MENU

Sections

More

December 14, 2025

Talbot Spy

Nonpartisan Education-based News for Talbot County Community

8 Letters to Editor

How Far can Trump Push his Military Commanders? By Jim Bruce

by 6 Comments

Donald Trump never saw a limit on his executive authority that he didn’t want to stretch to the breaking point, and then some, usually at the Supreme Court. The controversy over the alleged military orders to “kill them all” and the “double tap” attacks on helpless survivors of alleged illicit, drug-laden speedboats in the Caribbean waters off Venezuela exposes a Constitutional constraint that is fundamental to the limits of his power as commander in chief, despite all his efforts to sweep away the usual checks that bound prior Presidents.  His military commanders swear an oath to the Constitution, not to the President, nor to the Secretary of Defense.  A military strategy that ignores that will ultimately collapse.

A partial collapse is evident already with the alleged “double tap” orders that bedevil Secretary Hegseth, as he runs away from responsibility for the orders someone apparently gave to our commanders to circle back and shoot any survivors in the Caribbean waters.  The Former JAGS Working Group, JAG attorneys who would know, stated on Nov 29, 2025, about “No Quarter” orders in the Caribbean Boat strikes.  They conclude that “…since orders to kill survivors of an attack at sea are “patently illegal,” anyone who issues such orders can and should be prosecuted for war crimes, murder, or both.”  The Republican chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees in an unprecedented challenge to Trump from his own party will hold hearings on this issue.   Good luck getting a commander to issue a “double tap” order again in the future.

The less obvious, but equally important, issue is why our military was shooting to sink civilian boats in the first place, as that by law is only permitted in wartime. At what point will our commanders balk as Trump’s pledges on Dec. 2, to attack the narco-terrorist groups he designates anywhere they appear, on land or sea and not just in Venezuela? He is fashioning his own unprecedented, global war powers resolution against these groups without any Congressional involvement. Apparently, more than one top commander has already retired rather than execute such orders.

When he took office Trump took pains to eliminate checks on his power so he can expect unswerving obedience from the executive branch.  He fired the top judge advocate generals (JAG) of the Army, Navy and Air Force who oversee hundreds of JAG officers who advise commanders on the lawfulness of orders they are about to issue.  He also fired most of the inspector generals (IGs) who oversee federal agencies.  (Trump missed one at the Pentagon who just issued a report critical of Hegseth’s conduct.)  Trump replaced most of the senior officials in the Pentagon with lackeys like Hegseth whose commitment is to Trump, not the Constitution, despite the oath they swore.  You can only fire so many military commanders before your army resembles that of Vladimir Putin, unswervingly loyal to him, but incompetent.

Prior to September 2, the Trump administration used the Coast Guard, part of Homeland Security, not the Department of Defense, to counter drug smuggling at sea, as had every prior administration.  The Coast Guard, not the Navy, interdicted suspected boats, inspected and seized illicit cargos, questioned and perhaps arrested the crew, but did not harm them unless they fired on the Coast Guard.  It cannot lawfully just sink boats and kill crews outright.

Beginning Sept. 2, Secretary Hegseth announced with much legal arm waving that because the Administration had determined that we are “at war” with specific narco-terrorist groups based in Venezuela, but not with the country itself, the Department of Defense would take over the Coast Guard role.  (The law provides for that transfer of authority in the event of war.)  That meant that Hegseth, not the Coast Guard Commandant, would take over and handle interdiction operations and the press conferences.

We are now in uncharted waters as Trump seeks to implement his own global war powers resolution across multiple countries without Congressional input.  In the past where military commanders had qualms about an order, they relied in part on JAG officers for advice.    Commanders deserve competent unbiased advisors if we expect them to honor their oath to the Constitution.  Congress would do well to investigate if commanders are confident in that advice. Is the administration pursuing a strategy against these narco-terrorists that is clearly consistent with the Constitution?  This is fundamental to the success of our military forces in any operation.

Jim Bruce, a former Captain in the U.S. Army, lives in St. Michaels

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Character Is Policy by Johnny O’Brien

by

Perhaps you—like me and most of my friends—have a grave difficulty discussing politics in our hyper-partisan nation. We often report that civil debates with right-leaning friends are off-limits for fear of destroying valued relationships. When we try, too often the opening response sounds something like, “I agree that Trump is an ogre…but I like his policies!” or “His character stinks, but I love his programs!”

That sounds rationa,l but is actually a cop-out to squash all further conversation. And it is highly irrational.

Why? Because it is extremely difficult to dislike a leader’s character while liking their policies. They are inextricably linked. A leader’s character (like our own) consists of core values and central beliefs that determine how we behave and the key choices we make (like positions and policies).

If a leader is kind, honest, and generous, his policies will be rooted in integrity, care for others, and the common good. A leader who is vengeful, greedy, and dishonest will adopt policies that are vindictive, untruthful, and self-serving. It is impossible to separate the baggage from the bag.

Character drives a leader’s policy and behavior in fundamental ways. To separate the two (as happens in our debates across the aisle) would be like saying, “I don’t care if the coach or teacher of my grandkids is dishonest, mean, and selfish—as long as he wins games and my child gets good grades!” Character determines how we do things. And moral makeup matters.

One of my favorite quotes during my 40-year career in Leadership and Character Development is:

“Character is who you are in the dark.”

It is how we behave when we know nobody’s watching. To be a true leader—or even lead a good life—we have to confront our demons and cover-ups. At least that was once true.

Now we have a President who boasts about his vile character in the light of day. His greed, vengeance, and vanity are broadcast in public to be seen and praised by those who fear him and those who can gain from his bribes and handouts. Or it could be confronted. Given that this President has unprecedented control of all three branches of government—and the recently granted “complete immunity while governing” from the Supreme Court—it needs to be confronted now.

It is clear that serious damage has been done to our democracy by President Trump in just eight months. Americans who care about our sacred Republic must establish some checks and balances soon. The midterm election, roughly one year away, is the best way to do that.

That means not only getting all citizens who are terrified by this self-proclaimed “Dictator” out to vote—it also means getting some of our center-right Republican friends to join us. And that requires reopening the dreaded political debate with friends we know are good and principled people, which is most of them. The ones who dislike the constant bragging, lying, hurting of vulnerable people, abandoning of allies, while amassing huge personal wealth.

We must risk the discomfort of raising the “character question” and tying this President’s moral makeup to his destructive policies. And our ask is not that large: that one of the three branches of government (the House) gain a slight Democratic majority so it can provide a small measure of restraint on this dangerous “King.” All significant power would remain with Republicans.

The wolf is at the door. We must rise up and defend democracy.

Clearly, our resistance should include active protest (like “No Kings”), speaking or writing opinion pieces (like this one), and stumping for honest candidates. But we all have decent friends who do not want our hateful President to go unchecked. It is not too early to reopen a caring, candid exchange with Republican friends one year out from the Midterms.

Trump announces daily how destructive and vindictive he intends to be. The most shocking example occurred recently at the funeral of Charlie Kirk. His grieving widow, Erika, said that she forgave her husband’s killer:

“I forgive him because it is what Christ did and what Charlie would do.”

In reply, Donald Trump declared:

“I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.”

What kind of policies and executive orders do we expect from this character?

Johnny O’Brien is a former president of the Milton Hershey School and the institution’s first alumnus to lead it. Orphaned at a young age, he was raised at the school and graduated in 1961 before earning a degree from Princeton University and pursuing graduate studies at Johns Hopkins. O’Brien later founded Renaissance Leadership, a firm that coached executives at major corporations. In 2003, he returned to Hershey as its president. He is also the author of Semisweet: An Orphan’s Journey Through the School the Hersheys Built, and currently lives in Easton.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Trump Policies Disrupt the Eastern Shore Soybean Market by Wilson Dean

by

Last November, voters expressed a strong preference for President Trump’s ability to manage the economy over that of his opponent. However, the first 10 months of the new Administration have prompted strong concerns from both sides of the political aisle. Farmers have been adversely affected more than most by Trump’s decisions. A good example of this is how his policies are affecting the soybean market, which is extremely important to Maryland’s Eastern Shore.

Soybeans are the second most important crop grown in Maryland, exceeded only by corn in value of production. The Maryland Eastern Shore is the stronghold of the state’s soybean production, with the most prominent counties being Queen Anne’s, Caroline, Talbot, Kent, and Somerset.

President Trump has taken action in two separate policy areas that have had a negative impact on the soybean market. First, one of his first steps as President was to allow Elon Musk (in his own words in February) to “spend the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper,” referencing the roughly 90 percent cuts in contracts for non-military foreign aid that the U.S. offers to needy countries.

The U.S. has long supported American farmers by purchasing and sending soybeans abroad to help nations unable to support themselves because of such factors as droughts and poverty. Soybeans sent as aid are used to address worldwide hunger and malnutrition, as well as to provide feed for livestock. The precise numerical impact on soybean exports for this purpose is not yet known, but soybeans are a major component of the U.S. foreign aid system.

The second source of President Trump having upended the soybean market is through his highly controversial tariff policies. His approach to tariffs has been widely criticized by both liberal and conservative economists as inconsistent and erratic, without any measurable strategy or goal. Trump’s aggressive approach towards China–amounting to more than a 57 percent average tariff on Chinese goods–has created very serious repercussions for U.S. soybean producers. 

China is responsible for purchasing 52 percent of U.S. soybean exports, accounting for $12.6 billion to U.S. farmers last year. In turn, soybean exports represent more than half of US production, so changes to the overseas picture have a profound effect on the total soybean market. Retaliating against Trump’s moves against it, China had been cutting its purchases of U.S. soybeans almost in half since Trump initiated his attacks on the country. Since May, China has totally stopped U.S. soybean purchases, in addition to instituting a 37 percent tariff on U.S. soybean imports. 

It gets worse. Even though Trump has agreed to bail out Argentina’s flagging economy with $20 billion as a means of supporting the country’s far-right President heading into an election, Argentina has turned around and dropped its tax on its own soybean sales, prompting China to make a massive one-million-ton purchase from that nation. This move signals China’s attempt to vastly reduce, if not simply drop, the U.S. as a soybean supplier on a permanent basis. In response, Trump’s Agriculture Secretary, Brooke Rollins, has said American farmers need to stop selling to “a country that isn’t aligned with our values,” promoting a dubious economic plan to place ideological constraints on America’s farmers.

How badly Eastern Shore soybean producers will be hurt by Trump’s aid and trade policies remains to be seen, but the outlook is not positive. Even though Maryland Eastern Shore soybean farmers benefit from high demand from nearby domestic poultry producers, the harm to farmers will likely be significant. Why? Because U.S. soybean exports to China flow from both the East and West coasts of the U.S., Eastern Shore soybean farmers will now likely see greater competition from producers in nearby states. For example, soybeans are Virginia’s top agricultural export, valued at more than $1.4 billion. 

Furthermore, this competition will put downward pressure on already low prices for this commodity, which has fallen from $13/bushel a few years ago to $10 in the current market. Farmers’ profit picture at this moment is somewhere between minimal to non-existent. Further darkening the picture ahead, Trump’s new tariffs on foreign steel and fertilizer are simultaneously raising production costs for soybean farmers. 

Soybean production is at a high level this year, with storage facilities nearly full and there is increasing concern that exporting firms will stop purchases in light of the declining market.

President Trump has said that he wants to help farmers out with funds collected by the U.S. on foreign imports subject to his tariffs. The Trump Administration has said it soon will make an announcement to this effect. Sources also indicate that this plan is still under discussion at this writing. Trump spokespersons claim that it will take several months before any money might be forthcoming.

The bottom line for Maryland Eastern Shore soybean farmers is that even if bailout money materializes, it is not what is needed. American Soybean Association President Caleb Ragland has called the offer a “Band-Aid.”  Besides, it being an insufficient amount to account for losses already incurred, he indicated that American soybean producers need additional markets and higher prices–exactly what the Trump trade and aid policies are closing off. 

As for our own Representative Andy Harris, there is no evidence he has made any attempt to formulate a solution to assist Eastern Shore soybean farmers (or, if he has, there is no evidence he has been effective in doing so).

Both President Trump and Representative Harris frequently claim to support relieving agricultural (and other) markets from government interference. Ironically, in the case of soybeans, the government programs they have initiated are, in fact, the cause of a powerful negative predicament for Eastern Shore farmers and their markets.

Wilson Dean was the Owner/President of a publishing and consulting firm for 34 years, providing economic, energy, and environmental policy and pricing forecasts for global clients.  He lives in Talbot County, enjoying kayaking, wildlife, and spending time with his grandchildren.   

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

As the Supreme Court Term Begins… Some Reflections by Margaret Andersen

by

As the U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term and at a time when public confidence in all national institutions, including the Supreme Court, is at an all-time low, I am heartened by remembering how one letter, sent long ago to Associate Justice Harry Blackmun, can remind us of the heart beneath a justice’s robe, even at a time when a justice was under vicious attack by political opponents. I am also reminded of what it can mean to bring joy to a justice’s chamber. And I am thinking about my long-gone dogs. 

I named my two dogs, who were abandoned as puppies by their owners, after Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun, two giants in judicial history. Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the Court (appointed in 1967), was touted for his long-standing commitment to civil rights, including early cases that prohibited racially restrictive real estate covenants. In another of his decisions, he invalidated the white primary, long a method by which southern Democrats maintained their political power. He is, though, best known for arguing the landmark case Brown vs the Board of Education before the Supreme Court in 1954.  A staunch advocate for people who had too long been denied legal protections in the United States, Marshall retired from the Court in 1991 and died in 1993. 

Likewise, Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun left an indelible mark on U.S. judicial history. Appointed to the Court by President Richard Nixon in 1970, Blackmun’s early decisions on the Court were most aligned with conservative justices. Over time, however, his decisions became more in tune with those of more liberal justices. He was passionate in this support for abortion rights and defended affirmative action. Writing in the 1978 Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke decision, allowing some consideration of race in university admissions but disallowing racial quotas, Blackmun wrote, “In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we much treat them differently.” 

Blackmun’s support for abortion rights was unyielding. The very week we adopted our dogs (in 1989), Blackmun wrote a scathing dissent on the case Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the first Supreme Court case to chip away at the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. In his dissent, Blackmun wrote, “For today, the women of this Nation still retain the liberty to control their destinies. But the signs are evident and very ominous, and a chill wind blows.” 

How prescient that dissent—one of the reasons I so admired Justice Blackmun. How did two photos of my dogs ended up in Harry Blackmun’s papers housed in the Library of Congress? 

Very few dogs find themselves memorialized in the Library of Congress. Dogs included famous people, such as TV host Ed Sullivan, singer Billie Holiday, actress Joan Caulfield, and actor Jimmy Durante mostly own those. Also included are some photos of national dog show winners. The Library of Congress is the largest library in the world, housing documents that tell the history of the United States by documenting and preserving some of the nation’s most important records. These are treasured archives, a repository of national civilization and creativity.

The Library of Congress hardly seems a place where ordinary neighborhood dogs would be seen. I am not a celebrity, nor a Washington insider, nor have my dogs ever been in a competitive dog show. Yet, sure enough, my dogs’ photographs are included in the hundreds of boxes that archive the work of Supreme Court Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun: Box 1445, Folio #9.

When my husband and I took in these puppies, the house next door to us was a concrete block shack, owned by a notoriously obnoxious absentee landlord. The tenants, seemingly living on the margins of poverty, absconded in the middle of the night, probably owing back rent and fearful of the landlord’s well-known violent temper. Left behind were the mother dog and four newborn puppies. A reclusive neighbor who lived in the woods across the street took in the mother dog, but the puppies were left to fend for themselves. One poor pup was hit and killed in the road. A second pup was adopted by a neighbor’s friend. Left behind were two little black lab puppies.

Even before the tenants fled, the two puppies had been frisky, though largely ignored by their owners. The puppies liked scampering around on the riverbank, occasionally falling into the Chesapeake Bay where our house is located. My husband would jump in our rowboat, row to their rescue, drag them out of the water, and bring them back home. Later, they never seemed to like water—odd since they were mostly black labs, though not purebreds.  

When the dogs’ owners fled, we took in the two puppies, thinking we could find a home for them. We already had two cats and never intended to add dogs to our household, certainly not two of them! We tried to find people who would adopt the two puppies, preferably as a pair because they were brothers. We considered posting a “free puppies” sign at the local market but rejected that plan when we heard that puppies so publicly advertised might be picked up by an unscrupulous puppy mill operator. 

Once they were living on our porch, we became very attached. After a few weeks of trying to find a new home for them, we relented and decided to keep them. Like other dog owners, we tried to find fitting names for our newly adopted pups. It was 1989. The nation was emerging from the Reagan years—a time when many hard-fought civil rights were being retracted. George Bush Sr. was the President. Roe v. Wade had established the constitutional right to reproductive freedom in 1973, but the movement to overturn Roe was simmering. As someone who was teaching university courses on racial and gender inequality, I was keenly aware of the backlash against women and people of color that our nation was facing. 

I told my husband that, given the times, we had to name these two dogs for men who had done something good for women. I had long admired U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall, then retired from the Court. Our two dogs became Blackmun and Marshall.

I often thought about writing to the two justices about their namesakes, but life was busy and I didn’t do it until 1994. Moved by Blackmun’s announcement of his pending retirement, my husband and I drafted a letter to Justice Blackmun explaining why our dogs bore his and Thurgood Marshall’s names. The letter we sent, signed by my husband, included two pictures of the dogs together on our front lawn.

Our letter said:  

I didn’t really expect a response, but only a few days later, and much to our surprise, a letter on embossed Supreme Court stationery showed up in our mail! Written with wry humor, the grace of a gentleman, and with a subtle reminder of his positions on conception, Blackmun’s letter to us was hand-signed. 

We cherished that letter and our two amazing dogs, but life went on. Then, in 2004, things took an unexpected turn.

In honor of the fiftieth anniversary of the Brown v. Board court decision, the University of Illinois College of Law, like many academic institutions that year, sponsored a symposium about the impact of the Brown decision and invited me to present a paper. I gladly accepted and wrote an article on the implications of the Brown decision for different groups. I had presented many conference papers prior to this commemorative event. Still, I had never spoken at a law school or to a room packed with mostly law professors and other legal scholars. I am a sociologist. That is my usual audience. I was nervous and felt very out of my element. I knew no one on the featured panels and hardly anyone in the audience. But I knew my paper was solid, despite my anxiety about its reception. 

As I wrapped up my presentation, I thought it had gone well and considered adding that I had named my two dogs for the two justices I so admired. It seemed a little corny to bring up my dogs in such an esteemed and unaccustomed, for me, place, but oh well…I did it. The audience seemed to appreciate it. I sat down to a round of applause.

The next speaker was introduced as a law professor at Duke University. When she began her remarks, she expressed her appreciation for being with known colleagues and meeting new people…a common way speakers warm up their presentations. She then said, “And I am especially pleased to meet someone I have a special connection to…Maggie Andersen.” I was floored! I had never met her, did not follow her field of legal study, and could not imagine how she thought she knew me. She continued, “Years ago I was a clerk in Justice Blackmun’s chambers. One morning, he called all his clerks together because he had received a letter from ‘some professor in Maryland,’ and he wanted to share it with us. Treating his clerks to breakfast, he read the letter out loud.” She then said, directly to me, “You will never know how happy your letter made him!” She proceeded to deliver a very good analysis of the impact of the Brown decision on disability rights. 

As we sat at the symposium on Brown, the release of Blackmun’s papers to the Library of Congress was very much in the news. Blackmun had died five years earlier (in 1999) but had arranged for a quick release of his papers to the Library of Congress. His papers were released only five years after his death, which is unusual because most justices do not have their papers released until 50 years after their death. 

Because of the prominence of Blackmun’s papers in the daily news, I asked the former clerk if she thought our letter—and the photos of our dogs—would then be in the Library of Congress. She said, “No doubt! That’s how important your letter was to him.” As the session ended, she said she wanted to rush right out and call Justice Blackmun’s former secretary because she knew the secretary would be excited to know she had met me! 

I later learned, by reading Juan Williams’ excellent biography of Justice Blackmun, that at the time Blackmun received our letter, he was besieged by hate mail from those who strenuously objected to his more progressive opinions—particularly his defense of Roe. Our letter was a rare praise song!

Now, even more years later and with both dogs long gone, Blackmun’s fears have come to pass. More than a chill wind blows today. There is a full-blown hurricane toppling women’s rights, smashing civil rights, and crushing institutions themselves. The assault on reproductive rights is no longer directed at one man, but, rather, at entire institutions. Confidence in the judicial system, including the Supreme Court, has hit an all-time low, as has public faith in all national institutions. Even when under attack by the right, probably overwhelmed by case work, and fearful for women in America, Harry Blackmun found the time to pen a letter, honoring not only our dogs, but also the best of America: national institutions that adhere to American values, the cherished connection between public servants and citizens, and the protection of civil and constitutional rights of all Americans. How I long for the values and graciousness that Justice Blackmun demonstrated. My next dog, if a female, will be named Sonia. Or, should we acquire a litter, maybe Sonia, Ketanji, and Elena—women who are speaking truth to power. I miss Blackmun’s wisdom on the Court, and I miss my dogs.

With thanks to Patrick Kirwin, Manuscript Reference Librarian, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress and to Connie Cartledge, Senior Archivist, Library of Congress

Dr. Margaret L. Andersen is the Elizabeth and Edward Rosenberg Professor Emerita and Founder and Executive Director of the President’s Diversity Initiative at the University of Delaware, who resides in Oxford.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Opinion: Marylanders Need Pro-Business Policies by Jamie McNealy

by

In today’s digital age, entrepreneurs often rely on online tools to make their mark. Amid recent Maryland tax hikes and new foreign tariffs, digital marketing is a critical way for small business owners to survive amidst economic uncertainty, boost their revenue, and maintain a formidable presence in the market.

To be as competitive as possible, Maryland needs policies that support new, innovative businesses looking to call our state home. As part of that, it is crucial to protect the balance between encouraging innovation and reasonable legislation. Small business owners often work long hours and invest their own money in their company. Their restaurants and clothing stores keep you and your families fed and dressed. Similarly, local startups invent technologies that aid not only our community but the world at large. Policies that support their efforts and ensure they can continue their livelihoods without unnecessary friction are critical to keep the small business community afloat.

Unfortunately, some of our elected officials have opted to impose burdensome restrictions on the very businesses that drive our economy. If we want to grow our economy and welcome more businesses to our state, we should instead take a more pro-business position like that of Virginia, which has resulted in a $9 billion investment in innovation and infrastructure in the state. Unfortunately, Maryland’s current restrictions make the landscape less appealing to businesses – both big and small – that are considering a presence in our state, damaging our business ecosystem’s long-term competitiveness.

Due to policy changes set to go into effect this fall, digital marketing strategies may be in jeopardy. In 2024, the Maryland Online Data Privacy Act (MODPA) was passed and will soon impose harmful restrictions on small businesses that will particularly affect their ability to access the tools and data they need to market themselves and connect with their customers. Policies like this one could have detrimental effects on our small business ecosystem, creating uncertainty for small businesses, making them more risk-averse, which could stall innovation in the state.

MODPA’s sweeping privacy laws are more stringent than comparable legislation in other states, making Maryland an outlier and creating needless friction for Maryland’s small businesses that are trying to keep up with others in the region. In fact, the Maryland Chamber of Commerce has already noted that surrounding states’ small businesses outperform ours in fields including just plain survival––which, in 2024, dropped from 19% to 12% in Maryland––and growth.

When the legislation goes into effect in October 2025, its restrictions could prevent many businesses from connecting with local consumers in the most effective manner. A 2025 proposed fix offered adjustments to protect small businesses’ ability to utilize online tools like digital marketing technologies while defending consumers’ right to privacy. Unfortunately, lawmakers did not advance this business-friendly proposal, and now Maryland small businesses will pay the price.

Going forward, we need policies that will make Maryland a regional and national business leader. Our elected officials should view the recent investment in Virginia as a shining example of what is possible when states maintain pro-business policies and welcome innovation. For the sake of Marylanders and the success of our state, it is critical that Maryland sits at the forefront of invention. We cannot afford to let overbearing regulations damage our small businesses’ competitiveness. We must enact plans that will support the businesses that support our state.

Jamie McNealey serves as the Owner and National Director of the National College Lacrosse League (NCLL). Based in Severna Park, the NCLL currently includes 90 colleges and universities in 16 states. A graduate of the Severn School and the Johns Hopkins University, where he lettered for four years, McNealey has coached men’s lacrosse at the high school, collegiate and professional levels.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Character Rot: Sounding the Alarm by Johnny O’Brien

by

Most of us are aware of the damage Donald Trump is doing to government service, freedom of expression, our universities, and democracy. And the moral decay our “national role model” is inflicting upon America with his daily lying, greed, spite, and vindictiveness.

But most of us are less aware of the grave threat Trump and his spineless minions represent to our precious children, just by broadcasting his malignant narcissism every day. It is not too early to sound the alarm.

For starters, just picture our vulnerable teens bombarded by their commander-in-chief, who rules as a greedy, lawless king—where kindness, honesty, humility, and cooperation are for “suckers and losers.” Our kids, with their online tools and savvy, know this. They see and hear it every day. The most powerful leader in the world (their “leader”) is trashing the most sacred values that have defined America since its founding.

And to what effect on our coming-of-age children? At a minimum, confusion about what behavior or character counts. More frequently, they embrace the loss of moral guardrails and behave (as in Golding’s Lord of the Flies) any way they want.

This is not a theory. I first saw it recently at a boarding school for needy children I once led. It has over 2,000 students and prides itself on building character. Just four months into Trump’s leadership model, more students are flouting rules and debasing their school’s Sacred Values.

When challenged, responses include:

  • “Why should I be kind to a weak classmate?”

  • “Why do I need to tell the truth?”

  • “Why should I share credit with a teammate?”

The school’s Sacred Values—like Integrity and Mutual Trust—are being routinely tested.

Note: These behaviors seem to be more manifest in boys, who are more likely to challenge norms and authority (and who already have excessive learning difficulties these days). And, BTW, where were these teens during Trump’s first term? In late elementary and early middle school, where early character formation is founded.

What fate, then, for our children and their character? What is the future for the sacred values of our critical institutions?

Awareness of a real and present danger is always the first step to combating a serious threat. “This too will pass” is not a sufficient response to 8–12 years of socially induced character decay.

Such a grave challenge will fall first to our parents… and then to our teachers and coaches, who influence behavior the most. And then to our community, church, and political leaders—who, when organized, can effectively resist the moral decay.

But also to each of us who care about America’s character and the moral fiber of our children—those of us who still value kindness, honesty, and the greater common good, and do not want our young folks to become the “Greedy Me Generation.”

Johnny O’Brien is a former president of the Milton Hershey School and its first alumnus to lead the institution. Orphaned at a young age, he was raised at the school and graduated in 1961 before earning a degree from Princeton University and pursuing graduate studies at Johns Hopkins. O’Brien later founded Renaissance Leadership, a firm that coached executives at major corporations. In 2003, he returned to Hershey as its president. He is also the author of Semisweet: An Orphan’s Journey Through the School the Hersheys Built, and currently lives in Easton.

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

The Need to Call Out Gunsallus Falsehoods by Megan Cook

by

As someone who has worked hard to serve this community with honesty and transparency, I’ve always believed that facts should guide our public conversations, especially during an election. That’s why I feel compelled to address several misleading and outright false claims circulating in recent campaign materials. When falsehoods are left unchallenged, it risks becoming accepted as fact. Our community deserves better. These tactics are part of an effort not to inform or unite us but to stir fear and falsely influence voters. That’s not who we are in the Town of Easton, and it’s not how we should conduct ourselves.

One candidate, Frank Gunsallus, has claimed he is the only council member in 30 years to have gone “line by line” through the town budget. That statement isn’t just misleading, it’s false and is a disservice to the many council members, past and present, who have worked diligently every year to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely. Every budget season involves careful review, discussion, and difficult decisions. Suggesting otherwise dismisses the thoughtful and responsible work of others who have taken that duty seriously, including myself when I served on the Council from 2009-2023.

The Inclusionary Zoning bill is still a work in progress, and no final version has been drafted. Since 2022, there have been numerous meetings and workshops with both the Town Council and Planning Commission. A dedicated task force, made up of volunteers who spent countless hours reviewing Easton’s housing needs, was appointed to offer thoughtful recommendations. That group is still finalizing its report. To claim the bill mandates high-density housing in every neighborhood is simply false and undermines the work of dozens of people trying in good faith to address a real challenge. The goal is simple: to make it possible for teachers, nurses, police officers, and others who serve our Town to actually live here. If an officer has sworn to protect and serve our town, they ought to be able to call it home.

The same flier accuses the mayor and staff of quietly ushering in development with little or no public input. That’s not only untrue, but it’s also an insult to the hardworking staff, the Planning Commission, and community members involved in every step of our public planning process. Nothing is being “snuck in.” Transparency and community input are cornerstones of how we operate. Claims to the contrary are simply false.

It’s also been claimed that I “recruited” three pro-mayor, pro-development candidates to run for Town Council. That’s false. Two of the implied candidates are already serving on the Council. One of them is running against Mr. Gunsallus not because of ideology, but out of concern over how meetings are managed, the lack of respect shown and civility, and communication breakdowns among council members. Mischaracterizing the motives of individuals who Mr. Gunsallus opposes is unfair and misleading. Voters should look for leadership that is respectful, collaborative, and able to work with others, especially when navigating difficult issues. That’s the kind of leadership Easton deserves.

It’s also been suggested that because I wasn’t born in Easton, I somehow care less or am less committed to this community. That’s not only wrong, it’s also deeply disrespectful. My husband and I moved to Easton 22 years ago for his job as a pediatrician and to be closer to his family. My work as mayor, as a former council member, and my involvement in projects like Project Idlewild, CarePacks, coaching sports, and serving on local boards and clubs, has always been about giving back to the place my husband and I chose to raise our family. And I’m far from alone. Many of the people who make meaningful contributions to Easton each day weren’t born here. What matters is not where someone started, but the heart and effort they bring to serving this town.

Easton is a town worth fighting for, not with fear or falsehoods, but with integrity, respect, and a commitment to the truth. Elections should be about ideas, accountability, and the future we want to build together, not personal attacks or misleading claims. I will continue to stand up for the facts, for our hardworking staff and volunteers, and for a community where we listen to each other even when we disagree. I encourage every voter to look past the lies, ask thoughtful questions, and choose leaders who value collaboration, honesty, and real public service.

Megan JM Cook is the mayor of Easton, Maryland

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

I Support Don Abbatiello for Easton Council President by David Montgomery

by

On May 6th voters in the Town of Easton will choose a new Town Council President. This is an election of exceptional importance, with two candidates who could not be more different from each other. For this reason, I have had to overcome my preference for neutrality in town elections.

I am endorsing Don Abbatiello for Town Council President.  I have had two years to observe how the candidates for this office conduct themselves on the Town Council. Additionally, I was fortunate to serve alongside Don, as interim President for several months in 2023.  Those experiences convince me that Don must be our new Council President.

Don’s calm demeanor, maturity, and integrity would make him stand out in any election. They have been particularly visible in the work of our Town Council. I have sometimes disagreed with fellow Council members, including Don. On those occasions, Don has always tried to find a middle ground on which we could compromise or an amicable way forward. Even when we disagree, he is always willing to engage with facts and rational arguments and to listen to my point of view. 

It may be selfish, but I look forward to having town meetings conducted by Don in an orderly, professional, and courteous manner. That is not what we have had for the past two years. We need a leader who builds good relations and communicates well with the Mayor and all members of the Town Council. 

Don’s dedication to our community is demonstrated by his 27 years of service as a high school teacher, 16 as an Easton firefighter (Fireman of the Year in 2025) and 6 years as Town Council member. I don’t know how he manages to fit all that into a day. Don does not strive for the limelight or try to be the center of attention on every occasion. He just works quietly and effectively to serve all of us.

Some are applying Party labels to candidates in this election, even though all elections in the town of Easton are nonpartisan. Don has not accepted financial support from either Party. He voluntarily disclosed campaign contributions, expenditures and names of contributors for this election, while his opponent has been hiding behind a promise to file a report at the start of next year. 

Don’s character, experience, qualifications and positions on policies affecting the town transcend party labels. He will not be indebted to any party or special interests when this election is over.

We are facing the prospect of devastating change if developers are given their way to build, build, build in Easton. My most important criterion for ranking candidates is their position on whether and how to slow that senseless growth. Don has spoken and voted consistently to restrain growth as long as I have known him. He has been more consistent on limiting proposed developments than anyone else on the Council, including me. 

Don and I have both questioned the proposed inclusionary zoning ordinance because it would be burdensome and have negligible effects. Neither of us wants taxpayers to bear the burden of subsidizing housing for some. I believe that under Don’s leadership, we will be able to find different, more constructive ways to deal with the cost of housing.

Preserving our town’s character, fiscal restraint, and strong support for public safety are my hallmarks of conservatism at the local level. I hope my conservative friends recognize that Don and I agree on all of these. In addition to his stance on growth, Don has worked hard to restrain spending while at the same time fully supporting our police and firefighters.

Don’s positions on all questions have been thoughtful and consistent. He thinks for himself and responds spontaneously, rather than reading prepared statements from notes. He has a clear set of principles that he applies across the board. Don does not vary his positions to suit the audiences that he is addressing or to garner votes. 

To sum it up, Don is the leader that Easton needs.

I am not endorsing Don lightly or even because we agree on everything. We have voted differently on issues that I think are important. But I have learned how destructive it is to make one issue a litmus test for support. When I compare Don to his opponent, I see an overwhelming difference in character, experience, and behavior, as well as clear and sound positions on critical issues for Easton. That makes Don Abbatiello my choice for Council President.

David Montgomery is the Easton Town Councilmember for Ward 3

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Maryland’s Budget Crossroads Demands Unity, Not Division by Patrick Firth

by

If there’s one thing Republicans and Democrats can agree on, it’s that Maryland is facing a budget crisis. But how we got here – and why it’s becoming so much worse so quickly – shouldn’t be up for debate.

Maryland’s economy has been relatively stagnant for years. According to the Maryland Comptroller’s office, our state’s economy grew just 1.6% between late 2016 and early 2023. Meanwhile, our neighbors in Virginia and Pennsylvania grew by 11.2% and 6.6%, respectively. The U.S. economy grew 13.9% during that same period.

This lack of growth was a ticking time bomb. In fact, economists have predicted since 2017 that this issue – a $3 billion structural deficit – was set to detonate this year.

While you may not like specific solutions in this budget – and it is by no means perfect – it is misleading to blame Governor Wes Moore for a budget shortfall that was predicted eight years before he was elected to office. It’s further misleading to point to a 2022 budget surplus because, like every other state, Maryland received a crucial financial lifeline from the federal government during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was convenient for the former governor, but not a long-term solution to Maryland’s ongoing budget issues.

Maryland also must face a stark reality: we will be hit disproportionately hard by the federal government’s workforce reduction priorities and bureaucratic consolidation. Whether you support this effort or not, our friends and neighbors on both sides of the Bay are going to be hit hard by these federal cuts. This does not even account for a stubborn inflation rate, ongoing and incoming tariffs, and a continuing rise to prices.

I’ve tried to read the latest budget proposal with a clear, unbiased perspective. It has things that both do and do not work for us on the Shore. It is not perfect, but it is a budget that can get us through very difficult times both now and ahead. It’s a sensible plan that balances $2 billion in cuts with $1 billion in new revenue. There are areas where all Marylanders may pay more in fees and such, but a significant majority of Marylanders will not see an increase to their individual tax rates. I think, given the difficult times ahead, this is an acceptable solution.

Real financial pain is on the horizon. Partially because of nearly a decade of economic stagnation in Maryland, partially because lawmakers have no choice but to accept an unpopular, but responsible, budget, and partially because of economically questionable decisions being made at the federal level. But I do have faith that we have the right individuals in charge in the State House and within the General Assembly – and that includes Del. Sample-Hughes’ thoughtful vote against the budget proposal in a symbolic gesture to support her constituents for a bill that would inevitably pass the House of Delegates.

The last thing I would contribute is that it is disingenuous to attack and sling mud at the lawmakers from the sidelines as they make tough decisions entering uncharted waters. There has never been a more important time to work together, across the political aisle, in search of and support for common-sense, bipartisan solutions that work for all Marylanders. And we citizens have a duty to remind our elected officials that they are sent to Annapolis to work together, to form partnerships, and to advance their constituents’ interests. Rather than “just say no,” perhaps our Eastern Shore delegation can begin conversations with their fellow lawmakers that begin with, “yes, and I need this for my constituents.” Maybe then they can be stronger advocates for our community. We all share the important value of securing a stronger, more sustainable future for our state and for the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

Patrick Firth is the outgoing chair of Talbot Democrats.

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

The Political is Personal: Reflections on DEI by Margaret Andersen

by

As the women’s movement was unfolding in the late 1960s, all across the country women gathered in small, informal groups called consciousness raising (CR) groups—conversations that helped us identify the societal origins of problems we were facing in our individual lives. Domestic violence, rape, job discrimination, illegal abortion, the lack of birth control—you name it: These were experienced as personal problems, but their origins were in society and required political, not just personal solutions. For so many of us in my generation, “the personal is political” was a rallying call–a call for change not just in our personal lives, but in society and our social institutions.

This was a time (and it wasn’t that long ago) when there were no women in what we studied in school. Colleges were places where women could only wear dresses. Blue jeans, which became the symbol of a generation, were forbidden on campus—until women revolted. Blue jeans were a symbol of the working class and wearing them, as suggested by SNCC (the activist group, Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee), was a symbol of solidarity with the working class. Women demanded their rights—on campus, at home, at work: everywhere! 

We embarked on a course of compensatory education, trying to learn through any means necessary all that had been left out of what we were taught. There were few studies about women; even medical science routinely excluded women from research samples. When I was in graduate school (where I had no women professors), what we learned about women came from newsprint pamphlets, our CR groups, and whatever we could put our hands on that taught us about women’s history, lives, artistic contributions, and everyday experiences. This was the birth of Women’s Studies—or what is now often called gender studies.

My compensatory education had to offset all I had not learned about women, about people of color, about LGBTQ experiences—in other words, my education excluded more than half the world’s population. Ironically, the term “compensatory education” at the time usually referred to what was perceived as inadequate education for people of color in racially segregated schools, but we all need an education that teaches us about the full range of human experience.

As time proceeded, our efforts to “integrate” education by including the work, experiences, and contributions of women, people of color, immigrants, and LGBTQ people became institutionalized in women’s studies programs, ethnic and racial studies programs, LGBTQ studies, and—yes–diversity initiatives: the now demonized DEI!

Now the assault on so-called DEI feels like a punch in the gut to me. I have devoted fifty plus years of my education and the education I have passed on to others in the interest of an inclusive, not exclusive, curriculum. Scholarship in these diverse areas of study has flourished and people have learned that having more inclusive educational and workplace settings actually improves performance for ALL groups. What is it that is so threatening about DEI that powerful interests are now trying to wipe it out of every institution?

I’ll hazard a guess that most opponents of so-called DEI cannot tell you what it is. Of course, many of us have sat through boring workshops intended to raise our awareness of “DEI.” A lot of us have raised our understanding of what changes—both personal and political—are necessary to achieve a more fair and equitable society—in all its dimensions. To me, DEI is just about that—respecting and understanding the enormous diversity of people living and working all around us; desiring more equitable (just plain fair) opportunities for people to achieve their dreams; and being inclusive, not exclusive, in how we think and who we think about—and value.

I take the current assault on DEI as a personal affront—an affront on all I have worked for over fifty plus years as a professor, author, and college administrator. The time is frightening and, like many of my friends, colleagues, and family members, most days I just want to crawl in a hole. I feel powerless to change the retrograde actions that are happening all around us, every day. But the changes I have witnessed in my own lifetime are vast and should not be taken for granted. We must speak out even when it feels like there are big risks in doing so. 

Even putting these thoughts in print feels scary given the retribution that is now all too common. But I ask you to remember: I am your neighbor, might have been your teacher, am not a criminal. I am an American and love my country, as I hear you do too. But before you post some nasty comment to this letter, I ask you also to think about whether you want your child, your friend, your neighbor to grow up in a country where we learn little, if anything, about people’s experiences other than our own and where powerful interests ask you to ignore the hard work of so many who fought to bring you a more inclusive, just, and open society.  

I also ask you to deeply care about anyone, maybe in your family or friendship network, who loves a lesbian or gay daughter or sibling, even when the coming out process asked them to change everything they thought they knew. Love those who cherish and embrace a trans member of the family even when their old beliefs were upended by this reality. Love those who have fully welcomed an interracial couple and their children into an otherwise all white family. Care about anyone from an immigrant background who came to this nation to seek a better life for themselves and their children.  Know their experiences; don’t believe the myths.

To all of you, my heart is with you even as I rage! 

Dr Margaret L. Andersen is the Elizabeth and Edward Rosenberg Professor Emerita, Founder and Executive Director of the President’s Diversity Initiative, University of Delaware, who lives in Oxford.

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.