Thursday, June 30, 2011

Red Maryland Radio: 6-30 2011

Check out this week's episode of Red Maryland Radio. Topics included:

  • We got in depth on fracking, Martin O'Malley's reaction to it, and what it means for natural gas development in Maryland, as Brandon Butler from the Garrett County Republican Central Committee joined us to discuss.

  • We discuss the latest and the greatest in the race for the 2012 Republican Nomination.
Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio


All that and more this week. Be sure to listen every Thursday Night at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.


More below the fold.

Join us tonight

Red Maryland Radio goes live at 8 PM tonight!

Join me, Mark Newgent, and Andi Morony at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/redmaryland.


More below the fold.

Job Losses In Maryland Have Many Fathers- Lawsuits Are One

By Todd Dallas Lamb - Executive Director - Maryland Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse

Recently, the Baltimore Sun editorial team put the best spin it could on the State’s less than stellar job creation performance.

Indeed, the numbers are so pathetic even the Sun can’t make them look acceptable. In citing Maryland’s –worst in the nation – job numbers, editors downplayed the results and preemptively ridiculed the “usual suspects” that suggest the reasons for these dismal job numbers are the result of “[t]oo-high taxes, too-much regulation, too-many mandates.”

Truthfully, it’s all of those things – plus one: lawsuits. The lawsuit abuse culture in this state kills job creation. Businesses don’t fight cases in Baltimore – they settle them. They know the atmosphere here, and keep that in mind when they consider moving businesses to (or from) our state. Look at reforms made in Texas (and conspicuously NOT in Maryland): Texas reformed its legal system to prevent many of the abuses that flourish here, helping the state add 165,000
jobs during the past three years. We are now painfully aware of the job producing (in) ability of Maryland in its current situation.

Serious legislators would take a look at legislation that would produce legal reform and
job growth. When it comes down to it, we need more jobs, not more lawsuits.


More below the fold.

Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Disassociation

We talked about it last week on Red Maryland Radio about the potential job killing Amazon Tax and the ramifications that it could have on Maryland's economy. Well, this is what we're talking about:

Amazon.com sent its associates an email this afternoon that reads, in part: "We will terminate contracts with all California residents that are participants in the Amazon Associates Program as of the date (if any) that the California law becomes effective. We will send a follow-up notice to you confirming the termination date if the California law is enacted. In the event that the California law does not become effective before September 30, 2011, we withdraw this notice."
Basically, a lot of California business that either sell goods or refer readers to Amazon are going to be cut off from a revenue source because Amazon does not play ball with states that pass such a tax.

Maryland Democrats have already floated this idea to be considered as part of the Special Session this year, despite the fact that such a tax would never meet revenue projections and would in fact do much more harm than good given the fact that Amazon (among others) would end their affiliate programs in Maryland.

So I suppose we need to ask Martin O'Malley, Peter Franchot, and the other Democrats who support this tax whether or not they support such a bill that would directly take money out of the pockets of hardworking Marylanders?


More below the fold.

Check out WEAA this Friday

This Friday I will be appearing as a guest on WEAA, 88.9 FM this Friday with Maryland Young Republicans National Committeeman Trae Lewis who will be guest hosting the Anthony McCarthy Show from 5-7 PM.

Take a listen!


More below the fold.

Why Block Granting Medicaid Will Work



Naturally, Governor O'Malley opposes this sensible option to save taxpayers dollars and reduce one of the big drivers of Maryland's habitual structural deficit.

Block granting Medicaid would force Maryland to spend its Medicaid dollars more wisely. Currently, O'Malley has pursued an untenable policy of expanding the program while simultaneously trying to constrain costs. Medicaid spending will consume 20 percent of Maryland's $34 billion 2012 budget. A curious course for a costly program that provides sub-par care.

Despite O'Malley's claims, Medicaid block grants would also eliminate the very cost shifting he decries by incentivizing states to root out fraud and abuse.

Block granting Medicaid would also help spur regulatory reform and competition to lower costs in Maryland's individual and small group insurance markets, currently controlled by just two companies.






More below the fold.

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Red Maryland Radio this week

Another great episode of Red Maryland Radio this Thursday Night at 8. On this week's show:

  • We got in depth on fracking, Martin O'Malley's reaction to it, and what it means for natural gas development in Maryland;

  • We discuss the latest and the greatest in the race for the 2012 Republican Nomination.
All that and more this week. Be sure to listen Thursday Night at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.


More below the fold.

Monday, June 27, 2011

State Board of Elections OKs CASA to take DREAM Act Petitions to Kinko's



A guest post from Delegate Mike Smigiel


It never ceases to amaze me what kind of events occur under the heading of "You can't make this stuff up!"

Delegate Parrott called to tell me of a new problem he was having with the State Election Board wanting to allow the illegal immigrant support group, CASA de Maryland, (CASA) to take possession of the 67,000 petition signatures so they could be copied at a local copy center. Neil said that he was told our side would not be able to have anyone present while CASA was making its copies of our petitions. At first I thought, poor Neil, the pressure has gotten to him and he is now imagining outrageous impossible scenarios, which could materialize to destroy all the hard work that thousands of volunteers across the State had put in to fulfill the constitutional requirement of taking a question to referendum. Fortunately, Neil is still sane unfortunately, I think the election board has lost its collective mind.

When I called to inquire as to whether what Neil had told me was correct I was greeted with a certain amount of incredulity. It appeared the election board personnel were just as shocked that I would be questioning their proposed plan as I was at hearing of their plan.

I explained that in my 22 years as an attorney who often sued governments and thus needed to obtain documents, it had always been the practice of government agencies, in my experience, to request so much per page, usually 25 cents. The agency would copy the requested documents and I would sometimes also be billed for the employees’ cost of copying the documents if it were a particularly large copy request. The election board explained they did not have the personnel to copy all these documents. It was explained to me that allowing the party requesting copies of petitions to take them to be copied elsewhere is the way that the requests had been handled in the past. The ACLU in particular had been allowed to do this in the past.

I suggested a second method of copying the documents would be to have a private company who is bonded come in to do the work and then the bill could be given to CASA.

I also explained that allowing the documents to be handled by any outside group, such as CASA, for no matter how long, would raise chain of custody questions later, when this matter goes to court. I was told, well Delegate, the chain has already been broken because the petitions were mailed from the local election offices to the State Election Board after they were evaluated (without any oversight by pesky interloping citizens, but that is another story) for certification. I interjected that I don't believe it is a fair comparison to liken the United States Postal Authorities to the CASA organization. Never the less my argument about maintaining an unbroken chain of custody over the 67,000 signatures seemed to be falling on deaf ears.

I therefore wanted to reiterate that on behalf of those who were collecting the signatures we were opposed to the Kinko's plan and would prefer one of the other two methods of obtaining the copies.

While either of the above alternative methods would be preferable to allowing CASA to ever take physical possession of the actual original petitions, if the election board is going to insist on taking the trip to Kinko's with CASA, then we insist that our people be present. The reply to that request was "we prefer to do our fighting in court, not at Kinko's". I responded by asking, "What would ever give you the idea that any of our people would be obstreperous and cause a problem?" After all, it is CASA that is sending people out to the locations where citizens are collecting signatures on the referendum petitions and standing in front of their signs or tables and harassing those coming up to the tables to sign petitions. I assured the Election Board representative that the people we would send would be upstanding citizens who would conduct themselves in a professional manner.

I was informed today that CASA has filed its Public Information Act request. I spoke to Delegate Parrott this morning and he is going to submit our request also. While I trust the trip to Kinko's will be incident free because there will be lots of eyes present now, I am still concerned about the possibility that some of the signers of the petitions being contacted or harassed by the individuals who have been showing up to harass those gathering signatures.

This is a very emotional and controversial issue for both sides. I understand that emotions are raised and different people react differently to stress. The State of Maryland's Election Board needs to do everything possible to assure the citizens of Maryland that this Constitutional process will be protected from any appearance of impropriety.

Whom ever takes possession of the copies of the names, addresses and birth dates of those who signed the petitions needs to make sure that every effort is made to assure the information on those signing the petitions is used only for legitimate referendum or opposition purposes.

This matter will inevitably end up in the courts so lets try to keep it civil.


More below the fold.

Sunday, June 26, 2011

Redistricting Starts at Home

We've spent some time both on the blog and on Red Maryland Radio discussing various aspects of redistricting. Most of our time though has been spent on congressional and statewide legislative redistricting. However, those aren't the only lines which are up for consideration this year.

Our counties are also going through the redistricting process too, particularly for those counties that have County Councils or those counties with the Commissioner form of government. Baltimore County has already come up with a redistricting plan that (unsurprisingly) shores up the seven incumbent members of the County Council. However, one of the tenets of that plan is that creates districts that are more contiguous and unites like-minded communities together. While a plan that in and of itself protects incumbents is not what the goal of redistricting should be, what we should be doing is making sure that like-minded communities that face similar issues and similar challenges are united to the extent practical.

Here in Anne Arundel County, our districts have been roughly similar for the last fifty years, ever since the first County Council districts were drawn by the Democrats in the 1960's in order to diminish minority representation in West County. Lackadaisical redistricting since then has made the inertia seemingly impossible to overcome, and the seven Council Districts look remarkably similar to this very day, with the only changes seemingly coming on the margins of the districts. What it means for residents in the county is that districts are not split along lines of community interest, but merely based on maintaining the status quo.

Residents of all Maryland counties should be entitled to districts that are compact in size and have share similar characteristics to the remainder of their district to the extent possible. This should be an ideal applied at all levels of government.

Tomorrow night I plan on testifying before a hearing of the Charter Review Commission (the body that governs county redistricting) Monday evening at 7 PM in the County Council Chambers at the Arundel Center. If you are a resident of Anne Arundel County, I encourage you to attend as well to voice your concerns about the redistricting process, and encourage the Commission members to take a serious look at ensuring that something other than the status quo be considered.

If you're not a resident of Anne Arundel County, I encourage you to look into your own local redistricting process and getting involved. This is where the rubber meets the road folks, so if you want to have an impact, this is a great place to start.


More below the fold.

U2 Can be a Hypocrite like Ben Cardin

Here’s Ben Cardin responding to an argument no on made.

I was surprised to read the June 20 op-ed by Matt Patterson "U2: Great music in the service of a dubious charity," which contained misinformation about ONE, the anti-poverty, advocacy group cofounded by U2 lead singer Bono, with whom I have worked closely on critical development initiatives for the world's poor.

Rather than Mr. Patterson's suggestion that ONE is somehow a failed charity, they are, in fact, a global advocacy organization fighting poverty in Africa by moving government officials to better use development assistance funding to reach the largest amount of people.

Ummm ok.

But, here’s what Patterson actually wrote.

Last year, Bono's nonprofit ONE foundation was at the center of semi-scandal when it was revealed that in 2008 the organization raised $14,993,873 in public donations — of which only $184,732 (or just over ONE percent) was distributed to charities. Where did the rest go? Well, more than $8 million went to salaries for executives and employees at ONE. In response to the fusillade of criticism following these revelations, ONE spokesman Oliver Buston explained, "We don't provide programs on the ground. We're an advocacy and campaigning organization."

Much of the "advocacy" is directed at governments; organizations like ONE aggressively lobby world leaders to contribute "aid" (read: tax dollars) to anti-poverty and environmental causes.

Given Patterson accurately described the ONE foundation, in the same terms the senator used, what exactly is Cardin’s beef?

In fact, one would think Cardin, who recently called for an end to tax breaks for big oil, would have saved his opprobrium for Bono and U2’s decision to move from Ireland to the Netherlands to avoid paying higher taxes.

Perhaps Senator Cardin should avoid the op/ed pages. His track record lately is a “comedy of errors.”


More below the fold.

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Red Maryland Radio: 6-23-2011

We're go guestless this week, but no excuse to not listento Red Maryland Radio. Topics included:

  • Comptroller Peter Franchot is looking into supporting the "Amazon Tax." What is it, and how will it impact Maryland?
  • We discussed last week the Robocall Scandal in Maryland; we take on other corruption issues in Maryland and the near vicinity.

  • Maryland has ranked near the bottom on the list of states when ranked by freedom. Why, and what does that mean to you?
Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio


All that and more this week. Be sure to listen every Thursday Night at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.


More below the fold.

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

ACLU strongly supports online petitions if it serves their agenda

The ACLU has begun the process of challenging the online petition forms being used in Maryland to bring to referendum the controversial Dream Act, SB167. For back info, see my previous article here.


In its request to the Maryland Board of Elections, the ACLU charges that the online petitions are subject to an increased possibility of fraud due to two main factors. First, that the escalated accessibility of the petitions online as opposed to traditional petitioning makes verification more difficult. The hypocrisy: The ACLU pushes for looser verification and greater accessibility at the voting booth so as to avoid disenfranchisement, to the point that many consider our Maryland elections compromised. Are they not concerned that increased voter turnout at the booth may lead to more difficulty in preventing fraud?


Second, that the online form, after the user enters their name, date of birth, and zip code, automatically fills in the full address and inputted data from the Board of Elections database. The voter must then print out the form, sign and date it, and mail it in to the petitioners office. The ACLU is concerned that this makes it easier for someone to commit fraud since all they have to manually fill out is the signature and date.


However, just a mere three months ago, the ACLU took an exactly opposite position on online petitioning in Utah. In fact, the ACLU so strongly supported the online petitioning, which, unlike the petition in Maryland, allowed for electronically produced signatures, as to sue the State of Utah and bring it to the Utah Supreme Court.


The ACLU used the case of an out-of-state student who says she was disenfranchised from signing the petition because of the inability to sign online. They also reference soldiers and missionaries as other individuals who are subject to possible disenfranchisement.


In reference to the Utah ban on e-signatures, the ACLU stated, “...the legislature condemned Utah voters to using ancient technology when attempting to exercise their constitutional right to check the legislature’s power through initiatives and referenda.”


That’s a far cry in deep red Utah from how referenda petitioning is described by the ACLU in deep blue Maryland: “The referendum process allows a tiny minority of voters to challenge an act passed by the popularly elected legislature, thereby forestalling implementation of the challenged law, prolonging the harm the law was intended to remedy, and limiting the rights of the citizenry at large.”


In Utah, the ACLU feels this way: “...no valid reason exists to distinguish between e-signatures and handwritten signatures, so long as the intent of the signer is clear. Lt. Gov. Bell’s refusal to count any e-signatures violates Utah voters’ constitutional rights to use the initiative and referendum power, which is expressly reserved for the people in Article VI, Section 1 of the Utah Constitution.”


But in Maryland, the ACLU feels this way: “Policing fraud in this petition effort could become an overwhelming task for election officials.”


In Utah, the ACLU describes the petition effort like so: “Rarely, if ever, has this state seen citizens of nearly every political stripe and every political label united in such an outpouring of opposition to the legislature's work.”


In Maryland, petitioners are seen this way: “Referendum proponents seek to forestall the implementation of the law and to maintain the obstacles standing in the way of these students and their quintessential American dream.”


The ACLU sums up its fears and agenda in this statement, “...approval of petitions gathered through the sponsor’s automated system could not only determine the fate of the Dream Act petition effort, but could also dramatically change the petition process in Maryland going forward, opening many more state and local laws to petition challenges in the future.”


Indeed, the success of the petition effort against the Dream Act could be a game changer in Maryland. Go to www.mdpetitions.com to sign the petition.


Petition leaders in Baltimore County will be holding a Last Chance To Sign event on Saturday morning, June 25, at the Essex MVA and select post offices around the county. Come sign the petition and register your thoughts on our “Dream Act Opinion Cam” at the MVA from 8:30am to noon this weekend.


See original article on Examiner.com here.


DISCLOSURE: The writer is a county coordinator for the petition against the Dream Act.


More below the fold.

Red Maryland Radio this week

We're going guestless at the moment this week, but no excuse to not turn into Red Maryland Radio this Thursday Night at 8. Topics will include:

  • Comptroller Peter Franchot is looking into supporting the "Amazon Tax." What is it, and how will it impact Maryland?
  • We discussed last week the Robocall Scandal in Maryland; we take on other corruption issues in Maryland and the near vicinity.

  • Maryland has ranked near the bottom on the list of states when ranked by freedom. Why, and what does that mean to you?
All that and more this week. Be sure to listen Thursday Night at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.


More below the fold.

Monday, June 20, 2011

NBC and Insincere Apologizing "To Those Who Were Offended"

--Richard E. Vatz



Lisa de Moraes of The Washington Post reports that "NBC has apologized for cutting the 'under God, indivisible' part of the Pledge of Allegiance in a clip during Sunday’s coverage of the U.S. Open." The editing out of that part of the Pledge, said announcer Dan Hicks during the broadcast, "was not done to upset anyone, and we'd like to apologize to those of you who were offended by it."


Please, pseudo-contrite ones, forever spare us from apologies made disingenuously to "those who were offended."

How can I put this more clearly: a qualified apology implies that you do not authentically regret that which you did, but only that you are sorry that someone took umbrage.

Moreover, there is no explanation of the mechanism that led to the elimination of the religious reference -- was it intentional? Was it unintentional? Was it a coincidence that the controversial section of the Pledge was omitted? Was the "indivisible" left out to give cover to the strategic elimination of "under God?"

We don't know, but NBC in its cute way avoids what the following simple, unambiguous statement of apology could virtually eliminate, doubt that they are sorry for what they did. They could simply say: "We are embarrassed and sincerely regret leaving out 'under God, indivisible' from the Pledge of Allegiance in our U.S. Open coverage. It will not happen again."

Cute locutions are incompatible with sincere statements lamenting a mistake.



Prof. Vatz teaches political rhetoric at Towson University


More below the fold.

Bongino in the Sun

From Daniel Bongino's Baltimore Sun oped:

I am running for Senate because I fear our political leaders have lost faith in the potential of every American. We are rapidly reaching the point where American prosperity is in danger. We have always been a country of dreamers and entrepreneurs. This simple formula, assisted by a basic framework of governance and a strong national defense, has been the greatest poverty reduction program in the history of humanity. Yet this simple formula for prosperity has been corrupted by government spending and "crony capitalism," unresponsive to the body politic.

Read the whole thing.


More below the fold.

Sunday, June 19, 2011

The Dream Act encourages legal aliens to become illegal

The Dream Act, or SB167, grants tax funded tuition to illegal immigrants through the in-state tuition program in Maryland. Interestingly, the bill explicitly specifies illegal immigrants for the benefit, but not legal aliens (or in the bill language “nonimmigrant aliens”). Non-immigrant aliens would include persons from outside the United States who are here on student visas, as an example. See full article here, including links.


More below the fold.

Friday, June 17, 2011

Petition leaders blocked access to validation process

The Maryland Board of Elections has refused petition leader Delegate Neil Parrott’s request to be able to have representation in the room during the signature validation process on petition signatures against the Dream Act, citing a memorandum from 2001 which directs all the local boards to conduct the process as a closed staff function, not subject to the Open Meetings Act, according to the SBE.


The petition signatures, once submitted, are separated by county and distributed to the local county boards to verify.


Delegate Smigiel, who has been working to safeguard the rights of the petitioners in this effort, had a few things to say about the refusal of the request. See full article here.


More below the fold.

Week in Review

I'll be on the Week in Review on WBAL Radio today from 12-3pm on.

Tune in to AM 1090 or listen live on WBAL.com





More below the fold.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

Red Maryland Radio: 6-16-2011

Take a listen to this week's episode, featuring:

  • Brian Murphy discussing Daniel Bongino's U.S. Senate Campaign; and
  • Andrew Langer, discussing his new small business initiative, this weeks's Presidential Debate, and Weinergate.
Take a listen!
Listen to internet radio with redmaryland on Blog Talk Radio


More below the fold.

The Diversity Hoax: Colleges' de facto Ideological Discrimination

From The Daily Caller June 14, 2011





--Richard E. Vatz



There is no greater rallying cry at American universities than that of supporting “diversity.” It is nearly impossible to get through a single day without hearing of some new program that ostensibly furthers this value on an academic campus.



The problem is that “diversity” is a god-term like “democracy” and “freedom,” in that many persuaders who employ the term use it to support phenomena which either do not reflect the meaning of the term or whose referents are the antitheses of it. Many refuse to use the goal of diversity to enforce variety when it is not politically correct variety.



“Diversity,” as applied by The American Association of University Professors’ (AAUP) website under “diversity and affirmative action,” ostensibly constitutes the fact that “the Association is committed to use its procedures and to take measures, including censure, against colleges and universities practicing illegal or unconstitutional discrimination, or discrimination on a basis not demonstrably related to the job function involved, including, but not limited to, age, sex, disability, race, religion, national origin, marital status, or sexual orientation.”



None of these categories relating to diversity, however, references “academic freedom,” which the AAUP claims is central and “[indispensably is] conducted for the common good.”



Nowhere in its section on “defending diversity” does the AAUP claim to support the profoundly disenfranchised conservative members of the academy and their academic freedom. Nor is there a stated concern regarding the promotion of what many of us regard as the raison d’être of the academy: promotion of the “marketplace of ideas.”



All major treatises on the value of the “marketplace of ideas” argue some variation of the notion that just as competition is the basis of the free marketplace and produces a better economy, fierce and mostly unfettered competition of ideas produces the best outcome in value and policy consideration.



But if there is systematic ideological discrimination in academia, the outcome violates the precepts of meaningful diversity and produces a propagandized higher education that systematically limits and homogenizes academic inquiry and intellectual growth, while disingenuously proclaiming respect for differing points of view.



This acceptable ideological discrimination against conservative thought and conservatives is outlined in a book of collected articles by Robert Maranto, Richard Redding and Frederick Hess titled The Politically Correct University. I shall go over some of the main points of their indictment against American universities and look at my own field — communication — as well.



The hostile environment accorded conservative professors, students and their production comprises an overwhelming number of facets of the academy: recruitment, hiring, promotion, tenure, committee work, curriculum decisions (reinforcing politically correct perspectives), accreditation, assessment, and practically all of the day-to-day activities of university life, including student activities. This unfriendly liberal climate means that liberal ideas dominate campus life while conservative involvement and values languish.



Surveys confirming the leftwing domination of the academy are plentiful, but for just a taste, David French stated in FrontPageMagazine.com that:





Let’s look at the statistical evidence. A recent study by Stanley Rothman, S. Robert Lichter, and Neil Nevitte found that 72 percent of professors teaching at American universities are liberal (by their own description) and 15 percent are conservative. At elite universities, the ratio was 87 percent to 13 percent.



There is, as The Politically Correct University points out, an entire supportive sociology and rhetorical substructure maintaining political bias in the academy, including control of agendas in classrooms, hiring committees, and so forth, all of which promotes demographic diversity “while largely eschewing political diversity.”



For instance, many of the members of the National Communication Association (NCA), an association of communication professors of which I’m a part, are proud of what they believe is their opposition to discrimination, especially in the academy. But they do not oppose discrimination per se. They oppose discrimination against certain groups, such as African Americans, women, LGBTs, disabled people and others. What most NCA members do not oppose — and even support — is discrimination against conservatives, especially, again, in the academy.



Not only do most NCA members support ideological discrimination, they support many of the forms of the discrimination they oppose when applied to the groups mentioned above: ideologically unequal outcomes relating to promotion, tenure, publication, convention participation, and organizational awards (for articles, books, etc.), not to mention the sociology of members, which restricts participation and creates what one of my NCA colleagues calls conservatives’ “marginalization” in National Communication Association politics and interactions.



My own university, Towson, is in many respects an oasis in the academic politically correct enforcement agencies’ desert. But even at Towson, where I have been treated better than any conservative I know at a liberal university, there is a public relations representative at the university who years ago threatened me that her office would never assist me again if I criticized specific liberal media, an action I do as a professor who has for two decades taught an advanced course in media criticism. She has been good to her word — about the only positive thing I can say about her. No one would ever tell her to apologize or even change her discriminatory policy.



What are some of the specific manifestations of the prejudice against conservatives in my field?



— Untenured professors are afraid to let their conservatism be known. Such revelations compromise promotion, tenure and office-holding for them at their universities. Professors, tenured and untenured, claim that conservatism in article submissions is poison, eliminates co-authorships and leads to rejection virtually every time.



— Convention panels nominally chosen to sport a variety of political viewpoints often have no conservatives whatsoever.



— Anti-conservative bias is so pervasive that it seems to simply be the natural order. Sponsored research grants are a large part of the academic trade, and the great preponderance of available monies in social sciences and humanities, certainly in the field of communication and elsewhere, are targeted for liberal or progressive topics. Want to research racial bias in the academy? No problem getting subsidized monies. Want to research anti-conservative bias in the academy? Big problem getting subsidized monies.



It should be noted that there are exceptions in American higher education to the claims of diversity and ideological bias in this exposition. But they are few.



College and university administrators and faculty throughout the United States can, largely without encountering any resistance, fail to reconcile their support for diversity with their discriminatory policies against conservatives. Therefore, there is not much hope for substantial change in the diversity hypocrisy that suffuses the American academy.



Dr. Richard Vatz is a tenured, full professor of Rhetoric and Communication at Towson University, where he has served for 37 years. He won Towson University’s “President’s Award for Distinguished Service,” the university’s highest honor, in 2004. He won the first Towson Student Government Association Faculty Member of the Year Award in 2009-10. He won the 2002 “Teacher of the Year Award” from the Student Government of Towson, and he won 4 Outstanding Teaching Awards, the most of any faculty member, at Towson in the five years they were awarded. He is the longest-serving member of Towson University’s University Senate, having served 32 years and counting. This article is derived from a paper given at the AAUP national convention on June 10 of this year.







Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com



URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/14/the-diversity-hoax-universities-de-facto-ideological-discrimination/



Copyright © 2009 Daily Caller. All rights reserved.


More below the fold.

Primer for Tonight's Interview

As Brian noted below in the promo for tonight's Red Maryland Radio, we will be joined by 2010 Gubernatorial candidate Brian Murphy. Some may be wondering what we would be speaking about with Mr. Murphy given, as Brian put it so well last week on the radio, Mr. Murphy "is not running for anything and is not relevant to the discussion."

Despite Brian's poignant comment, if you listened to last week's show you know that there were criticisms of Mr. Murphy made by a caller to the show. We wanted to give Mr. Murphy a chance to respond. Of course, readers of this blog know that much of the toughest criticism of Mr. Murphy has come from this blog.

I think, in the interest of fairness, if we are giving Mr. Murphy a chance to respond to Red Maryland generated criticism we should let him address all of the criticism from this blog.

For those who may not remember what the contributors of this blog wrote during last year's election, below is a summary with links to the full articles for your review:

Brian Griffiths described Mr. Murphy as "the guy who Red Maryland exposed as a Johnny Come Lately to the GOP despite the fact that he and his supporters want to determine who is and who is not sufficiently Republican enough."

In a post that excoriated Mr. Murphy I wrote

"And while the Murphy campaign attempts to portray their candidate as the conservative champion ready to slay the faux Republican Bob Ehrlich, we find that Murphy himself has only been a Republican since 2005 and, as Brian points out, did not even vote in the GOP primary when he had the chance.

...

Now Brian Murphy has responded to the whole decades of being a democrat thing by saying that he changed parties like Ronald Reagan. Personally, as a lifelong conservative Republican who was inspired by the Reagan Revolution, I actually find this more offensive than the facts about his "johnny come lately" Republicanism. This is a guy who was a Democrat when Reagan was President and was a Democrat when Glendenning was Governor. In fact, while I and many of you were working to get Bob Ehrlich elected in 2002 as the first Republican Governor in 40 years, Brian Murphy was still a Democrat."

Martin Watcher was perhaps even less restrained in his criticism

"When Red Maryland’s editors endorsed Bob Ehrlich for Governor, they were extremely kind to Brian Murphy in their endorsement. I wouldn’t have been, and will not be today. It has nothing to do with Governor Palin, who along with Brian Griffiths I picked as being my choice for VP long before John McCain plucked her from the obscurity of Alaska. My opposition to Brian Murphy comes from his record.Sure you can criticize Bob Ehrlich’s record, he has one. He has been in a position of responsibility for years and with responsibility comes good and bad decisions. But has anybody actually looked at Brian Murphy’s record?"

Mark Newgent commented upon the significance of Gov. Palin's endorsement

"One interesting and important fact not mentioned so far about Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Brian Murphy: Top Palin advisor John Coale and his strong ties to Martin O’Malley and the Maryland Democratic Party.Coale, is the husband of Fox New’s host Greta Van Susteren, a trial lawyer, who struck it rich on the 1997 settlement with Big Tobacco, and an extremely generous Democratic donor.Coale loaned O’Malley’s campaign $500,000 in the waning days of the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, a debt, which it has yet to repay.Between federal and state accounts Coale has given the Maryland Democratic Party over $60,000.So given Coale’s ties and contributions to the Maryland Democratic machine is it any surprise that out of the blue Sarah Palin endorses the primary opponent of Bob Ehrlich, the one man who can end the Democrats stranglehold over the state.Correction: O'Malley did repay the loan in 2007."

Another pointed criticism of the Murphy campaign by Brian Griffiths that has particular relevance to the discussion of current candidates:

"Probably something to do with the fact that, over the six-month course of this campaign, Murphy's name ID is hovering at 27%. Hard to imagine that if Murphy's name ID hasn't broken a third of the electorate in the last six months that the rate will continue to improve between now and the end of his campaign in September.Makes you wonder how long before those few Murphy supporters out there realize that tilting at windmills with the potential specter of a second term for O'Malley is really worth it..."

This is just a sample of what we have written which, in addition to criticism, includes complimentary coverage as well from our contributors. After the primary we all closed ranks behind Governor Ehrlich and opposed O'Malley. We even invited Mr. Murphy to post a commentary of his own on our site.

But the criticisms of Mr. Murphy's run for statewide office are still relevant and accurate especially given our discussion of candidates running to challenge another statewide office holder Senator Ben Cardin. Mr. Murphy, for reasons I hope we can address, has put his support behind another political novice choosing his first run for office to be a statewide campaign against an extremely experienced, well-funded and well entrenched incumbent.

So we will have plenty to talk about. You should listen in at 8pm. If you have not heard our prior discussions, check them out by subscribing to our iTunes feed.


More below the fold.

Tuesday, June 14, 2011

Red Maryland Radio this week

It's bound to be another passionate, controversial, and much talk-about Red Maryland Radio this Thursday Night at 8. Topics will include:



  • We speak with 2010 Republican gubernatorial candidate Brian Murphy;
  • President of the The Institute for Liberty and friend of Red Maryland Andrew Langer joins us to talk about his latest initiative the Small Business Political Alliance and Monday's GOP debate.

  • And, we're going to (try) to have a serious discussion on Rep. Anthony Weiner's revelations, and what it actually means for Congress and beyond.
All that and more this week. Be sure to listen Thursday Night at 8, on the Red Maryland Network.......and don't forget that you can subscribe to the Red Maryland Network on iTunes.







More below the fold.

Monday, June 13, 2011

Republican Candidates' Debate in New Hampshire: Few Surprises; Impressive Participants, Save the Moderator

--Richard E. Vatz


Just a few observations on the CNN Republican presidential candidate debate, some evidenced-based and some mostly impressionistic:

1. Good Lord: what ever happened to the serious, issue-centered John King I used to love to watch? Over and over and over and over, he emitted noises as each candidate gave his or her answers. The intent appeared to be to communicate his (King's) dissatisfaction with the responsiveness of the answer or the length of the answer. He did this after a few seconds for the vast majority of the answers. He then introduced irrelevant touchy-feely questions (called "This or That -- to learn more about our candidates" -- really dumb and even more invalid than dumb) which was like a splash of cold water on the good, crisp answers of the participants. Elvis or Johnny Cash? C'mon John...if there's humor, it will flow naturally. Bring back the old John King. He improved a little in the second half of the debate.

2. Each candidate was true to form. Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul was consistent, but why not ask him about his stunning statement that he would not have attacked Osama bin Laden at his compound? I do, though, like the participation of a serious Constitutionalist in a Republican debate to remind us of how debate starting points have shifted significantly to the left.

3. Former Speaker Newt Gingrich did not explain in any convincing way why his castigating of Paul Ryan's Medicare plan as "social engineering" was justified, saying he was only warning that if the American people initially oppose a plan, maybe Republicans should do so. Yeah, that's leadership. But give Gingrich his due: he is informed, articulate and often makes necessary insights.

4. Gov. Mitt Romney was not convincing regarding the lack of a contradiction between Romneycare and Obamacare. He said the president's health care plan creates many more taxes and defunds Medicare, and Romney supports "state-centric" programs. Why does that speak to the relative irresponsibility of Obama's plan, except in scope? You ought to see how irresponsible Romneycare is on the open wallet for psychiatric care for the "worried well." To be fair, on other issues Gov. Romney sounded authoritative and articulate and presidential. He has my vote...as soon as he convinces me on his credibility on health care.

5. Gov. Tim Pawlenty continues to impress...did he imply unrealistic optimism with his rhetoric wanting to assume 5% annual economic growth? Yes, but why would any reasonable disinterested observer find this dispositive? He was clear, informed, and consistent in his opposition to Obama policies.

6. Rep. Michele Bachmann was surprisingly cool, clear and articulate. She is not going to be the Republican presidential nominee, but she is a bright, thoughtful woman. She is capable of the surprising, off-the-wall comment, but she was impressive in this debate.

7. Radio host Herman Cain, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum have never shown a hint of significant support for a presidential run. They should not have been in this debate, although I do think Rep. Paul adds significantly to the discussion (see above).

8. A plea to whoever determines topics and formats: do not have debates last more than an hour or at most one and one-half hours. And please get to foreign policy before the last 16% of a debate, if you're serious. There were hints of interesting lines of argument that were given insufficient time to be developed. Gov. Pawlenty made a firm, compelling argument for internationalism, but then King never got back to him. Rep. Bachmann and Speaker Gingrich made interesting cautionary statements regarding blind policy-making in Libya...but there was little follow-up. Perhaps some of the "This or That" time could have been added to foreign policy consideration or some time from the questionably worthy abortion component of the debate. Or maybe some screening of value-free questions, such as "What have you learned in the last two hours" from King or, from a questioner, what about the fact that the American people think the Republicans present a weak field? Dear reader, what could anyone say of value to such time-wasting questions?

Overall verdict: no surprises; insufficiently good clash due to too many candidates and poor moderation by a formerly talented moderator. Still, the candidates with a chance of getting the
nomination -- Romney and Pawlenty -- did generally well, and slightly more so Pawlenty.


--Dr. Vatz teaches political rhetoric at Towson University


More below the fold.

Divide and Conquer?

Cross posted from my anonymous Queen Anne's Torch collaborator The Key Master


In case you've missed it, two items have featured prominently in local news here in Queen Anne's County.

First, the county commissioners have sent out mailings alerting of a series of budget hearings. Of particular note in that notice is the advertised a tax increase of up to $.12 above constant yield.


Second, the Maryland Transportation Authority has announced it is considering massive toll hikes, particularly on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.

For obvious reasons both of these issues are of major interest to Queen Anne's County residents and thus we've all been eagerly looking forward to the hearings for both. Well I imagine you were as shocked as I was when those dates were announced.

The county was out first, with word that there will be three hearings, on the 13th, 14th, and 15th, in Kent Island, Centreville, and Sudlersville respectively.

Then the MDTA came out with the announcement for all of its own hearings. And lo and behold, the Queen Anne's County meeting just happens to be scheduled for June 15th, at Kent Island High School.

Now, then far be it from me to suggest anything sinister, but it does seem awfully convenient that the toll hike hearing just happens to be scheduled on the same night as what are well known to be contentious hearings. And it seems even more convenient that it happens to be located as far away as possible from that budget hearing while still being in Queen Anne's County.

But hey, coincidences happen, right?


More below the fold.

Saturday, June 11, 2011

ACLU gears up for lawsuit against Dream Act referendum petition

The statewide leaders of the referendum petition against the Dream Act, under the direction of Delegate Neil Parrott of Washington County, issued a press release Friday in response to a press release from the ACLU earlier the same day which questions the legality of the use of online petition forms in the process.


The ACLU made a formal request to the Maryland Board of Elections, asking them to scrutinize the online petition process, through its Legal Director, Deborah Jeon. The request was made on May 31st, the date of the first deadline for the petition process. For full article including links, click here.


More below the fold.

Friday, June 10, 2011

Bongino Responds

U.S. Senate candidate Daniel Bongino responds to a know-nothing caller on the previous episode of Red Maryland Radio who distorted his views on immigration:


To correct some of the misrepresentations, I want to be clear on my immigration stance.
I fully support:
-Mandatory, nationwide implementation of E-Verify
-The 287G program
-The petition drive to place the DREAM act on the ballot
-Securing the borders as the first and most important component of any immigration plan
-A points based system driven by US employment needs to categorize and attract the world's best minds to our country

I do not support:
-Multi-Culturalism, which has failed everywhere it has been tried
-Amnesty, which creates perverse incentives
-Unrestricted, country specific, immigration
-Chain migration based policies


More below the fold.

Progressives and the English Language

My latest Washington Examiner Local Opinion Zone post

The Mercatus Center at George Mason University released the latest version of its Freedom in the 50 States report. The report ranks the states according to “public policies that affect individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres.”

Maryland ranked 43rd overall, 28th for economic freedom and 50th in personal freedom.

MarylandReporter.com noted that Maryland progressives were not all that happy about the rankings of the state they own.

Vincent DeMarco, president of the Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative, says the Mercatus Center’s study is looking at personal freedoms in the wrong way. Maryland has instituted many policies that enhance public health and safety – like taxing tobacco so that fewer people smoke, or making it more difficult for criminals to buy guns. The Mercatus Center mischaracterizes “personal freedom,” he said, and Maryland should really be ranked as the nation’s “most free” state.

“There’s nothing better for freedom than being alive,” DeMarco said.

Rion Dennis, executive director of Progressive Maryland, said that the things the study says Maryland is doing wrong have actually done very well for the people of the state.

“You can put together a compendium of any number of things and say what freedom is,” he said. “Here in Maryland, we enjoy a prosperity from all of those rules and regulations that were put in place.”

Give DeMarco credit for chutzpah for citing the tobacco tax given he was a key ally to tobacco giant Phillip Morris in passing the “Marlboro Monopoly Act of 2009.”

To what prosperity is Dennis referring? Maryland ranks 49th in job growth, creating only 500 jobs in the last year, and shed over 91,000 jobs since the progressive’s preferred governor took office in 2007. Perhaps Dennis defines prosperity as the need for a 56 percent property tax hike to foot the bill for the state’s unsustainable spending and debt?

For progressives freedom defined as more taxes and regulations and their belief that they--through power of the state—should decide what is best for you.


More below the fold.

ShareThis