Maryland’s energy investment is paying off Re: “Md. Spends $2.3m on renewable energy for $637,000 in savings,” Nov. 22
How would you like to earn $4 for every dollar you invest? Contrary to this headline, that’s the financial benefit Marylanders are receiving from the state’s investment in residential renewable energy grants.
The 4,000 Marylanders who have already installed solar, geothermal and wind systems at their homes will save $9.6 million over the next 15 years. In addition to reducing monthly electric bills, these systems improve local air quality, enhance grid security and reliability, expand Maryland’s electricity supply, and have supported over 1,000 local installation jobs.
The Maryland Energy Administration does not receive any state tax dollars, instead relying principally on the proceeds from the sale of regional greenhouse gas allowances and federal grants.
I encourage Examiner readers to join the thousands of Marylanders who are taking advantage of our programs, including low-interest energy efficiency loans for businesses and non-profits, a green building tax credit, residential renewable grants, and rebates for home electric vehicle chargers, among others.
Malcolm Woolf
Director,
Maryland Energy Administration
Annapolis, Md.
‘Halo effect’ distorts candidates’ qualifications
As a retired professor of American Government and psychology, I am concerned that the public’s support for presidential incumbents or candidates is too often based on irrational factors. The psychological dynamic at work is the “halo effect”: the tendency to generalize specific character traits to unrelated details of personality.
Thus John F. Kennedy’s physical attractiveness translated positively into leadership potential, and Barack Obama’s verbal fluency made him seem “the smartest guy in the room.” Obviously, such “judging a book by its cover” behavior can lead to disastrous electoral consequences.
Just as the halo effect promotes positive, but not necessarily justified perceptions for the incumbent president, it also benefits his leading challengers. Mitt Romney and Rick Perry both have the same matinee idol looks as Kennedy. Attractive people are undeniably viewed as more likable and charismatic, receiving more praise than is earned and less criticism than is justified.
But in evaluating chief executives, physical attractiveness, charm, and oratorical ability mean nothing. What really matters are their spoken pronouncements, their policy initiatives, and most importantly, their on-the-job results. Focusing on the wrapping paper rather than the package beneath will continue to give us the leaders we deserve.
Neil Bright
Napanoch, N.Y.
Candidates should have to text their answers
After watching the GOP debates, it seems that politicians cannot get to the point. Is there a ban on concise, direct answers that we don’t know about?
Let’s try a new, digital-age format. Each podium should have a keyboard and a 60-inch screen that would show digitally such verbal questions as:
“What would you do about Social Security?”
“What is your position on the Patriot Act?”
“Explain the Second Amendment.”
“Name the 57 states.”
The moderator would key in a follow-up question to specified candidates, depending on the opacity of their responses, and a control board would prevent the texting from getting out of hand. With this method, candidates would have to be direct – or be silent.
Nicholas Guyol
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
