Regarding the Sept. 4 Metro article “Hogan’s new ad shows Jan. 6 ‘horror,’ calls him an ‘un-Trump Republican’”:
By Letters to the Editor
In the Senate, the majority party elects the majority leader, who controls what legislation is brought to the floor for a vote. The majority leader can ensure that legislation he or she opposes never reaches such a point.
Mr. Hogan might well be the deciding vote that would hand Republicans the Senate majority and the majority leader’s office. Mr. Hogan’s promises of independence and compromise mean very little without a pledge that he will not automatically back a Republican majority leader.
Recent history shows that Republican control of the Senate means there will be no consideration of any legislation by which government may address the major challenges of the country because Democrats are the only lawmakers who appear to be trying to do so. Republican leaders, acting at Donald Trump’s behest, already withdrew from a very conservative bipartisan immigration bill because they did not want to hand Democrats an election-year victory. If Mr. Hogan is elected and backs Republican leadership of the upper chamber, we cannot expect renewed action on immigration reform or protecting a woman’s right to choose or ensuring the right to vote or providing expanded child tax credits.
If Republicans control the Senate, we will have more chaos and gridlock, as seen in the past couple of years. The best way to achieve responsible compromise and bipartisan legislation is to elect Ms. Alsobrooks, an outstanding moderate and pragmatist, to the Senate.
Patrick McGregor, Millersville, Md.
In reading the almost daily articles about the matchup between Angela Alsobrooks and Larry Hogan, I feel some voters fail to understand how different the Senate is from a governorship. Mr. Hogan’s assertion that he will exercise an independent voice as a senator and cut the kind of pragmatic path he walked while leading Maryland is disproved by reviewing the records of Republicans’ most “independent” senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Both voted to confirm Neil M. Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. Ms. Collins voted to seat Brett M. Kavanaugh and Ms. Murkowski voted for Amy Coney Barrett. Both voted against confirming Nicole Berner as the first openly gay person to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. Both voted to acquit Donald Trump at his first impeachment trial.
On policy substance, Ms. Murkowski voted with Mr. Trump 72.6 percent of the time; Ms. Collins supported the president’s positions 65 percent of the time. Sen. Ben Cardin, whom Mr. Hogan or Ms. Alsobrooks will replace, voted with Mr. Trump a mere 25 percent of the time.
If there is a Republican majority, the successor of Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.) as party leader will determine which presidential nominees get hearings (just ask Merrick Garland how that works out), whether there are spurious “investigations” (remember Benghazi?), and who gets Senate committee appointments and chairships. With congressional constraints he did not face as Maryland’s executive, a Senator Hogan would be compelled to toe the party line. It is naive of him, or voters, to think otherwise.
Harold Sklar, Chevy Chase
Wanting more from Moore
The Aug. 31 Metro article “Moore cites ‘honest mistake’” about Maryland Gov. Wes Moore’s lack of candor left me disappointed.
I was a fan of the governor before the revelations about his false claim to have received a Bronze Star. Instead of correcting the record on his own in the past 18 years, he waited until he was outed by the New York Times to acknowledge what he had done. He asserts that his commanding officers told him to state that he had the Bronze Star in the expectation that it would shortly be true.
That is no excuse. Mr. Moore had not received that honor at the time and should not have claimed to have it. Then he continued to embrace that “mistake” year after year when he was touted as a Bronze Star recipient. If it was indeed an honest mistake and the governor has regrets about not correcting the record, then why did it take so many years, so many missed opportunities and some third party’s flushing out the truth to bring forth an apology for this ongoing misrepresentation?
I love our military and all that it stands for. Perhaps the governor should have received the Bronze Star. But he didn’t. Mr. Governor, I thank you for your service. But I am wavering on whether I’d vote for you again.
Leslie Greenberg, Marriottsville, Md.
Keep phones in Virginia schools
This summer, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R) issued an executive order creating “cellphone and social media-free educational environments” in Virginia high schools, citing concerns about the impact of phone use on students’ mental health and learning. Though it’s true that excessive cellphone use can contribute to mental health challenges, the decision to ban phones outright is not the state’s responsibility. Virginia public high schools should not implement a cellphone ban during school hours, as it could negatively affect students’ development, sense of safety and independence.
During emergencies, cellphones are crucial. Restricting their use could prevent students from reaching parents or guardians when they need to. As Education Week’s Alyson Klein and Lauraine Langreo recently pointed out, even educators who support restrictions acknowledge safety concerns. School shootings and other potential dangers are real, and taking away students’ ability to contact their families during such events could leave them feeling unsafe. The Post’s reporting on the shooting at Apalachee High School in Georgia underscores the importance of cellphone access under these circumstances. Virginia must consider these risks when evaluating the impact of a cellphone ban.
Furthermore, students need to learn responsible cellphone use. Flexible phone policies can teach students self-regulation and restraint. Yes, if a student cannot manage their phone use, it disrupts the learning environment when teachers have to intervene. But that intervention is a kind of education. In college and the workplace, students won’t have someone monitoring their phone habits. It’s crucial for students to experience the consequences of distraction during high school, preparing them for life beyond. And although critics point to the correlation between excessive phone use and poor mental health, as noted by the American Psychological Association, banning phones is not the solution: If anything, it means it will be harder for teachers to see which students might need help establishing healthier relationships with their devices.
Although concerns about cellphone use are valid, an outright ban does more harm than good. Instead of restricting access, we should focus on teaching students responsible use and preparing them for the real world.
Sofie Keppler, Arlington
A slice in Rock Creek Park
Regarding the Sept. 7 Metro article “Out of the rough: Rock Creek golf course overhaul on fairway”:
It is disheartening that the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) validated a public engagement process conducted by the National Park Service and National Links Trust that left many of us who live near the Rock Creek course feeling misled and ignored. It seems officials never seriously considered meaningful changes to the plan despite the public outcry about climate change, light pollution, damage to the ecosystem or threats to the species — some of them endangered — living on the course.
The minor changes to the plan announced in August will save only 77 trees. Although some improvements were made to the lighting plan for the new driving range, they do not go far enough in minimizing light pollution, according to astronomers and dark-sky experts involved. Environmentalists and conservation biologists also have strong concerns about the lighting’s effect on plants and wildlife in the park.
The NCPC is at least in theory supposed to represent the interests of the residents of the D.C. region. And yet it approved almost unanimously a decision that flies in the face of District rules to protect the tree canopy, the city’s climate resilience and adaptation strategy, significant concerns about the watershed, and testimony from a professor of environmental science who has declared the plan a “disaster” that will have detrimental effects on the endangered Hays Spring amphipod.
The NCPC could have mandated that the Park Service engage in formal consultations with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service before approving any plan. It also could have requested renovations begin on one of the other municipal golf courses slated for rehabilitation while the impacts on Rock Creek Golf Course are further studied. But instead, the commission signed off on a plan that will irrevocably change the neighborhood and ecosystem for the worse.
Julia Miller, Washington
