Friday, March 9, 2007

the definition of silver spring, always subject to change (updated!)

BUT FIRST: Twice in the past two days I've gotten calls from Valerie Ervin's office. "Due to daylight savings, we'd just like to confirm your appointment to meet with her on Monday," the person on the other end said each time. None of the other three County Councilmembers scheduled to meet with Just Up The Pike have been so concerned. Is Valerie Ervin's office just being overcautious - or will she and I get the last laugh when Duchy Trachtenberg fails to show because the datebook software failed? (No offense to Ms. Trachtenberg: I am fully assured of your punctuality.)

When people think of Silver Spring, they tend to think of Blair High School. I don't mean to be nitpicky, but there are at least seven other high schools that are either IN Silver Spring or at least serve parts of it.

Why state the obvious here? I'm on a high of high school pride and a little disappointed that the Penguin would, in a story about a high school battle of the bands this Saturday, call The Fighting Janes, a band with members who go to different county high schools (though, as they pointed out, all live in Silver Spring) "Silver Spring's own," whereas Subject to Change (look this one up on MySpace yourself, kids, I couldn't find it), a product solely of Blake High School (located in Silver Spring's vast McMansion fields) gets the bum's rush.

Sure, those of us Up The Pike can't relate to your stories about the Worst Safeway Ever (I rather like our Safeway at Briggs Chaney Plaza), but we want to be considered a part of Silver Spring, too. Blake's an arts school, anyway. YOU NEED US.


Silver Spring Penguin said...

Thanks for linking to The Silver Spring Penguin's coverage of The Fighting Janes.

By the way, the band left a message for you on my site.

Best wishes,

Jennifer Deseo
Editor, The Silver Spring Penguin

the zoom said...

I listened to a speech from a former congressman where he preached how bad the Republicans are in communicating there message to their base and to the public, and how the public does not know anything about what the republicans got done in the 109th congress. And while he was going on about the issues that the Republicans got done, he was also talking about the "earmarks". He explained to the conservative crowd, that "earmarks are les than one tenth of a percent of the federal budget" witch is a stunning fact that makes me wonder why this is the concern of our time in the conservative community.

As he finished his speech, I walked up to him and told him "Mr. Congressman, I might be wrong but I recall reading an article in the Wall St. Journal, about an official in CO criticizing an earmark that Sen. Allard (R-CO) inserted in a spending bill, saying that it takes away the money the State gets from the federal government." So I asked the Hon. Congressman "Is it true that when a congressman or senator inserts an earmark in a spending bill, he does not raise spending? That he just takes away the liberty from one bureaucrat to decide how to spend the money and decides himself where the money should go?"

The answer was yes.

So if earmarks do not raise spending and it's not more then one tenth of one percent of the budget, why is there so much noise about it?

Because we do not communicate, and nobody amongst us is aware of the facts. We have to start communicating, and shouldn't be afraid that someone will slam us, because if you fight back, you have a chance of winning, and if you don’t fight you don’t even have a chance of winning.