Month: July 2011

What we’re up against…

It may turn your stomach to watch this, but it’s important to know what the enemy is up to. Here’s Jim Messina from the Barack Obama campaign.

I’m sort of amazed this video only had 300 YouTube views, although I have no idea whether the views on Obama’s website counted toward that total.

The key points I gleaned from this is that the grassroots efforts seem to be concentrated in places where Obama ran strongly last time – so there’s no planning sessions shown in our neck of the woods but California and the Northeast are thick with them. Notably the Carolinas have quite a few, too.

I also saw that there were over 550,000 suckers who donated this time around. While that seems like a lot, notice that Mussina said they raised $86 million “globally.” I thought foreign contributions were illegal? Where is his money coming from then?

And comparing 2011 contributions to 2007 is a bit pointless as well. Remember, there was no incumbent running in 2008 so Obama was one of a number of would-be Democratic candidates at the time. As they are now, the GOP was in the same boat so comparing the number of contributors from then to now is somewhat useless.

But it’s interesting to note that they are putting together a voter registration drive now. Wonder if they were trained by the Board of Elections? If one comes to your door, hey, invite them in to sit a spell. Ask them how that hope and change is working out for them.

Of course, no Obama spiel is complete without taking a swipe at the Republicans and our so-called special interests. If he’s planning to raise $1 billion I hope those groups raise $2 billion. Lord knows where that money will come from in these economic times, but that’s my hope. He has to be stopped.

By the way, if you have $50 to spare for someone dedicated to halting the Obama agenda, Andy Harris is holding a local fundraiser on Monday night at the residence of Cathy Keim. For more details or to RSVP, you can contact her at (443) 880-5912 or sckeim (at) gmail.com. Congressman Harris will be there to discuss the health care issue. RSVP by Thursday, July 15.

Full circle: Ready back at MDGOP

His departure was abrupt and helped to bring down a Chairman. But after a whirlwind career tour which eventually led him into a seat in the House of Delegates, Justin Ready accepted an offer from Maryland Republican Party chair Alex Mooney to return to the post of Executive Director on an interim basis. The position opened again when former ED Kim Jorns resigned in favor of a position with the Michigan GOP last month.

Ready left the Maryland GOP in July 2009, terminated for unspecified reasons by former MDGOP Chair Jim Pelura. But Justin maintained a hand in the political process as a consultant while launching his successful House campaign. He represents Carroll County in the House of Delegates, having taken a District 5A seat formerly held by retiring Delegate Tanya Shewell.

One question being raised about Justin’s new post is the aspect of fundraising, since a sitting member of the Maryland General Assembly can’t fundraise while the body is in session. While there is a Special Session slated for this fall, the idea behind selecting Ready for the position was to place someone familiar with the task there while conducting a larger search for the position. In a note to supporters Justin concedes,”I’ll be leaving no later than the end of the year in anticipation of the start of the 2012 Legislative Session,” but also sees the post as “an opportunity for me to keep working on the political side to bring real reform and conservative change to Maryland…the only way we will substantively change our state’s tax-and-spend policies is to elect more strong, Republican leaders who will fight for conservative principles.”

Since there’s not a lot of state activity right now, this is the perfect time for an experienced caretaker to step up and take the reins of the party. And hopefully the actions which brought about his original dismissal were lessons learned and not repeated.

Some may see this as a step down for Ready and the MDGOP, given the party wasn’t functioning all that well during Justin’s brief previous tenure of 15 months. Yet the new leadership had enough confidence in him to come back, and that says something about how he was remembered while serving in the post. Still, party regulars should hope that a solid leader can be found and stick around for awhile – for many of its paid positions the MDGOP has become something of a revolving door and stability would be desirable.

Ready is fine for a temporary measure, but we need someone who is hungry to succeed, doesn’t mind doing the hard work of fundraising, and isn’t afraid to get in the face of our enemy – the Democrats who have run a once-fine state into the ground. Finding such a person should be job one for Party Chair Alex Mooney.

Gary Johnson: Family Leader Pledge ‘offensive’

It’s already been signed by Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum, but don’t look for Gary Johnson to sign the Family Leader Pledge anytime soon. Instead, Johnson has placed up a YouTube ad pleading that ‘tolerance is American’:

Now, I know both Gary and I fall on the libertarian side of the GOP, but in reading the Pledge myself I only have objection to one aspect – I don’t believe we need a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman. It’s a matter properly and best left to the states to determine. (Having said that, I think the people in New York should strive to overturn their recently passed same-sex marriage law by whatever means they can; alas, it may come down to ejecting those who supported it in their legislature when their re-election comes up. The same goes for other jurisdictions which have passed similar ill-considered laws.)

Another controversy within the Pledge comes from its reference to slavery; as an original version of the document noted:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President.

Yet in looking at the cited research I couldn’t locate that particular tidbit spelled out – it’s more likely they extrapolated data from the late 19th century and assumed the rate of black two-parent families was similarly high in the decades prior to the War Between the States. My take is that the Family Leader group was trying to make a quite valid point but got fast and loose with the facts. (A later version of the Pledge has rightly pulled the remark.)

The controversy is unfortunate because there is a lot to like about the FLP, in particular its call for “downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA‟s $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.” That should be right up Johnson’s alley, as it should for any Republican seeking the highest office in the land.

But perhaps what bothers me most about Gary’s stand is his embrace of “tolerance,” since that can be defined in any number of ways. Should the government be in our bedrooms? Of course not. A man’s home is his castle and what he does there shouldn’t be the subject of constant examination by government snoops. But for too long we’ve been ‘tolerant’ of radical Islam and look what that brought us. There are groups and people out there who take advantage of our openness and generosity, so we need to be aware of that disturbing truth. A blanket definition one way or the other doesn’t serve us well.

Thus, you can see in part why Gary is among the also-rans in my Presidential decision-making; meanwhile, Bachmann and Santorum are near the top. I don’t think legislating morality is the answer, but being too permissive creates its own set of problems as well. Why not have a straight-arrow conservative (as opposed to a so-called “compassionate” one) in the White House?

Gary Johnson has a lot of good attributes, but I think he should moderate his strident tone on this one. Why violate the Eleventh Commandment needlessly?

For President 2012: Energy independence

Now the party of “drill, baby, drill” should make this a slam dunk for 12 points. But you may be surprised to see how this plays out.

She does a nice job of stating the problem, but Michele Bachmann would do well to expand her palette of solutions. Indeed, government needs to get out of the way but maybe I’d like a little more. Her voting record is solid, though, so I’ll give her ten points.

Herman Cain seems to be an advocate for free-market solutions, and that’s precisely what we need. Key among his statements is that private industry needs to take the lead on alternative energy, which shows a good understanding of government’s role. Again, I’d like a little more specifics on the solution, which keeps Cain from hitting all twelve points – he gets eleven.

Newt Gingrich and his “American Energy Plan” is solid, except for one flaw: he wants to use oil and gas royalties to “finance cleaner energy research.” While I like the introduction of “loser pays” on environmental lawsuits into the discussion, the idea that we should give research grants out like candy and pick winners and losers via government rubs me the wrong way. But because of his commercial with Nancy Pelosi, he gets seven points.

“Until we put a value on carbon, we’re never going to be able to get serious with dealing with climate change longer term.” Uh, no, Jon Huntsman. First of all, mankind has little to do with climate change and second of all carbon credits are just a scam for wealth redistribution. If you really believe this – and past history suggests you do – then you’re not the man for the job. I’m taking off all 12 points.

Gary Johnson has a mixed bag, as he placed his imprimatur on items which would suggest he’s a believer in government incentives for “green” energy but also Tweeted his opinions that we should drill in ANWR and can help our energy cause by drilling domestically. I’ll give him five points.

What Fred Karger doesn’t seem to understand is that forced conservation of energy is counterproductive to a growing economy. Certainly looking for ways to get more done with less energy usage is a good thing, but mandating reductions isn’t practical for growth. If someone needs to explore alternative energy, let it be the private sector (see Herman Cain above.) He loses another six points.

I suppose my biggest question for Thad McCotter is how do we “responsibly transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy” when those methods are nowhere near ready for prime time? Well, he wants to use the tried-and-true big government trick of tax credits and deductions, which rubs me the wrong way. Add in a vote for “Cash for Clunkers” and I think he may have been seduced by Washington’s ways on this issue. He gets just five points, a big disappointment.

“We need independence from foreign oil by freeing access to our own natural resources and developing other sources such as nuclear, solar, wind, and fossil fuels. Coal and oil supplies should be developed. Off-shore drilling should be increased but subject to reasonable regulations.” That’s the extent of Roy Moore‘s views on energy. It’s the problem with having no legislative record to back things up – I have no definition of things like “reasonable regulation.” And I’m troubled that he equates unproven pieces of the puzzle like solar and wind with items we use now. So I can only give him five points as well.

Like Gingrich above, Ron Paul has an energy policy I can agree with aside from one glaring exception. In Paul’s case, it’s those tax credits for purchase and production of alternative energy technologies, which belie the case he states that, “(t)he free market – not government – is the solution to America’s energy needs.” And his voting record is spotty because Ron skipped a lot of key votes. But since the rest of the ideas are sound and he didn’t make a commercial with San Fran Nan, I’ll give him nine points.

Tim Pawlenty doesn’t address energy independence on his issues page, and perhaps this is why. Maybe he thought it necessary to address the issue to keep his job in a liberal-leaning state, but then he doubled down and doomed Minnesota ratepayers by adopting a 25% renewable energy portfolio (even more than Maryland’s and you see where our rates are headed.) I don’t know if his recent change of heart is sincere, so I’m taking off five points.

“No more subsidies.” That’s at the heart of Buddy Roemer‘s energy remarks. And while it sounds like he’s foursquare for more drilling (after all, he comes from an oil state) I worry about the tariff on Middle Eastern oil he’s proposing because that sets a bad precedent. So I’m only giving him three points.

Mitt Romney shrewdly addresses energy independence in his “job creation” category. But terms like “government must be a partner,” “facilitate,” and “address market failures” don’t convince he wants a conservative, small-government solution. We see what kind of “partner” government has become, and it’s not government’s job to interfere with the market. And believing climate change is caused by mankind is a nonstarter. I’m deducting three points.

Rick Santorum, like Romney, sees energy independence as a job creation issue. But he favors the “all of the above” approach generally held by Republicans and correctly states we should “put aside our dreams of ‘green jobs.’” The voting record isn’t bad, although I do object to one vote in particular. So I’ll grant him seven points.

Now I’m past the halfway point, as I’ve awarded 55 points so far. With entitlement, job creation, and taxation among my remaining issues it’s doubtful that many of the bottomfeeders have a shot – I figure my endorsee is likely at or above the 30 point mark right now. Looks like a race between Bachmann and Cain, but we’ll see.

  • Michele Bachmann – 46 points
  • Herman Cain – 41 points
  • Roy Moore – 37 points
  • Thad McCotter – 33 points
  • Rick Santorum – 33 points
  • Newt Gingrich – 30 points
  • Ron Paul – 30 points
  • Tim Pawlenty – 20 points
  • Buddy Roemer – 19 points
  • Mitt Romney – 18 points
  • Gary Johnson – 16 points
  • Jon Huntsman – 1 point
  • Fred Karger – (-16) points

Needless to say, Barack Obama‘s energy record is miserable. Even when he showed a few cajones and loosened oil drilling regulations, he relented after a once-in-a-lifetime accident. Of course, he loses all twelve points.

Randall Terry is, once again, silent on the issue. The problem with his approach is that Democrats who don’t like Obama may just stay home rather than vote for him as a message.

  • Randall Terry – (-1) point
  • Barack Obama – (-47) points

The next category should be interesting because there are a plethora of views on entitlements, so that may spread the field out a little bit more – and perhaps trip up a leading contender.

For President 2012: Immigration

Here we should start separating the men from the boys (or the women from the girls, to be fair.) Eleven points are at stake and as most know I’m pretty much a hardliner on the subject.

She has the right idea about securing the borders on her campaign site, but Michele Bachmann goes no further as to how. Enforcement of existing law would be a good start, though. The anti-immigration group Numbers USA ranks her highest among GOP candidates, and while I don’t completely agree with their overall stance on the issue it’s a good indicator she’ll do what’s right for Americans. Ten points.

Similarly, Herman Cain promises to “secure our borders, enforce our laws, and promote the existing path to citizenship.” That’s all well and good, but more detail would be good. Helping his cause is that he stood foursquare against amnesty. I think he’ll get nine points.

It’s telling that, aside from the usual mantra of “secure our borders,” Newt Gingrich doesn’t talk about immigration on his campaign site. Maybe it’s because he’s pandering to the so-called Latino vote? I can only give him two points, and that’s in part credit for some past votes. He may think differently now.

Normally I’m a pretty good state’s rights guy, but should we push border security onto the states as Jon Huntsman advocates? The problem with that is California’s version of a “secure” border may not be as tight as Arizona’s. Nor does he address what to do with the illegals who are here; perhaps because he supports the DREAM Act. I’m deducting three points.

I think Gary Johnson‘s immigration approach is naïve, and the idea of any sort of grace period for illegal immigrants rubs me the wrong way. What saves him are some of his ideas about legalizing immigration eventually, such as “one strike, you’re out” – problem is too many already have that strike against them. I’ll call it a wash and keep his point total where it is.

Fred Karger joins the chorus calling for “greatly improved border security” but also advocates “a path to citizenship for immigrants already living in the country.” Smells like amnesty to me, so it’s back in the hole again as I take three points off.

Couched in somewhat soothing language, the approach Thad McCotter takes seems to be pretty sensible. My biggest objection is his caution not to “stigmatize” illegal immigrants – why not? They are flouting the law. His voting record assuages me somewhat, but I’m afraid he may get squishy when push comes to shove. So I’m only giving him five points.

Roy Moore has a somewhat similar view to that of Jon Huntsman in that he would “allow” states to take the lead in border security. But he has a moral position on the issue as well, and I think he would be just fine on the issue because I take it he has a security “floor” in mind which states can exceed if they wish. I’ll give him seven points.

At last, Ron Paul has a decent issues page which includes immigration. And it’s odd because Numbers USA gives him poor marks yet what he says on his page makes some sense, and it’s borne out by his voting record. So I’ll give him six points.

It’s odd that Tim Pawlenty doesn’t devote space to his stance on immigration, particularly when it’s reasonably good per the standards of Numbers USA. Just based on what they say and not having a lot to go on, I think I can safely give him six points.

This video gives a pretty good summary of Buddy Roemer‘s viewpoint. There’s a lot to like, although it’s still a bit short on specifics. He gives the Chamber of Commerce some necessary criticism as well. I think six points is fair.

While Mitt Romney doesn’t address the issue directly on his website, this “unofficial” website makes him look downright hawkish. It’s mainly based on his 2008 statements, but I don’t think he’s flipped much on this. It’s his strongest area so far, and he’ll get nine points.

Rick Santorum also ignores the issue on his website, but his impassioned plea against amnesty in 2006 should count for something. I’ll count it as five points.

As predicted, the field is beginning to spread out. While it’s not impossible for someone outside the top six or so to catch up it’s starting to look like I’m going against conventional wisdom. So what else is new?

  • Michele Bachmann – 36 points
  • Roy Moore – 32 points
  • Herman Cain – 30 points
  • Thad McCotter – 28 points
  • Rick Santorum – 26 points
  • Tim Pawlenty – 25 points
  • Newt Gingrich – 23 points
  • Ron Paul – 21 points
  • Mitt Romney – 21 points
  • Buddy Roemer – 16 points
  • Jon Huntsman – 13 points
  • Gary Johnson – 11 points
  • Fred Karger – (-10) points

Meanwhile, on the other side:

While he’s supposedly cracked down on the worst illegal immigrants, Barack Obama is trying to sneak the DREAM Act through and has done little to secure the borders. He loses another seven points.

Meanwhile, the one-note samba that is Randall Terry says nothing about immigration.

  • Randall Terry – (-1) points
  • Barack Obama – (-35) points

Friday night videos – episode 69

The series returneth. Let’s begin with this up-and-coming group of young whippersnappers caught on Live Lixx the other day. They’re known as Hot Sauce Sandwich.

They’ve been playing around the area and seem to be embarking on a familiar route as they work hard to get their name out. Consider this a little more help.

I really like these guys, and Not My Own is beginning to become a little more of a regional band. This was recorded in New Jersey a few weeks back – it’s a song I’ve featured before but in a new venue.

I don’t doubt they’re working on new material, too. It will be interesting to see when they have a full-length formal release.

The other day I was listening to this CD and wondered if the Baltimore-based Se7enth Seal had any videos on YouTube. Well, here’s one of their song ‘Isomorph.’

Haven’t heard much from them of late, but they just may run in different circles.

This is something else I happened to toss into my CD player this week. Hey, I’m on the road quite a bit. It comes from Woodstok Nation.

I recorded that way back at the tail end of 2009 and I think I’ve used it before somewhere down the line. But it’s still pretty good.

Another underrated local band which does originals and that I like to feature on occasion is Lime Green. This one is ‘Psychadelic Dream.’

Finally, since it IS episode 69 I thought I’d add a cover of “Summer of ’69” – Semiblind does the honors. I recorded this last month at Third Friday. And Kim just wanted me to record a couple songs because she had to leave early – little did she know.

By the way, this month’s Third Friday is next week. Not sure who’s playing, though.

It’s hard to believe, but summer is about half over and I’m approaching the second anniversary of FNV. Yes, this whole series began back in July of 2009. While it started out as a political vehicle, I’ve found that the music videos are much more fun so that change is permanent. (They’re just a bit harder to compile, which is why the pace of episodes have slowed down somewhat.)

So it looks like episode 70 may be a “best of” or even a “viewer’s choice” if I can drum up enough interest. What do you think were the top music videos I featured? Look for it in a week or two!

A messy divorce in the offing?

You know, one would think that an administration which is trying to prevent Boeing from moving production of the 787 jetliner to a right-to-work state and has stacked the National Labor Relations Board with union toadies – through recess appointments if necessary – would have Big Labor’s seal of approval. But they’re greedy and chagrined that ‘card check’ didn’t pass when Congress was fully in Democratic hands.

And now Big Labor has to worry about things at the state level. It’s the focus of a report by the Capital Research Center’s Labor Watch project co-authored by Ivan Osorio and Trey Kovacs. And to bear this out, remember that even the union-friendly Martin O’Malley was booed at this supposedly friendly gathering because he wanted to tinker with teacher pensions.

Yet Big Labor suffers from the same problem that any member of a broad coalition of special interests runs into when the Democratic Party seizes power – everybody wants everything they asked for all at once, no matter how noxious. Abortionists want easier access to abortions paid for by Uncle Sam, the gay lobby equates their cause with the civil rights movement and wants laws passed accordingly, gun grabbers want to flout the Second Amendment even more, and so on and so forth. Unions just don’t like taking their place in a long line of liberal special interest groups.

And the key question is: where else can they go? Like those on the conservative side who occasionally express their disgust with the GOP and threaten to boycott the next election if so-and-so is nominated, Big Labor is pretty much stuck with the one who brung them to the dance. They’ve obviously alienated themselves from Republicans, a party they bash mercilessly despite the fact a significant portion of their rank-and-file members vote that way at the ballot box, so I don’t doubt they’ll eventually suck it up and drop millions into the Democratic coffers because there’s nowhere else for them to turn politically. And the fact Big Labor still confiscates huge sums of money for political purposes via union dues means that, somewhere along the line, they and the Democrats will mend fences. It’s all about the Benjamins to both players in that game.

So don’t be surprised to see Big Labor make a push for a more liberal strain of Democrats to replace the ones they feel betrayed them in both state and national races. After all, if they can continue to play the class envy game with any success they’ll always dupe a few useful idiots into pulling the lever for their allies in the Democrat Party, even if they’ll hold their nose a little in the process. As long as President Obama is in office, their goals will be advanced regardless of means.

Shorebird of the Week – July 7, 2011

Cameron Roth has been the swingman for the Shorebirds, pitching mostly in long relief with a spot start here and there.

Starters get the wins and closers get the saves, but any good pitching staff has that guy who can come in when needed for a spot start or eat a couple innings to keep the team in the game. For the Shorebirds, Cameron Roth seems to be that guy.

The lefty makes it two weeks out of three that a player from UNC-Wilmington has been selected as SotW (Michael Rooney was the other.) Roth was picked in the 29th round of last year’s draft and spent last season at Bluefield, where he went 2-4, 4.23 in 12 starts and compiled a 1.25 WHIP.

Cameron isn’t a stranger to starting, since that was his role with Bluefield, but for much of this year his role with the Shorebirds has been that of a long reliever – on average his relief stint was about 3 innings. Thus far his numbers have been reasonably good, as he’s compiled a 3-1 record with a 4.91 ERA, allowing 60 hits and 23 walks in 55 innings pitched, while fanning 39. Perhaps the highlight of his season was getting the start (one of three he’s made this year) at Hagerstown June 16, shutting out the Suns for 5 innings and picking up the win.

So what lies ahead for the 22-year-old Virginian? While he’s not thought of as a prospect yet, he seems to have potential once he leaves Delmarva – his home/road splits suggest he doesn’t much care for pitching here (6.46 ERA at Perdue Stadium, 3.73 in other parks.) He may be a nice addition to Frederick’s staff next year with a strong finish and solid spring.

A sound Congressional map

Come this fall, the Maryland General Assembly will take a little time from figuring out devious ways to raise our taxes and usurp a little more of our freedom to finalize Congressional district lines for next year’s elections.

But someone with the Maryland Republican Party came up with a “good government map” which may be the most logical dissection of the state we’ll see in this round. The beauty of it is how well it matches up with existing geographic lines. For example, the First District as the Republicans see it would consist of 10 full counties and just a tiny slice of Anne Arundel County. And instead of slicing our capital county into several districts, the Republican plan would put all but the small section destined for the First District into the Third District. Seventeen of Maryland’s 23 counties and Baltimore City would be in just one Congressional district, while no county would be in more than three (Baltimore County would be split mostly between the Second and Sixth Districts, with a few areas close by Baltimore City placed into its Seventh District.)

An interesting sidebar for local voters (and something of a surprise coming from a GOP plan) is the fact that Andy Harris would no longer live in the district he represents – the Baltimore County resident would be close by the line separating the Second and Sixth Districts. But the map would also probably place Dutch Ruppersberger and John Sarbanes in the same Second District as well as pairing Donna Edwards and Steny Hoyer in the Fifth, so the GOP plan is likely DOA in the General Assembly. Still, the way the Republicans drew the map makes a lot of sense because districts are compact and geographically sound – if they place two incumbent Democrats in the same district, that’s the breaks. I guarantee you the Democrats who run the process will slice and dice the state willy-nilly to create as much havoc among Republicans as possible – gerrymandering with a capital G.

Apparently the state’s residents will get a chance to have their say as well, so now may be the time to come up with a good, sound plan. I think the GOP has succeeded on that count.

Toll hearing July 14

I actually knew about this already, but I was reminded by an interesting source.

A postcard came to my mailbox today, addressed to me or the current resident. The sender: Congressman Andy Harris.

Printed at taxpayer expense, it revealed the hearing would take place on Thursday, July 14 at Stephen Decatur Middle School, 9815 Seahawk Road in Berlin, beginning at 5:30 p.m.  It also restated Andy’s opposition to the “massive toll hike proposal” that “will destroy jobs and hurt rural Maryland families” as well as “hurt businesses we count on for jobs in the tourism, seafood, and poultry industries.” (Yep, that’s the Eastern Shore in a nutshell.)

No question Andy is right, but I guarantee some crank is going to get his panties in a wad because Andy is using his franking privilege in such a manner. Yes, the piece states Congressman Harris’s opposition to the toll hikes, but that was made pretty plain by news reports when the toll increases were announced. So there’s no new news there. He also informs the public about an opportunity to say one’s piece – for all I know, someone who got the card may be all for jacking up the toll over threefold during the next couple years but had no idea a hearing would be held on this part of the Shore. I don’t believe this particular hearing was in the original schedule but was likely added through popular demand and the behest of the Ocean City and Worcester County tourism industry.

Therefore, this is one of the cases where the Congressman is performing his public service and using taxpayer money in a relatively prudent manner. (The card is a simple black-and-white postcard and not a fancy full-color four-page mailing. But it conveys the message just fine.)

In the meantime, it will be interesting to hear how this meeting goes. If my work schedule allows I may just drop in.

July 4th open thread

Since it’s the holiday weekend and not a whole lot is going on in Salisbury, I’d like to throw out a question at my readers.

I’m aware of Independence Day celebrations in a number of communities – Willards, Crisfield, and Laurel, Delaware immediately spring to mind. So why doesn’t Salisbury have a parade, or even fireworks aside from those put on by the Shorebirds? Who will put their (or our) money where their mouth is and step up to the plate?

I think your comments will be interesting. I’ll try to pop in from time to time to moderate, but I have plans for tomorrow so moderation will be hit and miss. Yes, I know that somewhat defeats the purpose of an open thread but there’s more to life than blogging.

Just let me know what you think!