Thursday, February 9, 2012

Red Maryland Radio Tonight at 8pm

Join host Greg Kline tonight for another great installment of Red Maryland Radio.


On Tonight's Show


A call-in from Brian Griffiths and perhaps our Red Maryland Network colleagues Andrew Langer and Mark Newgent discussing the latest at CPAC.

Some discussion of the gay marriage debate and I bring back a classic segment "The Fat Files".

Great chance to call in at 760-259-2711

Listen on the RedMaryland Network and subscribe for all network programming on iTunes.


More below the fold.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Audit Finds MD Labor Dept. Not Performing Timely Elevator, Boiler Inspections

The Maryland Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation is not performing timely safety checks for elevators, pressure vessels and boilers in accordance with state law, says a legislative audit.

According to the latest report from the Office of Legislative Audits, the Division of Labor and Industry (DLI) "did not perform safety inspections of boilers, pressure vessels, and elevators timely as required by State law. Specifically, as of June 6, 2011, inspections for 2,933 of the 52,939 boilers and pressure vessels were overdue for periods ranging from 3 months to more than 5 years. In addition, the inspections for 1,549 of 21,299 elevators were overdue for periods ranging from 3 months to 4 years.”

The report noted that DLI had reduced the inspection backlog.

The audit also found that DLI has not established comprehensive procedures for monitoring employer payrolls for enforcing the state’s prevailing wage law, and that the department is not depositing and verifying cash receipts in a timely manner. Auditors discovered that verification of some deposits was not performed until 23-76 days after deposit.

Read the entire audit report here.



More below the fold.

Tuesday, February 7, 2012

The Jimmy Braswell Experience: 2/7/12

Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio





More below the fold.

The Jimmy Braswell Experience returns tonight

The Jimmy Braswell Experience returns live tonight at 8 with Jimmy and Ethan.

Once again U.S. Senate Candidate William Thomas Capps is scheduled to appear.

Greg Kline will also make an appearance to talk about The Walking Dead.

Listen in or watch live tonight at 8 PM.


More below the fold.

Transgender Laws and Public Accommodations, Coming to a Baltimore County Restroom Near You

If one happens to be a father – particularly one who is raising daughters – then surely this inquiry rings familiar: “Dad, where can I go to the bathroom?”
Now, at home or at grandmas or even in, say, a state park, this would not necessarily present a problem. But when that father/daughter combination is out and about and using public accommodations – especially when the child happens to be too young to do so on her own – it becomes a complicated test of parenting skills.
Does dad subject her to the men’s room? Does he accompany his daughter into the ladies’ room? Or, does he send her into the women’s facility on her own and wait nervously for her to emerge?
In today’s politically-correct-run-amok climate none-of-the-above seems the safest choice (specifically in regard to the second option), although if the Baltimore County Council has its way the line between gender-specific restrooms is about to become unbelievably blurry.
Currently before the council is Bill 3-12, an act “concerning human relations” that, if passed, would prohibit “discrimination against a person in certain matters on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression; defining terms; and generally relating to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.”
In plain English: those who engage in discriminating against any person who assumes a “gender identity” other than the one assigned to said person at birth will be prosecuted under the county’s human rights laws.
While such legislation will protect those questioning their sexual identity from being denied housing, employment, education or financing, it will also allow those considering a new sexual identity to use a bathroom facility with which they most identify.
Discrimination as a result of that person’s “appearance” will also be a violation of the human rights laws, thereby opening the door for anyone dressed as a woman (crossdressers, transvestites, pre-op transsexuals, etc) to use a public facility currently designated for a female whose sexual identity was ‘assigned (and agreed upon) at birth.’
Translated: as currently written, Bill 3-12 would allow someone dressed as Dustin Hoffman’s “Tootsie” character to enter the female locker room in your neighborhood fitness club and do so with the full protection of the law.
There are now more than 140 jurisdictions in the United States that have transgender discrimination laws in place, yet many of them do not address the issue of public accommodations – the matter of allowing males who have yet to undergo the surgery that would make them a female access to private areas currently frequented by our mothers, sisters, wives and daughters (or in the case of a female-to-male transgender our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons).
Why? Because if there’s one feature elected officials from all across the country have in common it’s their collective ability to avoid difficult decisions and settle for a knee-jerk (re: easy) resolution to the problem.
In this instance it was the hasty reaction of county councilman Tom Quirk (Catonsville) who introduced this legislation as a result of a 2011 attack on a transgendered woman – Chrissy Lee Polis – in a Baltimore County McDonald’s.
But just as the laws against murder do not prevent killings; or the laws against robbery do not prevent car theft; or the laws against public officials taking bribes from grocery stores do not prevent state senators from taking bribes from grocery stores, having hate crime legislation on the books would not have prevented Ms. Polis from suffering the beating she received at the hands of the animals that attacked her last April.
Some may argue that this type of legislation may result in even more violence against transgenders, especially in such instances where one’s “appearance” leaves little doubt as to the “sexual identity” disguised beneath the clothing.
Think Robin Williams as Mrs. Doubtfire… with five o’clock shadow.
Regardless of what public accommodation supporters argue, not addressing this aspect of any transgender discrimination law will allow any man (or woman) who is so inclined to enter a restroom, locker room, dressing room, etc that is patronized by members of the opposite sex.
And while the transgendered (or those transitioning to a different sex) ask that they not be stereotyped as sexual predators, those satisfied with their current sexual identity ask that they not be branded bigots or hateful just because they are uncomfortable with the prospect of being forced by law to inhabit the toilet stall next to a man in woman’s clothing.   
No, this is not an effort to lump all transgender men with transvestites, and neither should the transgendered see it as an opportunity to pretend that sexual predators do not come in all shapes, sizes, appearances and gender identities.
Which begs the question: If sexual predators are already stalking victims in public areas then why would a county council vote to give them protection?
In the end we can all count on government to get this issue – like so many that have preceded it – spectacularly wrong.
Transgender people have been using public restrooms since, well, the advent of public restrooms, and until lawmakers nationwide brought the focus to the forefront (only to ignore it) shared accommodations has been the Spot-a-Pot version of ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.’
Bill 3-12 does little more than put both sides of this argument at a higher risk of victimization, but it should at least make those dad/daughter restroom decisions much easier – especially if papa starts packing around a Bouffant wig and a pair of Prada Slingbacks.



You can contact the Baltimore County Council by clicking this link or by calling 410.887.3196


More below the fold.

Monday, February 6, 2012

The Broadside 2/6/12

Hope you caught another exciting episode of The Broadside on The Red Maryland Network


Thanks to our guests, Ali Akabar from Blog Bash, Maryland's next US Senator Daniel Bongino, and our own Red Maryland Network colleague Greg Kline.




Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio


More below the fold.

The Broadside Tonight 7pm

Tonight on The Broadside at 7pm


We continue out CPAC 2012 preview with Ali Ackbar from Blog Bash

We play Andrew's conversation with entrepreneur Bob Davids

US Senate candidate Daniel Bongino will also join us to talk about the campaign.

All that and more tonight on The Broadside--only on the Red Maryland Network

Watch the show on BroadsideTV on UStream.


More below the fold.

Citizen Journalism Training Resources

This past weekend I had the honor to give a presentation to the Franklin Center/MDCAN Citizen Journalism Training Seminar.


I can't express how important it is for more of us to become information activists and start digging into government documents and data.

One way to start changing Maryland for the better is start holding Governor O'Malley and the Democratic monopoly accountable. We do that by finding and disseminating information that reveals their fallacies, exposes their corruption, and follows their money.

Below is a Word document I used for the presentation. It is chock full of links to help you send a Public Information Act Request, find government data and information, and how to use social media to leverage your research findings.


More below the fold.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Rosenberg, Reznik believe in state control of information?

One of the key tools that we have in Maryland to keep our legislators accountable are public information requests. This blog has a long history of sunshine in government, and Delegate Sandy Rosenberg seems to think that the public knows too much:

In Virginia, the attorney general, skeptical of global warming, tried to use his subpoena powers to build a fraud case against a climatology professor.

In Wisconsin, Republican Party officials sought the emails of a history professor, trying to demonstrate that he had misused his public account to stir political unrest during the state's highly publicized battles over organized labor.

Maryland Del. Sandy Rosenberg, a Baltimore Democrat, has cited these controversies, which garnered national attention, as he vows to prevent a similar situation from arising here. Rosenberg introduced a bill being considered in the General Assembly that would extend broader protection from public information requests to professors at the state's public universities.

But as it has elsewhere, the issue has sparked a debate pitting academic freedom against freedom of information. Rosenberg's efforts have drawn praise from academics and raised concerns among open-government advocates.

Nse Ufot, government relations officer for the American Association of University Professors, said some of the great discoveries in history were deeply unpopular with contemporary political and social leaders, but scientists were free to make them without scrutiny at every step.

"We fear losing the culture of deep knowledge if every email that's written is risking public ridicule," she said. "If we lose that, it doesn't bode well for us as a nation."

You know, it's kind of funny that we're seeing this bill from Rosenberg (which is curiously sponsored by Kirill Reznik, who was born in Soviet Ukraine). Liberals like to run around saying that Republicans are anti-science, pro-secrecy, and pretty much want to keep the general public shielded from facts and information. Except in this case we have a Democrat that is trying to use the power of government to restrict the flow of public information, particularly to academics.

What does Rosenberg think that the state government has to hide from scientific scrutiny? His reasoning for this legislation is mind-boggling:

Rosenberg agreed: "There is a pattern of requests that appear very political in nature, and I want to make sure that similar harassment inquiries cannot be made in Maryland." He added that public information requests made for political reasons or to quash research "could have a chilling effect on academic freedom."

Requests for "political reasons..."could have a chilling effect on academic freedom?" How is restricting the flow of information to any academics anything BUT a chilling effect on academic freedom. In fact, restricting the flow of information to any citizen is certainly a chilling effect on the freedom of any state citizen.

When it comes to information in Maryland, the Democrats probably do have a lot of things that they would prefer to keep out of the hands of academics. I'm sure there is plenty of fodder there for folks doing research on global warming, fracking, wind farms, bay pollution, and a host of other things. We should be encouraging research into this issues and scientific study of data gathered by the state.

Why do Rosenberg and Reznik want this?


More below the fold.

Welcome J. Doug Gill

As heard on WBAL Radio last Friday, We are pleased to announce our newest contributor J. Doug Gill.


Doug is a longtime journalist and currently is the Maryland State House Examiner for Examiner.com

Doug is regular guest and host on WBAL.

Welcome aboard Doug.


More below the fold.

Saturday, February 4, 2012

The Consistently Specious Rhetoric of The New York Times Op-Ed Page

--Richard E. Vatz

A good rhetorician loves good argumentative clash and is frustrated at intelligent pundits who deceptively misrepresent the truth to create straw man arguments.

This is, parenthetically, one of the reasons that I like The Washington Post's and dislike The New York Times' op-ed pages.

The former typically sports liberals and conservatives who clash in fair interpretation of reality. The latter typically sports liberals, at least, who apparently feel no compunction in changing facts ever so slightly or misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make easier a challenge or criticism.

This is not a comprehensive overview with evidence of columnist Paul Krugman or columns by Charles Blow, but it is a critique of columns yesterday and today which are synecdoche of these two authors’ prose.

Yesterday, Krugman focused on Mitt Romney in a column titled, “Romney Isn’t Concerned.” Four points are illustrative, if not exhaustive:

1. He quotes Romney as saying, “I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there.” Romney’s next line was, “If it needs repair, I'll fix it.” That is a significant point of reassurance. Why does Krugman leave it out? Because it makes his attack more difficult to sustain.

2. Krugman wrote, “Still, I believe Mr. Romney when he says he isn’t concerned about the poor...” That is literally what Romney said, but he meant it in the sense that mitigating governmental policies makes unnecessary active concern; he didn’t mean he doesn’t care. If I say I’m not concerned about Iran’s nuclear program because Israel will destroy it if necessary, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t concern me.

3. Romney’s saying that current programs are inefficient – right or wrong – leads to Krugman’s apotheosis in non sequitur: “So Mr. Romney’s position seems to be that we need not worry about the poor thanks to programs that he insists, falsely, don’t actually help the needy, and which he intends, in any case, to destroy.” Where is evidence of Romney making these points?

4. Krugman depicts Romney and Republicans’ support for “tax breaks” for the highly taxed well-to-do as “tax cuts.” The consistent argument by liberals like him -- that whatever the taxing percentage was previously must be reasonable because it simply existed as such and that any decrease would be an undeserved windfall for the wealthy -- is transparently fatuous. Mutatis mutandis, if income taxes approached 90% for the wealthy during the Eisenhower Administration, one could argue that anything below that would be an undeserved windfall for the rich.

5. Krugman disagrees with Romney about the effectiveness of governmental “safety nets,” so he calls Romney’s sentiments not “incorrect,” but a “whopper.”

Today’s column in the Times by Charles Blow at least quoted Romney fully regarding his position regarding worrying about the poor. However, just to take one fatuous misrepresentation from that article, Blow states, “This is the same man who bragged last month that he liked to fire people at a time when nearly 13 million people are out of work.”

Let me just say that this little act of rhetorical legerdemain leaves out significant aspects of the following quote: ”I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. If someone doesn't give me the good service I need, I'm going to go get somebody else to provide that service to me."

These mini-deceptions which pervade Krugman and some others’ columns in The New York Times would be cute and clever if the writers were teenagers. For serious pundits, it is unforgivable, especially as serial disinformation.

The Times, apparently mystified by Paul Krugman’s intelligence and Blow’s provocativeness, doesn’t want sincere, honest clash.

It is almost unspeakable that the country’s newspaper of record could be so irresponsible.

Professor Vatz teaches Media Criticism at Towson University and is author of The Only Authentic Book of Persuasion (Kendall Hunt, 2012)


More below the fold.

Friday, February 3, 2012

Special Announcement Tonight

I'll be on 1090 at Night tonight at 9:35 with J. Doug Gill discussing O'Malley State of the State address and the current legislative session. I will also be making a special announcement regarding Red Maryland. Tune in to AM 1090 or listen online at WBAL.com


More below the fold.

Slash and Burn

I’m scratching my head as to what David Moon aka Maryland Juice thinks he has accomplished with his sleazy attacks on Delegate Nic Kipke.

First, there is Moon’s factual error in claiming Kipke deleted his Facebook page. Kipke’s Facebook page is alive and well, as this screenshot attests.










One has to laugh at the allegedly tech-savvy Moon for not realizing Kipke changed the privacy settings on his account to block him.

Whatever Kipke’s marital tribulations—he is separated from his wife—it is his personal business.

Furthermore, those tribulations do not in any way detract from the arguments put forth by those who favor traditional marriage. It just reinforces the universal truth that we are all flawed beings cut from the crooked timber of humanity.

All Moon has done is reveal that he is an immature juvenile patting himself on the back for his ingenuity.

I have my issues with Kipke, for example, his unfortunate vote to expand Medicaid spending in the 2007 special session, which only exacerbated the structural deficit, the legislature was there to “solve.” However, I don’t need to dig up dirt on his personal life to point out the inconsistency of that vote with his public pronouncements on spending and limited government.

Moon has picked up where First Lady Katie O’Malley has left off—insulting opponents of gay marriage simply because they have the temerity to disagree.

Which leads us to another factual error by Moon, his assertion that Democratic State Senator Anthony Muse attended a “Tea Party” rally against gay marriage.

Of course, this is patently false. The Baltimore Sun article Moon links to notes the rally was sponsored by the Maryland Marriage Alliance, which is NOT a Tea Party outfit. Even the Potomac Tea Party Report, the thin reed Moon on which Moon’s claim rests, notes of the rally “On Monday evening Marylanders from all political persuasions will gather in Annapolis in support of marriage between a man and a woman,” [emphasis mine].

Bit of blogging advice for you Dave, link to sources that support your position, not those that refute it.

Of course, it should be noted that Muse is challenging the party establishment endorsed Ben Cardin in Maryland’s U.S. Senate Democratic primary. And voila, here is Muse attending a “Tea Party rally.”

Then there is Moon’s playing the race card on Baltimore's Archbishop Edwin O’Brien, and attributing bigotry to those who oppose gay marriage, as if there could be no legitimate moral or philosophical reasons to oppose it.

Other than posting others arguments in favor of gay marriage, Moon hasn’t posted an original argument of his own in favor of gay marriage. In fact, the tenor of his body of work on the subject has been almost to entirely slander gay marriage opponents as bigots.

For the record, my own position on gay marriage is complicated, but I would be inclined to support it with the right protections for conscience and religious freedoms. I’m not entirely sure the conscience provision in Governor O’Malley’s bill goes far enough to protect individuals. What does it say about a law that enshrines the right of gay couples to marry, but allows for government coercion of individuals to act against their conscience.

However, no matter my disagreements with gay marriage opponents, I understand their very legitimate and serious objections, which are not based in bigotry.

Rather than honestly engaging those objections, or offering his own original arguments, Moon has done nothing but ignore them, and slander opponents as either bigots or stokers of racial discord. And now he’s stooped into digging into their private lives to embarrass them.

That says more about David Moon than it does about opponents of gay marriage.


More below the fold.

ShareThis