A Free Press?

Troubling questions face the venerable Washington Post.

A front page New York Times story exposes a plan (first reported by Politico) concocted to raise money at the Post—by charging up to $250,000 to lobbyists and the like to have “off the record” dinners with lawmakers and administration officials. The dinners were to be hosted by Post executives.

Talk about pay to play–I could hardly believe my eyes as I read the story. Everybody knows the newspaper business is bleeding money but how could the Post ever think it could pull off such a plan without seriously compromising its credibility.

Not surprisingly, the paper’s newsroom apparently threw a fit. The idea has been scrapped.

But it still leaves a terrible taste in the mouth of any of us who remember the Post’s glory days during Watergate.

Michael Jackson’s Legacy

Some are wondering how Michael Jackson will be remembered. For his music as the true “King of Pop”? Or as the entertainer whose success was overcome by lawsuits, sordid accusations and bizarre behavior?

I suspect the question’s being answered loud and clear by the way the world is reacting to his sudden death.

How many of us went home last night and played his music? (I must confess I actually got out of bed, turned all the TV coverage off and cranked up the CD player.)

It’s been noted that Jackson set the entertainment standard that so many who followed have tried to emulate. That alone leaves his bold fingerprint on our culture.

He also blazed a new trail by combining R & B and pop and, in the process, became hugely popular with both black and white fans. He helped erase the color line. Today, both hard rock radio stations and urban contemporary stations are playing his music.

I grew up a huge Motown fan. I was terribly saddened in 1984, with the sudden death of Marvin Gaye. But today, 25 years later, I still have his music.

Dixon’s Dilemma Now

When Sheila Dixon got involved in a personal relationship with a developer five or six years ago, she probably never imagined it would lead to the spot she’s in today—under indictment, under (extra) scrutiny, and now left to wonder what the ex-boyfriend will say.

Even before Ron Lipscomb took the plea bargain, the effect of the pending criminal case against Dixon was starting to show.

Just look at what happened during the budget process. For the first time in years, the City Council rose up and challenged a mayor. Think that would have happened if she wasn’t burdened by the pending case—and the possibility of a felony jail sentence?

Now, with the Lipscomb deal in place, she’s got a whole new worry. He’s now a cooperating witness for prosecutors.

His testimony could make it a whole lot easier for prosecutors to go back to a grand jury and get perjury charges against Dixon reinstated. They could even try to go after whole new charges, such as bribery. Wouldn’t everyone love to hear what Lipscomb would say if asked what he thought all those gifts he gave Dixon were for?

Prosecutors have been relying on ex’s to make their case since the beginning of time.

It seems they’ve now got the mayor’s ex right where they want him.

The Museum Shooting

If we’re lucky, we never have to encounter the deep level of hate harbored by someone like James von Brunn. Long before his alleged act of violence at the Holocaust Museum, he made no secret of his grudge against Jews and blacks. He was so obsessed in his racism, his ex-wife left him years ago because it consumed his life. He is, it seems, the pure definition of extremist.

The FBI has set out to learn what provoked von Brunn at this particular moment.
It may provide useful clues, not just to what happened at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, but to what might be brewing among other hate groups.

It’s hard to ignore that the museum shooting happened within two weeks of the murder of
George Tiller, the Kansas doctor who performed late term abortions. Tiller had long been the target of protest. But only now did deadly violence prevail.

Hate is nothing new. But what tips it to something beyond words? Who’s most likely to allow their beliefs to form the intent to harm someone else? And, who among us is so intolerant, so prejudiced, that violence is possible?

Obama’s Buchenwald Visit

President Obama’s visit on Friday to Buchenwald in Germany is likely to stick with him for a very long time. It has with me, many years later.

I saw Buchenwald in 1992, on a trip through Europe that touched on much of the history of World War II. The former concentration camps sit high above Weimar. It was a cold, windy spring day when I was there; I could only imagine how brutal the conditions must have been in the winter.

The barracks are gone; having been burned down after the camp was liberated. But still in place are parts of the camp that leave no doubt about the inhumanity that took place there.

The crematorium is still standing, with its brick ovens where thousands of bodies were disposed of. In another building, there are small rooms that were used for human experimentation, complete with the “medical tools” the Nazi doctors used.

There was a German guide the day I was there. She spoke very little English. Actually, she didn’t have to. It was crystal clear what had gone on at Buchenwald. It was not at all hard to imagine that the death toll there was 56,000.

The preservation of places like Buchenwald allows that horrible history to never be denied—all the more important as the generation that fought in World War II reaches its twilight and fewer and fewer of the people who survived those camps, or liberated them, are alive to tell about them.

Where’s Flight 447?

Not too long ago, I bought a GPS device that tells me how far I should hit my next golf shot. It uses satellite technology to map out thousands of courses. I just have to tell the device which course I’m playing.
Just about everybody I know has a GPS device for their vehicle. So, no matter where they are, they can dial up help to get to a destination.
And yet, here we are, more than two days after a commercial airliner disappeared in mid-flight, and we have to rely on pieces of debris being eyeballed by a Brazilian air force plane to have any clue about where the doomed jet—and 228 people– may be.

It’s hard to believe with all the advances in technology and satellite tracking that there are still parts of air routes during which pilots are in the dark in terms of radar and communication with controllers.
It’s hard to believe some airlines can now provide Wi-Fi internet access to passengers but the plane itself can vanish without an electronic trace.

Sometimes it takes a terrible tragedy to ring up needed improvements.
Such should be the case with Air France Flight 447.

Charges Dropped

After mulling it over for more than a month, Judge Dennis Sweeney made his decision this morning in the cases against Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon and city councilwoman Helen Holton.
He knocked out five charges against the Mayor and all charges against Holton—buying their respective arguments that they fall under the protection of the so-called “speech or debate” clause. This doctrine dates back hundreds of years and essentially says an elected official’s votes and official acts can’t be used against them.
Some history is in order.
This protection has its roots in England when, during, the 16th and 17th centuries, the Kings made it a practice of intimidating (or worse) legislators who didn’t go along with them. The idea was to shield members of parliament from retribution by the throne simply because of their legislative acts.
Fast forward a few hundred years and we have Baltimore’s mayor and a city council member being let off the hook in a 2009 “speech or debate” ruling.
Many might wonder if this is really what the protection intends.
In Holton’s case, it serves to shield her from the allegation she got a developer to pay for a political poll—and therefore spare the expense herself—while she was voting on his projects.
In Dixon’s case, it serves to protect her from perjury charges—for allegedly failing to tell the public she got fur coats, and cash, and shopping trips from the same developer, also while voting on his projects.
These cases are about prosecution for allegations of personal gain—not persecution for a political stand.

Follow the Money

Baltimore’s City Council is in the process of hashing out Mayor Sheila Dixon’s budget—and trying to find ways to undo some of the cuts the Mayor’s proposed.

At the same time, some serious questions have popped up about the city’s whole system of finances.
A few weeks ago, finance officials (surprise!) disclosed the city had $39 million it didn’t know about. Then, (surprise, surprise!) they revealed another “surplus” of $13 million.

It’s all good news, certainly, but shouldn’t we wonder how millions of dollars can go unnoticed?

In April, I did a story on Mayor Dixon’s city-owned cars (she has use of three of them) and on the line item budget for her office. In the course of pursuing a follow-up story, I filed a request with finance officials for documentation to explain several expenditures.

The city responded by saying two of the expenditures we asked about “were found not to be supportable with documentation and were not accurate.”
And, concerning another, the city replied, “no document exists to support the exact amounts.”

We’re still trying to get the information we seek but answers like that are certainly not what we and the public should expect. The city collects a lot of money from its residents, visitors, and customers. Is its accounting up to snuff?

Police Conduct

I was talking to a veteran criminal defense attorney who mentioned she thinks police should include Emily Post manners in their training. She was only half-joking. Her point was that if police treated people courteously as a matter of course, they may get a whole lot more cooperation from communities.

The context of our conversation was our story this week about what happened in a West Baltimore bar. Police were after a drug suspect but they spent nearly an hour inside the bar—detaining, questioning, and searching the other patrons, manager, and owner. It’s all on tape—security cameras were rolling.

The owner and manager say the police searched the whole business, then took their keys and went out and searched their cars—all without a warrant.

Can you imagine being subject to that kind of treatment sitting at a bar in Little Italy? Or the Inner Harbor?
We all know that police officers have a very tough job and the vast majority of them carry out their duty with professionalism and integrity.

It’s also clear their job might be made easier if there was a greater level of trust and respect between police and the public.

After their experience, the folks in that bar are probably not at all anxious to have any dealing with a police officer anytime soon.

Unleashing Common Sense

Baltimore’s City Council this week will consider a bill to correct what some on the council describe as an oversight that’s created a firestorm among dog owners.
Back in January, the council approved changes to the structure of fines to violators of the city’s animal control laws. Included, but apparently unintended – a big increase (from $100 to $1000) in the fine for unleashed dogs.

The proposed bill would knock the fine down to $250. But there’s a much bigger issue here.

For years, as a city resident and dog owner, I have said to anyone who will listen that in order to improve quality of life, Baltimore must accommodate people’s dogs. That means providing space where they can be walked and confined areas where they can run off-leash.
You don’t need all that much room. A small corner of any of the city’s parks or a piece of a vacant lot will do ( we certainly have plenty of those).
Also now under discussion: allowing certain hours of the day to “go to the dogs” in existing parks that have fenced-in areas. This is a reasonable idea that can satisfy demand while we figure out a way to create more dog parks.

Dog owners have to hold up their end of the bargain. That means cleaning up after their dogs; controlling them at all times; and making sure that any “dogs only” area doesn’t turn into a barkfest.
(Can you tell I’m a volunteer with the Canton Dog Park and have some experience with the rules we enforce?)

In return, the city should make every effort to make Baltimore as dog friendly as possible and recognize that dogs provide companionship and security—two very important things for city residents.