To this young teen watching his favorite professional basketball team, the Boston Celtics, Bill Russell seemed out of place as a Black man on an all-White team, at least at the beginning of his career. He also seemed incongruous because he was an incredibly fearsome and intimidating presence on the court though lacking the bulk of pre-Russell centers.

He had an uncanny ability to swat away balls; his 6’10” height and wingspan dominated the game and thrilled Celtic fans. Opponents did not share my fondness for a man on a mission, a person who had to endure racial taunts and despicable behavior (including graffiti on the walls of his Boston-area home and defecation on his bed). Off the court, he was no people-pleaser; it was not his style.

Russell recently died at 88, a much-respected figure in the professional basketball world and the civil rights arena. He played hard and smartly, studying opponents and their tendencies. He blocked shots with studied ease. He spoke out against bigotry, decrying the reservoir of racial bias in Boston.

He stood up to taller, stronger opponents like Wilt Chamberlain, confounding him and others with his ability and toughness. His voice of outrage was equally effective and unrestrained.

To modern-day followers of pro basketball, Russell might prompt “what’s the big deal” about another tall and talented center. They would be ill-advised to jump at this conclusion. This Celtic was special. He stood out at the beginning and end of his storied career, which included 11 championships and two championships as the player- coach of the Seattle Sonics.

He won the Most Valuable Player award five times. The award is named for him. And in 2011, President Barack Obama awarded Russell the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

This brainy player, who outwitted opposing players by knowing their moves and disrupting their style of play, dominated the court. It might be hard to imagine that his drive to win manifested itself in an unlikely pre-game routine: vomiting. The sound of upchucking sent a message to his teammates that he was ready to play. An unusual signal, to state the obvious.

The famed Celtics coach, Red Auerbach, drafted Russell for his shot-blocking skills, not his shooting capability. Auerbach had a stable of shooters. Yet Russell racked up nearly 16,000 points and nearly 22,000 rebounds during his career.

According to a “New York Times” obituary, Russell was “known for his ability to enhance the talents of his teammates even as he dominated the action, and to do it without bravado.” His accurate throws started many fast breaks. He eschewed dunking or gesturing to celebrate his achievements.

Scarred by prejudice beginning in his home state of Louisiana, this transformative basketballer was aloof, refusing to sign autographs. He preferred to shake a person’s hand and chat a few minutes.

Russell’s expanse of civil rights actions matched his wingspan on the basketball court He participated in the 1967 March on Washington where the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. intoned his powerful “I Have a Dream” speech. He supported Muhammad Ali when he refused to serve in the Vietnam War. He went to Mississippi after the civil rights activist Medgar Evers was murdered and worked with Evers’ brother to establish an integrated basketball camp in Jackson, Miss. And he cared little about public criticism.

After he died, every major newspaper and TV network carried news of this sports pioneer. His legacy of superior performance by a sleek, cerebral center will never diminish. He determined to understand the game and use his savvy intelligence to befuddle opponents and induce equally outstanding performances from his teammates.

My impression as a young teen of the Boston Celtics and a force of nature guarding the shot zone has stuck with me for nearly 65 years. When Bill Russell retired, along with his incomparable teammates, my interest in professional basketball evaporated. I witnessed ultimate teamwork.

Star players became money-hungry athletes. They failed to understand unselfishness as exemplified by the great Bill Russell.

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.

 

 

What world leader would have the temerity to face an audience in a wheelchair, uncaring about the optics of appearing frail amid the infirmities of aging?

What global personage would talk openly and candidly about the denigrating treatment of older people, perceived as undeserving of respect and veneration?

Who else but this compassionate but tough-minded person would challenge the effort by millions to use medicine and cosmetic surgery to appear young, as if normal aging could be reversed and not simply accepted and enjoyed?

No mere run-of-the-mill religious leader, but one committed to the humane treatment of the ignored and disrespected, Pope Francis uses his actual and metaphorical pulpit to press the case, as he did in Canada, for the public to pay attention to those relegated to wheelchairs, walkers, canes and caregivers.

The 85-year-old pontiff, slowed and impaired by intestinal surgery, bad knees and sciatica, employs himself not only as an incomparable spiritual figure able to spread his message—but an ordinary person trying to cope with aging.

According to a recent article in the New York Times, “Starting even before he became pope at age 76, Francis has paid special attention to older people. In his book, “On Heaven and Earth,” he said that ignoring the health needs of older people constituted ‘covert euthanasia’ and the aged often ‘end up being stored away in a nursing home like an overcoat that is hung up in the closet during the summer.’”

He differs tremendously, however, from the rest of us. He cannot be discounted.

In Canada, he urged listeners to overcome a bias in favor of the young and able, to the exclusion of senior citizens easily assigned to the harsh cubicle of the invisible and unimportant.

Fairness and compassion demand more of the younger and healthier segment of our population. Brainpower does not diminish due to longevity. Willpower does not dissipate even in the face of impaired mobility.

In 15 speeches intended to provide instruction about aging, according to the New York Times, Francis has “urged people not to ‘hide the frailty of old age’ out of fear of loss of dignity,” advocating that frailty ‘is a teaching for all of us,’ conceivably bringing about an ‘indispensable ‘ “reform in society, because ‘the marginalization of the elderly—both conceptual and practical—corrupts all seasons of life, not just that of an old age.’

Pope Francis never loses his human and moral moorings. He realizes he may have to choose to vacate the papacy in event of inability to serve Roman Catholics throughout the world. He may follow Pope Benedict in seeking a life outside the Vatican. He need not die on the job.

I have always liked and admired the humble Pope Francis. From the very beginning of his papacy, he eschewed the trappings of head of the Roman Catholic Church. He understood the temptation of savoring an extravagant lifestyle to the exclusion of the people he serves. Also, he wanted to challenge the Vatican bureaucracy, particularly its financial dealings.

I have written before about the ravages of aging. I now have a front-row seat at the BayWoods of Annapolis retirement community watching senior citizens confront debilitating diseases like Parkinson’s and knee problems. My greatest reward has been empathy. No longer do I pay scant regard and respect.

I do not require Pope Francis’ intervention to adjust my thinking and former bias. But I find it comforting to read his ponderings about the elderly. He has encouraged a conversation well worth having in the public arena.

And I find his willingness to enable the public to see his declining physical condition as inspiring. He is unapologetic about aging and natural deterioration. He is unafraid of being a symbol of resilience.

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 political world changed a week ago. Big time. Did you notice?

Republican Delegate Johnny Mautz beat Sen. Addie Eckardt in the State Senate primary in District 37. Eckardt has been an Annapolis mainstay for many years. Mautz is an up-and-coming politician. He will face Democrat Naomi Hyman.

Eckardt deserves gratitude and praise for serving District 37 so conscientiously as a delegate and state senator for 27 years with unquestioned integrity. Her constituent service was first-rate.

The Talbot County Council will change, possibly completely, maybe with Chuck Callahan and Pete Lesher still in their seats. It may become more environmentally friendly and anti-development. The Talbot Integrity Project played an outsized role in the outcome of the council elections.

In the Talbot County Council race, I urge voters to view candidates holistically. While the Lakeside at Trappe development is foremost in the minds of many, other issues are equally important, such as racial equality, economic opportunity, education and free speech.

Voters should look at Callahan’s stance opposing the removal of the Talbot Boys Monument and his unwillingness to give the NAACP a fair hearing, leading to a lawsuit. Also, voters should examine David Montgomery’s views on school curriculums and diversity.

Lesher, with deep ties to the county, often was the voice of reason during his first four-year term. Unfortunately, he was normally outvoted in discussions pertaining to Lakeside and Talbot Boys.

Maryland will have a new governor. It could be a Trump acolyte, Republican Delegate Dan Cox, or Democratic newcomer Wes Moore. The campaign will be raucous and rancorous. The media will have a field day.

The comptroller’s race will be a face-off between Del. Brooke Lierman and Harford County Executive Barry Glassman. Both are good, solid candidates. Lierman is an energetic, effective campaigner. Glassman, a former state senator, is a well-liked moderate Republican.

Heather Mizeur will face Rep. Andy Harris in the 1st District congressional race. Like the governor’s race, it will be contentious. Mizeur will continue targeting Harris’ extremist positions and reported support of the Jan. 6 insurrection. Harris will paint Mizeur as an unapologetic liberal unsuited to represent the conservative 1st District. More about this race in ensuing paragraphs.

Were I voting in November, I would support Mautz for state senate based upon his wholehearted support of non-profits and public works projects in Talbot County, his growing influence and savvy in Annapolis and his experience as a small business owner.

Wes Moore is my pick for governor. Despite his lack of government experience, he is charismatic, focused on education and business development and oriented personally to relationship-building. His military experience is a plus for me; he understands leadership.

Cox would take Maryland backward, upending cultural and education norms related to abortion and school curriculums. His relationship with the General Assembly would be constantly adversarial. Republican Governor Larry Hogan characterized him as “crazy” and predicted a Democratic victory in November.

Lierman, a Democrat from Baltimore, is known as a hard-working, persistent legislator respected by her colleagues.  Her vision to include consideration of global warming initiatives in the awarding of procurement contracts as approved by the powerful Board of Public Works is spot-on, though likely hard to achieve. She would be the first female state comptroller if elected.

I have supported Lierman almost from the time she filed to run. My enthusiasm for her candidacy continues to grow. She faces a tough opponent in Glassman, who has friends throughout the state. The contest would be one well worth watching.

Rep. Harris is an embarrassment to the 1st District. He supported Trump’s illegal plan to overturn the 2020 presidential election. He opposed the certification of the election results. He carried a gun into the U.S. Capitol. He supports the undemocratic regime of Hungary’s Victor Orban. Harris must go.

Mizeur is a strong Democratic candidate who faces an uphill battle to unseat Harris, who benefits from the gerrymandered 1st District. Harris will attack Mizeur as out of step with right-wing politics on the Eastern Shore. She and her partner own an organic farm near Chestertown. She would serve the district as a congressperson who would lean center-left while attuned to the rhythm of life on the Shore.

Mizeur would represent the district with intelligence and common sense. She would enfranchise so many citizens now alienated by the actions and behavior of Andy Harris.

My political picks are unchangeable. Readers may wonder why I am announcing my selections now. The primary season gave me plenty of time to reflect. One other comment: turnout is critical to both parties. Failure to vote negates the gift of our democracy.

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 70 years, Queen Elizabeth has met weekly with 14 prime ministers. Her 15th will appear soon before her for her perfunctory invitation to serve as Great Britain’s top governing official.

The young Queen started with the irrepressible Winston Churchill, a lovable mentor and menace, a person who roamed the world stage as a fierce advocate for the United Kingdom. His ego was huge. His leadership as prime minister during World War II, alongside King George VI, the Queen’s father, epitomized British courage and steadfastness. Queen Elizabeth liked and admired him, writing Churchill a lengthy letter upon his retirement.

Churchill’s most recent successor, Boris Johnson, may have been as gifted an orator in the style of Sir Winston but sorely lacked the ability to govern without galvanizing scandal and inattention to rules and ethics. Any comparison between Johnson and Churchill would be akin to comparing Donald Trump to Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Dwight D. Eisenhower.

I so want to know the Queen’s opinions about the men and two women who briefed her on a weekly basis. Did she trust them? Did she consider them genuinely concerned about Britain or mostly about themselves?

What did she tell her diary every night?

We will never know. We can only guess she respected some and found others pompous and self-absorbed. At first perhaps intimidated by the Oxford-Cambridge-educated PMs when she ascended the Crown at the age of 25–considering her minimal formal education—she gradually became more confident. Her knowledge and experience as the monarch qualified her as an equal, if not more so, with the prime ministers as time went on,

While she has no constitutional authority, beyond “inviting” the just elected PM to govern the United Kingdom and opening each session of Parliament, she has unrivaled stature as the symbol of her country and the undivided attention of the country’s leaders to answer her questions and accept her insights.

PMs would be foolhardy to ignore or underestimate her. Her popularity supersedes theirs.

Back to Johnson. I suspect his charm and swashbuckling style had no impact on her. He likely toned down his bluster and showmanship. I wonder if his inability to tell the truth was evident during their weekly audiences.

As the prime ministers sat with her over 70 years, they found a Queen obsessed with serving her country. To her, duty is sacrosanct. No one can question her commitment to her countrymen and -women.

During her long reign, she has met 13 out of 14 United States presidents, not including Lyndon Baines Johnson (for unknown reasons). Again, I wonder what she thought about the American men and their wives. The diary knows. If only the Queen’s private observations were not so.

What did she learn about these powerful politicians? Was she reassured or unimpressed? Was she hopeful (or not) about the “special” relationship between the UK and U.S.?

When the tall, handsome Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy called upon her, I wonder how she gauged his competence and bearing. I would guess that she was impressed. Did she feel the same way about Bill and Hilary Clinton? Speculation abounds.

I must admit I am an Anglophile and a person who views the British royalty with respect. I learned during a year as a graduate student in England that anti-royalist sentiment is prevalent in Britain. The cost of subsidizing the royal family is bothersome to a British segment living lives of enforced frugality.

I consider the Queen’s value inestimable. She represents stability. She symbolizes old-fashioned values like service above self and unerring dedication to a country still striving to be a force in the world.

At 96, plagued by normal health restrictions, Queen Elizabeth is facing the end of a tumultuous reign. She has confronted the Cold War, diminution of the British empire, unpredictable prime ministers, family dysfunction, the death of Princess Diana, economic turmoil and a worldwide pandemic. She has endured unrelenting media attention and cinematic portrayals of her and her family.

She must deal soon with a new prime minister, her 15th and maybe her last. More grist for her diary.

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.

As I watched the Jan. 6 congressional hearing two weeks ago and learned about the subtle pressure (translate: witness tampering), I harked back to The Godfather movie. The cinematic scene simulated the 1950s Kefauver hearings in the investigation of the mob.

Readers, do you remember?

A potentially explosive witness unhappy with the powerful Corleone family was about to testify when he saw his brother in the audience. The Corleone family deliberately tried to intimidate the witness by bringing his brother from Italy, instilling in his mind the efforts to which the family would go to silence hostile testimony.

It was an effective scare tactic. Michael Corleone understood the fear factor. He was clever and resolute. He virtually silenced the former ally.

Unidentified Trump cronies texted an unnamed witness suggesting that his or her testimony, if harmless to Trump, would warrant the former president’s continued friendship—and what else? Unnamed perks? Payment of legal fees? 

Reminiscent of mob tactics, at least as portrayed in movies? No question. Kill a person with love and money, or subject the individual to personal assassination or even physical harm? The hearings have demonstrated the illegal lengths to which Trump and his gang of misfits would go to alter the election results and punish those who did not go along with their undemocratic schemes.

The Godfather romanticized the Corleone family and their violent rise to wealth and influence. It was easy to admire Michael Corleone’s determination to succeed in a corrupt world, to follow in his father’s footsteps. He exercised formidable power over police, judges and elected officials. Family members were not exempt from his vengeance.

As I watched the Jan. 6 hearings, horrified by the total disregard that Trump had for the well-being of Vice President Mike Pence—and democracy and the rule of law— I wondered how Hollywood would treat this frightening episode in American history. Would it glorify the Mafia-esque actions and behavior of Trump and his group of democracy deniers?

I hope not. The facts wreak of ugly reality. They leave a permanent blemish on our American conscience.

A sad truth faces all of us, regardless of our political allegiance: an American president empowered an armed mob to attack the nation’s capital and intimidate members of Congress to refuse to certify the results of a legitimate election. Even Hollywood could not conjure up such a formerly inconceivable scenario.

As I paid rapt attention to the six hearings, I admired real-life heroes, like Judge Michael Luttig, Arizona Speaker of the House of Representatives Rusty Bowers, White House staffer Cassidy Hutchinson, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and Capitol Police Officer Caroline Edwards. 

Another hero stood out: Congresswoman Liz Cheney, who has withstood ostracism by the Republican Party to advocate for democracy and decency. She will not yield to party pressure and poor treatment.

Cheney will likely lose her re-election in Wyoming to a Trump acolyte. That’s the price she will pay for condemning the vengeful Trump. I suspect her defeat will not diminish her stature—or even future political success. Though her political views are far different than mine, her unrelenting defense of the U.S. Constitution and legitimate presidential election results bestow upon her unmistakable respect and gratitude from American patriots.

Horror movies have never enticed me. When the Jan. 6 movie is made, and it surely will, I will not and cannot watch it. The actual events were sufficiently scary and unforgivable.

Believers in the rule of law do exist. They can resist a corrupt president. They deserve our gratitude.

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.

 

Ever pragmatic and goal-oriented, the inestimable Dr. Benjamin Franklin might have little to comment whimsically about in today’s United States. He might find reasons to return to France or even England.

He would look at modern-day politicians and cringe. As much as he viewed John Adams as rigid and puritanical, Franklin would consider 21st century politicians sorely lacking moral centers. Adams would seem Pope-liked in his virtues. His political descendants are eunuchs in comparison.

Franklin understood in his later years that slavery was an inescapable stain on the American social mosaic. The U.S. Constitution, to gain passage and approval by the southern states, left slavery in its heinous state in our new country. It was practical but harmful politics.

He would be struck by the power of political parties and the utter bitterness and rancor that divides them. He would find it nearly impossible to mediate, not only between the parties, but the tribes within them. He might consider it more pleasant and productive to engage his scientific bent than participate in do-nothing dialogue.

His rift with his son, ever loyal to the Crown, would seem mild (and it was anything but) to the irreconcilable conflicts between Democrats and Republicans. Franklin’s diplomatic skills and common sense would seem anachronistic today. He would question a culture that survived solely on differences inured to compromise.

The world and his country respected Franklin’s stature as a “great man,” a person widely regarded for his accomplishments as a businessperson, diplomat, scientist, philosopher and a founder of an increasingly significant young country. Is there anyone in our nation comparable to Franklin? I think not.

He was a prototypical self-made person, equipped when he moved from strait-laced Boston to free-wheeling Philadelphia with abundant ambition, curiosity and work ethic. Opportunities for financial success and civic betterment abounded in Philadelphia, his adopted city.

He relentlessly sought personal growth and professional achievement. He did both.

He epitomized the traits of a go-getter. Would he be equally successful today? Maybe.

 As do many, I wonder if leadership personified by Franklin is even possible today in our fractious country. The need has never been greater or more urgent. At this point, I would care not a whit if the leader were a Democrat or Republican. I would draw the line in the center, excluding the extremists in each party.

I can suggest no possible unifying leaders. I wish I could. I can enumerate traits appealing to me and possibly to others:

Character; honesty; team player; politically savvy; visionary; effective and credible communicator; respected on both sides of the aisle; willing to compromise and share credit; tackle and resolve knotty problems; attuned to problems facing the rich and poor; passionate about solutions; even temperament; accessible as much as possible and resolute. 

This list is long. A person who embodies all these traits may be a figment of my imagination. But I am optimistic that a unifying leader exists. No one comes to mind.

Ben Franklin set a standard for excellence as a public servant. Despite his innumerable accolades and a tendency to pay them too much due, he sought no high office (too old in his opinion). He felt satisfied with a seat at the table in composing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. He contributed wisdom and insight. He understood fellowship.

 Dr. Franklin was an optimist, I believe. Guided by 13 virtues, used to measure himself, he strove constantly for self-improvement. Moderation was his lodestar. And he gained financial success and international acclaim. He did so with intelligence and self-awareness.

Anyone out there who wishes to emulate Ben Franklin and unify and lead our country? Step forward please.

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.

 

 

As much as I admire Dan Watson and the increasingly large group of Talbot County residents who want to thwart the pro-development thrust of the current county council by electing individuals who want to preserve a pristine part of Maryland, I question the focus on one issue, to the exclusion of other important matters facing the county.

Please excuse my 54-word lead sentence.

More concisely, the candidates endorsed by the Talbot Integrity Project (TIP) do have other priorities that need to be evaluated along with their views of land use. I counsel caution; Single-issue criteria tend to distort a more holistic perspective.

I do understand that our country is replete with interest groups advocating a particular policy stance and supporting candidates sympathetic to their perspective. These groups, however, seem less rigid in demanding absolute fealty and more aware of political opinions that might diminish the favored candidate’s credibility and effectiveness. In other words, fellow acolytes may carry viewpoints injurious to an interest group’s objective. The message then becomes muddled; voters are distracted, if not disenchanted.

TIP undertook a process unknown previously in the county, excepting the anti-tax campaign many years ago that successfully enacted the tax cap on the property tax. The result, while applauded by many in Talbot County, has impeded the delivery of necessary public services. I digress.

Do I agree that the current county council, excluding Pete Lesher, is oblivious to the comprehensive plan? Do I agree that the decision to proceed with Lakeside in Trappe is foolhardy and hurtful to the Choptank River and a sense of proportion in Talbot County.

Please record two unequivocal yeses for me.

But I am concerned that some of these candidates, and one in particular, might also advocate for changes in public school curriculums,or other divisive social positions that would bury the county in a constant whirl of controversy. County council members should focus on the budget, not on what’s taught, what’s not.

I am aware that I am deliberately avoiding calling out that particular Republican candidate, already the subject of criticism in readers’ comments.

Why my reluctance to mention this person’s name? I believe he is entitled to his opinions. They are diametrically opposed to mine. I prefer to forsake personal attacks. He and I have disagreed agreeably in the past. He is highly intelligent. He articulates his positions clearly and convincingly (to some).

Admittedly, I do not feel equally restrained in my criticism of current county council members. After all, they are public figures. Their actions warrant review and criticism, if necessary.

Voters must view the total picture of a candidate and his/her views on a slew of policy issues. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

Those elected based upon one overriding issue often are rigid and doctrinaire. They consider compromise anathema. They impede the political process. Teamwork is a foreign concept. This is true on both sides of the aisle. And collaboration is increasingly rare in our currently divisive public arena.

The public spotlight on the Talbot County Council has never been so intense. That’s beneficial. Democracy is working. Increasingly more people are engaged. The community is stronger. County members are feeling the discomfort imposed by public accountability.

TIP, organized by Watson, a citizen extraordinaire, exemplifies democracy at its best. Talbot County citizens are participating in the election process in a transparent manner. They are not accepting the status quo. They are seeking change in a respectable and responsible way.

Beware, however, of single-issue selection criteria. Understand that issues, such as the Lakeside development, do require singular focus and opposition. Also, as we all know, national battleground policies like abortion and gun control justifiably call for laser-like, if not fierce discussion, in Washington, DC and state capitals.

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.

As I have observed aging in the real world, I watched with delight two weeks ago as the 60-year-old Tom Cruise showed off his acting and physical chops in “Top Gun: Maverick.” It compared favorably and impressively with the captivating 1986 “Top Gun movie” in which he starred as Maverick, his call sign and standard moniker.

Cruise still has the uncanny ability to fill a movie screen with bravado, charm and physicality. He has learned to exhibit humility and compassion. He no longer must exude utter confidence. He can be vulnerable and still win over the audience.

Also, I just watched the original “Top Gun. “I’m glad I viewed it again after enjoying “Top Gun: Maverick.” Though not quite so dramatic and emotional as the 1986 film, the newly released sequel equally mesmerizes the viewer with its unparalleled photography and, of course, the riveting exploits of an iconic naval aviator, Capt. Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (Cruise). It may be less jarring. Still, it is first-rate.

In the 1986 blockbuster film, Cruise was mostly cocky, unnecessarily insubordinate, incredibly talented and notably self-centered. He had a soft side shown only to a few people. He disguised his vulnerability for the most part, but not entirely. His magnetic smile and natural charisma dominated the cinema.

The question is whether the gutsy character portrayed in 2022 by Cruise has matured, susceptible to moral defeats, or has this actor actually changed as age has softened his arrogant edges?

I suggest both of the above. In “Top Gun: Maverick,” Maverick continues to break rules and antagonize the admirals who try in vain to control the best—and most reckless fighter pilot in the Navy. His flying is unconventional; his achievements in the air are legendary.

Punished and assigned to teach fighter jockeys 30 years his junior and equally rambunctious and headstrong, Mitchell poses an incredible standard to match in undertaking an absurdly dangerous mission in the Mideast.

What galls a mission-first three-star admiral determined to rein in Maverick is this supremely confident fighter pilot’s overriding concern for his trainees and flight members. He is unwilling to lose one pilot in a mission calling for “miracles.” The critical importance of the mission does not dissuade the teacher, now the flight leader, from bringing everyone back.

Cruise portrays a seasoned aviator and unlikely instructor as an officer obsessed with the lives and dreams of his hotshot flight pilots. He has a heart. His own years as a pilot and military officer are numbered. He is still wracked by memories of his co-pilot and best friend killed during a training accident. His friend’s son is one of Cruise’s charges.

The aging process has instilled in Maverick a concern about his own life and weighed him down with his responsibility for his students and comrades in arms. Any opportunity to rise in rank are foreclosed to the rebellious Mitchell. He’s even learned that the time has come to love a woman justly disenchanted with his wayward ways.

Maturity has imposed itself on the Cruise character. Age and experience do that to all of us. The adrenaline rush, while intoxicating, is not sustainable in the long run. At some point, aerial dogfights and dangerous missions are not enough.

I am not suggesting that “Top Gun: Maverick” is intended to be a metaphor for life. That would be a stretch. I am opining that in the case of this cinematic masterpiece, Tom Cruise and the conflicted character he portrays are alike in seeking a self-peace, a recognition that being wild and reckless is a transitory state of being.

I thought that this movie was captivating. I drew a message related to my senior citizenship. Readers may simply enjoy a great action film featuring a superb actor.

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.

You’ve heard from me ad nauseum about my take on life and its ebbs and flows. Utter honesty, as you well know, is my style, even when self-incriminating. Families function best when nothing is hidden.

My current chapter wreaks of pessimism and dread. I apologize that my theme is not more upbeat. My perspective on American values and the public has shifted. I find myself worried and distressed. My view of the future is clouded by doubt.

The two of you are three decades younger than I. As you should, you see life differently. You doubtlessly will disagree, unaccustomed to my surge of pessimism and pique. I’ve always thought that optimism was a key to a happy, fulfilling, life, factoring in a large dosage of reality.

Okay, Dad, what’s your point? Cease the preamble and get on with it. Our lives are too busy to endure an onslaught of excessive verbiage.

Here I go, ladies. When my maternal grandparents arrived from East Europe in the early 1900s, they sought and achieved the American dream, defined in this instance as ample economic, social and cultural opportunity. They loved their new country. Nothing was closed to them, except, I supposed, by a veil of religious bigotry. They overcame religious obstacles and established a legacy of accomplishment and ambition for generations to come.

I think daily about my grandparents and feel grateful and admiring. What they lacked in formal schooling, they compensated through common sense, arduous work and self-education.

My grandparents would find the current America frighteningly divisive and violent. They would find our democracy tarnished and tattered by forces angry about an increasingly Black and brown country, one from which they feel excluded and alienated.

My grandparents would be alarmed by mass shootings at schools, churches, synagogues and hospitals. They would be stunned by rifts among family members and friends over politics. They would be distressed by the rampant tribalism in our fragile nation, where we have communities gated literally and figuratively.

The dissolution of democracy, as tangibly marked by the assault on our capital on Jan. 6, 2021, would be the most grievous stain on a way of life so important to my immigrant grandparents. They might wonder if anarchy common to their countries of origin had become part of the now fractured United States.

My advice to my beloved daughters is not to accept the gloom and doom undergirding this letter, but step forward however you judge best and reclaim our country, to fight the forces of destruction and rebuild a democracy based on trust in our electoral process and institutions.

You have the intelligence and gutsiness to reunite our United States, to somehow summon our better angels—against all obstacles—and help provide a glue to restore a commitment to a common good based upon acceptance and tolerance.

You have strong character and backbone, a keen sense of what is right and decent, and what is morally wrong. You treat people populating our varied social strata with respect.

I do not suggest that that our fractious society can climb out of its self-imposed abyss merely through the constant application of character, fairness, tolerance and honesty. Our human condition is flawed and imperfect. However, a surge of viral kindness and empathy would be helpful.

For your sake and mine, I will step down from my shaky soapbox and offer my confidence in the inherent goodness of each of you. You love our currently dysfunctional country, as I do. Please help it retrieve its moral, once exceptional swagger.

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.