04.11.11 DC: The Wrong Fight (GOP Kills Abortion Funding in DC)

“Taxation without Representation,” read DC’s license plates. Sure, it would be nice for the District to have a voting representative in Congress. But, apart from the symbolism, who really thinks that Eleanor Holmes Norton’s (D-Delegate-DC) ability to vote on the floor of the House would make any real difference to DC citizens?

The far bigger issue is that Congress rules DC as a colonial power. The latest chilling example comes from the brilliant last-minute “compromise” that averted a government shut-down by giving the GOP/Tea Party nearly everything they wanted. Sure, Obama seemed to draw a line in the sand when it came to women’s health, but threw local poor women under the bus: little mentioned and noticed is the provision in the budget bill that will now prevent DC from spending its own tax dollars on abortion coverage for women.

Yes, indeed. Even though the tax dollars in question come from DC residents, that money goes right back to Congress to be appropriated just as the right wing sees fit. This happens in no other jurisdiction in the country. Only here* can the gun lobby, the anti-drug crazies, and the religious fundamentalists from hundreds and thousands of miles away tell locals what they may and may not do with their own money. This latest insult comes on the heels of myriad similar actions over the years to prevent counting ballots on a medical marijuana bill, prevent life-saving needle exchanges, gut local gun laws, etc. Oh yes, there is also a requirement in the GOP budget bill that requires the District to fund a school-voucher program. (Like this crap has anything to do with cutting the federal budget deficit!)

And don’t for a moment think that the Democrats are good guys here. Dems are supporters of the NRA, which the past two years killed a measure to give Norton that precious floor vote by attaching to it the elimination of all local control of gun laws. And, in other circumstances (like this latest), Dems care so little about democracy, that they’re happy to ignore or trade away their brethren’s fundamental rights.

So, I think the fight for a single congressional vote misses the mark. DC residents need to fight – and fight hard – for the basic right of self-determination. How about a major strike? Why couldn’t better-paid DC residents who work for the federal government (especially Congress) boycott their employers? (Let’s exempt those who can’t afford to take a day off.) Start with a single organized day. If Congress doesn’t take notice, add another one. Then make it once a month. Then shut the whole place down for a solid week. At the same time, organize picketing at major tourist attractions to get the word out nationwide.

*I am writing this from Maryland, about a mile from the DC border. But DC is “here” to me. I spent years there and feel a substantial solidarity with my fellow Americans within walking distance. I’m sure lots of other Marylanders and Virginians agree. I hereby pledge to join the boycott, if and when it can be organized, and would urge my suburban neighbors to join me.

©2011 Keith Berner

04.08.11 Bikes & Cars: Lessons Learned

Update – April 11, 6:20pm: Sadly the bike nazis (who are a small minority of cyclists) continue to pound away at me. In fact, they have now degenerated into straight ad hominem attacks. It’s interesting to note that the cyclist I originally had the altercation with is no longer doing that — his posts on the topic the past couple of days have been gentle and constructive. He and I don’t necessarily agree on how all the parts of our altercation came about, but we are completely in agreement that we don’t need to be angry at the other any more and that continued warfare, overall, just ain’t helpful to anyone.

I will no longer approve any comments on this blog post that are about attacking me personally or otherwise not constructive. To be scrupulously fair about this, my ban on unhelpful comments will also extend to car drivers who seek to paint all cyclists as demons to be disrespected and punished.

Overall, I’m deeply saddened that my honest attempt to learn something from a bad situation and to lower the temperature overall continues to be stomped on by the anger-mongers on both sides.  For shame!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The first paragraphs of this piece appear as a teaser on Washington Post’s All Opinions Are Local.

A week ago, I wrote about a traumatic incident I experienced that included having a cyclist feign an accident with me at an intersection. The deluge of feedback (overwhelmingly hostile) I have gotten from the cyclist community has provided a great learning opportunity for me. Perhaps it can also lead to increased understanding on both sides of the car-bike divide.

As I have written, even before last week’s events, I was bike-friendly: believing in the basic principle that bikes have a right to be on the road and to be safe there. Though I have been taken aback by the intensity and anger I have met in the past week, it has not changed my sympathetic view towards bikes on the road. Au contraire!

Some things I’ve learned:

•    The cycling community is very tight-knit, hypersensitive to insult or incursion, resistant to giving benefit-of-the-doubt to drivers, and so intensely ideological as to be unable to separate friends from enemies: if you are in a car, you’re bad; if you’re on a bike, you’re good.
•    Cyclists have every right to be paranoid and hostile: any interaction between a car and a bike is inherently more dangerous for the cyclist than for the driver. Not only that, but they face the indifference and outright hostility of drivers all the time. Who could blame them for seeing cars (and drivers) as enemies?
•    After I came close to the cyclist at the first intersection last week, he moved purposely leftward, so that – even as I was touching the while line to my left – he was coming closer and closer to me. I interpreted his move as purposely aggressive. Cyclists have since pointed out to me that what he was probably trying to do was to “take the lane”: cyclists moving toward the center of the lane are trying to force cars to stay behind them as they approach an intersection, rather than come up alongside. They do this because it puts them in a safer position. I never heard of this idea before, but – whether it is the law or not (which isn’t clear to me) – I intend to respect it from now on.
•    Cyclists assume that all drivers know that the law requires cars to stay three feet away and that everyone knows the take-the-lane principle. They view any driver who does not abide by these guidelines as purposely and provocatively breaking the law, i.e., the interaction and their reaction to is not only about safety for them (legitimate as that is), but also about hostile fire in an ongoing war.
•    Many cyclists seem unwilling to consider the possibility of flaw among their own, just as they seem unwilling to accept any driver as a potential ally.

So, here’s the “scorecard”:

•    I was wrong to come close to the cyclist in the first place. Though it was hardly purposeful on my part, there is no doubt that my action precipitated what happened next.
•    The cyclist’s pounding on my window and screaming turned a mistake (on my part) into a conflict.
•    His “taking the lane” may have been a reasonable attempt to communicate with me, but it backfired, because I didn’t speak that language. (This was not something covered in drivers ed 35 years ago!)
•    He staged an “accident” to score a point in the aggressive game we both assumed the other was playing. (I am absolutely certain that I was nowhere near close enough to hit him; I saw him jerk himself/his bike against my car after I had come to a stop.)

•    I should have stayed in my car and called the cops. There can never be any justification for escalating to physical confrontation, no matter how outrageous the provocation may be.

There is an opportunity here. Among the insults I have received from cyclists over the past few days are at least a couple of correspondents who seem interested in discussing these events in a constructive manner. I have lost my patience even with them, because of their apparent need to continue lecturing me even after I’ve “given them the lane” in a conversation that is no longer an argument.

Just the same, I think reasonable cyclists and reasonable drivers could come together to find ways to reduce inbred hostility and to recognize that at least some of the warfare going on is due to misunderstanding and ignorance, as opposed to ill will. I would hope such a conversation would include acknowledgement of the danger that some cyclists (e.g., the infamous bike messengers downtown) pose to pedestrians.

I hereby extend an invitation to any cyclists who are interested in further dialogue to contact me (lefthandview@kberner.us). I would love to help turn this big bucket of lemons into some lemonade.

*****

Update – 4/9, 9:45am: In his posts on a cycling website, I started to see some introspection on the part of the cyclist and he invited me to call him. So I did. We both acknowledged mistakes and apologized for them. I am proud we got to this constructive point.

As far as I’m concerned, this affair is closed. I’m going to be much more cognizant of how I’m driving around cyclists from now on. And I hope the cycling community, at large, will try to understand that not all drivers are against them. That’s the bottom line here: both “sides” need to endeavor to put themselves in the shoes of the other. Cyclists need to realize that the guidance in cycling safety guides (e.g., “take the lane”) is not something most drivers are aware of. Drivers need to understand that coming too close to a bike — no matter how inadvertent — is not an “inconvenience for he cyclist, but rather a matter of life and death.

I wish safe riding to the man I had a fight with a week ago and safe driving to myself.

PS. I still wish I could find the heroic woman who intervened to stop the fight. I would so much like to thank her. If you have any idea who she might be, please send her my way.

©2011 Keith Berner

04.04.11 Bag Tax: Thank You, Valerie

This is cross-posted with the Washington Post’s All Opinions Are Local.

Those familiar with my coverage of the local political scene know that I have been a frequent critic of Montgomery County Council President Valerie Ervin (D-Silver Spring), mostly because of her frequent refusal to take public stands on positions until she is sure where the majority is.

Well, this time, I want to thank Valerie, who has spoken out on the Kojo Nnamdi show and elsewhere in support of the proposed five-cent fee on disposal bags in MoCo.

Here is her response to my request to learn where she stood on the issue:

Keith,

Thank you for sharing your views on proposed Council Bill 8-11, Taxation — Excise Tax — Disposable Carryout Bags. I hesitate to use the word “tax” because the intent of this bill is to create an incentive to change behavior. As I have made very clear when the bill was introduced on March 15, as well as on radio interviews, I am a supporter of this bill. Most recently, I expressed my support when I was a guest on the Kojo Nnamdi show last Friday, March 25.

To me, this is an issue of environmental stewardship. This legislation will create an incentive to use reusable bags, therefore decreasing our reliance on disposable bags, which often end up in our streams and tributaries. I know how important this issue is from my service on the Chesapeake Bay Trust.

I do want to ensure that there is a strong public information and outreach effort. This is important for residents who rely on public transportation and are struggling to make ends meet. Buying bags could be an economic hardship on some residents. My hope is that the County can partner with a corporate sponsor to conduct reusable bag giveaways. I have not seen any details on outreach efforts yet, so I will be monitoring this issue closely as it moves through the hearing process.

Thanks again for writing to me on this issue. Please feel free to attend the public hearing this Thursday night, March 31 at 7:30 p.m,. or submit your testimony to the Council in writing.

Valerie Ervin

Montgomery County Council President

04.01.11 Road Rage: Bike Assaults Car

The first paragraphs of this piece appear as a teaser on Washington Post’s All Opinions Are Local.

I was driving along River Road this evening when I rolled to a stop at an intersection where a bicycle was waiting for the light to change. I was in the middle of my lane – the rightmost through lane — and the bicycle was partway into the lane. There was plenty of room to its right, in an unoccupied right-turn-only lane.

The bicyclist started pounding on my window and screaming that I had come closer to him than permitted by law. I was taken aback by his fury, but didn’t engage. Nonetheless, his message had sunk and, as I approached the next intersection, I was as far left as I could go, with my tires just about touching the dotted white line. The bicyclist had also moved leftward, well into the lane. As I stopped, he threw his bike against my car and started screaming that I had hit him.

I should have stayed put, but have always had a hard time accepting accusations of things I haven’t done. So I opened the door and started screaming for the guy to get away from my car. He came towards me, so I tried to push him away. He threw me onto the hood of my car and then onto the pavement. Now he was screaming that I had assaulted him.

We were nose to nose, still screaming at each other, when a woman came up and threatened to call the police on both of us. The bicyclist urged her to do so. I backed away, got into my car, and closed the door.

The bicyclist stayed right in front of me for two or three additional minutes, glowering at me the whole time. Eventually, he proceeded on his way.

I remained stopped in my car, oblivious to the line of traffic behind me. I was determined to not to put myself anywhere near the raging man again and didn’t move forward until he disappeared from view.

The man on the bicycle couldn’t have known that a dear colleague of mine was run over by a truck two years ago while she was riding her bike near Dupont Circle. He couldn’t have known about the time 20 years ago when I was in an accident with a car while I was commuting on my bike in Boston. I am far from unsympathetic to the rights and safety of bicyclists.

Yet here he was, at the end of what must have been a bad day and with an axe to grind. I had nothing to do with his day or that nasty axe. But I was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The rider is certainly home now (or wherever he was headed) bragging to companions about how he took his crusade right to the face of the evil automobile and won. I’m at home, too. As I lick my physical and emotional wounds, I’m quite sure that –  bad as his day might have been – the damage he did to mine far exceeds whatever drove him to his fury.

Final note: I sure would love to track down the woman who intervened to break up the fight. She was gentle, persistent, and courageous. I wish there were more like her!

***

Update 4/8/11 –  Please see my new post on this topic: http://tiny.cc/iv0j9

©2011 Keith Berner

04.01.11 Mini-Reviews of Old-Town Takoma Park Restaurants

These are just my opinions. I claim no particular expertise in judging food and restaurants. I just know what I like!

Here’s a brief rundown of Old-Town Takoma Park’s eateries and drinkeries, with your blogger’s opinion of their merits.

Cedar Crossing Wine Bar and Tavern (341 Cedar Street, NW, Washington – just west of Takoma Metro). When Cedar Crossing opened a year ago last November, I was a huge fan. Finally, my hometown had a place where adults could enjoy a quality beverage and the food was truly outstanding. Over the ensuing year, I fell out of love. I noticed that it was impossible to fill up on the offered “small plates” without dropping a relative fortune. And the outstanding food became only good and then mediocre. Well, the restaurant manager who brought us exorbitant prices for iffy food was let go a few weeks ago and Cedar Crossing is now worthy of hanging out in. The place offers good food in a sophisticated, yet casual atmosphere, with notably lower prices than a short time ago.

Everyday Gourmet (6923 Laurel Avenue, Takoma Park). The lunch place with stuff to order from glassed-in cases closed recently, underwent extensive remodeling, and reopened as a pub under the same name. I heard there would be 20 beer taps, so I enthusiastically dropped in on opening night. I was disappointed, but determined to give the place another shot so I went back a couple of weeks later. The burger I ordered was fine. But:

• Among 20 taps, there isn’t a single creative selection.
• The place is very stark and barren. A lot of money clearly went into the renovation, but there’s nothing homey or inviting about the result.
• The bar stools are too short for the huge granite bar. When I gently pointed this out to the proprietor, he said it was a purposeful security measure to keep would-be robbers from leaping over. For me, they just plain make the bar uncomfortable to sit at.
• Speaking of the proprietor, he’s everything you don’t want in a bartender: glum, distant, and cold.

Geez, I’d love to have a great beer pub in Takoma Park, but this one is so ill conceived, I fear for its future.

Mark’s Kitchen (7006 Carroll Avenue, Takoma Park). This Korean-American diner is a Takoma Park standard. With an eclectic menu including organic selections, this is where to meet your friends and neighbors (with their kids) of course. The relatively recent addition of beer and wine makes Mark’s a place to enjoy, even when you don’t have the little ones in tow.

Middle East Cuisine (7006 Carroll Avenue, Takoma Park). The food is mediocre and the atmosphere is as well. Why bother?

My Little Bistro (353 Cedar Street, NW, Washington – next to Cedar Crossing). This is a very odd little store with surprisingly good carry-out roasted chicken and sandwiches. By “odd,” I don’t mean quirky/cool, but rather just plain weird – you’ll wonder how anyone came up with the assortment of items for sale. But the proprietor is really nice and you certainly won’t regret taking the good food home.

Olive Lounge & Grill (7006 Carroll Avenue, Takoma Park – it’s not really on Carroll, but rather off the parking lot behind Mark’s Kitchen and Middle East Cuisine). Run by the same family that owns Middle East Cuisine, the Olive Lounge offers an impressive selection of rotating beers, good pub food, and just the kind of atmosphere you want in your favorite neighborhood bar. If you’re lucky, you can reserve your own beer stein that they store for you, just like in Germany. The only real problem at Olive Lounge is its diminutive size – on busy nights, you might have to wait a while to sit and there’s not much room for standing.

Rosccoe’s Pizzeria (7040 Carroll Avenue, Takoma Park). When Roscoe’s opened, I was really excited. I thought it might turn out to be Takoma Park’s first destination dining experience. Boy was I wrong. The pizza dough tastes like cardboard and there isn’t much on offer beyond pizza. Even the drink selection isn’t anything special. Add to that kids screaming so loud you can’t hear yourself think. For 100% better pizza, go to Pacci’s Neapolitan Pizzeria in nearby Silver Spring (8113 Georgia Avenue). I have a friend who disagrees completely with my assessment of Roscoe’s, so you better try it for yourself.

Disagree with my reviews? Did I forget something worth reviewing? Let me know!

©2011 Keith Berner

03.27.11 AT&T + TMobile = Threat to Democracy

Commentators are bemoaning the effect of AT&T’s purchase of T-Mobile, combining the second and fourth largest cellular providers to become the undisputed number one. As they point out, the elimination of T-Mobile as the lowest-price carrier will certainly bring higher prices to consumers coast to coast.  But the greatest cost to the US public comes not in the form of higher prices, but rather in a further constriction in freedom of access to information.

Cellular consolidation is directly related to the unfortunately named “Net Neutrality.”  I say the term is unfortunate, because non-techies’ eyes tend to glaze over when they hear it.  I’d rather call the issue “internet freedom.” For those of you who have taken an interest in net neutrality, the issue has tended to be painted in economic or convenience terms (just as with the AT&T/T-Mobile merger). True, one hazard of allowing huge corporations to discriminate against content based on its source might be higher prices to get access to certain content or longer download times for content that the given corporation wants to disfavor because a rival produced it.

Much more chilling is the idea that huge corporations will simply prevent you from ever seeing anything they disagree with.  This has already happened at least once.  In September 2007, Verizon blocked NARAL (the abortion rights group) from sending text messages to its supporters. Why? Because Verizon disagreed with NARAL.

A commitment to — and legal enshrinement of — internet freedom would prevent the corporate elite not only from discriminating against the movie studio or TV channel their rival owns, but also against free speech that  they just don’t like. Late last year, the FCC took an apparent step in that direction; however, the “compromise” put forth by the agency applies only to internet access coming through wires (e.g., cable, DSL, FIOS). It totally exempts wireless connections, i.e., those you get through mobile devices.  Guess which kind of connection is the future of internet access.  You got it: the wireless kind.

So, how is the technology industry reacting to the FCC’s feckless compromise?  With absolute fury. Verizon, Google (that old “don’t be evil” motto means nothing) and every Republican in Congress believe that rights of corporations trump those of citizens.  To them, any restriction on corporate freedom — including the right to keep you from consuming whatever content you want on the internet — is to be combatted with all their considerable might.

To make matters worse, this entire spectacle is taking place in the context of enormous media consolidation. As daily newspapers disappear from towns and cities nationwide, broadcast news is now more or less reduced to CNN and Fox. Don’t let the latter’s right-wing ranting blind you to CNN’s ideology. Both networks are pro-corporate, militaristically nationalistic, sensationalist, and superficial.

I have long considered the internet to be the last bastion of freedom and democracy.  While decrying the fact that most Americans get their news from an ever-narrower list of sources — all of which buy into the pro-corporate status quo, I have also celebrated the fact that those of us looking for balanced perspectives and independent voices were free to find them. As imperfect as our democracy is, the threat of government censorship has remained negligible for a very long time.

But it is not government censorship we have to fear in the United States.  Rather, the biggest threat to meaningful freedom of speech and access to information comes in the form of corporate censorship.

Even under the most rosy scenario for net neutrality, the only three remaining cellular providers (AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint) will be exempt.  Sure, they’ll disagree with each other on this or that.  But, they will be in full cahoots with the Koch brothers, the rest of the US corporate leadership, and the US Congress (their nearly wholly owned subsidiary) to make sure that revolutionary thinking (even the unarmed kind) just can’t be found.

This fits precisely with the corporate elite’s purposeful program to dumb down the US public education system: a functionally illiterate populace lacking in analytical ability and spoon-fed an ideology of false freedom won’t have the means or desire to notice its invisible chains.  And corporate control, along with further enrichment of the ultra wealthy, will the unquestioned law of the land.

©2011 Keith Berner

03.21.11 Specious Arguments Against a Bag Tax

The following is cross-posted with the Washington Post’s All Opinions Are Local.

Rarely have I see a piece of public argumentation with such a large “Kick Me” sign on it as Council member Nancy Floreen’s (D-At Large) Local Opinions commentary in Sunday’s Post opposing a proposed five-cent tax on plastic and paper bags in Montgomery County. Some of Floreen’s arguments (e.g., people will pack bags too full and the resulting spillage will pollute the environment) are too ludicrous to merit a response. I’ll focus on rebutting the specious and disingenuous arguments instead.

1.Floreen says that the bag tax wouldn’t resolve the county’s budget crisis and that it is merely a drop in the bucket. Of course. The bag tax is not meant to raise significant revenue but to change behavior and help the environment. But since the councilwoman mentions the budget, I can’t be the only one who wouldn’t mind seeing the additional million or so the tax is expected to generate to help keep things running.

2.She cites the Alice Ferguson Foundation as saying that the effect of D.C.’s bag tax (in place since January 2010) hasn’t been measure yet. But somehow, she neglects to consider qualitative reports of improvements in area waterways or to mention the foundation’s findings that 75 percent of city residents are using fewer bags than a year ago and that city officials report a drop in bag use from 270 million in 2009 to 55 million in 2010. It strains credulity to argue that a drop that dramatic has not resulted in less litter.

3.Furthermore, bag taxes are not just about saving the local waterways. Reducing bag consumption is about the trash my wife and I fish out of our hedge every week. It’s about the bags that collect along streets and in parks. It’s about the ship that recently had trouble anchoring off the coast of Brazil because of plastic bags covering on the ocean floor. It’s about the marine mammals that are strangling in the stuff or starving to death because it has clogged their digestive systems. Finally, bag taxes reduce our reliance on imported oil and production of greenhouse gasses. Are these things of no concern to the good councilwoman?

4.Floreen argues that people “who exercise good judgment” already reuse plastic bags to (for example) clean up after their pets. On my dog walk today, I did in indeed reuse a plastic bag: The one that The Post arrives in each morning. Just in case the supply of Post bags turns out to be insufficient, I can get 120 biodegradable poop bags on Amazon.com for $7.64, or about 6.4 cents each (or, I suppose, drive to the grocery store and buy the nonbiodegradable variety for five cents each).

5.She goes on to say that the County Council can’t afford to be distracted from its one and only mission: dealing with the budget crisis. Why then does the council agenda for this coming Tuesday show her “distracting” the council for about 10 minutes to issue a proclamation recognizing a member of the WMATA board? Why would she allow the Planning, Housing, and Economic Development Committee (which she chairs) to spend time discussing historic preservation of the “Kensington Cabin”? Though I have questioned the intelligence of some council decisions over the years, I refuse to believe that our elected officials lack the gray matter to deal with more than one issue per year. Apparently – according to council agendas – Floreen agrees.

Floreen’s only point that merits even a second look is the one about a bag tax’s impact on the poor. But a review of events in the big city next door shows that large retailers and city programs were able to alleviate the impact through bag giveaway programs.

In her commentary, Nancy Floreen claims she would be the “first to sign on” if she believed that a bag tax would make an environmental difference. In fact, she is more responsible for environmentally destructive impervious surfaces, sprawl and traffic than just about anyone in the county, save perhaps Doug Duncan and Steve Silverman. She comes late aboard popular environmental measures like the Purple Line and only after having helped to bankrupt the state transportation budget on the environmentally catastrophic Intercounty Connector.

I’m not the least surprised that Floreen opposes common-sense environmentalism — that fits her record. What amazes me is that someone as accomplished as she would publish such a piece of poorly reasoned trash.

PS. Keep your eyes open for a rebuttal to Floreen from none other than the Ferguson Foundation.

©2011 Keith Berner

03.16.11 Gay Marriage: Del. Alston’s (Ir)responsibility

This is cross-posted with (a somewhat milder version on) the Washington Post’s All Opinions Are Local.

Maryland State Del. Tiffany T. Alston campaigned in the fall as a supporter of marriage rights for all Marylanders. When legislation was introduced a few weeks ago to make our state a pioneer for this fundamental civil right, Alston didn’t just voice support, she signed on as a co-sponsor. But when the bill came up for a crucial committee vote, Alston simply didn’t show up. Though she continues to proclaim that guaranteeing marriage equality is the right thing to do, she ended up voting against the bill in committee, and her opposition was one reason why the bill never made it to the House floor for a final vote.

What happened to Alston? It’s simple: The African American religious community made her phone ring off the hook. They put on the squeeze and she sold her soul.

This brings up a fundamental dilemma in representative government: Does a legislator owe allegiance to “what’s right” or to the clamor of constituents, when those two principles are in opposition?

On the one hand, I simply don’t believe in the ultimate wisdom (or virtue) of most politicians. I think they should listen carefully to constituents and be guided by them a good deal of the time. On the other hand, enlightened democracy is not about mob rule: Not every question of public policy should be subject to the whims of whoever can whip up the most fervor or contribute the most money.

But here are two reasons why Del. Alston’s behavior was clearly wrong in this case: The minor reason is that she ran publicly as favoring gay marriage. She didn’t spring her position on an unsuspecting electorate as some sort of purposeful subterfuge. The voters knew whom they were electing, which attenuates their right to demand a change of position.

The major reason why Alston is wrong is that civil rights and civil liberties ought never be subject to majority will. Otherwise, would school desegregation or interracial marriage have become the law of the land in the middle of last century?

So, why is it right to follow the hatred and vitriol of constituents when they demand discrimination against one of the last minority groups in this country whom it is still “ok” to hate? Bigotry is bigotry and must be opposed whenever it rears its ugly head.

Two more points:

• Homophobic African Americans who fought to defeat gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves. I have special contempt for oppressed people who — when they gain some measure of power — turn it against others who are oppressed. (Are you listening, Israel?)

• Religion has no place in the formation of public policy. I don’t give a shit what your particular interpretation of your particular holy text suggests to you about the need to persecute someone else. Separation of church and state cannot stop you from hating in your heart, but it ought to prevent you from legislating based on that hatred.

Here’s hoping that Maryland eventually rises above the bigotry. Advocates for equal rights will be back next year and — just as with the train started by Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. — we may well be detoured, but our eventual victory is assured.

©2011 Keith Berner

03.14.11 Montgomery Schools vs. the Rest of Us

This is cross-posted with the Washington Post’s All Opinions Are Local.

Across the country, the GOP has declared war on education, slashing budgets willy-nilly as if producing responsible, capable citizens had nothing to do with a safe and prosperous future for all of us.

Here are home, the tables are turned. For the second year in a row, Montgomery County education administrators and teachers have declared war on the rest of us. How else can we interpret the legal action taken by educators against the county?

I grew up in a school district whose funding was totally dependent on voter-backed tax levies. By the time I graduated high school in 1978, not a single levy had been defeated in 45 years. I owe an enormous amount to the farsighted taxpayers of my hometown and am an avid supporter of providing whatever it takes to produce quality education for children.

But there has to be a limit, and it comes when — at a time of fiscal crisis, as all public services are being cut to the bone — a school system burns precious capital by essentially suing a bunch of pro-education legislators and declaring themselves sacrosanct from the budget axe. C’mon folks, it’s not like MCPS is on the edge, with poor teachers, underperforming students and crumbling infrastructure. This is a rich county, with a well-funded school system.

Surely, the schools need to work with us, not against us, as we grapple with a budget nightmare none of us wanted.

©2011 Keith Berner

03.13.11 Pro Labor!

During the past couple of years, I became increasingly opposed to the Montgomery County public employee unions.  Their pay and benefits are excessive within the context of the county’s fiscal crisis. Well compensated public employees need to give back substantially when programs for the needy are on the chopping block.

But I have never opposed the right of labor to organize. And all it took was Wisconsin to remind me how precious that right is.  The GOP march nationwide to destroy unions and chip away at voting rights is nothing less than an assault on democracy itself (tattered as it is after Citizens United and the overwhelming control a tiny corporate elite has over the media, government, and – by extension – education).

One interesting facet of the Wisconsin phenomenon is the stark difference between the Washington Post’s and New York Times’s editorial coverage:  The Times has repeatedly denounced the Wisconsin GOP’s power grab. All the virulently anti-labor Post could muster was a one meek piece declaring understanding for Wisconsin’s need to cut pay and benefits and hoping that the two sides could work it out.

Count me pro labor. Count me, futher, as one who never forgets to read the Post’s editorial page with a giant grain of salt.

©2011 Keith Berner