Daniel Vovak, a Republican candidate for Montgomery County Executive, has stated that if he is elected as Montgomery County Executive that he will challenge the new Maryland license plate's motto and design, which will be the default license plate on every Maryland vehicle.
"I do not support the glamorization of war, which is what Governor O'Malley is trumpeting with this new license plate," says Vovak. "If the governor wants to brag about Maryland's war history, then let him do it in Annapolis, but not in Montgomery County. I don't want my car serving as an advertisement promoting any war agenda and I'm sure my sentiments are echoed by many others in Montgomery County and in the State of Maryland, where the bitter memory of the Battle of Antietam is vivid. In Montgomery County, we love peace, not war! Beyond that, this new Maryland license plate just makes Maryland look ugly, not beautiful." SOURCE: Vovak campaign website
13 comments:
So I take your opposition to "promoting any war agenda" to mean that you would be against a licence plate glamorizing the American Revolution or the heroic American triumph on the beaches of Normandy in 1944? You seem a bit misinformed..
The plate is a celebration of Marylander's duty in that battle, not a celebration of war. May I suggest that you not assume that you speak for Montgomery County on this? Based on your comments and your context on this issue, I'd say you are in desperate need of a Military tour of your own...
Perhaps you should know the history of that war before you make judgements for all the rest of us in Montgomerary County. The years of conscriptions of our sailors; the Star Spangled Banner; the burning of our white House; the destruction of our Conmgressional Library.I am a republican, opposed to O'Mally, but not for Vovak. I like the new license plate.
There is nothing in the new license plate that would make anyone think it is about the Star Spangled Banner. It simply states "War of 1812" which it is promoting.
...EXCEPT FOR THE BOTTOM OF THE LICENCE PLATE, you moron, which gives the website of the 200th anniversary of the Star Spangled Banner:
www.StarSpangled200.org
You're supposed to be the one in touch with America's history, Mr. "The Wig Man". Isn't that why you wear a wig?
The War of 1812 is a war in which the United States was attacked by its former colonial master, Great Britain. Maryland played an historic role in defending the nation from that attack, from the defense of Fort McHenry in Baltimore to the fooling of the British Navy by the citizens of St. Michaels. It was during that heroic defense of Ft. McHenry that Francis Scott Key was inspired to pen the words to the Star Spangled Banner (which is clearly the scene depicted on the license plate).
Celebrating those who gave their lives in the defense of this nation isn't a glorification of war, any more than the hundreds of commemorations of soldiers who died fighting to preserve your rights might be. And remembering Maryland's role in the creation of our national anthem is a source of great state pride.
Antietam, the costliest battle in this nation's history in terms of lost lives, isn't at all relevant to the discussion of this license plate. What's more, Maryland isn't any more or less vividly "bitter" about the Battle of Antietam (or, as it's known in the South, Sharpsburg) than any other state in the north or south. While it is a point of history that Antietam was the first battle of Lee's Northern Campaign, Lee had no intention of attacking civilian targets or alienating Marylanders.
It isn't as though Sharpsburg was singled out by Lee (or McClellan) for some sort of attack. It was the furthest left of Lee's flank in his advancing campaign, and, from a strategic geography perspective, a likely place for enemies to engage.
Now, there are, quite literally, thousands of things you can challenge Martin O'Malley, Maryland Democrats generally, or even the Democrats of Montgomery County (where you're supposedly running for County Executive) about. Taxes, spending, operational transparency, corruption, business policies, etc.
But this is simply idiotic.
To answer the first anonymous comment, yes, I am against promoting glorified wars about America's history, too. I mean, isn't it rather silly that America was against taxes in the late 18th Century, and willing to go to war over them, only to tax nearly everything today?
The choice of music in documentaries is embarrassing, too. Vietnam documentaries frequently have gritty music, versus the American Revolution, which has patriotic music. Isn't a Vietnam vet equally as patriotic as someone from 1812? Then why not play colonial music and fanfare themes for the Korean War? The answer is that war becomes commercialized to fit into what President Eisenhower warned about when he coined the phrase "military-industrial complex" in his farewell address.
PRESIDENT IKE: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
Have to break this down into a 2-part response. Part I:
Why don't we break this down point by point?
"To answer the first anonymous comment, yes, I am against promoting glorified wars about America's history, too. I mean, isn't it rather silly that America was against taxes in the late 18th Century, and willing to go to war over them, only to tax nearly everything today?"
The 2nd part has nothing to do with the 1st part. That Americans sadly grew more complacent in their tolerance of the expansive of government powers (including the size and scope of taxes) in the 235 year history of the Republic has little, if anything, to do with your moronic blanket condemnation of honoring those who have fallen defending this nation, and specifically Maryland's role in the War of 1812.
Keeping in mind that as generations progress, people gradually forget their roots. That's why it is so important to ensure that people study history. What's maddening is that YOUR stance, Mr. The Wig Man, accelerates that decline. Now, not only are we to going to forget the fundamental debates over political structures and legal framework, you'd like us to forget the armed struggles that secured the Republic as well.
As it says on the outside of the National Archives, "What is past is prologue." Those who do not learn history, are doomed to repeat it.
It is the inescapable conclusion from following your thread of logic.
Part II:
Next point: "The choice of music in documentaries is embarrassing, too. Vietnam documentaries frequently have gritty music, versus the American Revolution, which has patriotic music. Isn't a Vietnam vet equally as patriotic as someone from 1812? Then why not play colonial music and fanfare themes for the Korean War? The answer is that war becomes commercialized to fit into what President Eisenhower warned about when he coined the phrase "military-industrial complex" in his farewell address."
No. And given your supposed experience with the film industry, you should know better. Soundtracks need to be relevant to the scenes in which they are being used. While occasional forays into anachronistic music do work (see, for example, "The Knights Tale" with the late Heath Ledger. That film used modern rock music to punctuate the medieval games and other activities to good effect), more often, they do not (such as in the film "Kelly's Heroes" with Clint Eastwood. That film, an anti-hero tale of bank-robbing US Army soldiers in France during WWII, used, at turns, a sweeping folk-rock chorale and Spaghetti-Western style music. It fell flat. One WWII film for which it did work was the aptly named "Inglourious Basterds" (sic)).
The simplest answer is, using fife and drum music in a drama about the Korean War would make about as much sense as using AC/DC to punctuate a montage of the Battle of Hastings (or Yorktown or Antietam or Bastogne).
Soundtracks are there to help set moods, and if you're trying to give people a feel for a past time, you use the relevant music of the period. Stephen Foster, for instance, for the Civil War. Big Band music for WWII, and so on.
You have gritty music for Vietnam because Vietnam was the first war that was brought into American households in full color on a nightly basis. It brought a dystopian American reality into sharp focus, and such dystopia merits jarring, gritty music. Music that was, of course, reflected in the musical culture of that time.
On Ike's point about the military-industrial complex, it's rather simple.
No single special interest should hold undue sway over the policies of government. It's just that simple.
Ike wasn't talking about soundtracks for movies. He wasn't talking about children's toys or video games, and he certainly wasn't talking about license plates that underscore particular points in America's history.
He was talking, generally, about the hijacking of national policy by special interests, and very specifically about the guiding of defense policy by those who profit from it. Members of Congress who force contracts to be written in such a way as to simply bring pork to their districts, people who fight to maintain defense programs that have outlived their usefulness and effectiveness, etc.
Ike was not talking about what you are talking about.
All in all, it was a disjointed, non-responsive response. What's more, it's far beyond the scope of the office you are currently seeking (in a county, incidentally, that ironically depends a great deal on that self-same military-industrial complex you rail against!).
Vovak: Stick to gardening.
I hope you succeed in doing away with the new plate. It's ugly. The old plate is classy. Hate to see it go.
A war is a war even if you win it and we should not promote war. I would hate to see my kids grow up in a country that promotes and lives for wars. I want my kids to grow up in a country which promotes peace.
Putting the subject of war at side the license plate graphic does not do the American flag justice.
For those of you that used insults on your post grow up and start to meditate to calm yourself down. No matter how much we disagree with others there is no need for insults.
I like the low level mudslinging on Vovak posted from anonymous users. Way to go guys, keep it classy.
War of 1812 or not, the new plate is horrifically ugly. I will gladly adopt any excuse to rid the state of these eyesores. I'd normally hate to pay an annual fee of $25 for upgraded plates (i.e.-Bay plate) but I think I'd actually pay 6 cents a day NOT to look at the new plates.
This new plate is just ugly and its theme stupid to be part of a car plate. If MD wants to advertise a war or celebrate anything in a car plate, it is ok, as long as I am not forced to have this plate. Being a mandatory plate, it is offensive. If I do not want to have such a stupid plate in my car, I will need to spend money buying one of the two personalized backgrounds, which is totally unfair.
Post a Comment