In part 1 of this series I essayed some initial (negative) answers to the question of whether Howard County could ever become the “Silicon Valley of cybersecurity.” In part 2 I delved a bit more into the question of whether and how the success of Silicon Valley might be replicable elsewhere, relying heavily on the opinions of Paul Graham and Bradford Cross and Russell Jurney. Again my answer was in the negative. Can the third time (well, actually the fourth time) be the charm? I don’t want to keep you in suspense, so . . . ...

In part 1 of this article I addressed the question (originally raised by HoCo Rising), could Howard County be the Silicon Valley of cybersecurity? My initial answers were no and, yet again, no. But, Frank, I hear you say, that’s just the way things are now. Couldn’t we do something about this? So it’s on to . . . Answer #3: It’s complicated . . . but expert opinion suggests that the answer is still no. ...

In the course of analyzing the death of the Taxpayer Protection Initiative HoCo Rising implored the Howard County Republican party to focus on more serious activities, and among other things noted: “We need ideas for how to . . . make Howard County the Silicon Valley of Cyber technology.” By “Cyber technology” I presume HCR meant “cybersecurity,” the sexed-up name for what used to be known as information security, IT security, or computer security. So that naturally moved me to ask the following question: Is it possible that Howard County could indeed become the Silicon Valley of cybersecurity? ...

Two recent posts by HoCo Rising and Steve Charing prompted me to jot down a few thoughts to complement my previous posts on same-sex marriage and civic equality in the context of Howard County and Maryland. So without further ado, some random comments: On terminology: In the title of my posts I used the term “civic equality,” not “marriage equality.” I did some thinking about this, and in the end wanted to emphasize two things: First, the issues here extend beyond the question of marriage to other aspects of personal and family life in which the government is involved. For example, people should be able to apply to adopt a child or act as foster parents, and be considered on a equal basis with others regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. Hence I didn’t want to put the focus solely on marriage. Second, this is about equality under the law, i.e., our relationship to government as citizens; it’s not about religious strictures or private beliefs. It’s about civil marriage as established by the state, not about marriage as a religious ceremony and sacrament. Hence the emphasis on civic equality. ...

The Taxpayer Protection Initiative is dead. I’ll defer to HoCo Rising (and Trevor) for in-depth analysis, particularly from the viewpoint of fiscal conservatives who think the Howard County Republican party badly misplayed this. I’ve written more about the TPI than I ever meant to or wanted to, but I can’t help but devote a few words to its passing. Maybe I missed something, but I’m really surprised at the lack of apparent attention that was paid to making a serious case for the TPI: why it was needed, what its effects would be, and (most important) how various objections to the TPI could be addressed. I just looked again at three of the main pro-TPI pages that show up in a Google search, the TPI Facebook page, Allan Kittleman’s site, and the Howard County Republican Club site. None of them have any extended arguments in favor of the TPI. (Kittleman’s site does have a TPI FAQ, but it’s about how to sign the petition; it doesn’t address any questions that people might have about the TPI itself.) It’s as if they just rang the anti-tax bell and expected the electorate to salivate at the prospect. ...

In my previous posts (part 1 and part 2) I introduced the topic of same-sex marriage as a civil right, discussed how many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people might actually live in Howard County and how many of them might be living as same-sex couples, and concluded that in this particular context Howard County seemed to have no special claim to being more diverse than the rest of the nation or the rest of the state. In fact, Howard County and Maryland both appear to be below average in terms of the LGBT population and the number of same-sex couples. ...

In my previous post I introduced the topic of same-sex marriage as a civil right, only to digress into a discussion of how many gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (LGBT) people might actually live in Howard County. Now I’ll return to the question of same-sex marriage, starting with an discussion of how many people in Howard County might be candidates for it (or even already married). As I noted previously, the US Census Bureau does not create or publish direct estimates of the LGBT population. However since 1990 the Census Bureau has surveyed the population to determine the number of unmarried partners (in addition to the data that’s always been collected on married couples), and as part of that survey has collected data on the sex of each partner. This data has in turn been used by others to create estimates of the number of same-sex couples as well as the overall LGBT population both nationally and at a state level.1 ...

In this post (actually the next three posts—I do run on so) I continue my focus on how the Columbia vision of tolerance and diversity might translate into Howard County as a whole as it moves further into the 21st century. In a recent post I cited an article on mixed-race couples and multiracial individuals in Columbia. The article notes that when one mixed-race couple moved to Columbia in 1972 the Supreme Court decision striking down prohibitions on interracial marriage in Virginia and several other states was only five years old. In fact that decision, Loving v. Virginia, occurred on June 12, 1967, only a few days before Columbia’s dedication ceremony on June 21. ...

In my previous post I looked at the reality of ethnic diversity in Howard County today, and concluded that Howard County is in fact significantly more diverse than its position as a semi-rural Washington/Baltimore suburb might otherwise predict, and that immigration is likely to be the primary driver of increased diversity in Howard in the 21st century. This would seem to be wholly in the spirit of Columbia’s founding vision, and thus an unadulterated good thing for all concerned. ...

Continuing my series on Howard County in the 21st century, in my next two posts I address the question of ethnic diversity. As described in an article on Columbia published by the News 21 project, promotion of ethnic diversity was part of the Columbia founding vision: “Simply stated, we are “color-blind,”” [Jim Rouse] wrote in a 1967 memo to Columbia developers. “This means that every person or family coming to Columbia to seek a lot, an apartment, a house; to start a business; to play golf, tennis, ride horseback, sail, swim, or use any other facility open to the public will be treated alike regardless of whether the color of his skin is white, black, brown or yellow.” ...