because its votes are allocated based on the amount of representatives and senators, it skews in favor of states with low population. According to this map by Slate, the top three most powerful votes are found in Wyoming, Vermont, and the District of Columbia. The bottom three are California, Florida, and New York. In other words, the most populous states have the least voice per capita in determining who becomes the prez.
Categories: National politics
Elyse goes to the inauguration…
5 minute read
January 28, 2017, 8:24 PM
Sometimes, it’s fun to live vicariously. Such is what happened on Inauguration Day. I had to work, and so I spent my Inauguration Day mostly doing support work to help keep trains moving. However, Elyse came down to DC to see what she could see as far as inauguration-related activities went. She and mutual friend Dave went out to see what was going on, and I was able to follow along through frequent updates sent to me on Facebook Messenger. Though this was not intentional, she did a photo shoot in a similar way that I shoot an event that I’m not directly involved in. The official festivities were kind of “meh” (though she did watch the swearing-in live on television, which I didn’t get to do), but she kept up with a lot of the activism.
I admit: I have more or less hung up my activism hat, having not participated in a political demonstration in a very long time. I stopped doing black blocs in October 2010 after a pair of disastrous demonstrations soured me on the tactic, and I haven’t been to a political demonstration of any kind since August 2013. However, I still cheer on and support my friends who are still involved in it, even if I haven’t done it myself in years, and in fact, a number of my activist friends helped organize some of the protests that occurred in DC. So I was delighted to get these updates from Elyse, as well as from elsewhere on Facebook and the Twitter, to see what was up while I was at work.
After I got off of work, Elyse came over and we looked at her take from the day, and the photos were quite good. She also gave me permission to run some of them on Schumin Web, and so hopefully you can live vicariously through Elyse as well, as people came to DC to protest Donald Trump on the occasion of his inauguration.
Categories: Activism, Black bloc, Elyse, Events, National politics, Washington DC
Eight years of growth and change…
4 minute read
January 19, 2017, 11:19 PM
This evening is Barack Obama‘s last in office as President of the United States. At 12:00 tomorrow, Donald Trump will be sworn in, and then the Obama family will leave for a well-deserved vacation to Palm Springs. Meanwhile, based on what we’ve already seen from Trump’s camp as president-elect, what I said in my post-election Journal entry rings true: “In the end, the expression, ‘May you live in interesting times,’ seems like a fitting description of what we may have these next four years in a Trump administration.” Hold on tight, because it’s going to be a crazy ride, and there is no emergency stop mushroom to dump the country and apply all of the brakes.
Meanwhile, I really have to question whether Donald Trump will serve out his full term. Considering how much of a loose cannon he has been, I have a feeling that he will last only until the Republicans in Congress have had enough of him, i.e. when he starts jeopardizing their chances for reelection. Then they will, at the very least, find a reason to impeach him, likely for one of his many conflicts of interests that he has refused to rectify before he takes office. Don’t know if he’ll get removed or not, but I consider an impeachment likely. That or he will pull a Nixon and resign prior to the whole thing. We shall see. All I know is that Trump is making George W. Bush look like a true statesman by comparison, and Bush was an idiot. But Bush at least started acting presidential once the election was over. Trump, on the other hand…
But this Journal entry isn’t supposed to be about Donald Trump. It’s more of a look back over the last eight years, and a reflection on personal growth. In 1980, then-candidate Ronald Reagan said in a debate, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” I consider the question to oversimplify a number of factors, plus it overestimates the president’s influence on your individual life (the actions of your state and local officials affect your life far more than those of the president), but I consider the question to be a good way to judge how one’s life has progressed over a defined period of time, regardless of who the president is and what they did during their term.
Categories: Myself, National politics
That wasn’t at all what I expected to happen…
11 minute read
November 14, 2016, 10:30 AM
So like much of America, I watched the television on the night of November 8, 2016 in stunned silence as the news media called the race for Donald Trump. I started watching around 7 PM, when the first polls closed, and kept the television on until 2 AM, when I finally had to go to bed. Considering the way I wrote about the election around a month ago, I expected that this would be an early night. I figured that I would watch the returns come in until 11:00, and then once the polls closed in California, they would project California for Hillary Clinton, and then call the race for Hillary Clinton. Then I would turn the television off and do something else until bedtime. But that was not the case, as many states were too close to call. Then I watched as Hillary Clinton’s path to victory narrowed, and it started to become apparent that we were not going to elect the first woman president on this election night. Once they called Ohio for Trump, I knew that it didn’t look good for Hillary. After all, Ohio picks the president, because almost no one wins the White House without Ohio. Then as the night wore on, I ran a few scenarios through an electoral college calculator, and realized that in order for Hillary Clinton to win, she would have had to take every single remaining state that was still in play. That seemed highly unlikely. I went to bed kind of stunned, because this was most definitely not how I expected election night to go. When I woke up the next morning, I checked Reddit, and found out that yes, Donald Trump had, in fact, actually won the election. Whoa. I definitely did not expect to have to eat my words about this election.
In hindsight, however, I can’t say that I’m very surprised about this result.
Before even getting into factors specific to this election, in the last 60 years or so since the 22nd Amendment, which formally limits the president to two terms, took effect, the White House has tended to switch parties every eight years. Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican, served two terms, and he was succeeded by John F. Kennedy, a Democrat. Then after eight years of a Democratic administration, we got Republican Richard Nixon. The only exceptions to this have been Democrat Jimmy Carter, who was defeated by Republican Ronald Reagan in 1980 after only a single term, and Republican George Bush, who was elected president in 1988 after eight years of Reagan. After Bush’s electoral defeat in 1992, the eight-on-eight-off cycle resumed. Thus after eight years of the Democratic Obama administration, history indicated that it was time for the party to flip again.
Categories: National politics
I’ve seen Christmas lighting, Halloween lighting, but never election lighting…
< 1 minute read
November 8, 2016, 12:00 AM
So Elyse and I were driving down 16th Street in DC last night, and we spotted a house near the intersection of 16th and Corcoran Streets NW with red and blue lighting in the front yard. Hmm. So we turned around and took a look:
Categories: National politics, Washington DC
Watching the second debate, I couldn’t help but think that Donald Trump was acting like someone who knew that they had already lost the election…
6 minute read
October 12, 2016, 10:25 PM
I had thought of a million ways to start this Journal entry about the 2016 election, but after hearing the revelations of Republican nominee Donald Trump‘s hot-mic comments about women, and seeing his performance at the second debate with Hillary Clinton, I’m convinced that we don’t have to worry about Donald Trump’s becoming president. It’s not going to happen, especially after the grownups in his party have more or less abandoned him.
It’s kind of funny how it’s all worked out, I suppose. Back during the primaries, I never imagined that Donald Trump would ever get the nomination. I said that he would likely be in it for a few primaries before dropping out, having made whatever point that he was trying to make, and that ultimately, one of the grownups would get the Republican nomination. I figured that Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, or John Kasich would come out on top, and Donald Trump would be a footnote in this election. Imagine my surprise to watch Donald Trump, a man whose only qualification for political office is being rich and having a very big mouth, take the nomination. I guess it goes to show exactly how weak the Republican field was this time around.
Realize that Trump’s campaign seems to mirror that of Mr. Burns on The Simpsons when he was running for governor of whatever state Springfield is in. His campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train, making us wonder why he is so popular. And the incident regarding women is his fish dinner. Recall that on The Simpsons, Burns ran for office as a reaction to an inspection of his nuclear plant after a three-eyed fish was discovered by Bart Simpson near the nuclear plant. Burns’ message was about getting government off of our backs. Just before the election, the campaign arranged for him to have a dinner with a family. The Simpsons were that family. At the dinner, Marge served this to Burns:
Categories: National politics
I have been to Pennsylvania a lot lately…
14 minute read
August 27, 2016, 6:27 AM
In the span of two weeks, Elyse and I went to Pennsylvania three different times. We went to Hanover on the 8th, Harrisburg on the 11th, and then Harrisburg again on the 18th. Two of the trips were to scout out some potential sites for photography, as well as get something out of our system from the earlier bus trip, and then one was to bring the bus back for my friend.
The first trip was to Hanover. This was one of those “seeing America” kind of trips, about catching a shot of whatever we found interesting, as well as scouting locations for further attention with our SLR cameras when the weather was more accommodating (it was hot and humid out – yuck). Elyse met me at my house, and then we left for Hanover via Westminster. On the way up to Westminster, we both knew about a certain street off of Georgia Avenue in Carroll County near Eldersburg and Sykesville (yes, I refer to Route 97 as “Georgia Avenue” all the way up to Gettysburg), and had to get a photo of it with Elyse. Check it out:
Categories: Amtrak, Companies, Driving, Elyse, Food and drink, Friends, Hanover, Harrisburg, National politics, Pennsylvania, Railroads, School buses, West Virginia, Westminster