CHICAGO MERCHANDISE MART GOES GREEN

Green buildings have become the force “de jour” with many companies retrofitting their buildings to save energy and become part of the new “green” revolution.

The Chicago Merchandise Mart has gone green, retrofitting all its 4,000,000 square feet to be more energy efficient. Opened in 1930, the Mart is 4.2 million square feet contained in 24 stories. Over 20,000 people work in the Mart each day.

Due to the leadership of its owners and the City of Chicago, the Merchandise Mart is now the largest Green Building in the world. It uses 35% less water and 10% less energy than before the upgrades. And, for a building its size, the upgrades were significant:

• Most of the 4,000 windows were replaced.
• Water waste was tracked, to determine which of the 2,000 toilets needed to be replaced with more efficient ones
• Leaks in the air conditioning were tracked down and fixed, saving over $4,000 a year.
• Many of the buildings spaces were metered individually, to determine high energy use areas, and bill tenants accordingly.
• A supply shop for tenants was opened in the basement, making everything from low-vapor paints to high-efficiency bulbs available, inexpensively, to all tenants.
• Lighter carpets make rooms brighter, meaning less electricity is needed
• A Bulb-Eater in the basement eats fluorescent bulbs, contains their toxins, and produces waste bins that are recycled properly.

Photo Credit: ecogeek.org

______________________________________________________________________

While the upfront cost for upgrades may be seen as significant, the ultimate savings will compensate in years to come. Today’s newer buildings are already being built with green in mind, but thousands of older buildings exist all over our landscape – buildings that are suitable for retrofitting.

If the world’s largest retail building can “go green”, there isn’t any reason to delay retrofitting our older buildings to help meet our goal of energy conservation.

HILLARY HITS THE FORT

Yesterday Hillary Clinton came to town in what will probably be a number of stops in Indiana before our May 6th primary. The location chosen was a small diner in the Village of Coventry. What was formerly a Captain Ds was converted into Sara’s Restaurant, a family-style eatery with an atmosphere of politics and patriotism.

When I got to the restaurant at 2:00 p.m. only a few people were present. The day was sunny, but the wind was cold and biting. We signed up individuals as they strolled onto the parking lot beside the restaurant. We had initially been told that, as volunteers, we would be able to go into the restaurant for the event. It was quit disappointing to find out that this wasn’t accurate. It was also disappointing to find out that those who would be admitted had already been picked early that morning when they showed up to get a wristband. The wristband had either blue stars or red stars and entitled the wearer to enter the event.

But knowing these things are quickly planned, I stayed to help. Slowly the lot began to fill with onlookers. A sound system and stage had been set up in the parking lot. Hillary would speak to the outside crowd first from the stage and then go inside to address the crowd and answer questions.

She arrived about an hour late and signed autographs and chatted with volunteers standing in the front. I had given up at about 5:30 and left. Standing for hours on end is very difficult for me with my physical disability. When I got home though, a TV station was broadcasting the complete question and answer session being held inside the restaurant. I watched the broadcast in the warmth of my living room, admiring how well Hillary related to those in the crowd.

Photo credit: Shirley Hirt

______________________________________________________________________

She definitely excels in the smaller, more informal venue. She appeared relaxed and comfortable as she fielded various questions from the audience. I read in a few Hillary Hater blogs that the audience had been hand-picked to assure that those in the room were Hillary supporters and would not ask uncomfortble or tough questions.

I know from being in the parking lot that that was not true. As I walked around signing up people, I ran into two women who had wristlets that would enable them to enter the event. As I talked to them and asked them to sign up and volunteer, they both told me they were not voting for Hillary. They declined to sign the volunteer sheet and said they just wanted to see Hillary and ask a question. I saw the two women on TV as I watched the recap, and they were sitting about two rows in back of Hillary.

Photo credit: Shirley Hirt

____________________________________________________________________

Even though I did not stay for her actual arrival, I am sure she will return. And, I anticipate her next appearance to be a larger venue where it is nice and warm.

MARCH 29, 1973 – “THIS DAY IN HISTORY” THE U.S. WITHDRAWS FROM VIETNAM

Two months after the signing of the Vietnam peace agreement, the last U.S. combat troops left South Vietnam as Hanoi freed remaining American prisoners of war held in North Vietnam. America’s direct eight-year intervention in the Vietnam War was at an end. In Saigon, some 7,000 U.S. Department of Defense civilian employees remained behind to aid South Vietnam in conducting what looked to be a fierce and ongoing war with communist North Vietnam.

U.S. President John F. Kennedy sent the first large force of U.S. military personnel to Vietnam in 1961 to prop up the ineffectual autocratic regime of South Vietnam against the communist North. Three years later, with the South Vietnamese government crumbling, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered limited bombing raids on North Vietnam, and Congress authorized the use of U.S. troops.

By 1965, North Vietnamese offensives left President Johnson with two choices: escalate U.S. involvement or withdraw. Johnson made the ill-fated decision to escalate the war, and troop levels soon jumped to more than 300,000 as U.S. air forces commenced the largest bombing campaign in history.

During the next few years, the extended length of the war, the high number of U.S. casualties, and the exposure of U.S. involvement in war crimes, such as the massacre at My Lai, helped turn many in the United States against the Vietnam War. The communists’ Tet Offensive of 1968, three years after Johnson escalated the war, crushed U.S. hopes of an early end to the conflict and galvanized U.S. opposition to the war. In response, Johnson announced in March 1968 that he would not seek reelection, citing what he perceived to be his responsibility in creating a perilous national division over Vietnam. He also authorized the beginning of peace talks.

In the spring of 1969, as protests against the war escalated in the United States, U.S. troop strength in the war-torn country reached its peak at nearly 550,000 men. Richard Nixon, the newly-elected president, began U.S. troop withdrawal and “Vietnamization” of the war effort that year, but he intensified bombing. Large U.S. troop withdrawals continued in the early 1970s as President Nixon expanded air and ground operations into Cambodia and Laos in attempts to block enemy
supply routes along Vietnam’s borders. This expansion of the war, which accomplished few positive results, led to new waves of protests in the United States and elsewhere.

Finally, in January 1973, representatives of the United States, North and South Vietnam, and the Vietcong signed a peace agreement in Paris, ending the direct U.S. military involvement in the Vietnam War. Its key provisions included a cease-fire throughout Vietnam, the withdrawal of U.S. forces, the release of prisoners of war, and the reunification of North and South Vietnam through peaceful means. The South Vietnamese government was to remain in place until new elections
were held, and North Vietnamese forces in the South were not to advance further nor be reinforced.

In reality, however, the agreement was little more than a face-saving gesture by the U.S. government. Even before the last American troops departed on March 29th, the communists violated the cease-fire, and by early 1974 full-scale war had resumed. At the end of 1974, South Vietnamese authorities reported that 80,000 of their soldiers and civilians had been killed in fighting during the year.

On April 30, 1975, the last few Americans still in South Vietnam were airlifted out of the country as Saigon fell to communist forces. North Vietnamese Colonel Bui Tin, accepting the surrender of South Vietnam later in the day, remarked, “You have nothing to fear; between Vietnamese there are no victors and no vanquished. Only the Americans have been defeated.” The Vietnam War was the longest and most unpopular foreign war in U.S. history and cost over 58,000 American lives. As many as two million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were killed.

CONGRESSMAN SOUDER MEETS WITH LOCAL VETERANS ACTIVIST GROUP

Thursday night, Congressman Mark Souder met with our small, grass-roots group, Veterans for Better Health Care. Our group was born back in August 2004 in response to then VA Secretary Principi’s announcement that he would follow a recommendation to close our inpatient beds here at out local VA Hospital.

About 10-12 men gathered to figure out a strategy to defeat the recommendation. The group’s chosen name was “Veterans for Better Health Care.” Although I am not a veteran, that was not a criteria to join the group, so I joined in November 2004 and found myself participating each month and getting to know the veterans who were members. We did have one overriding requirement – no matter what our political persuasion, we wanted to maintain bipartisanship and avoid political affiliations. Our issue was saving the VA Hospital inpatient beds: an issue that we felt should not be subject to our own political ideologies.

Getting ready for our meeting with Congressman Souder

_____________________________________________________________________

I became our Director in October of 2005 and am still in that position. I am extremely proud and honored to be involved with this group and to be its director.

Some of our first efforts at getting the message out to the public included writing letters to the editor and handing out flyers containing our message. In April 2005, we organized a rally which was held at the World War II Victory Museum in Auburn, Indiana. The Kruses allowed us to hold the rally without charging us, which was greatly appreciated since we were a new group and had no means of financial support other than passing around a “donation can.”

The Rally was a success and drew about 150 people. We had a number of guest speakers who emphasized the need to maintain our inpatient beds, and a newly returned veteran who had been injured in Iraq also spoke. We began to become more active in area events. One of our members had an old car that he decorated with various slogans and items. He placed a mannequin on the roof of the car dressed as an injured veteran. “Oscar” as we affectionately called him, always drew comments and cheers when we took the car to parades.

The Frankes also were good to us and allowed us to hand out our flyers at hockey games in February 2006 and February 2007. That venue gave us access to thousands of individuals as they left the arena. Although we might only gain a member or two from those events, every person who joined our group was greatly appreciated. We also began to identify ourselves by wearing caps with our name and slogan “Save Our VA Hospital” and donning t-shirts with the same slogan. We wore these items when we participated in parades and events.

Our focus in all of our efforts was to keep the inpatient issue in front of the public and to put pressure on our representatives. Our particular focus, however, was to pressure Congressman Souder on the issue. Thursday night was the culmination of our efforts.

Congressman Souder’s office had contacted me about a month ago to arrange a meeting between our group and the Congressman. Frankly, I was quite surprised to receive the call, but I was also excited to think that we would have an opportunity to talk to the Congressman about the recent flap over the redacted VA Study done by Booz, Allen & Hamilton (BAH).

I had been a participant in that Study – first in a private morning meeting with about 10 other veterans’ representatives and later attending the public town hall meeting held at the Memorial Coliseum. That day’s activities – November 29, 2006 – had been arranged by local veterans’ groups and BAH. We were told that the report would be done in about six months, which would have been a due date of May 2007. May came and went with no report. The spring turned into summer and summer into fall and still no report.

The call also represented a shift in how the Congressman viewed our group. In our earlier days, we were not exactly the most welcome sight at parades and events where both the Congressman and our group appeared. When we appeared at town hall meetings or smaller local question and answer sessions, we triggered increased tension. But with this contact, we felt the Congressman truly recognized our dedication and efforts over the 3 1/2 years since our organization. He was seeking our continuing help to fight for our VA Hospital inpatient beds.

Congressman Souder at Thursday night’s meeting

___________________________________________________________________

The meeting went very well, and the Congressman spent about two hours talking to us in a small room at Post #82 – the location we chose because it was where our group began. The meeting started at 7:00 p.m., and, when I left at a little after 9:00, the Congressman was still talking to a few remaining individuals. Reports were shown on the local TV stations as well as provided in the local newspapers.

The bottom line to this is that our hospital inpatient beds are still not out of danger. The VA is doing a follow-up study on outpatient care and facilities. The delay may be beneficial, but we do not yet know that, so we cannot let down on our efforts. THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER.

As I drove home from the meeting, I kept thinking about my favorite Margaret Mead saying:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

We started as a small, grass-roots group with no funding.  But what we had was an overwhelming concern for our veterans – past, present, and future – and their care.  We put together a plan of action and kept fighting.  We still meet monthly, and we still make plans to participate in area events.  Now that the weather will be turning nicer, we will be able to get back out to parades and events.  We will not give up this fight, and we ask that you not give up either.

Congressman Souder’s office has scheduled a rally, and here are the particulars:

When: April 7, 2008 (Monday)

Where: World War II Victory Museum, Auburn, Indiana

Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Please help us once again have a successful rally in support of our VA Hospital. Do not take anything for granted. We have many veterans returning from the Middle East who will need our help and support, both in the hospital surrounding and in the community surrounding.

Please make plans to attend this rally and let the VA know we have not forgotten this battle, and we will not give up.

McCAIN AND HIS DOUBLETALK GOBBLYDYGOOK

Hillary Clinton has recently been pilloried for her representation of her trip to Bosnia as dangerous. So of course Hillary Haters have made sure a video of the Bosnian trip was plastered all over the internet to show what a “liar” (their words – not mine) she is. Well, get a load of John McCain’s doubletalk and lies.

Pay particular attention to the one were he says the Iraq war can be won easily and quickly and then turns around and says that it will take a long time. Which one is it?

McCain originally thought the Iraq war would be easy. But note how he has changed his mind. Wow, either a colossal loss of memory of what he said back in the early days or an outright lie. Will the real John McCain please stand up?

McCAIN – LOSS OF MEMORY OR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING?

John McCain made a huge gaffe while visiting in Jordan last week. McCain has based his campaign on his foreign knowledge expertise, but as this cute video shows, Joe Lieberman had to correct him. And, the correction was pretty obvious.

Boy, you would think that if you were going to talk to the cameras, you might want to make sure you had your information correct.  And from a presidential candidate to boot!

I am not sure which is worse – loss of memory or a lack of understanding.  Neither one is a good excuse for a man who touts his foreign policy experience and that he can best protect us from the terrorist threat.  Won’t be much protection if he can’t figure out which group is which.

AMERICAN WORKERS – TAKE A BACK SEAT TO DEMOCRACY-BUILDING

The United States spent two years in negotiations with Peru to settle terms of yet another free-trade agreement. These agreements have consistently been pro-corporation and pro-big business and anti-American worker. Yet our government – the President and the Congress – continue to ignore the needs of American workers in search of countries that may be exploited through the use of “Democracy-building” agreements based on our capitalistic economic system.

From the Heritage Foundation (a right-wing Think Tank):

Failure to complete the agreement would empower Latin America’s anti-democratic “21st Century Socialism” movement and strike a blow against pro-market, pro-democracy reformers in Peru and across Latin America. Approving the agreement would protect vital U.S. interests in the region and also send a strong message of hope to the people of Peru as they recover from a devastating mid-August earthquake that killed hundreds and caused millions of dollars in damage.

Peru (along with Bolivia, Colombia, and Ecuador) already has nearly complete access to the U.S. market under the Andean Trade Preference Act (ATPA) legislation. Indeed, over 90 percent of Peru’s exports to the United States currently enter duty-free. With this entrée to the U.S. market, the Peruvian economy has diversified, leading to healthy economic growth and job creation and providing alternatives to coca production and guerrilla activities, which have ravaged Peru in the past.

And the conclusion of the Heritage Foundation article says it all as to their own, warped philosophical bent:

Should Congress fail to approve the agreement as originally negotiated with Peru, the door will be open to Chavez and other populist demagogues as they pursue their damaging and aggressive economic and political assault on the American values that have produced unprecedented prosperity around the world. Failure to approve the agreement would also undercut the courageous pro-free-market leaders in Peru who have made the politically difficult decision to stand with the United States while opposing alternative regional models. Their political weakening would impact other U.S. efforts, including anti-narcotics cooperation.

Twenty-First Century Socialism is the greatest challenge the U.S. has faced in Latin America since the end of the Cold War. Congress must act to protect both the American people and the peoples of the Andean region from this destructive force.

Although this comes from the Heritage Foundation, which we would think would have this viewpoint, apparently our Congressional representatives in the House and the Senate must be buying into this warped philosophy. In the Senate, both Indiana senators, Lugar and Bayh, voted to pass the bill. Twenty-nine senators had the courage to vote against the bill. This didn’t include either one of the two front-running Democratic presidential candidates – Clinton and Obama just didn’t vote.

In the House of Representatives, the Indiana breakdown was two opposing, five in favor, and two no votes. The two courageous Democrats not supporting the agreement were Joe Donnelly and Pete Visclosky. Souder, Burton, and Pence voted in favor, which could be expected. Carson and Buyer did not vote. Of course, this would have been during the final days of Julia Carson’s illness, so we can understand why she didn’t vote. But Ellsworth and Hill – two more newly elected Democrats? Both voted for the Agreement.

All four Democrats capable of voting should have voted against this free trade agreement, but they didn’t. And on December 14, 2007, the United States – Peru Free Trade Agreement was signed into law by the president.

So yet another free-trade agreement comes into existence. Aren’t our elected officials hearing the pain of the American worker? Or is their fear of losing campaign contributions so great that they will ignore their own constituencies in promoting democracy-building throughout the world.

Here is a statement from the Whitehouse in reference to how good this will be for the Peruvian people:

By removing barriers to U.S. services and investment, the agreement will also help create a secure, predictable legal framework that will help attract U.S. investors.

These agreements are bad for the American worker. I say back to protectionism, if that’s what it takes to protect our workers. But that would require giving up many cheaply-priced goods from all corners of the world. Americans, you have to ask yourself whether or not you would support that trade-off. If not, then we are doomed to continue on the road of free-trade agreement, whether in the name of democracy-building or in the pursuit of cheap products.

Photo Credit – Wikipedia

BUSH POLICIES ENDANGER “ENDANGERED SPECIES”

Since assuming his first presidential term in 2001, George Bush has made protecting vanishing species more difficult than the two presidents before him.  The Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed in 1973 with the stated purpose of protecting species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.  The Act encompasses plants and invertebrates as well as vertebrates.

The ESA is administered by two federal agencies – the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – and contains a citizen suit clause which allows private citizens to sue the government to enforce the law. 

But the Act hasn’t stopped Bush from using bureaucratic tactics which block, prevent, and discourage listing of impending endangered species and plants.  At the higher levels of management, agencies tend to be populated by administration picks who share the views of the one who appointed them.  In this case, Bush, who has never been seen to be a friend of the environment.  Those who are at lower levels simply kowtow to their supervisors.

Photo Credit: Washington Post.com

___________________________________________________________

With agency personnel falling line with Bush’s philosophies, the administration has brought into play the following disastrous policies and procedures which fall into four categories:

1. agency personnel have been barred from using information in agency files which might support new listings
2. senior agency advisors have repeatedly dismissed the views of scientists by rejecting nominees or by removing others from the protected list
3. agency officials have changed the method by which plants and animals are placed on the list by looking at where they are now found rather than where they originally existed
4. agency officials have blocked citizen petitions which must meet critical deadlines

Despite outside interests such as farming, developers, and business work against listing of species for obvious reasons, the first President Bush and President Clinton listed an average of 58 (231 total) and 62 (521 total) species, respectively, per year during their presidencies. 

The lack of concern shown by the Bush administration is not surprising – he has almost always landed on the side of those businesses that want to raze lands for more development.  What better way to help accomplish those goals than to remove as many obstacles as possible.  The problem is that what Bush sees as obstacles in the form of endangered species others see as integral components of our environment.

ON THE ROAD AGAIN – DANIELS TO MORPH ONCE MORE

Well, we all expected it, and we knew it was coming soon to a theater community near us.  Daniels has dug out his farm hats and dusted off his down-home looking shirts and is all set to travel the state again with his dog and pony show.  Gone will be the polished suits and the CEO style that surfaced the day after his election in 2004.  Back are those quintessential Hoosier items – the farm caps – the rolled up simple cotton shirts – the “aw shucks” demeanor.

But will he travel the state again in an RV, or will he be more conventional this time around?  His RV One must be in mothballs by now although it seems I remember a flap some time ago about his use of the vehicle to attend a political event.  

With his TV commericals beginning soon, we will once again be treated to his attempts to act like “one of us.”  He simply isn’t one of us, and the sooner Hoosier voters realize that, the better off they will be. 

He no doubt will tout his accomplishments from the first couple of years when he had the support of his Republican-controlled General Assembly.  But he won’t have much to talk about for the last two years because he pretty much disappeared after the Democrats took control of the House. 

Ah, let the fun begin!

SIDESTEPPING SENATE VOTES – OBAMA’S RECORD WORST OF REMAINING THREE CANDIDATES

A measure of leadership is taking responsibility for appearing and voting for bills and resolutions.  Of the three remaining candidates, Clinton has the best record, and Obama has the worst.  Obama has been in the Senate the shortest amount of time, yet he has the worst Senate voting record of the three candidates.

Clinton has missed 7% since 2001, McCain has missed 17% since 1997, and Obama has missed 18% since 2005.  Many of the missed votes have come during heavy campaigning with all three candidates’ records showing a spike in the last half of 2007.

The following charts show the voting records of all three candidates since their election to their Senate seats. 

• The absentee rate is in red.
• The lower black dotted line shows the median value for all Members of Congress in that time period.
• The upper black dotted line shows the 90^th percentile. That is, a member above the upper dotted line is in the company of just one out of ten of his or her peers in missing that many votes.

 

Obama’s Senate voting record – missed 18% in 3 years

__________________________________________________________

McCain’s Senate voting record – missed 17% in 10 years

____________________________________________________________

Clinton’s Senate voting record – missed 7% in 6 years

____________________________________________________________

When employers look at potential employees, one of the most important factors – if not the most important factor – is reliability and showing up for work.  We should expect no less from a candidate.  While it may be physically impossible to campaign and completely fulfill the obligation to appear to vote when necessary, Clinton’s voting record shows that she has managed to balance the two competing forces much more efficiently and effectively than Obama.

An employer would not keep an employee if that employee missed almost 20% of the time.  Fortunately, voters have the luxury of knowing the voting records ahead of time and can decide whether demonstrating leadership in the performance of senatorial obligations is, indeed, important or not.  Personally,  I think it is.