Month: March 2007

N-C-double A!

I know my fellow MBA blogger Maryland Conservatarian was happy about his Holy Cross Crusaders making it to the dance…well my Miami RedHawks are joining his team as we knocked off the #2 seed Akron Zips 53-52 in the MAC Championship!! A Doug Penno 3 pointer as time “expired” gave the RedHawks the win. The clock had ran out as the ball fell through the net but it was eventually determined that the time had restarted tardily after a missed Akron free throw. Thus 0.6 seconds were placed back on the clock. But Akron’s long inbounds pass went harmlessly out of bounds as time again expired and the RedHawks pulled an upset for the second straight night (beating #1 seed Toledo in the semifinal) to win it all!

I’m betting we’ll be something like a #14 seed since we’re only 18-14 with the win but we get to go back to the dance for the first time since 1999, when a team led by current Boston Celtics player Wally Szczerbiak made it to the Sweet 16 before succumbing to defending champion Kentucky. Every few years a MAC team makes a good run in the tournament (Kent State was an elite 8 team in 2002) so hopefully my RedHawks can make some noise in their 17th trip overall to the dance.

Meanwhile, Doug Penno will probably never have to buy another drink in Oxford the rest of his life. But would someone please tell the AP that nowhere on my diploma does it say “of Ohio.” We are Miami University, that other one is the University of Miami (although in reality they should be the University of Coral Gables.) Named after the Indian tribe and the nearby Miami River, we were a university well before Florida was a state.

Firing back at a white flag

At the risk of violating Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment, I received a pair of letters from Congressman Gilchrest during the last week or so. They both explained his thoughts on the situation in Iraq and addressed to some extent my reaction to his vote on H. Con. Res. 63. My reacting to this in a public way may not make my cohorts on the Central Committee happy but it’s time for me once again to put principle above party.

However, I realized upon looking at both of them that one is on Congressional letterhead (thus a public document) and the other is “Authorized by Gilchrest for Congress” so it’s more of a personal nature. So I’m only going to retype the Congressional one and post my thoughts on it, plus this will also likely serve as part of my response to the other one. The fact I had two different letters didn’t occur to me because these went to two separate addresses (one went to my old address and was forwarded) and arrived a couple days apart – I just assumed they were two copies of the same letter until I looked closer. Regardless, most of you know I’m passionate on the issue and occupy the opposite (correct) side. The letter reads as follows, the only exception being I cannot underline passages on WordPress thus those underlined parts on the original will be in bold font. Italics on the original are in standard font on this post.

February 27, 2007

Mr. Michael Swartz

(address)

Dear Mr. Swartz:

As you know, I recently cast a vote on the floor of the United States House of Representatives in favor of a resolution that both expresses my complete and unwavering commitment to our American troops, but also to signal my opposition to a surge in troop levels in Iraq.

I understand that some may disagree with this vote and the potential implication it has both domestically and internationally, which is why I wanted to give you my detailed thinking on this issue.

Before we can discuss the implication of the recently passed resoultion, it is important to understand the exact text of the resolution which simply states:

“Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops in Iraq.”

This vote had absolutely no impact on funding for our troops.

This is a message to the Administration that we need to go back to the drawing board. I have spent the last several months meeting with Middle East experts, military leaders, Administration officials, soldiers just back from the field, and my constituents. After a long period of prayer, soul searching and sitting through the funerals of many, many of our local fallen heroes, I reached the conclusion that an escalation of military force in Iraq is not in our best interest.

First, it is important to understand that the proposed “surge” is a misconception. We are not adding fresh troops into the picture. We are accomplishing the “surge” through the early and redirected deployment of troops in other areas, and by involuntarily extending the stays of troops already in Iraq. This strategy will depart from the traditional rotation and deployment procedures that are designed to prevent udue burdens on our servicemen, and to ensure adequate troop training and equipment preparedness. I have concerns that extended and altered deployment rotations will put an even worse strain on our soldiers already on the ground and on our already overextended military.

Second, I believe this “surge” is ill-advised on a military level. By comparison, when I served in Vietnam, a country half the size of Iraq, a “surge” of troops meant more than 100,000 new soldiers at a time. In Germany during World War II, Allied forces comprised nearly 3 million men in a nation roughly the size of Iraq. A proposed “surge” of only 20,000 troops will have minimal impact on our ability to operate in that theater, yet will ceratinly result in the unnecessary loss of additional American lives.

Third, this “surge” sends the wrong message at the wrong time and will embolden the insurgents who use the American occupation as their most effective recruiting tool. Under the current circumstances, we are spending most of our time fighting militant factions of an old Saddam-led Iraqi army that are angry over losing their power to brutalize the people of Iraq. To increase troops would only enflame those factions and cause more unrest in the region.

The purpose of our involvement now should be to eliminate any possibility of Al Qaeda and other radical terrorist groups from gaining a foothold inside Iraq – but instead we are being drawn into and distracted by an Iraqi civil war.

The sad fact is that more and more Iraqis see American troops as occupiers, not liberators. The proposed increase in troop levels provides an even greater rallying point for insurgents, and by sending a message such as the recent vote in Congress on that resolution, we can help dispel our image as occupiers and begin to break down the best recruitment tool of the terrorists. Therefore this vote in fact may be the best message to end the violence in Iraq.

The reality is that the U.S. made a grave miscalculation from the beginning. It was not a military miscalculation, but a cultural miscalculation. Iraqis have little historical basis or understanding of a democratic form of government. Thousands of years of history in that region have sent the unfortunate message that you are either in power and you rule with an iron fist, or you are not in power and you are slaughtered. There is no experience in shared government, and after decades of brutal leadership under Saddam Hussein, there is no motivation for the minority Sunni insurgents to lay down arms and participate in the Iraqi government.

Now the country has escalated to the point where the country is threatening to come apart at the seams. And unless we change our policy and begin to talk to Iran and Syria, we will see these neighboring countries come into this civil war to protect their own interests and security. We cannot in good conscience stand by and enable this continued sacrifice of American lives on a policy that is destined for failure.

I recognize that after all of these serious considerations, there may be some who say that while they may agree with our reasoning, it is not right to disagree with my party or our President during a time of international conflict. But we should never fear to exercise the freedoms that make our nation so great.

I have strongly believed that debate and discussion of this critical issue in our Congress is a show of seriousness and resolve to protect our troops and advance the interests of our great nation. We are a nation of liberty and freedom. Only in tyrannical dictatorships such as North Korea and Cuba is debate suppressed. We must embrace and exercise our freedoms, with the understanding that all sides of this important debate love our nation and support our fighting men and women.

I know that when I was sitting in the jungles of Vietnam as a soldier, my greatest hope was that our leaders back home were informed, responsible, and honest enough to find a way to end the horrible war in which we were engaged while protecting the people of the United States. And after many visits with American troops both in Iraq and in the United States, I am convinced that our soldiers want nothing more than the same thing today.

I disagree with the notion that debating this resolution somehow harms our troops or sends the wrong message to our enemies. Supporting our troops is about sending them into a situation where we have a viable military strategy, a clear set of goals that can be accomplished.

I will continue to support full funding for our troops at home and abroad. But without clear signs of progress, I cannot support sending more of our young men and women into the battlefield without a viable plan.

It is time to honestly and responsibly evaluate our original mission, and realize that we accomplished our task of ending the brutal reign of Saddam Hussein and provided the basis for a functioning, democratically-elected government, but that Iraq is now engaged in a civil war U.S. military force alone cannot resolve.

In the end, I understand that we may not reach the same conclusion and that some in my party may continue to disagree. But this is an issue that has and will continue to literally determine the fate of thousands of American lives, and the future security of our nation.

The U.S. is at a critical juncture in Iraq. I don’t believe that the current policy can yield the results we desire, and that an escalation in military troops to police a civil war would be a mistake. Our next step requires more than just an increase in troops, but demands new tactics and a reformation of strategic, political, and diplomatic efforts. My vote last week was the first step for a new direction.

I thank you for taking the time to read this message, and I appreciate your advice, counsel and feedback on this or any other issue.

Sincerely,

Wayne T. Gilchrest

Member of Congress

As you may guess, I still have several objections to this well-meaning and well-argued communication I received.

First, let’s look at the resolution as it was presented. While this is true that it did not affect funding for our troops, many Democrats considered this just the first step in eventually dictating terms in such a way that President Bush had no choice but to withdraw from Iraq in defeat (much like Vietnam.) By proving with his vote that they’ll cross the aisle to support this first measure, Gilchrest and his sixteen Republican cohorts that voted for the resolution create a crack in the GOP’s traditional support for the Long War. Moreover, there are many other devious ways that progress toward our goals in the greater war may be impeded which have nothing to do with funding. Gilchrest alludes to them when he writes about troop rotation and other personnel issues.

Wayne is correct in a historical sense when he opines that the sheer number of troops that would comprise this surge are rather small. What’s not apparent in his argument is that we do not have to subdue nearly the geographical area in this case. The majority of Iraq is peaceful by most accounts – the Kurdish area in the north is well-behaved, and the partial British pullout in the south around Basra is possible because conditions there have improved to a state where withdrawal is possible. When we speak of Iraqi problems, they usually occur within a reasonable radius of Baghdad proper. So 20,000 troops can go a long way there.

I also have an issue to a point with Gilchrest’s assertion that we are hated as “occupiers”. There will come a day when we can withdraw our troops and return them to America. But in this soldier’s view, we are hated less than the Iranians who provide support and a number of personnel to the opposition are feared. Memories are still fresh in Iraq of fighting the Iranians for most of the decade of the 1980’s, and not only would a U.S. pullout align with Osama bin Laden’s portrayal of America as a “paper tiger”, but leaving would likely create a similar situation to that which Lebanon suffers at the hands of neighboring Syria – Iraq as a puppet state of a much more powerful Iran, with the Iranians gleefully taking their revenge out on the Iraqi people as a ghoulish bonus for the Tehran tyranny. (I find the omission of Iran as a tyrannical dictatorship interesting as well. While Iran may be more of an oligarchy than a true dictatorship, it’s very much the same style of tyranny.)

Probably most of all, I disagree with the Congressman’s thought that we need to talk to Iran and Syria about this situation. He cannot have this both ways: portraying the situation in Iraq as a civil war, yet wishing to discuss things with two countries that have been proven to provide aid and comfort to our enemies. There’s too many fingerprints of Iranian involvement of supplying weaponry to the insurgents for me to doubt that we’re not fighting Iran by proxy, and I’m still of the mind that Syria is complicit in helping Saddam hide some of his WMD stockpiles. Neither of these two countries wish us well, and diplomacy only works well for a party when it is dealing from either a position of strength or, less effectively, as a rough equal to the other party.

Further, in advocating talks with Iran, we’re showing a willingness to discuss this with a country that has thumbed its nose to the United Nations and flat-out lied about its nuclear intentions. Do you, Congressman, really feel they would bargain in good and honest faith with us? By voting for this resolution, Gilchrest has helped to undercut any leverage we would have at the bargaining table. The enemy knows that, in dealing with a group of Americans who don’t have the stomach to stick out this situation when it becomes difficult, they only need to bide their time until they get all that they want and more by outlasting our diligence.

We fought and retreated from the Vietnam War in this manner. It “only” cost 58,000 American lives to achieve what turned out to be a mild defeat (not quite the “domino effect” some predicted) but the effects that followed in the Southeast Asia region led to the slaughter of millions of innocent people.

By voting for the original resolution, and despite the fact that it failed to achieve cloture in the Senate, Gilchrest sent a message to our enemies that our country doesn’t have the stomach to pursue this course regardless of cost. The pullout Democrats truly desire would only lead to a return to Iraq as safe haven for terrorists. And with a nuclear-capable Iran as a terrorist sponsor, I fear we may see events in the next decade that make the tragedies of 9/11 pale in comparison.

Editor’s note: Just looked at the two letters again to file them, and aside from a paragraph at the opening of the letter from the “Gilchrest for Congress” committee (citing me as an opinion leader in the community, no less), the contents ARE the same. So my original thinking was right that I did in essence get two copies of the same letter!

Impressions on Salisbury City Council forum

Tonight I was one of over 100 people who attended the City Council forum at Salisbury University. It was a nicely packed house, and the crowd listened intently as the six survivors of the February 27th primary answered six questions dealing with various topics. Candidates were asked for answers on what they considered their number one issue, plus pay parity for our police, ways to increase home ownership in Salisbury, relations between the city and the university, their views on TIF’s, and how they felt about the perception that the candidates were being split from a “six-pack” into two “three-packs” based on their views.

In this case, I don’t really have much of a say in the outcome because I can’t vote for any of them – however, I still can work on their campaigns and/or donate money to their cause. How I approached recording my view of the event was to pick out one or two points from each answer (where I could); also, I rated the answer on a scale from 1-10 based on both their presentation and how I felt about the issue.

I also had the bonus, if you will, of sitting next to current Councilperson Shanie Shields and getting her reaction to some of the answers. (She came in just before the start and took the seat next to me, so she could see I was writing notes.) Now one may say that putting my impressions of her reactions to answers here is dirty pool, but she made her opinion known by wearing a sticker advocating the reelection of Gary Comegys – so I feel that gauging her reactions is fair game. Moreover, if Shields reads my blog she’s certainly invited to respond as she feels fit.

I’ll go in alphabetical order, which means I begin with John Atkins. In his opening statement, he stressed his “public service” and desire to participate in the city where he lives. His adage of “if you’re not growing, you’re dying” led into an answer about managing revenues. But he also pointed out that for the police, it wasn’t all about salary, it was also about a good working environment.

I liked his advocacy of the Habitat for Humanity program as part of the solution to home ownership because that’s a private entity, not just another government program. He added that problems between the city and university were “solvable” and there should be a partnership between the two in doing so.

In answering the TIF question, John said that the city government needs to be involved with developers. (I like the idea of involvement but I’m not so keen on the handing out of big money incentives – so now you know how I feel about the issue.) He also thought that all six candidates get along well, and though they disagree on the methods of doing so, they all wanted to make Salisbury a better city.

Next comes Terry Cohen. Cohen opened her remarks by pointing to her experience in legislative affairs. But her pet issue is having Salisbury be more business-friendly and work on quality of life issues rather than big incentives to draw business. (I could hear Shanie sigh on that; meanwhile I looked over to see Debbie Campbell nodding.) Terry wanted to use money freed up by impact fees to help with police salaries, and made a very valid point regarding home ownership that current zoning laws also need to be enforced in order to help that process along.

In answering the town and gown question, Cohen noted that we need to get away from the “us vs. them” mentality. Terry also quoted a developer regarding the question on TIF’s, noting that the developer said in a hearing, “without the TIF, we’d have to charge more for the housing.”

What I found most interesting in both reaction and statement was Cohen’s answer to the “3-pack” question. Cohen stated a need to work together, and while Shields was heard to mumble, “yeah right”, Terry also blasted the tone of Gary Comegys’ opening statement. She closed by vowing to “put citizens first” and work to improve the quality of life for city residents.

As I’ve alluded to, incumbent Gary Comegys came out swinging from the get-go, telling the assembled that his “record speaks for itself” and that this election was a choice between a City Council that would find fault or a City Council that would find solutions. Intriguingly to me, his number one issue was keeping Salisbury as the “hub of Delmarva.”

I tried to find an answer to the question on police salaries, but nothing in his statements must have leaped out at me. However it did register when he pointed with pride at the city’s program to turn rentals back into owner-occupied homes, with 31 restored since he came on board to City Council. He also termed relations between the city and SU as “successful”, noting that SU funded a ladder truck for the city’s fire department to the tune of $200,000.

As would be expected, he defended the city’s TIF for the old mall, saying that the mall property was now underutilized and the TIF “commendable” as a solution. Gary continued defending his record in the “3-pack” question, hammering home his view that the candidates “need to be truthful” about the issues and look forward instead of assigning blame. He presented the choice again in his closing statement, terming it “conflict vs. consensus”. Of course, when he said as part of his close that the city also needs to “celebrate diversity” that lost me right there. His overall theme was to “vote for our future.”

Don Ewalt “believe(s) in Salisbury.” His number one issue was affordable housing. (Shields agreed with his assessment.) Don also wanted to make police salaries “competitive” and look for funding to that end without resorting to a tax increase.

On the question of home ownership, Ewalt pointed to the program brought up by Gary Comegys that already exists in Salisbury. Also, he thought also that the city should help SU as much as possible. The statement I question personally was where he “(doesn’t) see where the TIF (for the old mall) would hurt us.” That focus on the mall carried into his answer on the “3-pack” question as well.

But I did like one idea Don brought up in his closing statement. He thought that the city needed to work better with the County Council, and on that I agree.

Louise Smith really hammered on her message, almost to a point where she didn’t answer a couple questions. The themes of accountability and integrity carried over throughout her answers, although she also touched on the crime and neighborhood issues in her opening statement. When she brought up the wastewater treatment plant fine in her answer to the number one issue question, there was a chuckle from my neighbor Shanie. Louise also advocated restraint and prioritization when answering the question on police salaries.

She disappointed me a little on her next three answers. I know the need for affordable housing in Salisbury is “extreme” and that personal incomes need to cover cost. I also hope it’s not necessary to “open a dialogue” between the city and university when they cooperate in some matters already. And it’s unfortunate that she didn’t have a little more time to expand on the matter of a TIF given in 1998 for a strip mall vs. the 2006-07 TIF for the old mall, but she only had a minute to answer – it needed to be more brief.

Smith distanced herself from the “three-pack” controversy, saying that her “message is my partner” and that she was “her own person.” Driving home her main theme one more time in her close, Louise said that the city needs to be more responsible with its tax dollars.

Now I know Louise a little bit because she’s one of my predecessors on the Central Committee. Obviously she feels accountability is paramount, and with her background and experience I’ve no doubt she’d be quite an asset to City Council. But she does need to expand her range a bit now that the primary’s done, she’s in danger of becoming a one-note samba.

Finally, there’s Tim Spies. Tim touched on many good points throughout the forum, beginning with a powerful opening statement where he said he’d “never let people down.” He also struck a chord with me when he opined his number one issue as being growth – but more specifically, jobs for the housing we’re getting. Salisbury needs to “improve its business outlook” with commercial and industrial development helping to increase police salaries; after all restraint “only works so far.” Spies also wanted to curtail the changeover to rental housing (which drew an audible sigh from Shanie Shields).

Probably Spies’ worst answer was to the “town and gown” question, where he just wanted the relationship to continue onward and upward. He recovered quite well on his TIF answer, noting they were great for commercial development but in our case a “thinly veiled subsidy” for the developer. Tim also poorly worked around the dual three-pack question, instead saying that the city needed to work toward increasing the job base and the the Wicomico River was an “undiscovered treasure.” Spies closed by pushing for cooperation between the various elements in local government – legislative with executive, city and county, university and city.

As I stated at the beginning, I rated answers from 1 to 10 based on how they were presented and how I felt about the issue. It’s tough to do a tabular form with this format, so these lists will be a bit jumbled.

Opening statement: Atkins 4, Cohen 5, Comegys 7, Ewalt 6, Smith 5, Spies 6. While Gary Comegys was negative, it was a powerful opening that left an impression.

#1 issue: Atkins 4, Cohen 5, Comegys 6, Ewalt 5, Smith 4, Spies 6. Actually, my number one issue is crime and I think many of the other issues depend on taking care of public safety first. So no one really scored well.

Money for police: Atkins 6, Cohen 4, Comegys 2, Ewalt 3, Smith 4, Spies 8. I liked Tim’s approach to the issue best because it addresses another big issue; Comegys didn’t really answer the question and Ewalt wasn’t as specific as I’d like.

Home ownership: Atkins 8, Cohen 6, Comegys 6, Ewalt 6, Smith 3, Spies 6. Atkins cited the Habitat for Humanity example I spoke of above and Louise Smith restated the problem without really providing an idea for a solution.

City and SU relations: Atkins 5, Cohen 6, Comegys 5, Ewalt 4, Smith 5, Spies 5. It’s not a big issue to me – in fact, it mostly falls to SU students who act with immaturity. If they acted properly this would be a complete non-issue. I can excuse the folly of youth (I was a wild partying college student at times too, as evidenced by my GPA) but some things just go beyond the pale.

TIF’s: Atkins 3, Cohen 7, Comegys 1, Ewalt 1, Smith 3, Spies 9. Spies hit this one out of the park, and I’m sorry Don, but losing big-time revenue over several years will hurt the city. Gary Comegys correctly called the mall underutilized but fails to recognize that a good developer wouldn’t need city funds to tear it down.

2 – 3 packs: Atkins 7, Cohen 10, Comegys 2, Ewalt 1, Smith 5, Spies 1. This rates with the blog question in the WMDT debate and was sparked by the blogs in some ways. I liked Terry’s answer both for the reaction it elicited from Shanie Shields and the smackdown it gave Gary Comegys’ opening. While the Comegys opening statement was powerful, it was also divisive and turned out to clash with his closing statement where he called for conensus instead of conflict.

Closing: Atkins 4, Cohen 6, Comegys 1, Ewalt 7, Smith 5, Spies 6. The reason I thought Ewalt’s close was best was because of the idea that the city needs cooperation from Wicomico County as well – after all, city residents are county residents too. This isn’t Baltimore. And as stated above, Comegys spoke about “consensus vs. conflict” but will have to get along with at least two new members of City Council if he’s re-elected, and it’s highly doubtful they’ll agree on everything.

Total scores (in rank order): Cohen 49, Spies 47, Atkins 41, Smith 34, Ewalt 33, Comegys 30. In my humble opinion, two of the three primary leaders helped their cause tonight while Louise Smith didn’t hurt herself enough to drop down. Louise has a great core issue, but she needs to broaden it now and talk about what she’ll try to accomplish once the accountability has been achieved. John Atkins helped his cause, but it’s a question of whether he did enough to knock out two people in front of him.

But it was a good night for the voters of Salisbury. I liked most of the questions, and I did get an opportunity to talk some with both Cohen and Spies afterward. In addition, it was a local bloggers’ get-together as Joe Albero was snapping pictures and Cato from Delmarva Dealings came out near the end. And I got the chance to meet Debbie Campbell and her family, which was a pleasure.

There will be another pair of forums scheduled for March 19th and 20th. I may be able to make the one on the 19th and comment on it (the 20th is definitely out.) Also another WMDT forum is in the works and something tells me that Bill Reddish and John Robinson may be featuring some or all of the candidates on their respective radio shows.

I did submit one question that wasn’t used but I wanted to bring up as a closing. To paraphrase it, with 6,000 new housing units in the works locally, what steps can the city take to attract the good-paying jobs we need to fill all these houses? Retirees aren’t going to buy them all. So hopefully the debatees (or other interested folks) will read my question and answer it.

Back online after 29 hours

monoblogue has returned. From what I’ve been able to gather, there was a server failure at my provider, which was fixed sometime last night. However, this morning I started getting a WordPress error message (as you may have) that I had a database error. That just got fixed a short time ago. I’m no computer expert, but my guess is that the program didn’t get caught up with the change…perhaps they were originally intending to reuse the nonfunctional server once it was fixed.

Regardless, I’m back, thank goodness. However, this event tells me I should get a backup plan ready in case it happens again. For the time being (faithful readers may want to take note) if this situation reoccurs for an extended time, my backup site will be the monoblogue MySpace site (www.myspace.com/monoblogger). I also have blogging capability there and have posted a couple times on more personal items. I’ll also be doing a site backup tonight to my computer here.

Folks, I missed you. But I’m probably not going to have another post tonight because Cale at Patriot Post has solicited me for another short article for the Friday Digest – so I’ll be writing that and catching up on some reading I didn’t do last night.

Oh – I also lost the pics from my last post for some reason. I’ll have to re-upload those as well. (done.)

Weekend of local rock volume 3 – Windsor benefit

The other day I said I’d sneak over and check this show out to catch a couple bands…as it turned out I saw 7 of the 9. Pirate Radio and The Frauds I’ll have to catch another day – hey I did have to get up and head to work this morning! Here’s the seven bands I saw – somehow I managed to get at least one passable picture of each, with The Sophies being a pushup as far as “passable” goes.

First here’s a shot of a few of those enjoying the show. Let the captions tell the rest of the story.

Some of the people enjoying the Tim Windsor benefit show at Seacrets in Ocean City, March 4, 2007.

Hyphen (from Cambridge) was the first band in the show. They have a really good sound and hopefully they'll get a few more shows and exposure from this one.

Property was the second band. These crunchers came all the way from Charlottesville, VA. I spoke afterward to the drummer, Keith, who told me they've only known Tim a brief time but jumped at the chance to do the show and help out the cause.

I was told Another Vicious Cycle was only doing their second show ever. This was a good stage and crowd for it, and they did pretty well for themselves.

I see these guys everywhere, they're definitely a hard-working band. By the way, I finally got smart by this point and went down on the floor for better pictures.

As usual, these guys and gal rocked the house! I have a gratuitous Michelle photo as well but I'll put it on the monoblogue Myspace site.

You want the blues? These guys have them in spades.

Sorry the photo is so dark. There ARE actually four Sophies, the two on the right were just in the dark every darn time I snapped a shot - this is the best of the bunch.

Don’t forget that I link to most of these bands too as they hail from our local area. All told, the event had raised $600 when Lower Case Blues took the stage and there were still people donating afterwards – so the total probably came up to four figures, maybe a tad shy.

All told, it was a good evening of entertainment and thanks should be extended to the bands along with Leighton Moore and the folks at Seacrets for being a great host. It put a good crowd in his joint on a Sunday night. However, this is one event you hope doesn’t have to be repeated as far as the cause is concerned.

Legislative checkup, March 2007 (Maryland)

Early this a.m. I did the federal side, so now it’s time to check in on our local state legislators. This time, I’ll format things a little differently because a lot of this ground was covered the last time I did this.

District 37A Delegate Rudy Cane is now up to 119 co-sponsorships, which leads the local pack. As far as status of these bills go, 3 have passed the House (HB62, HB303, and HB416 – all passed with identical 136-0 votes), 3 have passed through committee, 1 was defeated in committee, 4 withdrawn, 34 have been heard with no further action, 45 are on the hearing schedule, and 29 have no hearing scheduled.

In District 37B, Delegate Addie Eckardt is listed as a sponsor on 108 bills, of which 3 have passed the House (HB62, HB303, and HB670. I want to know who voted “no” on the 134-1 vote passing HB670!). Of the rest, 1 passed committee, 5 lost in committee, 3 were withdrawn, 31 have been heard with no future action, 35 are slated for hearings, and 30 are not on the hearing docket yet. Counterpart Delegate Jeannie Haddaway has 99 bills under her name, with the same set passing. Also like Eckardt, 1 bill has passed committee (same bill), but 3 have lost committee votes, 3 were withdrawn, 21 have been heard but not acted upon further, 40 have hearing scheduled, and 28 bills have no hearing set at this time.

Delegate Page Elmore in District 38A is second to Cane with 115 bills bearing his name as sponsor or co-sponsor. Along with the aforementioned HB303, he also had HB164 passed with a 137-0 vote. One bill has made it through committee, 5 lost in committee, and 5 were withdrawn. As far as hearings go, 33 of his subject bills have been heard with no further action, 44 are on the hearing docket, and 25 are still awaiting a hearing date.

In my district of 38B, both Delegates Norm Conway and Jim Mathias are listed on 59 bills (but not the same ones.) Both sponsored HB303, but after that things are a bit different. For Conway, the scorecard has one bill through committee, 2 withdrawn, 17 heard without further action taken, 19 bills to be heard, and 19 with no hearing date. Mathias is a little less complicated – 2 measures bearing his name have been withdrawn, 15 have been heard and nothing else, 19 are on the hearing schedule, and 22 aren’t on the slate. No bill co-sponsored by Mathias has either died in or passed committee except HB303.

Senator Rich Colburn of District 37 will be a busy guy. This is because of 107 bills he’s lent his sponsorship to, a whopping 60 have hearings scheduled. 28 others have been heard, and just 13 await a hearing time. Of the rest, one was re-referred, 2 withdrawn, and three have passed their second reading so they should be acted on early this upcoming week.

On my side of the lower Shore, District 38’s Senator Lowell Stoltzfus is only on 50 bills. One of these (SB374) is completely through the process, having passed 47-0. Another one is through its second reading. Seventeen of his bills have been heard without any action taken, 26 are still awaiting a scheduled hearing, and just 5 languish with no date set yet.

Last time I went through this, I had a laundry list of bills of note. Here’s an update.

HB44/SB51 was one version of the Maryland Clean Cars Act. But the version that actually passed was HB131/SB103. Locally, voting yes on that bill in the 122-16 House vote were Cane, Conway, Elmore, and Mathias; on the flip (and correct) side were Delegates Eckardt and Haddaway. In the Senate’s 38-9 vote the local delegation split as Lowell Stoltzfus voted yes (and was quoted in the Sun), Rich Colburn voted no.

HB148/SB634 has had no action since its hearing.

HB225/SB211 also has had no action (aside from media coverage, it’s the death penalty repeal) since its hearing.

HB273 has a hearing set for Wednesday (the 7th) at 1:00 p.m.

HB288/SB207 have now been heard but no further action taken. Big tax increases tend to be slipped in late in the session.

HB289, the bill concerning the Civic Center, has been withdrawn.

HB312/SB373 will have hearings March 12 at 10 a.m. (Senate) and 11 a.m. (House).

HB359/SB91 (the “Clean Indoor Air Act”) has a House hearing on March 7th at 1 p.m. and a Senate hearing March 15th, also at 1 p.m. Look for those news stories Thursday.

HB365 had its hearing, and that’s the status of it. Same for the next one down on my list, HB 400.

HB430, the “living wage” bill, also sits in limbo after its hearing.

After my previous post, commenter “Georgia” brought up HB445/SB37. This also had its hearings but no further action.

HB537, a GOP-sponsored bill regarding driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, now has a hearing set for March 14 at 1:00. I’m sure CASA of Maryland has that date circled on its calendar.

HB620/SB494 just had its Senate hearing Friday, so both hearings are complete and that’s the status of this bill.

HB754 has progressed no farther than the hearing stage.

HB890/SB409, the global warming bill, had a Senate hearing but awaits a House hearing this coming Friday at 1:00 p.m. So look for a big snow or ice storm to hit.

HB909/SB674 has had that same treatment – Senate hearing complete, House hearing scheduled for March 14 at 1:00 p.m.

Jessica’s Law, known in this session by the moniker HB930/SB413, will have hearings on consecutive days starting with the House March 13 at 1:00 p.m. The Senate has its turn the following day at that same time.

That same pattern applies to the combo HB994/SB475, except one week earlier. The House hearing is Tuesday at 1:00 p.m. and the Senate is Wednesday at that same time.

I didn’t hear a large rumbling about this in the media, but SB564, an act to place a Constitutional amendment to declare marriage as solely between one man and one woman on next year’s ballot, did have a hearing and awaits more action.

The Voter ID act, SB597, will be heard by the Senate on Thursday at 1:00.

Finally among the older bills, SB598 had its hearing and awaits a new move.

I also found a few new bills of interest. Awhile back I posted about my morning listening to the Holly Center’s legislative agenda. Their pet bills were introduced recently as HB1358, the Freedom of Choice Act, an act allowing state institutions to be on the menu for care for individuals with developmental disabilities; and HB1359/SB920, which repeals the sunset provision of respite care for these individuals. Respite care is allowing a state institution to care for a developmentally disabled person for a short amount of time in order to give the primary caregiver a break. These were introduced last week so no hearing is set yet.

Another combination bill I didn’t catch the first time through is HB885/SB943, allowing the state to recognize English as its official language. Of course the GOP is behind it, so of course there’s no hearing scheduled for it yet.

Finally, there are two gun control and crime prevention items that were introduced, and surprisingly both of these have a hearing scheduled for March 21 at 1:00. SB761 “(authorizes) a person charged with a specified crime to assert a claim of self-defense even though the person failed to retreat or seek safety by escape”, and SB762 repeals “the requirement that the Secretary of State Police find that a person has a good and substantial reason to wear, carry, or transport a handgun before issuing a handgun permit to the person.” In other words, shall-issue. Both are sponsored by Republicans, so unfortunately I doubt either of these have a hope in hell in the not-so-free state we live in.

So another few weeks has passed in our 90 days of chaos in Annapolis. I’ll probably do two more of these updates for the state session, one may be a Maryland-only update since their session is so compressed compared to the federal one (which gets an Easter break sometime in early April anyway.) The count for the state is now a shade over 2,400 different items introduced with most of them flying under the radar. It’s a shame how government works sometimes – fortunately we do have a pretty good system of tracking these things. I have to put out a big “thank you” to the folks who run the General Assembly website, without whom this post would’ve been impossible.

Legislative checkup, March 2007 (Congress)

This post will be quite a bit shorter than its predecessor. The pace of bill introduction has slowed down as the bodies of Congress start holding scheduled hearings and votes, generally working through the sausage-grinding where bills become ever more onerous laws (in most cases.)

As far as the local Congressmen go, the bills I alluded to in my last post (H.R. 16 for Rep. Wayne Gilchrest and three for Rep. Mike Castle – H.R. 96, H.R. 97, and H.R. 334) all continue to languish in committee, with no action in the last month. But I do have three votes of interest that were recorded by the duo.

One of these was on H. Con. Res. 63 and served as the gateway to my post on the Long War. It’s the one where Wayne Gilchrest voted to cut and run (in essence) – shamefully Delaware’s Mike Castle was another “white flag Republican” that voted for the resolution. They were also in the large majority in voting for H.R. 976, the “Small Business Tax Relief Act” that passed 360-45. I read the bill and I STILL don’t understand it because it’s not in the context of the regulations it affects. (At least Maryland shows the current law!) The reason I note this is that the 45 who voted “no” are among the most conservative in the House and I’m wondering what the objection was.

On the other hand, both Castle and Gilchrest properly voted against the (so-called) Employee Free Choice Act, H.R. 800. It passed the House 246-182, but the pressure will be on these “moderates” to change their votes against EFCA and override a threatened veto by President Bush.

Maryland’s two Senators didn’t have a lot of work to show for themselves on the THOMAS website over the last month. Last week Senator Cardin introduced a trio of amendments to the 9/11 Commission recommendation adoption act (S. 4) that dealt with the National Capital Region and amending Amtrak rules, all are under consideration. For her part, Senator Mikulski’s earlier bill (S. 414, the “Cloned Food Labeling Act”) and a newer bill (S. 624, which deals with reauthorizing an act for early detection of breast and cervical cancer) are both still parked in committee.

Delaware’s Senator Joe Biden also introduced two amendments to S. 4 in the last week. S.A. 306 deals with materials shipped in “high hazard” corridors and is just additional regulation. I’m more worried about S.A. 284 myself.

S.A. 284 (to S. 4) would create the “Homeland Security and Neighborhood Safety Trust Fund” to the tune of $53.3 billion for FY 08-12. And how would this fund come up with the scratch? “(B)y reducing scheduled and existing income tax reductions enacted since taxable year 2001 with respect to the taxable incomes of taxpayers in excess of $1,000,000, and…appropriat(ing) an amount equal to such revenues to the Homeland Security and Neighborhood Safety Trust Fund.” In governmentese, soaking the rich by reducing the Bush tax cuts that have kept our economy strong. (And I don’t want to hear this class envy bullshit, the top 1% already shoulder over 1/3 of the tax burden.)

Even better, the amendment only actually allocates $3.5 billion of this fund, the other $50 billion or so is left undertermined at this time. (The pertinent part is in the upper left of the linked page.)

Just like last month, it’s no surprise that the four Democrats stuck together on votes (when Biden actually showed up, he missed a few in the last month.) The only exception came on voting to table S.A. 289, yet another amendment to S. 4. (The amendment was sponsored by Sen. Rangel and involved checking every piece of cargo coming into our ports – a herculean task.) Senator Carper voted with the Republicans to table the amendment while the other three voted to keep the amendment alive (S.A. 298 was tabled 58-38.)

So it was a fairly slow month in Congress compared to January – however, action’s getting hot and heavy in Maryland’s General Assembly. I’ll look at that later today.

Blink and you might miss them

As alluded to in my previous post last night, there is a complaint about the 2007 Shorebirds schedule provided to them by the South Atlantic League. Last year a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth occurred regarding the sheer number of times we play certain opponents while we don’t even see other teams in the league come to Perdue Stadium whatsoever. While the SAL has 16 teams including the Shorebirds, only 9 paid a visit to our humble abode last season. Missing from last year’s home schedule were Asheville, Charleston (SC), Columbus, Kannapolis, Rome, and Savannah. (In fact, we did not even play Charleston or the Georgia teams at all except for Augusta.)

Obviously this is a product of having a relatively far-flung league and single-A travel budget. While it’s not so bad for Delmarva, a Georgia trip for the Lake County Captains would be like the Bataan Death March for them. Though the 8-9 hour bus ride to Delmarva is still not a bargain for the Ohioans, their other two common destinations (Lakewood and Hagerstown) aren’t such a bad trip from the shore of Lake Erie. So we ended up seeing the Lakewood BlueClaws, Hagerstown Suns, and Lake County Captains a combined 46 times in 70 home dates. Lakewood was our most frequent guest with 18 contests over 5 separate visits.

So what does the 2007 schedule hold for the Delmarva nine? Well, the bad news is that we once again see Lake County (18 times), Lakewood (16 games), and Hagerstown (12 dates) 46 times in 70 home games. The REALLY bad news is that we have a stretch of 67 games overall from May 4 to July 16 when those three teams are the extent of our opponents. And the REALLY, REALLY bad news is that Perdue Stadium is dark from June 10 all the way through June 27 as the Shorebirds have back-to-back roadtrips to Lake County and Lakewood (in that order) sandwiched around the league All-Star break. Lakewood is our last home game prior to that stretch and the BlueClaws are the opponent upon Delmarva’s return.

The league did improve a little on 2006 though. There were three occasions where the team we finished a homestand with was the very first opponent on the next one (Lakewood once, Lake County twice.) This year, the situation only occurs for the aforementioned Lakewood games surrounding the long June road trip.

So having the first 12 games of the season at Lexington, at Hickory, and home to West Virginia will be somewhat of an anamoly for the Shorebirds. The other long stretch without our three oh-so-common opponents will be about a month from mid-July to mid-August when we’ll host Hickory, Kannapolis, Asheville, and Lexington while roadtrips take the Shorebirds to West Virginia/Greensboro and Greenville/Columbus.

Of course, the final 11 games will be with our big three, although for the first time in the three seasons I’ve lived here the Shorebirds will finish the season at home on Labor Day (hosting Lake County.)

There are a couple benefits to the unbalanced schedule though. Fans of the Phillies and Nationals will have a lot of chances to see their future talent as Lakewood is a Philadelphia affiliate and Hagerstown just switched affiliation over the winter to become a Nationals farm club. So the Maryland rivalry becomes more intense. With Lake County here so often I can keep tabs on what talent the archrival (to my Tigers) Cleveland Indians may have in the future.

However, because of this stacked schedule, if you like the Giants, Yankees, Devil Rays, Braves, Red Sox, or Mets and want to see their SAL affiliates, you’re out of luck. If you’d like to see what minor league talent the Brewers, Marlins, Pirates, White Sox, Rockies, or Astros have to offer, you only have a brief chance to see that when they come to Delmarva. Blink and you might miss them.

Bands that did well, bands that do good

Someplace on Delmarva there’s a happy group of guys (or guys and a lady) that made a lot of money last night and got a chance to become the opening act for Psychostick at Great Slates on March 16th. (They are DEFINITELY an interesting group.) Either Halflink, Project Sideways, or Semiblind got the honor, I just haven’t found out yet!

Editor’s note: I found out Halflink won. Not a surprise, they have a good fan base and are probably the heaviest of the three. I’d say they are the best “fit” as an opener for a band like Psychostick anyway.

But more importantly, Semiblind is one of nine groups that will do a benefit concert for local music promoter Tim Windsor tomorrow night (Sunday 3/4) at Seacrets. This starts at 6 p.m. and the lineup includes Pirate Radio, The Sophies, Lower Case Blues, Semiblind, Barking Crickets, Hyphen, Property, Another Vicious Cycle, and The Frauds. The reason for this benefit is to help Tim Windsor’s family get back on its feet after a house fire late last year. So these bands are helping out one of their shameless promoters, and I’ll sneak down and catch a couple of these acts as well.

Luckily I’m a shameless promoter that doesn’t need their help. Some might think I need mental help (particularly ex-wives) but, all kidding aside, this is pretty cool that these people who are likely working a couple jobs each to make ends meet and pay for studio time and such to record their songs just HOPING to get noticed by a “major” record label will give of their time to help someone a bit less fortunate.

Recent MBA news

You may have noticed this in the “Maryland Bloggers Alliance” box in the left column, but I haven’t formally had a chance to welcome the “Carter’s Adventure” blog out of Baltimore just yet. So this will certainly suffice to do so, and I believe that puts us up to the 20 mark. (I’m still the sole MBA blogger on the Eastern Shore though, so now we’re underrepresented – although I think I write enough for two blogs anyway.)

The other note I wanted to pass along is that one of my recent posts (‘So let’s get to work’. Then we’ll pick your pocket) is featured on the first Carnival of Maryland, hosted by fellow MBA member Crablaw. The next one will occur on or about March 11, and another fellow MBA member is hosting (Pillage Idiot.) But you don’t have to be an MBA member to contribute, and I can think of a few folks around here who would do well at such a thing. Sooner or later I’ll violate the “mono” part of monoblogue and host it myself, probably later in the spring. (It was suggested we proceed in order of MBA adoption once Crablaw started the process on a biweekly basis and I’m seventh in the lineup. Actually Crablaw was the next adoptee after monoblogue.)

Speaking of seventh in the lineup, while it’s not MBA news (except for any peripheral interest from fellow MBA’er Oriole Post) it’s getting time for the 2007 editions of Shorebird of the Week. I’ll return with that feature on April 5th, which also happens to be the Shorebirds’ season lidlifter at Lexington. They start our with four at Lexington and four at Hickory before the home opener on Friday, April 13 against the West Virginia Power.

I think my next post post Saturday afternoon will center around the Shorebirds’ schedule and the complaints it got last year – look for those same complaints again in 2007.

Sneak-a-tax

This was a little tidbit in the news recently. While efforts to raise the tax on a gallon of gas 50%, jack up the price of a car by up to $3,000, and add 1% to the state sales tax have grabbed headlines recently in Maryland, one legislator has come up with the bright idea of a fund that will take in the proceeds of gift cards that the state would consider forfeited property after four years.

Joseline Pena-Melnyk is the leader among 38 sponsors (none local) in the House of Delegates for H.B. 1080, which creates the “Maryland Education Fund”. By fiscal year 2012, estimated revenue from this bill would be close to $100 million. So those gift cards you may stash in a drawer and forget about will become state property in 48 months.

Of course, that’s just the start. You know that sooner or later, the General Assembly will push the time frame back to 24 months, then to 12. Regardless, when someone gives you a gift card, you already have to pay sales tax on what you buy with it (in most cases) so forfeiting the leftover dollar or two (or the entire amount if you don’t use it at all) simply amounts to a sneaky extra way for the state to dig into our collective pockets.

The hearing for the bill was held last week, but no committee vote has been held on H.B. 1080 yet.

I know the state faces a structural deficit in coming years, but could it be that maybe, just maybe, we look at ways to cut spending instead of automatically looking to the taxpayer to pick up the slack? Or, if you really must enhance revenue, start by not giving illegal immigrant children in-state tuition.

Sooner or later, the taxpayers of the state will get it. I just hope it’s before what we get is the short end of the stick shoved where the sun doesn’t shine.

Radio days

Part of this will be autobiographical and part will be news, or at least not necessarily a closely guarded secret.

I just wanted to relate my radio experience briefly because I enjoyed the chance to sit in the “hot seat”. (Actually they have rather comfortable chairs in their studio.) Just had to look at it as a conversation with a friend of mine, one that just happened to have a microphone placed between him and I. Once we got rolling I didn’t even notice it. Now I didn’t write the “top 10” post with this interview in mind, but it did turn out to be a nice conversation piece for the 20 minutes or so I was on.

I suppose if I had to do it over again I’d spent a bit less on the background part and a bit more on the issues. Felt like we had to hurry through a couple points at the end, but overall I enjoyed the experience and if Bill wants me to come back (and I have a chance to make up the hour or so of work) I’d be happy to do so. Writing on a blog I have half the night to make my points, but when talking I have to learn to compress my point into slightly smaller bites when I go through them. (Plus I had a couple trains of thought derail on me, which sometimes happens to me sitting here too.) I will have a little bit of an advantage of not needing the introduction in the future though, so that won’t be such a concern.

However, I returned to work and found out I had a cluster of folks listening at my desk and the reviews were good. Now if I could get them to listen to Rush from 12-3. Actually, poor Jen (who sits next to me) does get to hear Rush from two sides because Keith has his radio on in his office as well. But I know she brings an iPod to work so she tunes out our radios most times.

(Dirty little secret – I spend most of my day with my headphones on listening to the CD’s I bring as well, just not during the 7-8 or 12-3 slots!)

Last night I came across another local blog with an interesting angle. I met John Robinson for the first time on Tuesday because he was sitting in with Bill Reddish, sort of learning by observation how to run the computer that manages the radio program that is AM Salisbury…a push here and the traffic report comes up, then another touch for the weather, into the commercial, etc. etc. Neat to watch.

But John has a new blog called Robinson on the Radio. While he’s jumping the gun a bit, (the program doesn’t actually begin until March 12th), what they’ll do is give him the hour immediately after Rush Limbaugh at 3:00. Neal Boortz moves up to 10 a.m., which will make his show live in the Salisbury market instead of delayed several hours. Bill Reddish picks up an hour as well, and Laura Ingraham gets squeezed out.

I think it’ll be interesting to have another local host that is more focused on talk radio rather than having to juggle news, all the features, and several guests like Bill Reddish does in the morning. And since John’s got the link to monoblogue, he may have some comments about my posts – why not?

And if he (or Bill) needs a guest, I’m almost always available Fridays at that time slot, work ends for me that day at 11:00. (That’s the day I love our 9-9-9-9-4 format, plus it’s easy to make up an hour.) But I think my CD listening will be shortened by a couple hours a day come March 12 once these changes occur.