Personal stuff – Page 84

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!

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.

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.

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.

Reminder (and shameless self-promotion)

Tomorrow morning monoblogue hits the airwaves. Ok, at least I do as I get to sit in Bill Reddish’s “hot seat” on WICO 1320 AM tomorrow morning at 7:40.

When Bill and I set this up, it was ostensibly to give my take on the City Council election tomorrow, but I’m sure we’ll touch on the local blogosphere and maybe a little bit on state politics as well. Hey, it’s his radio show, and as Rush Limbaugh likes to say about his radio show’s callers, I’m just there to make Bill look good. So we’ll see what happens.

Odds and ends no. 7

A little bit on a lot of subjects tonight, with some help from the Sun and Gazette.

Today Governor O’Malley testified in favor of Maryland repealing its little-used death penalty, which is already on hiatus following a Court of Appeals ruling late last year. But there was a good point made by State Senator Nancy Jacobs, who related that David McGuinn, already serving a life sentence, stands accused of murdering a guard at the Maryland House of Correction last July. Jacobs noted that if McGuinn is convicted that this killing would be “a freebie for him” if the death penalty were repealed since the state would have no higher punishment available.

Personally, I thought the statistics cited by O’Malley were dubious at best, particularly on the cost of housing the inmate vs. the lengthy appeals and court battles that seem to be necessary to see justice served. It’s the tying up courts with endless and sometimes frivilous appeals that adds to the cost of the death penalty, and a limitation on the number of appeals would cut the cost significantly.

Leaving aside the irony that the party pushing the rights of people tried and convicted of taking another’s life in cold blood is also the one who advocates keeping the wholesale slaughter of unborn babies legal, I think the death penalty needs to stay and does serve as a deterrent. Further, it’s because of DNA testing and other forensic advances that Kirk Bloodsworth and others have come off death row, so the argument that an innocent person may be executed rings much more hollow as well.

Speaking of pushing rights of people tried and convicted, hearings are set for at least one bill that would repeal the three-year waiting period already in place for multiply-convicted felons who have served their sentence to regain voting rights. The gentleman who was quoted in the story only has to wait a few more months to be legally granted the right under Maryland’s current law anyway – and had he been convicted of just one count he’d already be eligible. Interestingly enough, the bill also removes the prohibitations on people convicted of buying and selling votes to regain the franchise.

And of course, here’s more voting madness brought to you by Maryland Democrats. As expected, the early voting bill cleared the House of Delegates 101-31. On the majority side locally were the three Democrats (Cane, Conway, Mathias) and Page Elmore, while Delegates Addie Eckardt and Jeannie Haddaway correctly voted against this measure. (A similar bill passed the State Senate 31-16, and I’m guessing both our Senators were in the minority simply because that roll isn’t on the General Assembly website quite yet.) As I’ve said before, there’s no need for this early voting when we already have “shall-issue” absentee ballots. Those multi-vote bus trips to Ocean City for inner-city Baltimore residents who get the (also legal) “walking-around” money from their Democrat ward heelers might not be as much a joke as I thought when I came up with that analogy.

I’ll put an end to the bad news from Annapolis for tonight by commenting that not only are Democrats trying to pick up votes through the devious means of adding convicted felons to the registered voter list and allowing them weeks to vote as many times as necessary, they’re also trying to buy union votes by ramming through a so-called “living wage” – that hearing was yesterday and all of the anti-business types made it to testify. While state Labor Secretary Tom Perez stated that the goal of this effort was to “strengthen and grow the middle class”, this will certainly make state contracts more expensive by arbitrarily increasing the salaries of particular workers in private companies, and in turn discourage bidders on state contracts who don’t want to deal with the additional red tape – fewer bidders means less competition and higher bids. And of course taxes have to pay for these contracts. So the state puts money in some middle-class pockets but takes it out of a whole lot more of them through higher costs. Plus, see for yourself the bill’s enforcement provisions, which sound like they could be a real good witch hunt against a business who may innocently slip up.

And before I finished, I wanted to make some comments on the coverage of last night’s candidate forum. Apparently my assumption that “Cato” and Joe Albero were both present was correct, as were commenters from Duvafiles – “sneeky peek”, “sbygal”, and “iyeska” – based on what they added to Bill Duvall’s post.

Saying that, I’m a bit disappointed by the bloggers’ heavy emphasis on how poorly Gary Comegys did. Like it or not, I do have to agree with what Tim Spies said this morning on Bill Reddish’s radio show – most voters in Salisbury get their news from the Daily Times so all that they know about Gary Comegys from last night is that he essentially ran on his record. The DT also pegged Terry Cohen as a tax raiser, as well as citing Louise Smith and Tim Spies’ calls for an Adequate Public Financing Ordinance. This effectively plasters the reformers with a high-taxation label. Meanwhile, John Harris and John Atkins were placed in the “growth pays for growth” camp that the current City Council people seem to believe is the case (giving out TIF’s to developers aside.) This implies that they’ll not pass along what are sure to be increased city costs to taxpayers.

This election is not just a referendum on one City Councilman. And Joe, because of what I’ve stated above I doubt Gary will finish out of the top six as you think he will – in fact I’m of the opinion he’ll be the number one vote getter in the primary, solely on name recognition. It’s a lot like people think about Congress – Congress as a whole is terrible and corrupt, but my Congressman isn’t one of those terrible and corrupt people.

While we as bloggers are gaining influence in the city of Salisbury, I’d still guess that 80% of the voters in Salisbury couldn’t name one of the local blogs. Obviously our writing community is one made up of people who are more than average in the motivation department; otherwise, I wouldn’t sit here for two hours writing this, perusing the Maryland media for backup items to my assertations while trying to make this effort sound like one that makes sense to the reader AND one they enjoy reading. The same sort of thing applies to my cohorts, who spend a lot of time on their websites as well.

So when bloggers complain about the lack of balance in the regular media, they need to avoid being the pots that call the kettle black. While as a group they may not like the actions of “Bubba” Comegys, they also need to give reasons that people should vote FOR the alternative candidates too.

One final note. Speaking of the regular media, yours truly is going to get a crack at it on Tuesday morning. I’ll be filling the “hot seat” at 7:40 on Bill Reddish’s AM Salisbury radio program (1320AM, WICO). This is literally hot off the press, so there’s a scoop for you all.

On the AIA and green architecture

As I mentioned a couple weeks back, I’m once again a member of the American Institute of Architects. Today in my work inbox was the usual weekly update from the AIA, and its major point of emphasis was a webcast tomorrow called “The 2010 Imperative: Global Emergency Teach-In.” Needless to say, I think I’ll pass. But I looked into the “2010 Imperative” and here’s one key point for educators at the college level:

Beginning in 2007, add to all design studio problems that “the design engage the environment in a way that dramatically reduces or eliminates the need for fossil fuel.”

But wait, there’s more…

By 2010, achieve a carbon-neutral design school campus by:

implementing sustainable design strategies (optional – LEED Platinum / 2010 rating)
generating on-site renewable power
purchasing green renewable energy and/or certified renewable energy credits (REC’s, Green Tags), 20% maximum.

The impetus behind this webcast is a group called Architecture 2030, headed by New Mexico architect Edward Mazria. With his doomsday scenario of claiming the built environment is a key cause of global warming, Mazria has convinced the AIA (among others) to adopt what’s called the 2030 Challenge, where “all new buildings, developments, and major renovation projects be designed to use half the fossil fuel energy they would typically consume. Then, the fossil fuel reduction standard for all new buildings should be increased to 60 percent in 2010, 70 percent in 2015, 80 percent in 2020, 90 percent in 2025, and carbon-neutral by 2030.”

But it doesn’t stop there. Why am I not surprised?

“To support this effort, (Mazria) suggests the establishment of a mandatory, full-year, studio-based program in architecture schools to promote problem-solving ideas based on understanding the relationship between nature and design. He also states that major reductions in the emissions can result from using low-embodied energy materials, technologies, and processes. Mazria encourages that architects, designers, and planners accept the challenge and responsibility of carbon-neutral architecture and building construction.”

Let me say right here that I’m a huge skeptic about the theory the global warming is manmade. The people who are making these wild estimates of global sea levels rising 20 feet are the same bunch who predicted all those hurricanes last summer. But…no hurricanes hit the U.S. in 2006. And these same Chicken Little arguments have been made for the past 20 years or so, foretelling doom if we don’t act by a certain date. And when that date comes and goes, they still predict the same dire results, just 20 years hence. (I can just see the comment fellow MBA member Jeremy at The Voltage Gate has about all of this.)

One weapon the AIA has in enforcing its beliefs onto the membership at large is their requirement for continuing education. They began the trend and have convinced most states (including Ohio, where I’m currently licensed; and Maryland, to which I’ve applied) to compel architects to take a certain number of hours of continuing education yearly in order to maintain their good standing with both the AIA and the state(s) they’re registered in. And a heavy dose of their coursework works into the AIA pet theory that only green architecture can save Planet Earth.

Now don’t get me wrong, I really don’t have a problem with looking for energy efficiency and using sustainable materials when it’s possible. But, let’s face it, in order to comply with all of these pie-in-the-sky mandates they wish for, it’s going to cost clients a boatload of money. And this is the reason the AIA is also heavily into lobbying the federal government to force owners and developers into these high-dollar items by mandating their usage, like the steps that would need to be taken for carbon-neutrality.

If you ever pick up and read an architecture magazine, you’ll see that most projects in them won’t talk about the budget that the architect fortunate enough to have his or her work featured “labored” under. Generally, these designers are lucky enough to have clients with deep pockets. And those clients will have the money to spend on making these buildings carbon-neutral. But most of us toil with developers who want to squeeze the maximum amount of profit from a project with minimum cost to them. They, in turn, have contractors who have a certain way of doing things that they’ve always done and hate change. And both these groups already look at the architect as a necessary evil, who they need solely to get the drawings sealed and the building permit secured.

Personally, I’d rather the AIA look less at green architecture and more at quality architecture and design. Spend more time lobbying for a renewal of good craftsmanship so that even an “average” job is done in a way that will last more than a decade. Let’s talk about real-world problems like liability and tort reform, shortening the statute of repose period, or reducing the amount of red tape the average architect has to go through to get permits because of excessive government regulation. I’ll accept all the lobbying you’ve done for continuing education (grudgingly) if you lobby for someone like me who would like to practice in three states and feels he should be able to seamlessly – after all, I passed the identical test people in those states did to get registered.

On a more personal level, I didn’t see it as an important enough subject for its own chapter in my 50 year plan, but I’d love to see a return to quality and craftsmanship being a factor in people’s everyday consumer choices rather than just the lowest price. Unfortunately, society today has almost every possible price point available to it for a particular good but in most cases high quality is difficult to find. It’s almost like we’ve accepted that our cordless phone will not work in three years or our TV in six. Or we figure that the car’s going to be recalled someplace along the line.

This feeling of mine probably comes about because I’m sort of a perfectionist. While I’m certainly not the smartest architect out there or the greatest designer, I still hate making mistakes and when I’m told I’ve made a drawing set or a spec book that’s damn near bulletproof, that makes my day. So I wish the AIA would quit making the mistake of believing these people who claim the sky is about to fall (or maybe better put, the ocean’s about to engulf half of our coastline) and place emphasis on what should be their number one task – helping us practitioners succeed.

President’s Day appeal

I actually wrote this piece about 2 weeks ago (on the day before Reagan’s birthday) as an e-mail to my fellow GOP office holders and a few other candidates. To date I’ve received more responses telling me that my mail has bounced back to me than responses to the actual e-mail (exactly ONE.) It’s a pretty sad state of affairs.

You’ll understand what I’m attempting to do once you read this message. By the way, through the magic of postdating my post, I’m sitting here Sunday morning doing this but the post will come up at midday Monday. In reality I should be sitting at work when this posts, because I’m a member of the productive private sector!

So here is the appeal I sent out to perhaps 30 to 40 people. Let me know if you’re interested yourself or know someone who is…

Greetings to my fellow Central Committee members, and others:

With today being the eve of Ronald Reagan’s birthday, I thought this would be a great time to recommit ourselves to the task of building our local Republican Party. Among other things about this great President, he inspired me to get involved in my local political scene. Naturally the outlet I chose once I learned of the opportunity was joining my local Young Republican chapter.

It is part of our task as Central Committee members to “establish and support Republican clubs.” While there is a Lower Shore Young Republican Club, insofar as I know it’s currently inactive and this leaves a serious void in getting our message to resident voters between the ages of 18 and 40. And let’s face it, the membership in the “regular” GOP organizations is graying. It’s time to start to rebuild the party structure here lest we begin to suffer the demographic decline that already affects the Democrat Party.

So today is the day we need to recommit ourselves as a group to building up the Lower Shore Young Republicans. I’m starting this by seeking contact information for those folks you know who could be interested in giving the Lower Shore club a boost. (This is also why I’ve added other former candidates and elected officials to the mailing list; some of their younger campaign volunteers or they themselves would also be likely to want to join the reestablished YR club.) Once I can get a database of current members and other who are interested, we can begin the work of making this club more active.

Because I’m (barely!) over the age of 40, I technically cannot be a member of the Lower Shore Young Republicans. However, I’m willing to take some time to be a facilitator and mentor to this group, as I was a member of the Toledo Metropolitan Area Young Republican Club from 1995-2001 and served as TMAYRC President in 2000. So I have a little bit of expertise on the subject, and I’m sure the state chapter would help with whatever blanks we would need to have filled in.

I did a little bit of research over the weekend. There are 36,282 registered GOP voters between Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester counties. Based on the Wicomico numbers, roughly 1/4 of these are considered active voters, and about 1/8 of that active group are between 18-40. That leaves about 1,100 voters in the tri-county area who fit both categories. (There’s probably more now as many have just registered and voted in 2006, my information on active voters is pre-election.)

But a good club can be formed and run with 25 dedicated people – that’s just 2% of these voters. And as the group becomes more active, more people join, and more can be accomplished.

A modest YR club can be just a gathering of people who meet on a regular basis to socialize and discuss political issues. As they become larger and/or more ambitious, they can add to this effort by sending their representatives to state conventions. The next step would be campaign involvement – volunteering as a group to start, then taking the step to assist in fundraisers (eventually hosting their own). Some ambitious YR members may run these campaigns or even become candidates themselves for local or state offices.

Eventually, a YR group can become large enough to host a state convention or hold standalone events for the general public like a Ronald Reagan Birthday Party or their own straw poll. I know all this because I was a member of a club that did all of these things. At our peak, we had about 55 registered members. While the base population is smaller here than in Toledo, the Lower Shore is also far more Republican.

What the reformed Lower Shore Young Republican Club will do is totally up to them. But this is the perfect time to push for a renewal. We’re already seeing the disastrous effects of Democrat leadership on the state and local levels, yet we have plenty of time to build momentum for a big push in 2008 for the Presidential election and then again in 2010 for our next state election.

One reason I ran for my Central Committee post was to get more youth involved in the party, because of my firm belief that our next two generations can be the ones who return the country to the path our Founding Fathers intended. Thus I apologize for the length of this communication; however, America’s freedom is a subject I’m damn passionate about.

So here’s how you can help. If you know of people who would be interested in becoming a YR, please get their contact info to me – heck, forward them this note if you want and they can put in the effort. My e-mail address is michael@monoblogue.us.

Right now, in our state our party has nothing, and on a federal level we only have the Presidential post assured for two more years. When you have nothing, you have nothing to lose. But our nation has everything to lose if we don’t begin to act.

Sincerely,

Michael Swartz

Member, Wicomico County Republican Central Committee

Let’s see if this does any better at creating a database for me to work from. As I said, I can’t be a member because I’m over the age but I can be the person who helps get things underway again. Despite the voting record of some of our GOP representatives (who shall remain nameless, you know who you are) we at the grassroots can create a push to reinvent the GOP if the youth want it to be reinvented in a manner to become more reflective of its principles. Reinventing the party and making it a majority locally, statewide, and nationally is the goal I’m out to achieve.

Questions, problems, thoughts, opinions, or comments?

With thanks to my 9th grade science teacher, Mr. Geer, I’ll paraphrase his pet saying…(it was actually “Are there any questions, problems, thoughts, opinions, or comments before we get started?”)

It was pointed out to me yesterday that I’m tough to get a hold of for comments and such that pertain to monoblogue but not necessarily the post at hand. So near the top of my left-hand column from now until I decide on a different template (which may be awhile, I like this “Journalized Sand” one), I’ve posted the e-mail address that goes with monoblogue. And in response to my person from yesterday, I promise to check it more!! (You’ll see another reason why tomorrow.) In fact, I’ll do it as soon as I finish this post.

Also, thanks to my commenters regarding the local blogosphere post. I enjoyed moderating them. But don’t stop if you have more to say!!

sigh It’s all coming down to this?

There are days I wonder if the “golden era” of Eastern Shore blogs has come and gone, with little real change effected.

I just checked my “favorites” list and under “Eastern Shore Blogs” I have 18 different blogs listed. Now let me see…we have Salisbury News, operated by one Joe Albero. Because of his, shall we say, attitude, we have now FOUR bloggers (by my count) who started their blogs to take issue with his. And this doesn’t count Gunpowder Chronicle who has his own differences with Joe but also writes on a number of other topics instead of being all anti-Joe, all the time.

And then we have the grandfather of the local bloggers, Duvafiles, which up until yesterday had its own parody site called Duvalies. (As of today it’s now a private website.) One person who’s been suspected of being the operator of Duvalies formerly had his own website called Justice For All?, that man being former County Executive candidate Charles Jannace. He shut down JFA? after the election, joining the ranks of other late lamented blogs like Fertilizer for our Bay and Westside Wisdom.

Looking to the east in Worcester County, it’s pretty much an all-out flaming war between three of their local blogs as the folks behind Worcester, WorcesterRight, and Integrity Matters Only Sometimes are battling in and out of their various comment sections. When I noted a comment about one of these folks becoming “the Joe Albero of Worcester County” I started to wonder if the local blogging scene has jumped the shark.

To change gears a bit, I’m going to take all of my readers back and do a little bit of history as far as the local blogging scene goes. This history is as good as my memory is, so maybe a better term would be a “narrative.”

The first local blog I became aware of was Duvafiles. What got me started reading it was the hullabaloo back in early 2005 when Bill Duvall made his infamous “wetback” comment that got him in a lot of hot water. Being of fair mind, I was curious about the context that it was written in, and I enjoyed his use of the various character names for local personalities.

A month or two later, I discovered the original Delmarva Dealings site along with the Justice For All? site and started perusing those and commenting occasionally. This was also about the time I started my original blog called ttown’s right wing conspiracy. So there were only a handful of local sites back then, plus one that wasn’t truly local but run by a local native who lived upstate called Goldwater’s Oracle. Now it’s known as Gunpowder Chronicle.

About the fall of 2005, a certain commenter and photographer who posted frequently with Charles Jannace became fairly well known. His name was Joe Albero. Together they blew the lid off problems at the Salisbury wastewater treatment plant and at the Salisbury Zoo. I suppose it can be argued that in the next year or so both these men became local celebrities and they parlayed their newly found fame in different directions. With help from Joe Albero, Charles Jannace entered the political arena; and with help from Jannace’s website, Albero branched out into his own site, originally known as National Joe-A-Graphic but evolving into what’s now known as Salisbury News.

Meanwhile, new players came into the local blogging scene. Delmarva Dealings left us for awhile but returned late last year. Crabbin’ and Delmar DustPan were among the most-read out of about 8-10 blogs that debuted in the early part of last year, and both are still around. It wasn’t until close to the end of the year, after a nasty divorce of sorts between Jannace and Albero, that many of these new bloggers came online. These anti-Albero blogs (The Maryland Townie, Paranoia and the Homunculus Photographer, Joey Albero is an American Idol, and Yh8 are four) became bases on which to flame Albero while Joe worked on trying to “out” the people behind them.

So we have the abovementioned feuds going on. It makes for (sometimes) interesting reading but unfortunately all of this infighting is what’s giving the blogging “profession” a black eye.

Now I sit here and toil on a little website that I call monoblogue. Like the rest of these folks, I’m based out of the Salisbury area. But I like to think I’m just a little different, particularly since I don’t focus on local issues as much as the Albero site does, nor do I focus on personalities like the anti-Albero sites do. I suppose some of this is because I’m part of a larger group of bloggers throughout the state of Maryland. If you look at the members of the Maryland Bloggers Alliance, you’ll find that I’m politically way to the right of a few of them, particularly Bruce at Crablaw and Stephanie at Jousting for Justice.

But when we in the MBA have disagreements, we focus on the argument and not the personalities behind them. We treat each other with respect and complement each other when it’s due. It’s actually a nice experience sometimes to get through the “Eastern Shore Blogs” part of my reading and on to the “Maryland Bloggers Alliance” folder I have. At times I get through the Eastern Shore blogs and feel like I need a shower. (And I’m sure that some people will read this and start slinging blame at others.)

Now I’ve never met any of my MBA cohorts; however, I have met a few local bloggers, including Charles Jannace when he was still on his JFA? site. On a few occasions, I have played pool with Joe Albero and a group of friends; also, I’ve met “Cato” from Delmarva Dealings and may be working more closely with him on certain items in the future. I have zero problems with them personally, but that could be a matter of being relatively close in our political views. It could be that I’d get along with my fellow bloggers on the left, but there would have to be more civility shown than I’ve seen on some of their sites.

I guess the other comment I have is about “outing” bloggers and commenters. In most cases, I’ve commented either with my full name or under “Michael” which is probably just as good. (It depends on how I’m signed up for the website.) So it’s not like I hide what I say behind some assumed name. Besides, I also keep a log of what I consider my best comments here. (Just click on “My feedback” under Internal Links.) It’s also no secret that I already hold a political position, and I have a disclaimer that notes that my views aren’t necessarily those of the Wicomico County Republican Party. I don’t speak for them and Lord knows they don’t always speak for me!

But it’s needless to say that I’m becoming quite disappointed with most of the local blogging scene, as it’s sinking down to the level of “gotcha!” politics. With the Salisbury City Council elections upcoming (and national ones on the horizon), now is not the time for the Eastern Shore blogs to descend to the level of tabloids. Many complained about the Daily Times and how it slants the news, but right now the local blogs are hardly better. And because I get tarred with their brush anyway (anyone remember Ron Alessi? Or the situation with the Wicomico County Republican Club?) I’m taking it on myself to call bullshit on that. It’s time for all you children to settle down and play nice.

Weekend of local rock volume 2

I’m a day or two late with these pix, but I did get out on Saturday night to Brew River for the delmarvanightlife.com 2nd Anniversary party. In all nine bands were featured on two stages: Nate Clendenen, Barking Crickets, Lime Green, The Making, Project Sideways, Lower Class Citizens, Falling From Failure, Hot Box, and Hard$ell. For much of the evening I was at the River Stage which had LG, PS, FFF, and Hard$ell. But I did sneak over to the Main Stage to catch a few songs from the other groups and take pictures of them as well. I ended up getting good pictures of five of the nine groups.

Barking Crickets, who I caught a little bit of for the second weekend in a row.

Lime Green opened the River Stage with a good alternative sound.

I only caught a little bit of The Making, just enough to get the picture.

Project Sideways did a great song called 'Wasted Dreams'.

These three guys, Falling From Failure, played some really good hard stuff, too.

Probably the best of the ones I saw was Project Sideways, but most of them I’d see again if I got the opportunity and had a few bucks in my pocket. Most of the bands that were there Saturday night are linked from monoblogue.

Oh, sorry about having the pix screwed up for a bit…server went down (again) for a brief time and I had to remember how to get to my HTML editor, which works much better for me when I post pictures up!

Not sure when the next show I’ll hit will be. I may decide to wait until a week from Sunday when guitarist extraordinaire Gary Hoey plays a concert at Seacrets. (This right after a guitar virtuoso of another stripe, B.B. King, brings Lucille in to play at the Civic Center.) Regardless, the local music scene is now a whole lot hotter than the weather!