“We have to save our democracy” has been the Democratic rallying battle cry for the past few years.  In Maryland saving “our democracy” apparently means gerrymandering the last surviving safe Republican district out of existence. 

Gov. Moore and the Legislature have drafted a new district map which would effectively eliminate the 1st Congressional District from being competitive for the Republican Party. The 1st Congressional District encompasses the Eastern Shore and is currently represented by Andy Harris (R).  The Democratically controlled Maryland legislature has a history of gerrymandering Republican leaning districts out of existence. They have done such a banner job that the gerrymandered 3rd Congressional district earned the dubious distinction of being crowned as “the most gerrymandered district in the US” by The New Republic and The Washington Post.  Congratulations Maryland.  At long last, we are first at something! 

As part of the “saving democracy” effort, the Democratic Left has conducted an onslaught on our institutions, traditions, and values, corrupting and reversing the very principles they claim to stand for; they have taken universal notions that once fell under the umbrella of “democracy” and cynically distorted their meaning to champion and promote a majoritarian/authoritarian superstate.  Our founding fathers were not unaware of this very danger.  They termed it the “tyranny of the majority”. In Maryland, this “tyranny of the majority” seeks to eradicate the sole surviving Republican-leaning district and deprive over one million registered Republicans in this state, including the totality of the Eastern Shore, from any effective Congressional representation. 

In Federalist 10, the author of the Bill of Rights, James Madison addresses the issue of factionalism.  Madison recognized the emergence of factions as inevitable for factions are natural to men whose very nature inclines them to create associations among men with like-minded interests.  These various social, political and economic “factions” are today represented under the mega-umbrella of the two political parties.  The question for Madison was how to manage the effects of factionalism to avoid the “tyranny of the majority” while balancing faction and cohesion.  His answer anticipated the political impulse for gerrymandering: to avoid the “tyranny of the majority,” representative districts must be large and diverse in order to dilute the concentration of any single interest group, which could effectively suppress the varying number of minority interests.  Larger districts, according to Madison, involve the inclusion of a greater number of parties and interests, which hamper the formation of factious majorities. Gerrymandering is exactly what Madison prescribed AGAINST: an impulse to create a district for the sole purpose of a single-faction political domination.

The Democratic Party has turned the entire state of Maryland into a gerrymandered entity; Madison’s worst fears have been realized.  The new gerrymandered proposal for the 1st District, spanning the Eastern Shore, offered by the Democratic super-majority in the legislature, is designed for a single purpose: to eliminate the last Republican Congressional seat in the State of Maryland.  The proposal is, in Madisonian terms, a de facto manifestation of the “tyranny of the majority”.

Gerrymandering has a long history in Maryland.  It has resulted in oddly shaped districts drawn to concentrate and consolidate the power of the Democratic Party.

Many areas of Maryland with substantial Republican majorities have been targeted by gerrymandering (see Maryland 3 and Maryland 6), resulting in the dilution of the Republican voting power and representation.  One infamous example already mentioned is the gerrymandering of the 3rd Congressional District:  the district has undergone significant creative redrawing, including after the year 2000 and 2010 censuses, leading to its designation as the nation’s most gerrymandered district.

After the Democrats gerrymandered the 3rd Congressional District in 2011, they proceeded to gerrymander the 6th Congressional District, delivering both to the Democratic column. This effort by the Democrats was the subject of a high-profile test case before the Supreme Court, Benisek v. Lamone. The Court ruled that such partisan gerrymandering is a political question requiring a political resolution and not suitable for federal court adjudication. 

On November 4th, Governor Wes Moore launched the Governor’s Redistricting Advisory Commission to consider redrawing the state’s maps in favor of Democrats once again. 

The newly proposed congressional map favors Democrats in all eight of the state’s Congressional districts.  The legislation has passed the House, and it has been sent to the Senate for its consideration, where the prospects for passage are, at the moment, uncertain.  Sen. Bill Ferguson (D), the Senate Majority Leader, has expressed concern with the plan to effectively eliminate Maryland’s sole Republican seat in Congress, the 1st District, represented by Congressman Andy Harris. 

This action on the part of Gov. Moore is a raw power grab, possibly advanced in pursuit of his own political ambition. If successful, it would certainly gerrymander him onto the 2028 national political map.   The implementation of the proposed map for the 1st Congressional district would effectively deprive over one million registered Maryland voters of any representation at the Federal level.  We now know the meaning of “OUR democracy”. 

Tatiana Croissette is the former chair of the Kent County Republican Party 

Donald Trump is a 21st-century throwback to Erik the Red, the Viking chieftain and explorer who first claimed Greenland and established settlements there one thousand years ago. When President Trump was asked recently if he saw any checks on his power on the world stage, he replied, “Yeah, there’s one thing: my own morality, my own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”

His assertion is consistent with the view expressed by his Domestic Policy Advisor, Stephen Miller, who insists that the world is governed fundamentally by strength, by force, by power, what he calls the “iron laws of the world since the beginning of time,” as if all other laws matter not. The Vikings believed similarly that the strong are destined to overcome and rule the weak, to plunder and even enslave them.

Erik the Red’s sphere of influence was a tiny northern slice of the globe — Norway, Iceland, and Greenland. President Trump’s new National Defense Strategy extends the 18th-century Monroe Doctrine to assert that the entire Western Hemisphere is the domain of the United States, so other great powers should stay out, the so-called “Donroe Doctrine.” Thus, Trump is asserting his claims on Venezuela, Greenland, Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, and even Canada. Trump’s real goal in the western hemisphere is not interdicting illegal drugs in speedboats, nor regime change in Venezuela, nor spreading democracy, but rather old-fashioned plunder. His intent to plunder Venezuela’s resources is now obvious as he takes control of their oil. He also covets rare earth minerals in Greenland and Canada for starters and wants to deny Russia and China any opportunity to plunder in the western hemisphere. It is not enough to add U.S. military bases to Greenland, which the U.S. is free to do under existing treaty. Trump insists that he must own Greenland. We have never before seen a modern President unabashedly plunder other sovereign nations, including our own allies.

Erik the Red and Trump are surprisingly similar. Ancient texts describe Erik as having strikingly red hair with a fiery temper, and a penchant for naming landmarks after himself in Greenland to stake his claim on the land. Trump’s hair color is a chromatic shade off red, but red nonetheless, along with an incendiary temper.

Both Erik the Red and Trump the Red operated boldly and comfortably outside the law. In fact, both Erik the Red and Trump were banned from their homelands — Erik was banned from Iceland for murder twice, and Trump was banned from doing business in New York state. Erik the Red moved to Greenland and Donald moved to the White House.

Both were slick marketers. Erik named the land “Greenland” not because it was green, but because it wasn’t. The name Greenland would lure settlers in hope of lush pastures, better than the truth. Donald’s marketing brand color is gold — gold lettering, interiors, ballrooms, a Golden missile defense shield, a golden class of ships, and gold gifts.

Neither Erik nor Donald cared about what the people already living in Greenland want for their future. Erik sought to create new Viking settlements over which he would reign as chieftain. Donald’s purpose is to own Greenland and plunder it by conquest or by inexorable economic pressure.

Erik’s settlements in Greenland lasted 500 years, but probably climate change, specifically the Little Ice Age, ended the settlements in Greenland. Donald is just as blind to climate change as Erik the Red, who had no science advisors.

Given the world in which he lived, we can still honor the legend of Erik the Red, ten centuries later, as a Viking chieftain, explorer, and colonizer. Donald gets no such pass from history.

Those 1,000 years of civilization since have repealed Stephen Miller’s “iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.” We have learned to respect the sovereignty of nations and their right to self-determination. In 1789 we adopted a Constitution that substituted the rule of law for these “iron laws.” Beginning a century ago, two world wars established the well-recognized principle that conquering another nation just because it might make yours more secure, or wealthier, is condemnable. Donald the Red is a dangerous anachronism.

Jim Bruce
St. Michaels

Everybody on the Eastern Shore knows oysters matter. They clean the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, support watermen and oyster farmers, and sustain working waterfronts. After decades of effort, oyster populations in Maryland waters have roughly tripled since 2005, and Bay states recently met long-term goals for restoring reefs in key tributaries. That progress did not happen by accident — and it will not continue by accident.

Recent reporting in The Baltimore Banner detailed how the Trump administration, through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is cutting federal funding to the Horn Point Laboratory. Horn Point, on the Choptank River just outside Cambridge, operates the largest oyster hatchery on the East Coast and is part of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. Over the past two decades, it has produced more than 18 billion juvenile oyster seed used to rebuild reefs across the Chesapeake and to support both sanctuary restoration and commercial oyster farming, with roughly a quarter of its production going to farms.

This is not a niche operation serving one county. Horn Point’s work has been studied and emulated by restoration efforts from Virginia to New York Harbor and beyond. It is applied science infrastructure, built here in Dorchester County, that supports a regional ecosystem and economy.

I have seen this work up close. In past seasons, I partnered with ShoreRivers and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation to grow oysters at my dock for sanctuary reefs, using spat set at Horn Point on recycled shell. The baby oysters were raised through their most vulnerable stage and returned in spring for planting on protected reefs. Like many volunteers, I spent cold winter weeks hauling cages out of the water and cleaning them so the juveniles could survive. It was hard, repetitive work — and a point of pride to support the Bay’s recovery in a tangible way.

NOAA has now reduced Horn Point’s annual federal support by about $340,000 — nearly a 45 percent cut from the roughly $740,000 it has received in recent years. Those dollars largely pay for the skilled staff who spawn oysters, run larval tanks, culture algae, and move spat onto reefs. The reduction hits in the final year of a four-year grant, and Horn Point scientists worry deeper cuts could follow. The hatchery now operates with what staff describe as a skeleton crew of eight full-time employees, and managers have warned that without replacement funding, layoffs may be unavoidable.

Some argue Maryland should simply replace the money, or that waterman fees should cover more of the cost. That misunderstands what Horn Point is. Oyster restoration in the Chesapeake has long been designed as a federal–state partnership because the Bay is a multi-state waterbody with national ecological and economic importance. NOAA’s Chesapeake Bay program funds work that benefits Maryland watermen, Virginia fisheries, upriver communities that depend on cleaner water, and downstream economies across the region. Treating Horn Point as a purely local subsidy ignores the broader public value it creates.

That is why this cut cannot be dismissed as “Maryland’s problem.” When Washington pulls back from shared investment in science and restoration, it leaves a few rural counties to absorb costs for work that benefits many. The result is not efficiency — it is erosion of a system that has taken decades to build.

That brings us to our congressional representative. Rep. Andy Harris supports an administration whose budget priorities include deep cuts to environmental and science agencies. When those priorities land on the Eastern Shore, he has chosen not to meet them with visible public opposition. Reporting indicates his office helped arrange a meeting between NOAA officials and Horn Point leadership after the cut became known, but there has been no public statement opposing the reduction, no announced effort to restore funding in Congress, and no clear plan to mitigate the harm locally. When asked for comment, his office did not respond.

Members of Congress do not sign every grant, but they do shape budgets and decide when to defend critical institutions in their districts. Fewer staff at Horn Point means fewer oysters produced, fewer sanctuary reefs rebuilt, and fewer opportunities for commercial growers who rely on hatchery seed — undercutting the work of volunteers, watermen, nonprofits, and state partners alike. At a moment when scientists believe the Bay’s oysters may be approaching a tipping point toward self-sustaining recovery, federal support is being pulled back from one of the institutions that made that possibility real.

Eastern Shore residents have invested too much — in tax dollars, time, and hard work — to watch that progress quietly erode. Silence, in the face of cuts like these, is not neutrality. It is a governing choice. And it carries real consequences for the Bay we are trying to restore.

Sarah Gavian lives in Dorchester County and has participated in oyster restoration efforts with ShoreRivers and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

One of the great, little-known crimes against humanity in 2025 was the BBC’s decision to block access to its radio broadcasts outside the United Kingdom. The stated reason was copyright concerns and the threat of litigation, which effectively shut down the BBC Sounds app for international listeners. Whatever the legal rationale, the result has been the loss of access to some of the most enriching and engaging programming in radio—particularly the documentaries and series produced by BBC Radio 3 and Radio 4.

There is, however, a simple workaround. By using a VPN to make your computer or phone appear as though it is located in England rather than, say, the Eastern Shore of Maryland, full access is restored. I encourage Spy readers to do just that and hear for themselves some of the best moments of our shared Western culture. I’ve included a brief “how-to” link below for anyone with a bit of holiday time and curiosity to spare.

There are countless programs to recommend, but the one I have been listening to over the past two days, which has given me so much personal joy, is BBC Radio 4’s series celebrating the 100th anniversary of the publication of A. A. Milne’s Winnie-the-Pooh, entitled Who Are You in Winnie-the-Pooh?

Illustration by Albertine Randall Wheelan

It includes interviews with well-known British children’s writers who spoke about why A. A. Milne’s stories still matter and why every human being should love this bear.

While I can’t recall any parental readings of the classic during my childhood, my family had a well-established love of bears, starting with one of our most cherished family objects: my great-grandmother’s illustration in St. Nicholas magazine in February 1909, long before Pooh ever existed.

I’ve had a soft spot for bears ever since.

In the early 1980s, during long drives through rural New England with my then-wife’s friend Karen, we often found ourselves without radio reception. To pass the time, we took turns reading aloud to each other and quickly agreed that humor was important. It was Karen who suggested we read Winnie-the-Pooh. Upon revisiting it as an adult, I discovered that it contains some of the sharpest, kindest, and most enduring humor imaginable, regardless of age.

Like many readers of the stories and guests on the show, I aspire (but rarely succeed) in being a bit like Pooh. Humble in intellectual capacity (“I am a Bear of Very Little Brain”), devoted to his friends (“We’ll be friends forever, won’t we, Pooh?” said Piglet. “Even longer,” Pooh answered), ready for revelry (“Nobody can be uncheered with a balloon”), and yes, always finding time for a “little something” to eat (“I wasn’t going to eat it; I was just going to taste it.”)

The ideal Pooh moves through the world without edge or pretense. He doesn’t judge, doesn’t scheme, and rarely rushes.

And Pooh gives us advice as we grow older and friends depart.

“Pooh, promise you won’t forget about me, ever. Not even when I’m a hundred.”

Pooh thought for a little.

“How old shall I be then?”

“Ninety-nine.”

Pooh nodded.

“I promise,” he said.

Still with his eyes on the world, Christopher Robin put out a hand and felt for Pooh’s paw.

“Pooh,” said Christopher Robin earnestly, “if I—if I’m not quite——” he stopped and tried again—“Pooh, whatever happens, you will understand, won’t you?”

“Understand what?”

“Oh, nothing.” He laughed and jumped to his feet. “Come on!”

“Where?” said Pooh.

“Anywhere,” said Christopher Robin.

So they went off together. But wherever they go, and whatever happens to them on the way, in that enchanted place on the top of the Forest, a little boy and his Bear will always be playing.

In the end, Winnie-the-Pooh endures not because it is clever, but because it is kind. It reminds us that friendship matters, that joy can be found in small rituals, and that being present for one another is its own form of wisdom. As the world grows louder, faster, and more certain of itself, Pooh offers a quieter example—one rooted in patience, affection, and the simple grace of showing up. Returning, even briefly, to the Hundred Acre Wood is not an escape from adulthood, but a way of remembering what makes it bearable.

You can learn how to get BBC radio in the United States by watching this video.