Revelation of the decision by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, to assure his counterpart in China that he would circumvent any decision by President Trump to use nuclear force to attack our nation’s Asian rival strikes at the core of the primacy of civilian rule in our American democracy.

However, I am torn about whether to condemn or praise our top military officer as he dealt with the threat of potentially destructive actions by a president engaged in increasingly erratic actions during the last few months of his term in office. It was this president who was seeking to overturn a legitimate election, claiming fraud where there was none, going so far to incite an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

Still, Milley overstepped his authority by thrusting himself into politics. He circumvented his chain-in-command. He did what he thought was best to protect our country amid the unpredictable, impulsive behavior of a madman.

“Perils,” a book written by the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward and Robert Costa, along with another book and “New Yorker” article, discloses two conversations that Milley had with his counterpart, one before the election and one after the Jan. 6 assault on the nation’s capital. He initially sought to assure General Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army that he need not worry about aggression by the United States.

Context is important. 

Trump’s propensity to act against accepted norms and entangle his subordinates in questionable, unethical behavior was well-known. The reputations of his associates were always at stake. Many chose to resign, such as Gen. John Kelly, his chief of staff, John Bolton, his National Security Council advisor, and Gen. Jim Mattis, his secretary of defense.

The question then arises whether Milley should have resigned and written a sharply worded letter as Mattis did to express his criticism of Trump’s decision to withdraw all forces from Syria and betray our Kurdish allies. Mattis’ letter so infuriated the president that he demanded that Mattis leave his position as secretary of defense earlier than the agreed upon time.

After spending more than 30 years in uniform, I view the premise of civilian control of the military as inviolate, established by General George Washington’s resignation at the end of the Revolutionary War. Political considerations must come into play at times during go or no-go tactical decisions. Though I well understand the natural tension between civilian leaders and high-ranking generals, I have always considered the fraught relationship as necessary and useful as a check and balance.

I still do. 

Though Trump had no respect for the appropriate use of the military, as demonstrated by his enlistment of General Milley in his walk in June 2020 to St. John’s Episcopal Church amid the Black Lives Matters protests in Washington, he served as commander-in-chief, albeit an irresponsible one.

Milley was sworn to protect our country and Constitution, as he understands fully well. His service has been superior. Unfortunately, he violated the separation between civilian control and military acquiescence. 

While I commend President Biden’s support of, and admiration for Milley, I question the general’s ability to remain as Joint Chiefs chair. His credibility, unfortunately, as an apolitical military officer has diminished. 

General Milley must resign. He did not commit treason, as Trump alleges. Just the opposite. Instead, he committed an act of honor and integrity. He acted heroically. He no longer could trust his commander-in-chief, understandably so. Nonetheless, he crossed the line of propriety.

He was right to disrespect a reckless president. He was wrong not to resign and state his reasons as forcefully and honorably as he believed necessary.

He made the wrong decision for the right reasons.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

 

Temple B’Nai Israel’s Rabbi Peter Hyman is an Eagle Scout and proud of it.

His two sons are Eagle Scouts. He represented the World Organization of the Scout Movement’s Messengers of Peace program on a visit to Saudi Arabia in 2012.

He is a spiritual and community leader in the Mid-Shore area, known for his ecumenical outreach. For his congregants, he is credited with building membership since his arrival in 2009 to more than 200 members.

In June 2018, a brand-new building was built on Tristin Drive, off Easton Parkway (Rt 322), at the southernmost point of Easton, to accommodate the growing congregation of Temple B’Nai Israel, the Satell Center for Jewish Life in the Eastern Shore. Since its founding in 1951, the synagogue had been located behind Memorial Hospital.

On Sept. 23, beginning at 6 p.m. at the temple, Rabbi Hyman will receive the Midshore Distinguished Citizen Award from the Del-Mar-Va Council, Boy Scouts of America (BSA). At the same event, he also will officially receive the Bronze World Award, the highest international Scouting honor.

Through this annual event, more than $70,000 will be raised to support Mid-Shore Scout troops, specifically helping families unable to afford fees. The outpouring of support from the community has been heartwarming and well-deserved.

For full disclosure, I serve on a local committee comprising community leaders who have been working with the district council to plan the event and seek financial support. Unsurprisingly, we have learned first-hand how many people of all faiths, as well as the Temple B’Nai Israel family, like and admire the outgoing, personable and humorous religious leader.

For further disclosure, I rose to the rank of Cub Scout. My ambitions were limited.

In recent years as a member of the organizing committee, I have learned how many Eagle Scouts live in the Mid-Shore area, and how proud they feel about attaining the highest rank in Scouting.

I had the privilege to listen a few years ago to Dick Bodorff and Jim Harris, 2019 and 2020 recipients, respectively, of the Distinguished Service Award, as they traded stories about achieving the Eagle Scout rank. They credited their Scouting experience with life lessons that accrued to their benefit as they achieved career success.

A young neighbor, Jack Leffingwell, who just graduated from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, was an Eagle Scout. I marveled at his rock-solid commitment during his teenage years to climb the Scout ladder, as most of his friends sought more adolescent activities to fill their spare time.

In speaking with a few people in recent years in pursuit of financial support of the annual recognition event, I have encountered adverse reactions to the lawsuit filed against the national Scouting organization for predatory sex abuse many years ago and the subsequent bankruptcy. Some compared Scouting allegations to the abuses in the Catholic Church.

While I do not discount these responses, I prefer to focus on Rabbi Peter Hyman, Dick Bodorff, Jim Harris, Jack Leffingwell and so many other Eagle Scouts, and what they have accomplished in their lives, due in part to Scouting. I prefer to believe the Scouting executives, who have stated that the Boy Scouts of America have strengthened their criteria for the choice of Troop leaders and the training that these individuals must undergo.

I am also pleased that women are now admitted to the BSA. It is as it should be.

I am impressed that roughly 10 percent of the classes at the service academy are Eagle Scouts, our future military and corporate leaders.

Rabbi Peter Hyman is an exemplary religious and community leader. His receipt of the Del-Mar-Va District’s Midshore Distinguished Service Award testifies to his lifelong interest in, and dedication to Scouting. He serves as a role model to youths and adults.

And, of course, he is a respected teacher and faith leader.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

A week ago today, I spent my 76th birthday with seven family members at Nationals Ball Park sitting in field level seats behind home plate generously provided by a college classmate who is part of the family who own the Washington Nationals baseball team. I cannot lie that the seating and service were incredibly comfortable, affording a close-in view of our field of dreams that evening.

Now that I have bragged about the venue, I will wax a bit philosophically about a sport that continues to grab the attention of American spectators across the country. As someone who always tended toward faster contact sports—and began playing lacrosse at age 10—I always wondered why Major League Baseball (MLB) remained popular, particularly in relation to professional football.

Fans arrive hours ahead of a National Football League (NFL) game to engage in tailgating, an activity that requires ample consumption of food and alcoholic drinks. Add to that pre-game socializing the compulsion felt by many to paint their faces and wear outlandish costumes to immerse themselves as fans of gladiatorial combat.

Talk about escapism in its most blatant form.

Behavior at a pro-football game often reflects the costumes: wild and crazy at times. The fourth quarter of a football game at the Baltimore Ravens M&T Stadium can bring not only heroic performances, but equally obnoxious outbursts by loyal, inebriated fans. The spectacle in the stands can be disconcerting.

MLB games are different, almost boringly so. While the action on the field is not spellbinding, it is captivating in a more subtle way. It also brings out athleticism unconnected whatsoever to a crushing football block or tackle, or an acrobatic catch in the end zone.

The battle between a wily pitcher and a determined batter is almost a piece of art. Its final stroke is unpredictable.

A double play to end a rally is a thing of beauty. I never fail to be impressed.

A home run is always a highlight, perfect symmetry between a batter, his rapidly moving bat and pitch location. Fans immediately become energized.

A perfectly executed bunt—rare indeed—is a marvel. How does a batter accomplish that feat when the pitch may be coming at him at 90 miles per hour?

A stolen base thrills me. The runner’s speed vying with the catcher’s throw to second base, both seemingly arriving at the same time, is mesmerizing.

An incredible catch against the outfield fence by an outfielder timing his jump just right to prevent a home run is a feat that astounds me.

Other reasons draw men and women to a ballpark. A powerful one is memory. I’ll never forget attending a Pittsburgh Pirates game at the now-defunct Forbes Field in Pittsburgh with my brother and uncle and watching an outstanding player named Roberto Clemente perform what seemed like miracles in the field and at bat.

A college friend told me last week, after patiently hearing me describe my birthday at Nationals Ball Park, how he skipped school as a youngster living on Long Island to watch the New York Yankees’ pitcher, Don Larsen, throw a perfect game against the Brooklyn Dodgers in game five of the 1956 World Series at Yankee Stadium in the Bronx. He’s now a Philadelphia Phillies fan.

An Easton friend proudly displayed a painting of the game in which Larsen captured history. This friend has always been a steadfast Yankees fan, fondly remembering the minor-league Yankees team that played in the late 1940s in Easton.

Perhaps the experience last Tuesday night will leave a lifelong impression on my grandchildren, 10 and 8. One of them seemed more interested in the food than the action. That just makes her normal.

Baseball offers tradition, childhood memories, clinch hits and mind-boggling fielding (the incomparable Baltimore Oriole, Brooks Robinson, comes readily to mind, as does the remarkable San Francisco outfielder, Willie Mays) that continue to entice fans to watch America’s pastime, surrounded by family and friends amid the thrill of watching superior athletes perform sometime super-human exploits.

As Yogi Berra, longtime New York Yankees catcher and accidental philosopher, once said, “Baseball is 90 percent mental and the other half is physical.” Only Yogi, the master of malapropism, would know what he meant. Nonetheless, his observations are part of the lore and magic that create public interest in baseball.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

Hidden behind the doors of private homes and apartments are people who receive little notice except from family and close friends. They bear all-consuming burdens with love, frustration and fatigue.

They are caregivers. They are husbands and wives. They are daughters and sons. Friends, too.

Often, but not always, the caregivers are ministering to loved ones, who, due to dementia, Alzheimer’s and other brain diseases, cannot communicate. In many ways, they no longer are the people who once were vibrant, with distinct personalities, often the centrifugal forces in their family and community orbits.

They are shadows of themselves. They are living lives devoid of quality and engagement.

Fortunately, they are not alone. Nor should they be. Their caregivers are heroes; their only weapons are love, compassion and perseverance.  Their lives too are mostly joyless.

I think about an Easton friend who has cared for a dementia-ridden wife, a former teacher, for at least half a dozen years. He is rarely seen. He took on sole responsibility as the caregiver.

Here at BayWoods, a continuing care retirement community, I’ve seen incredible acts of heroism on the part of wives and husbands. Nothing will deter these strong and loyal souls from caring for and about their disabled spouses. They see a sliver of life in a person whom they love and cherish. 

That bond will never vanish.

In an essay in the New York Times written by Tom Coughlin, the two-time, hard-nosed Super-Bowl-winning coach of the New York Giants, entitled “Nothing Could Prepare Me for Watching My Wife Slip Away,” he reveals that his wife Judy suffers from an incurable brain disorder that diminishes her ability to walk, talk, think and control body movements. Her memory and ability to voice emotions are depleted.

“Judy’s decline has been nothing but gut-wrenching and has placed me in a club with tens of millions of other Americans who serve as a primary caregiver for a loved one,” Coughlin said. “Admittedly, transitioning from being with an N.F.L. franchise to a full-time caregiver wasn’t easy.

“It’s still not easy. The playbook is either changing by the minute or so numbingly repetitious, you lose track of time.”

Describing his wife as a vivacious, outgoing woman and himself as “lousy at my new job” during his first year of caregiving and “still lousy at being at home,” “I know there’s no other place I could ever be.”

Engaged now in a full-time job that has few timeouts and no half-time, Coughlin said, “A friend said that we don’t get to choose our sunset, and that’s true, but I am so blessed to get to hold Judy’s hand through hers.”

Caregiving is exceedingly difficult. Frustration is common, and so is anger targeted both at yourself for not being able to do more and your loved one, who no longer can openly love and treasure you.

Tom Coughlin’s essay was heart-wrenching. But he provided significant coaching to other caregivers facing a situation where victory is not the objective.

And he rightly paid homage to unsung, often unseen heroes who operate outside their comfort zones to ensure that their loved ones are treated with dignity and empathy.

As Judy Cornish, an author who has written about caregiving for those suffering from dementia, said, “Offering care means being a companion, not a superior. It doesn’t matter whether the person we are caring for is experiencing cancer, the flu, dementia, or grief.

“If you are a doctor or surgeon, your expertise and knowledge come from a superior position. But when our role is to be providers of care, we should be there as equals.”

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

Competence or lack thereof seems to be the latest stalking horse for pundits aiming their indignation at President Biden for the sadly flawed exit from Afghanistan. Having enjoyed favorable polling numbers since his Jan. 20, 2021, inauguration, Biden has now suddenly become inept and incompetent for the messy departure from the Kabul airport more than a week ago.

The From and Fuller’s weekly interchange of opinions last Thursday in The Spy exemplifies the doom and gloom permeating the media over the Kabul uncoupling. I found it unsettling.

Fortunately, Craig Fuller proposed taking a long view; 20 years of futile combat accounting for nearly 2,500 American lives and thousands of invisible and visible wounds suffered by American soldiers offered Biden little choice but to stanch the literal and figurative bloodletting by pulling out American troops and citizens.

Fuller’s viewpoint, based on his extensive experience with disappointing and disorderly decisions made by our presidents, was refreshing. He brushed aside the “harsh” judgments.

So, this obviously poorly planned withdrawal has drawn a horde of critics questioning the competency of our president for the initially botched exit. While I agree that Biden and his team deserve criticism for a sloppy and deadly pullout, I cannot subscribe to the theory that the president is incompetent. Or that his presidency is doomed to an irrefutable perception of incompetency.

The undercurrent to the scathing attacks is Biden’s age (78) and the alleged decline of his cognitive abilities based on hearsay and unfounded rumors. As Biden is wont to say, “Hey, man, give me a break.”

Was the young President John F. Kennedy incompetent for his authorization of the ill-fated Bay of Pigs incursion in 1961—but suddenly brilliant (and competent) for his handling of the Cuban Crisis in 1962?

Was President George Herbert Walker Bush competent for his adroit leadership during the first Persian War in early 1991—but incompetent and ill-advised for agreeing with a Democratic Congress on a tax hike in 1990 that led to a strong economy under his successor, Bill Clinton? I well understand he disavowed any intention (“read my lips”) to raise taxes during his presidential campaign and then changed his mind when in office.

Was Franklin Delano Roosevelt incompetent for not anticipating Japan’s successful attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, but a paragon of leadership and resolve for overseeing the war-changing assault on the Normandy beaches on D-Day, June 6, 1944?

I could go on and on with other examples of competent vs. incompetent decisions by our presidents. Doing so would be unproductive. Not all decisions—including ones not made–are good ones. Nor are they always ruinous to a presidency.

My point is straightforward: in our poisonous political theater, the knives emerge quickly and contemptibly during a crisis. Sometimes the condemnation is justified. Sometimes it is premature.

A friend referred to the awful scene at the Kabul airport as “one of the most amazing system failures of our lifetime.” This friend is normally averse to apocalyptic statements. Not this time.

A system failure would be 9/11 when nearly 3,000 people, mostly Americans, were killed by terrorists who had hijacked four US aircraft. Well aware of Osama bin Laden and his effective Al Qaeda organization, our intelligence organizations failed to communicate with each other.

I do not believe that anyone accused President George W. Bush of incompetence. Instead, he drew praise for how he handled the response and comforted the nation.

As a longtime Republican who came to Washington as a young staffer with President Reagan and then as chief of staff to Bush 41, Fuller correctly opined during last week’s Spy that questions about Biden’s competency represented a “harsh judgment that was unwarranted…that his choices were terrible and worse.”

Amen, Craig Fuller.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

For some unknown reason, I began thinking recently about friends who have died during the past 11 years and still spark memories of people wired to make a difference in ways small and large. They strayed mightily from the status quo.

Candy Backus, who died in 2010 of ovarian cancer at 66, was a powerful force for good at the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum. She was one of the creators of the still successful Boating Party and an incomparable volunteer. She was forthright and opinionated; ambiguity was not her style. She was intensely loyal to her friends.

Candy also served as chair of the Talbot Hospice. She left her mark on increased philanthropy at, and visibility for Hospice. She was an active, engaged chair.

Mike Menzies, who died at 65 in 2014 of multiple myeloma, epitomized the penultimate community banker as president of Easton Bank & Trust founded by David Hill and a highly respected civic leader. He was intelligent and savvy. He loved being a banker who sought to improve the community which he served.

At one point Menzies was chairman of the Independent Community Bankers of America, a volunteer position that required him to spend considerable time in Washington, DC trying to persuade members of Congress to pay as much attention to small as well large banks. When he spoke, he talked with deep knowledge about and insight into community banks, while understanding and bemoaning the financial clout of large national banks.

Having served closely with him during his 16 years as The Adjutant General, commander of the Maryland National Guard, I became very close, professionally and personally, with Lt. Gen. (MD) James F. Fretterd of Federalsburg. He died of kidney failure in November 2016 at the age of 86.

He was a taskmaster, a demanding, tough-minded boss who was often difficult to please. At the same time, he was fair with a reservoir of common sense. His passion for the Maryland Guard and the people who served him loyally and conscientiously was enormous.

Born and raised on Staten Island, he loved the Eastern Shore, particularly his farm on Route 404. He embodied the straight-forward manner endemic to Caroline County.

Eric Lowery, who died at 71 in June 2020 of cancer and pneumonia, was someone whom I wished I had known better. He was a major player in the erection of the Frederick Douglass Monument in front of the Talbot County Courthouse. He and his wife, Harriette, a descendant of the original families of Unionville, moved to Talbot County in 2008.

What I especially liked about Lowery, who graduated three years after I did from the same high school in Baltimore, was his soft-spoken, friendly manner and his receipt of a Bronze Star for service during the Vietnam War. He also came home emotionally suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, plagued by this malady for most of his post-war life.

During his years on the Shore, he began talking about his life-changing combat experiences. It was helpful to him, providing some emotional relief. I was fortunate to listen to some of his stories.

In December 2020, when Millie Parrott died, our community lost a person who helped found Talbot Hospice and was a stalwart volunteer and parishioner at St. Mark’s United Methodist Church in Easton, where she was the first woman on the board of trustees and the first woman to chair the board.

I got to know Parrott when she worked at Talbot Hospice as the volunteer coordinator during my wife Liz’s 14-year stint as executive director. Millie Parrott was indomitable in ensuring that families of Hospice clients received sufficient care and attention. She was known far and wide for her devotion to Hospice.

I could write about so many others. This column could become too lengthy for readers. The five whom I selected were relentless doers and servant-leaders. They also were good, decent people who focused their energy and talent for the benefit of others.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

 

After reading last week in the Talbot Spy the letter from the president of The Country School’s board of trustees regarding the resignation of the new head after only a year in the job, I wondered again about the tortuous succession following the retirement of a head who had served 30 years.

Succeeding a founder of a nonprofit or someone who led a school for decades is disturbingly fraught. It often leads to failure. It throws the school or nonprofit into tumultuous chaos, one often permeated by ill will, if not misfortune for the person recruited to stay for at least five years.

The carefully written letter sent by John Hochmeyer points to the ever-present specter of following a “legend” (my term for actual founders or long-time executives) and the documented record of one disappointing personnel mishap after another. This comes after an extensive search, possibly directed by a third-party consultant.

I’ve observed this scenario so often that I wonder about the root causes of this disruption. 

Organizational resistance to change seems a reasonable conclusion. Board members, parents, faculty and donors seek to find a person who will change what they believe the long-term school head or nonprofit CEO did poorly, or just not so well. The constant drumbeat is pervasive: we must find someone whose skills supposedly are better suited for the future.

Then the new head or CEO institutes changes that he or she thought were necessary—and highlighted during the search. Guess what? The constituents rebel against the changes and withdraw support. Board members then enable the new executive to resign.

For legal reasons, a letter such as the one thoughtfully written by Hochmeyer does not delve into the real reasons for the severance of an embryonic relationship. It thanks the person and wishes him well. It offers standard verbiage to soft-pedal a dissonant conclusion to yet another disappointing succession in the nonprofit world.

For those unfamiliar with the nitty-gritty, the wall of silence is impenetrable. One tries to read between the lines to determine what went wrong. A few hints may materialize. 

My interest is not juicy gossip or finger-pointing. I want to know how to strengthen organizations through thoughtful and successful transitions. Maybe the human condition is too strong a force to prevent failure in some successions.

Maybe the successor is a dud, ill-suited for a position despite extensive and well-meaning vetting. Resumes do not tell the whole story, nor are interviews always a good barometer of success.

Maybe the organization is simply not ready for change. It may think it is, but the reality may be different. The “legend” could be trusted. The newbie lacks the credibility built over years of service and familiarity with the internal and external communities.

Perhaps the search is focused more on personality and its link to the organization’s culture, when it should concentrate on one thing and only one thing: the mission.

That’s right. What is the primary mission, and who best can fulfill it? Putting aside natural flaws, the founder or long-term executive obviously had terrific strengths and attributes that propelled the organization to great achievements. His or her successor should be equally talented, with some additional skills, if possible.

I am not suggesting a clone. 

I’ve heard some involved in a search say, “We can’t afford to fail.” Now that statement implies that the organization is in a fragile state, and failure could be a death blow. And yet, failure repeatedly occurs. Turmoil results.

A friend recently suggested that an organization long led by a “founder” or long-term CEO should seek an interim executive to enable all the stakeholders to escape the pressure of immediacy and focus on an orderly transition. In addition, engaged constituents can use the time to learn to trust someone other than the known commodity in preparation for a hopefully permanent appointment.

In many organizations, micro-management by the long-serving CEO or head is so rampant that staff is wary of making any decision without checking with the top person for fear of being second-guessed or criticized.

The interim approach, often used in Episcopal churches, provides breathing space. The interim might be able to guide a thoughtful and successful search or “call.” The parishioners and vestry have time to conduct a “discernment” process, examining the church and its needs.

My concern is how long do you prolong the process. I worry about a cessation of momentum. I wonder if donors will look elsewhere to engage in philanthropy.

I do not pretend to know how to bottle the magic potion for success. I do know, however, that a failed succession is injurious, though not fatal to the health of a nonprofit. In the case of a school, students, faculty, parents and reputation suffer the consequences.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

To some, the outreach to space by billionaires Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson seems like a fantasy come true for two very rich men having fun at their expense. Some wonder why they are not spending their huge riches on problems on earth.

I would disagree. I am awed by their sense of adventure, even at the risk of their own lives and a few others. I refuse to judge their philanthropy or lack thereof. In Bezos’ case, his purchase of The Washington Post in 2013 for $250 million was a gift to democracy by preserving a world-class newspaper.

Bezos and Branson are keeping the space program alive, something the federal government is doing in fits and starts. The glory days of exploration into the space and the moon landings are gone, unfortunately. The scientific advancements revealed during our exciting and stirring journeys into space were many.

It is part of the American psyche to push the boundaries of knowledge and discovery. Bezos and Branson, using their own money, energy and creativity, are continuing a claim on the future. They are doing what the federal government feels impeded by lack of funding to pursue.

And, yes, it’s entirely possible that the two incorrigible entrepreneurs will make even more money by offering space travel on a commercial basis. So what? They invested their own money in charting a new path for entry into our wondrous horizon.

Are there incredibly difficult problems affecting our fractious nation in terms of poverty, income equality, education and global warming?

Should our wealthy citizens donate great sums of money to seek solutions to what seem like insurmountable problems?

Yes and yes.

But these folks, with eye-catching net worth, are entitled to fulfill their dreams and childhood fantasies. They are entitled to use their sizable egos and undaunted ambitions to focus on the unknown, the mystical and the mysterious. They are “pushing the envelope,” the boundaries of what we aspire to know and understand.

They are well-heeled pioneers. Good for them.

It is always easy, too easy, to criticize those people who have accomplished incredible feats and accumulated equally impressive wealth. Jealousy and dislike are in play here.

I prefer to admire Bezos and Branson and commend their outsized achievements, potentially enabling more available and accessible space travel, changing the whole concept of vacations and mind-expanding experiences.

While I realize that passengers on the B&B flights must pay six figures to get a seat—far from offering equal access to less wealthy Americans—I believe that the technological know-how and employment opportunities outweigh the elitist aspects of space travel. Outer space, not deeply reached by recent flights—is a frontier that produces unimaginable economic and scientific breakthroughs.

If I wandered into the world of cynicism, I could make the case that escaping the bonds of earth provides a way to flee our constant problems and rancor. But I will not do that. It would be too facile.

I would appeal to Jeff Bezos to pay some attention to worldly problems, using his success in e-commerce to improve the lives of people unable to receive Amazon packages frequently on their doorsteps. I would ask him to determine if his employees are treated fairly, and whether communities in which Amazon has warehouses and offices have benefited in some way by a very lucrative corporation.

Lastly, I urge these two billionaires to continue to follow their dreams and aspirations and do so as safely as possible. In this case, ignore competition with each other and Elon Musk if it means only ego satisfaction to the exclusion of safety and passenger security.

And one more thing, if I may: share your findings and inventions with federal government to enhance its expertise in space travel. Yes, I ask that you be generous in allowing all of us to fully understand what you have accomplished.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.

The recent decision by South Dakota Gov. Krista Noem to send 50 members of the state’s National Guard to Texas, paid by a wealthy Republican donor in Tennessee to augment border control, represents a blatant example of faulty and flawed decision-making by a governor unconcerned about the appropriate use of the South Dakota National Guard.

Though Gov. Noem’s action is a legal response to a request by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, it still reeks of misconduct and misjudgment. It places the Guard, commanded by a governor in event of domestic crises, in an unenviable position of being perceived as mercenaries paid by a wealthy donor who opposes immigration at our southern border.

It also paints an ugly, undeserved picture of a military force used for political purposes.

The whole scenario exemplifies governmental norms gone astray. It further fractures our democracy, blurring the line between the proper and improper use of our military forces.

In our current political environment, loopholes offer opportunities for those with questionable moral compasses to propagate mischief and bad behavior.

Control of illegal immigration is a federal responsibility. Governors, even when well-intentioned, lack the resources to successfully tackle a complicated problem with foreign policy implications. Vote-getting and base appeasement are insufficient reasons for deploying National Guard troops to the troublesome southern border.

Just imagine if a wealthy donor offered to pay for the Guard to combat urban crime—an undeniably serious problem—without seeking a mayor’s agreement, the situation could become chaotic and conflict with local law enforcement.

Suppose a wealthy donor offers to subsidize the use of Guard troops to clean up trash along major highways, or fight wildfires, oblivious, perhaps deliberately, to robust local efforts, public services would be disrupted.

While I well understand that our democracy is based, rightly so, on civilian control of the military, our founding fathers implicitly assumed that political leaders would act responsibly and respect the norms for appropriate use of military forces. Our early leaders understood the danger of using soliers and sailors as political pawns in an authoritarian way.

The National Guard is funded approximately 96% by the federal government, covering salaries and training. States pick up the remaining four percent. So, when Republican Gov. Noem calls up 50 Guard members for what Republican Gov. Abbott considers an emergency—and it may be on several levels—she is using troops trained and almost entirely compensated by the Department of Defense. She’s also deciding that she knows better than the President and the Defense Department the need to send South Dakota Guard members to Texas.

When Maryland Republican Gov. Larry Hogan called up the Guard to assist in operating Covid-19 vaccination sites, he was reacting properly to a national, if not a worldwide emergency, an epidemic unseen since 1918. He was not thumbing his political nose at the federal government. He smartly was taking advantage of troops skilled in medical matters and logistics for the sake of Maryland citizens. He was participating in a nationwide assault on Covid.

The South Dakota National Guard deserves better civilian leadership on the state level. It warrants a perception and reputation untainted by politics.

Columnist Howard Freedlander retired in 2011 as Deputy State Treasurer of the State of Maryland. Previously, he was the executive officer of the Maryland National Guard. He also served as community editor for Chesapeake Publishing, lastly at the Queen Anne’s Record-Observer. In retirement, Howard serves on the boards of several non-profits on the Eastern Shore, Annapolis and Philadelphia.