TransCanada Corp.’s Keystone XL Pipeline Project study wast- ed seven years of U.S. Government money and time before being effectively tabled this past week by virtually all sides.
WHAT PRICE PATRIOTISM?
GOVERNMENT LINES POCKETS
OF WEALTHY TEAM OWNERS
WHO OFFER TRIBUTES
AT SPORTING EVENTS
Ben Carson’s campaign will unravel into chaos
should he fail to quickly accept the fact
that media scrutiny comes with turf
of being a serious presidential candidate
TAKE AWAY BILL COSBY’S HONORARY DEGREES
— BUT DON’T CENSOR HIS FILM AND TV WORK
By David Maril
While wondering if falling gas and oil rates, resulting in lower costs on utility bills has emboldened BGE into feeling it can get away with making its fifth rate-hike request in six years, it’s interesting to note the following:
When you talk about government bureaucracy and waste of money, the process that finally resulted in President Barack Obama’s rejection of the Keystone Pipeline project is a prime example.
Did it really take seven years to review the project, which included construction of a 1,179-mile pipeline to transport 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day from Canada to the Gulf Coast?
Whether you are an environmentalist, who opposes any new undertakings that involve oil, or a corporate businessperson who believes in the free marketplace to create jobs, this was much to do about very little.
In the overall scheme of things, the project projected a minuscule impact on worldwide use of fuels considered damaging to the environment or the creation of long-term jobs.
From the beginning, it was primarily a political issue.
When Hillary Clinton, the Democratic presidential-primary leader, put her political weathervane up and saw the party’s liberal winds blowing heavily against the project, she belatedly joined rival Bernie Sanders in opposing it.
OBAMA NEVER INTENDED TO APPROVE THE PIPELINE
It’s pretty certain that Obama never intended to approve it. As far as he was concerned, it would have been OK for the government study to take 25 years to complete.
It wasn’t until the Canadian oil company pushing for approval declared it would withdraw its application — and resubmit it after Obama leaves office — that the President decided to finally take a stand.
With an international climate summit on the horizon and Obama hoping to lead the way in fighting global warming, this was a great opportunity to show that the U.S. is setting a strong environmental example.
Meanwhile, it would be interesting to learn just how much money the government actually spent on the seven-year study of this project that never had a chance of approval in the first place.
Another wasteful note in the news came to light this week with the fiasco over the surveillance blimp that broke loose from its mooring in Aberdeen.
With 6,700 feet of cable dragging along for four hours, the clumsy, oversized blimp pulled down power lines throughout Maryland and Pennsylvania.
This particular blimp surveillance system reportedly cost billions of dollars.
One of the more questionable government spending practices revealed recently regards military ceremonies at sports events.
DOD PAYS FOR SPORTS TRIBUTES TO VETERANS
Many of the tributes at NFL games and other pro sports contests, to people risking their lives in the armed services, are paid for by our Department of Defense instead of being offered at no charge by the teams.
Why is money from the military lining the pockets of wealthy owners of pro sports franchises?
Why are affluent team owners demanding or accepting these payments while conveying the impression they are offering the tributes without charge, as a public service?
On a positive note, it has been quite moving to see the spontaneous applause and cheering from travelers at BWI the past few weeks every time World War II veterans arrive on a flight, deplane and are wheeled through the terminal.
These surviving veterans, in their 80s, 90s and older, appreciate and deserve the respect they are receiving from several grateful generations of Americans.
It is mystifying why the television networks even listen to presidential candidates’ complaints about debate formats and take seriously any threat of boycotts.
When was the last time one of these candidates, who has to spend millions of dollars on campaign advertising, ever passed up free airtime?
Another question is, Why are these broadcasts labeled “debates”? What type of “debating” actually takes place?
DEBATING ONLY BETWEEN CANDIDATES AND MODERATORS
The candidates rarely confront, challenge or argue with each other directly. The only debating that seems to take place is between the candidates and the moderators, quibbling over how many seconds they are allowed to speak.
If Dr. Ben Carson thinks the media are being overly rough on him now, how much is he going to unravel if he maintains his role as one of the Republican frontrunners?
The media scrutiny is only going to intensify the longer he remains a serious presidential candidate. If Carson cannot adjust to having his past put under a microscope and being accountable for everything he has said and written, his campaign will crumble into chaos.
Chiding the media and shrugging off legitimate questions as being “silly” is becoming tiresome and is making him hard to take seriously as a responsible presidential candidate.
What did Ted Cruz and Rand Paul expect to gain when they used filibustering strictly as part of their presidential campaigns, in a futile attempt to tie up the Senate in its bipartisan approval of the budget deal?
These types of politicians — and there are also plenty of them on the left — don’t serve in the government to find common ground and get things done: They are only concerned with pandering to their bases, raising money and getting reelected.
Bill Cosby in better days, when he was a respect- ed TV dad and not a much-criticized womanizer.
No matter who gets elected as our next President, here’s hoping the next administration prioritizes its foreign policy so that a better relationship, based on mutual respect and achieving common long-term goals, can be carved out with Russia.
We need to find a way to develop more influence, and be on better terms, with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president. In battling worldwide terrorism, the two superpowers need to talk more and understand each other better.
Johns Hopkins University is well within its rights to consider rescinding its honorary degree bestowed upon Bill Cosby in 2004.
The dozens of women coming forward to accuse the now-78-year-old comedian of sexual assault and misconduct certainly puts his character in doubt.
These types of honorary degrees are generally awarded in recognition of lifetime humanitarian achievements and as doubt grows over his worthiness for the Hopkins degree, the university would be justified in deciding to rescind it.
The question, however, of TV networks’ pulling the plug on showing reruns of Cosby television shows is a different issue. On comedies and dramas, such as “I Spy,” Cosby is acting and performing professionally, playing fictitious characters.
It is important to separate Cosby the real person off-camera, from the acting roles he played.
In addition, is it fair to the other members of the casts, along with the writers, producers and directors, to have their work banished from airing because of Cosby?
Do we really want TV network executives exercising censorship over what we watch, years later, whenever it is learned an actor or actress had a controversial past?
It’s certainly justifiable if a TV network or film company dismisses actors and actresses currently under employment if they don’t live up to behavior standards. But once a piece of work has been finished and shown to the public for years, the viewers should decide themselves whether they want to watch the product or boycott it on their own.
If TV and movie executives were to start making censorship decisions on work from the past, based on the character of the actors and actresses, a lot of fine productions would be pulled from TV and theaters.
Movie mobster Edward G. Robinson displayed
his impressive knowledge of fine art in the mid- 1950s when he was challenged on a then-enor- mously popular spinoff of “The 64,000 Question” quiz show by actor and art expert Vincent Price.
It is important to never forget that actors and actresses are not portraying themselves on camera.
Did you know, for instance, that James Arness, the legendary marshall on TV’s “Gunsmoke,” was afraid of horses and hated riding them?
Or that Edward G. Robinson, one of the great movie mobster-bosses of all time, was a quiet, cultured art collector in real life who hated guns and violence?
You can condemn Cosby and refuse to honor him as a person if these charges of sexual assault are true. But this needs to be separated from his work on stage and in front of a TV or movie camera.
Why is a boombox monitor necessary at Baltimore’s historic Pennsylvania Railroad Station?
The device pollutes the terminal with loud, distracting nonstop safety/security promos and travel promotion.
Even worse, the annoying blather often interrupts and interferes with PA-system train announcements.
The Washington Nationals, in Dusty Baker, have hired a manager who knows how to win. But if he is going to meet the high expectations of the team’s management and fans — getting to the World Series — he better do it in his first year.
Despite five division titles and six second-place finishes, the outspoken Baker wears out his welcome quickly. In his seasons managing the Giants, Reds and Cubs, his style of bringing his players together with an “us vs. the world” attitude created a lot of friction and is difficult to maintain in a positive manner.
Perhaps Baker has mellowed a bit and will bring a looser style to the Nationals, refraining from micromanaging. When he was with the Cubs, he became so preoccupied with trying to control what team announcers Chip Caray and Steve Stone were saying, it took away from his credibility and effectiveness.
One certainty, Baker is already off to an unconventional start: It seems to be common knowledge that the Nationals first offered the job to former Padres manager Bud Black.
Even stranger, is the fact they offered Black only a one-year contract, which is an insult they had to know he would reject.
If they felt so lukewarm about Black, why didn’t they hire Baker, who was given a two-year contract, in the first place?
davidmaril@voiceofbaltimore.org
“Inside Pitch” is a weekly opinion column written for Voice of Baltimore by David Maril.
CHECK OUT LAST WEEK’S “INSIDE PITCH” COLUMN: click here
…and read archived Dave Maril columns by clicking here.
