|
|
|
Penny-wise, pound-foolish
|
| | |
Wednesday, November 19th, 2008 at 11:45pm
|
Just when you think government can't get any more
arrogant...
Okay, let's say you're a revenue collector for a city that charges its residents for their water usage every month. And
it comes to your attention that your automated bill-collection software has automatically sent out a demand-for-payment,
at the cost of 42 cents in postage, to a blind woman who mistakenly underpaid an earlier water bill by -- get this -- a
penny. One penny. One red cent. And just as it does with all the other demands-for-payment letters it sends out, the
automated bill-collection software threatened this woman with late fees and possibly even a lien on her house if she didn't
pay this one-cent balance by a specific date.
Do you...
A.) Apologize for the oversight, waive the penny, and set up your bill-collection software so that it doesn't
bother sending out letters for balances lower than the cost of a postage stamp, or...
B.) Refuse to budge and tell the local newspaper that this lady owes the city a penny, and she's going to pay the
city that penny or face the consequences.
The City Collector of South Attleboro, Massachusetts,
chose Option B.
She chose... poorly.
Yes, a debt is a debt and a bill is a bill. But there are so many better ways they could have handled this, ways that
wouldn't have turned this city's government into an international laughing-stock. (The story was linked up on the
Drudge Report yesterday.) It was a one-time situation involving a blind
lady, fer cryin' out loud, and was probably just a mistake on her part. If you can't make a one-time exception and
waive that penny in this case, when can you? And if you insist on sticking with the principle of the matter, fine. Tack
that penny onto the next month's bill and let her pay it then. But threatening her with late fees and a lien on her house
over such a tiny balance is just utterly ridiculous. It's the sort of act that only makes sense if you're an arrogant
government agent who believes that your job is to rule and reign over the taxpayers rather than serving them.
Reading this story almost immediately brought to my mind a more local example of extreme government arrogance, the
multi-year fight between the town of Melbourne Beach and Thijs Stelling, the owner of the Melbourne Beach Chevron.
You remember the story... several years ago, Stelling wanted
to buy the land next door to expand his locally-owned-and-operated gas station and service station to have a bigger
convenience store and more service bays. He lined up the financing to get it done, but the town government told him "No" for
ridiculously short-sighted reasons, basically just because they had the power to do so, but citing concerns that the
expanded locally-owned gas station would damage the small-town charm of the business district. They then changed their
minds back and forth several times, dragging out the process to ridiculous lengths and causing Stelling to lose his
financing offer due to the lenghty delays. By the time the town government finally stopped jerking Stelling around and
gave their final approval to the expansion, Stelling had already given up and had entered into an agreement to sell his
land to Walgreens instead so they could put up a big white corporate box of a drugstore in the middle of downtown Melbourne
Beach. And suddenly the town was embroiled in a legal fight over the character of its central business district as they
scrambled to keep Walgreens out.
That saga finally sputtered to an end earlier this month. Stelling, frustrated with the fight to keep him from selling
his own land to Walgreens, finally decided to go
back to Plan A. He lined up new financing, made sure the town would still allow him to expand his gas station as he
originally wanted to do, and told Walgreens the land was off the market. It's a happy ending for pretty much all involved:
Stelling gets to expand his gas station, and the business district keeps its small-town charm. Except that the town could've
had this exact same ending years ago, minus the hefty legal fees and harsh feelings, if they'd just allowed Stelling to do
what he wanted to do with his own land and property to begin with. Instead, they fell into the arrogant trap of seeing
Stelling as a subject to rule over, rather than seeing him as a citizen to serve.
These two cases are excellent examples of governments that are penny-wise but pound-foolish. We the people are in
charge. We the people elect these officials to serve us, not to look down upon us and serfs and subjects to
be controlled and ruled. And when governments forget this fact, we the people often find surprising ways of fighting
back against their arrogance and idiocy. In South Attleboro, the blind citizen Eileen Wilbur fought back by taking the case
public and embarrassing the city. They'll get their penny, but at a far more costly price. In Melbourne Beach, the town
government denied Stelling's property rights on the grounds that expanding his locally-owned business would somehow destroy
the local flavor of the downtown area, and his frustrated response almost brought about the very scenario they claimed they
were trying to avoid.
We the people are in charge. And woe be upon anyone in government who forgets that simple fact.
|
| | |
Tuesday, November 18th, 2008 at 8:45am
|
|
"Though no one can go back and make a brand new start, anyone can start from now and make a brand new ending."
- Carl Bard |
|
(Yes, I'm back. Watch for hot updating action later today.)
|
|
November 4th general election round-up
|
| | |
Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 at 1:00pm
|
Bad blogger! No cookie for you.
I feel really, really dumb about this, but I just didn't leave myself with enough time to do full write-ups on the
entire ballot for the general election. I really need to allocate more time to keeping this blog going for the future.
But for now, I at least want to get my election choices out into the public record. It's better than nothing, I suppose.
As I said back in August, if you've taken the time to educate yourself on the candidates and issues, make sure you get
out there and vote! But if you haven't taken the time to educate yourself, stay the hell away from voting booths.
'Kay, thanks.
You can click here for sample ballots that you can print off and
take with you. All you have to do is select your precinct number. If you're not sure what your precinct
number is, it should be on your voter ID card, or you can click here to
find your precinct number. And if you're not sure where to go to vote,
click here for a list of voting locations.
All polls will be open from 7:00am to 7:00pm. If there's a line at your precinct towards the end of the day, just
make sure you get in line before 7:00pm and you'll still be allowed to vote.
Oh, and of course, later tonight you can click these next two links to get results
from the Brevard County election office or
from the state's election office. The first link will only give you totals in
Brevard County, and a lot of the districts being voted on today spill over outside of Brevard, so that's why you'll need
the state link to get the complete picture.
PRESIDENT
Bob Barr (Libertarian)
First time I've voted Libertarian in the Presidential race. I've been registered Libertarian for close to 6 years now,
but I voted for Dubya in '04. I oppose Barack Obama on almost every issue, but I don't fear an Obama presidency nearly as
much as some people do. If this country survived Carter, it can survive Obama. And while McCain beats out Obama, he's just
not that strong a conservative. I like Sarah Palin better, but she's not at the top of the ticket; McCain is. And I have to
vote for the candidate who I agree with the most, and in this race, that's Bob Barr. And no, don't tell me it's a wasted
vote. I'm voting for the candidate in this race who I agree with the most. How is that a wasted vote?
US HOUSE DISTRICT 15
Frank Zilaitis (No Party)
Blythe is too liberal. Lowing is too inexperienced. And Posey is just too connected to the Republican establishment
and would most likely be more of the same, though he'd still be an improvement over Weldon. But Zilaitis, despite his
lack of direct experience, has the legal skills, the drive, and the conservative governing philosophy to serve Brevard
County quite well. He's also the strongest FairTax supporter in the race. Bonus!
STATE SENATE DISTRICT 24
Kendall Moore (D)
Thad Altman has been downright snaky in this campaign and is about as slick as a politician can get. We need to keep
him out of politics before his dirty tactics give the conservative movement an even bigger black eye. Problem is, Moore's
campaign has been only marginally better. If Moore wins, there's a very good chance I'll be voting against him in the
next election anyway. But I just can't bring myself to vote for Altman.
STATE HOUSE DISTRICT 31
John Tobia (R)
I'm not a fan of Tobia... there are serious
questions about his residency, honesty and financial backing. But there are no other opponents in this race except
for a Write-In candidate who probably only ran to keep the Republican primary from being an open primary. Might as well
vote for Tobia, but he starts out on thin ice with me.
SHERIFF
Jack Parker (R)
See my detailed write-up on this race.
PROPERTY APPRAISER
Larry Hughes (D)
See my detailed write-up on this race.
TAX COLLECTOR
Laura Dils (D)
See my detailed write-up on this race.
SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
Lori Scott (R)
See my detailed write-up on this race.
COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT 3
Trudie Infantini (R)
See my detailed write-up on this race.
PALM BAY CITY COUNCIL SEAT 2
William Capote
Capote is the only candidate in this race with a website that actually bothers to explain anything about his stands
on the issues. He's already active and involved in Palm Bay, and should do well on the City Council.
PALM BAY CITY COUNCIL SEAT 3
Bruce Wechsler
Bruce is always on my "must-vote" list when he's on the ballot. He's a tireless champion for smaller government
and increased freedom, and we need more people like him in office.
STATE AMENDMENTS
NO on #1
A Yes vote would take away the ability of the state government to pass any laws at all regarding illegal immigrants
owning property. Who thought this was a good idea? Yikes.
NO on #2
A Yes vote would define marriage in Florida as being between a man and a woman. I think government needs to stay out of
regulating marriages anyway, so this doesn't belong in the Constitution.
NO on #3
A Yes vote would mean that if a homeowner made improvements to their home to either make it stronger against hurricanes
or more energy-efficient, the county Property Appraiser would not be allowed to consider those improvements in determining
the value of that home for tax purposes. Interesting idea... but it doesn't belong in the state's Constitution. Let the
Legislature debate this.
NO on #4
A Yes vote would make any privately-owned land that is set aside as "perpetually conserved land" exempt from property
taxes. I don't like how broadly-worded this is, and again it doesn't belong in the Constitution. Let Tallahassee debate
this idea on the merits and either pass it or reject it as a law, not an amendment.
NO on #6
This is yet another amendment that would change how land is assessed and taxed, this time "working waterfront property."
And again I say, who the hell thinks this belongs in the state Constitution?
YES on #8
Finally, an amendment that actually has something to do with the rules of government instead of somebody's pet issue.
This would open up the possibility for counties to hold an election giving residents the chance to approve a local sales
tax to raise revenue for community college funding. Any such tax, if approved, would have to sunset after 5 years and be
re-approved by the voters. I'm all for local control... I'd probably vote against such a tax, but if some other county's
voters want the option to tax themselves more, who am I to stop them?
BREVARD COUNTY REFERENDUM
YES on CAPIT 2
CAPIT 2: This Time It's Personal. And woe be upon any County Commissioner who files another lawsuit to get this
overturned this time around. The County Commission needs to learn how to live within its means.
SUPREME COURT: RETENTION VOTE
YES for Charles T. Wells
Justice Wells was appointed to the Supreme
Court in 1994 by Gov. Lawton Chiles, and seems to be a conservative judge from what I can find. He issued a dissenting
opinion in the infamous state Supreme Court ruling that kept the recount going in Florida in the 2000 election, and later
the federal Supreme Court agreed with him. He also the only state Supreme Court justice who
dissented from the 2003
decision to overturn Florida's parental notification law for abortions on minors. He seems to understand his role as a
judge is to interpret laws, not write them.
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS: RETENTION VOTE
YES for Kerry I. Evander
Appointed by Jeb Bush in 2006. Can't find much
more on him.
YES for C. Alan Lawson
Appointed by Jeb Bush in 2006. Can't find much
more on him.
YES for Richard B. Orfinger
Appointed by Jeb Bush in 2006. Orfinger made
a ruling in 2004
in an appeals court case regarding a mentally disabled woman who became pregnant after being raped. Another woman, with
backing from Gov. Jeb Bush, sued to be named the guardian of the unborn child, who was later born. The lawsuit was seen
as an opportunity for anti-abortion groups (I'm anti-abortion, by the way) to establish a legal precedent that would make
it easier to push for unborn children to be treated as living human beings with their own rights. Orfinger ruled
against the lawsuit on appeal, stating that an unborn child would have to be considered a person under Florida law before
a guardian could be appointed for an unborn child. And while it angers me that this is true, it's still true just the
same. I don't like abortion-on-demand, but I don't like these sorts of back-door legal tricks that can open up all sorts
of other tricky, thorny legal problems. The way to fight abortion is to win over hearts and minds, and to get a specific
declaration into the state constitution somehow that specifically and unequivocably grants rights to unborn children. Go
in the front door, not the back door. In this case, Orfinger looked at the law as it's currently written rather than how
he thinks it should be, and that's what good judges do. To do otherwise is to write law from the bench.
YES for William David Palmer
Appointed by Jeb Bush in 2000. Can't find much
more on him.
YES for Thomas D. Sawaya
Appointed by Jeb Bush in 2000. He's the judge
who presided over the murder trial of Aileen Wuornos and
sentenced her to death.
SEBASTIAN INLET DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
Jenny Lawton Seal for District 1
Beth L. Mitchell for District 2
C. Raymond Reed for District 3
These are 3 very odd races according to this recent
Florida Today article. A mysterious group of challengers has sprung up out of nowhere to try to unseat the current
commissioners, and two of the challengers are actually married to each other and yet are running in two different districts.
Two of the other challengers have posted very vague websites that don't make much of a case for why the current commission
should be replaced, let alone why they should be the ones to replace them. In the absence of a compelling argument to kick
the bums out, as it were, I'm letting the incumbents stay in.
BREVARD SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT - GROUP 3
Nancy Marr Stephenson
Stephenson is the incumbent, and I haven't heard of any big
issues or problems with this office lately.
|
|
Property Appraiser: Larry Hughes vs. Jim Ford
|
| | |
Monday, November 3rd, 2008 at 1:00pm
|
The race
for Property Appraiser... geez, I hate this one. Normally as I've been doing my candidate write-ups, I've been able to
start off writing about which candidate I support and why I support them. But in this case, my vote really isn't for a
candidate, but rather against one, the shady Republican incumbent Jim Ford to be precise. His challenger Larry Hughes is
not a particularly strong candidate and wasn't even the strongest Democrat in the race... that would be Charlie Sitton, who
Hughes defeated in the primary. But Ford has taken the Property Appraiser's office in the wrong direction and needs to be
ousted. And the only way that will happen is to get Larry Hughes elected and hope and pray that he manages not to screw
things up.
Bill Mick invited both Larry Hughes and Jim Ford to be interviewed for
50 Minutes With
segments for the website. Hughes came in. Ford claimed traffic problems as the reason for missing his segment and declined to reschedule, but
he did make it in sometime later for a live
on-air debate with Hughes on Bill Mick Live. Check them out if you get the chance.
Jim Ford (R)
To hear him talk about it, Jim Ford is the target of a massive and nefarious conspiracy involving disgruntled former
employees and Florida Today working together to rob him of the governmental power he rightfully earned and so richly
deserves. It seems everyone is out to get him and is blowing a couple of minor unintentional errors way out of proportion
for the sole purpose of settling personal grudges with him, and he claims he has done absolutely nothing wrong in his 20
years as the Property Appraiser. But where there's smoke, there's fire. And there's an awful lot of smoke surrounding
the investigation of Ford's office that is being conducted by the state government.
Ford would tell you to ignore that smoke because of Friday's news that the corruption charges against Ford's former
right-hand man Lance Larsen have been thrown out by
the presiding judge, Circuit Judge Charles Holcomb, last Friday. But if you read through the court dispatches from Florida Today
reporter Jeff Schweers from 10/23,
10/27,
10/28
and 10/29,
you'll see that the charges were thrown out simply because the judge made a series of technical rulings that large swaths
of the prosecution's evidence couldn't be shown to the jury, despite the fact that the evidence consisted of computerized
data available in the public record. I'm no lawyer, but that ruling really doesn't make much sense to me. Without that
evidence, the prosecution couldn't move forward with their case against Larsen, and Larsen's attorney made a motion to have
the case tossed out. It's the equivalent of winning a football game because the referee made the wrong call on the final
play and gave you a touchdown that you really didn't score.
It's also important to remember that "innocent until proven guilty" is the standard in a court of law. But you do NOT
have to apply that standard when deciding who to vote for; you get to set your own standard for that. The judge ruled that
the jurors weren't allowed to consider the computer evidence, but that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to either. Also
important to note is that the judge didn't say that any of this evidence was untrue or incorrect -- he simply made a
technical ruling that the jury wasn't allowed to see it. So do not take the judge's ruling to mean that Larsen or Ford have
been exonerated of all wrong-doing, because that's not what the ruling was about at all.
So what exactly has Jim Ford been up to? This Florida Today article from
September 10th gives a pretty good summary of
what led to charges being filed against Ford's man Larsen in the first place. Florida Today also has a copy of the
investigative report from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement on
Jim Ford, as well as the reports on Lance Larsen for
the charges of official misconduct and
grand theft.
Basically, the FDLE reviewed records from Ford's office and found multiple cases where highly-questionable appraisal breaks
were given to various landowners in Brevard who just happened to be campaign donors or political bigshots who Ford would have
every reason to curry favor with, lowering their tax bills considerably and costing the county $61,000 in tax revenue.
Many of these breaks were signed-off on by Ford himself, who even admits in his campaign literature that these breaks
shouldn't have been given out but calls them innocent mistakes. Even if you take Ford's explanation at face value, it means
that the county lost out on $61,000 in property tax revenue because Ford's office was incompetent. And when you look at the
people who got those breaks (including the parents of State Representative Thad Altman, a fellow Republican), I simply
don't buy that there was nothing nefarious taking place.
The FDLE also found evidence that the appraisers who Ford overruled to grant the tax breaks feared for their jobs if
they spoke out, something that Charlie Sitton could probably
tell you more about. And on September 22nd, Florida Today ran a follow-up story about two employees in Ford's office
who told the FDLE they were pressured by supervisors
to sign false affidavits to try to discredit a whistle-blower named Dana Blickley who had been cooperating with the
FDLE's investigation.
There may not be quite enough evidence to meet the technical requirements of a criminal court of law or to have anyone
thrown in jail, but that's not what this election is about. This election is about whether or not Jim Ford should be
allowed to remain in office as the Property Appraiser. The accusations against Ford are serious and are backed-up quite
well, and his response has mainly consisted of personal attacks and attempts to undermine the credibility of those who
speak up against him, rather than presenting any facts or evidence to back up his own innocence or disprove the facts as
uncovered by the FDLE. That's why I want him out. And the only way to get Jim Ford out is to vote Larry Hughes in.
Larry Hughes (D)
Larry Hughes has had his share of legal problems this year, though nothing related to his performance on the school board
or any accusations of abuse of his power. The main story has been the DUI charge that was filed against him over the
summer. But Hughes maintained his innocence, refusing to take a breathalyzer and holding out for a blood test. The tests
eventually came back showing no alcohol or illegal drugs in his bloodstream, but the prosecutor tried to keep the case
alive and seemed poised to drag it out as long as possible. So Hughes
pleaded no-contest to a reduced charge of reckless
driving and agreed to take a couple of state-mandated safety classes to side-step six months of probation.
But back to Hughes refusing to take a breathalyzer... in Florida, refusing to submit to a breathalyzer test results in
an automatic suspension of your driver's license. You agree to that rule when you sign for a license. So Hughes's license
was automatically suspended. Fast-forward to August. When Tropical Storm Fay was bearing down on Brevard, Hughes got
popped for driving on that suspended license. Hughes explained that he was only driving because he needed to buy storm
supplies. (Ever heard of a taxi, Larry?) He initially planned to plead guilty to that charge, but now the court hearing on
the suspended license charge has been delayed
until after Election Day. And in his 50 Minutes With interview with Bill Mick, Hughes said that with the DUI charge
gone and the blood test showing no alcohol in his system, he and his lawyer are now challenging the validity of the
license suspension itself, which in turn would negate the charge of driving with a suspended license. And that sounds like
a reasonable argument to me.
Now for the issues... Larry Hughes is unsurprisingly running on a platform of cleaning up the Property Appraiser's
office and running it with more transparency and accountability. He has been unwavering in his criticism of Jim Ford and
has made that criticism the center of his campaign.
During the Democratic primary race, I was very critical
of Hughes for his apparent lack of knowledge about the duties of the office and for his bizarre proposal to increase the
assessments on marijuana grow-houses. I wasn't the only one to express such concerns, and it appears that Hughes took
those criticisms to heart even after winning the primary. The Larry Hughes I've heard more recently sounds far more
knowledgable than the Larry Hughes I heard back in the primary race, so he's clearly been doing his homework on the
Property Appraiser's office. He now seems far more familiar with the duties of the job.
That's not to say I'm comfortable with putting Hughes in this job; I'm not. I still have concerns about his judgement,
and just because he's giving better interviews now doesn't mean he's ready to take on the complicated task of setting
appraisal values for every home in Brevard County. But he's the only alternative to Jim Ford in this race. He's the guy I
have to work with, and Hughes has at least convinced me that he won't be a disaster in this office. I have a feeling I'll
be voting against Hughes four years from now to replace him with a better-qualified person, but in this race against Jim
Ford, Larry Hughes gets my vote.
|
|
Tax Collector: Laura Dils vs. Lisa Cullen
|
| | |
Monday, November 3rd, 2008 at 10:15am
|
With Rod Northcutt retiring from his post as Tax Collector after running the office since 1992, the
Tax Collector's race
is particularly important this year. The choice is between a long-time office insider who knows the job well but played a
pivotal role in the unionization of the employees, and a private-sector business administrator with plenty of management
skills but no experience working in a government office. It's an interesting race, and if you still have time you should
check out the 50 Minutes With
segments Bill Mick recorded with each candidate, along with the joint debate. But here's what I think.
Laura Dils (D)
I was torn on this race for the longest time, but I think I've finally decided to come down on the side of Laura Dils, the
Democrat in this race. Dils has the endorsement of Rod Northcutt, though that probably has more to do with the fact that
Dils and Northcutt are both Democrats, but it is worth considering. She brings an outsider's mentality to the job, along
with years of business administration experience and a stint supervising an office of over 1,000 employees. Though she's
never worked in the Tax Collector's office, I felt comfortable with her answers to Bill Mick and with how she held up in
the debate with her opponent, Lisa Cullen, and I don't think she'll find the job nearly as difficult as Cullen suggested
she would.
Dils promised to try to run the office more like a business and to look for areas to save money on the budget. Back in
the primaries she mis-spoke and told Bill Mick she would look at closing down one or two branch offices to save money, a
statement I picked up on and criticized here on my website. She later reached out to me in a series of e-mails to clarify
her position, and she also corrected this in her 50 Minutes With segment with Bill Mick, and I'm satisfied that she
did indeed mis-speak. What she intends to do is to find ways to share office space with other county agencies, which
would probably include relocating several offices but could save the county money, so I can get behind that. She also
stressed that the Tax Collector's website needs more improvement and pledged to make it happen.
The total lack of any experience working in a government office does concern me about Laura Dils, but she's not exactly
a dumb lady. I think she's capable of learning as she goes, and she seems to have a good relationship with Rod Northcutt
and should be able to go to him for advice as she settles in at the job. I feel quite comfortable with voting for Laura
Dils.
Lisa Cullen (R)
Lisa Cullen has a wealth of experience working on both the Brevard and Orange County Tax Collector's office stretching back
to 1987, so she clearly knows what she's doing. I have no doubt that Lisa Cullen is up to the task of running the office,
which is why I was glad she defeated Jackie Colon in the Republican primary. Like Dils, Cullen has some great ideas for
cutting the office's expenses and was able to go into a bit more specificity thanks to her inside knowledge. She also has
plans to improve the speed with which payments are processed by the Tax Collector.
But the union issue is very troubling for me.
A state agency called the Public Employees Relations Commission has
issued
a report on the events in 2006 that led to the unionization of the Tax Collector's employees in response to Rod
Northcutt's allegation that Lisa Cullen actively participated in organizing the union. Cullen was a manager at the time,
and state law forbids government employees in management positions from participating in the organization of a union
because it creates a conflict of interest. Such managers are tasked with keeping employee expenses low, but unions are
usually formed to increase employee wages and benefits, so organizing a union would put a manager at odds with their job
duties. While the commission eventually overturned Northcutt's overall complaint, the findings-of-fact in the report did
show that Cullen was very actively involved in the initial formation of the union, and only backed off later once people
began to question the propriety of her involvement. The report is only 19 pages long and there's isn't much written on
each page, so read through it if you get the chance.
On the question of whether Cullen broke the law, I'm not really all that concerned to be honest. It sounds to me like it
was a technical violation that Cullen wasn't initially aware of, and I could easily see someone not being aware of this law.
What concerns me more is that Cullen was involved in forming the union at all. I don't like unions. Period. I think there
was a time in this country when unions were needed to preserve the health and safety of laborers, but today's unions have
gone far beyond that role and often serve to put a stranglehold on capitalism.
In this case, there were no health or safety concerns at play in the Tax Collector's office. This union was formed to
resolve perceived pay inequities within the office -- a pay dispute. And the way to handle a pay dispute is to try to talk
to your manager and renegotiate your pay. If management refuses, it means one of two things. One is that you should leave the job
and find another one where management understands your worth and pays you accordingly, because if you truly do deserve that
raise then you should have no trouble finding a better job for yourself out there. The other is that you need to get over
yourself because you don't really deserve the pay you're asking for, and you'll find that out in a hurry when you quit and
can't find a new job that will pay you what you think you're worth either. Regardless, it's something that should be
handled one-on-one with the employee and the manager. Running off and forming a union is a bad move, because sooner or
later that union is going to start going overboard and start demanding exorbitant pay and benefits -- at the expense of you
and me, since this is a government office paid for with our tax dollars. Their only concern will be lining their own
wallets, and they won't give a damn about you and me or how well the office is run.
Lisa Cullen says she wants to save us all money by running the Tax Collector's office more efficiently. That's why I'm
mystified that she would open the door to a unionized office and jeopardize the efficiency of the office. It makes me
question her judgement, and it's cost her my support in this race.
|
|
County Commission District 3: Trudie Infantini vs. Ed Geier
|
| | |
Friday, October 31st, 2008 at 11:00am
|
The race
for County Commission District 3 is one of those rare races in which I can be happy with whoever wins, whether it's
uber-accountant Trudie Infantini or veteran city leader Ed Geier. But of course I can only pick one of 'em, so that's
where Bill Mick's interviews came in handy. Infantini made it in for a pre-recorded
50 Minutes With
segment for Bill's website. Geier wasn't able to come in for his 50 Minutes With appointment, but he did make it in
for the on-air debate with
Infantini, which showed the contrasting styles of both candidates quite well.
Trudie Infantini (R)
As mentioned before, Trudie Infantini brings to the race a healthy mix of private-sector auditing experience and government
finance work as a county auditor for Clerk of Court Scott Ellis. Her focus on the race is quite squarely on her ability and
intention to ferret out and eliminate wasteful county spending, something the County Commission sorely needs. She wants
the county budgets to be prioritized to take care of needs first and wants second, and she specifically named zero-based
budgeting as the best way to accomplish this.
Normally, when a government agency sets its budget, it uses the previous year's budget as a starting point, leaving all
existing spending in place, and then goes back in and makes changes as needed. But if a particular line item doesn't draw
scrutiny, it can stay in there untouched for years... and often does. Zero-based budgeting is the polar opposite. You start
your budget at... you guessed it: ZERO. Nothing carries over automatically from the previous year; you have to specifically
ask for it again. And it specifically forces that government entity to specifically defend everything that they put into
their budget, making it harder to sneak wasteful spending through. Zero-based budgeting is an idea for which the time has
come, and Trudie Infantini is leading the charge.
Infantini also wants to bring more accountability back into the awarding of government contracts, making far more use of
bidding rather than just handing a contract to who ever comes along. In her 50 Minutes With interview she had
several astonishing anecdotes about how out-of-control the awarding of contracts has gotten in Brevard. I'm not certain
there's any true corruption or graft taking place, but it certainly looks like there's an appalling lack of attention
being paid to this issue by the current Commission, and that's bad enough.
Infantini is pushing for more accountability for the EELS program as well, but in an interesting twist she doesn't seem
interested in shutting it down as most conservatives are. In fact, she voted for EELS originally. But she feels the money
is being mis-spent on lands of dubious conservation value at inflated prices, without enough money being saved up for
future maintenance of the lands that have already been bought under EELS. Every true environmentalist who cares about the
future of the EELS program should consider Infantini an ally, because she's trying to get EELS to be run the way we voted
for it to be run, rather than the bloated land-grab farce it's become instead.
For too long, the members of the Brevard County Commission have spent money like it was going out of style, consistently
failing to encourage any true fiscal restraint or future planning. With the economy teetering towards recession and tax
revenues shrinking by the minute, the old way of doing things in Viera simply won't cut it. That's why we need Trudie
Infantini, and that's why I'm voting for her.
Ed Geier (D)
Ed Geier is one of those guys who got into government for all the right reasons. He has a steady head, solid ideas, and a
good heart, and Palm Bay has been in good hands as he's served on the City Council and as both Deputy Mayor and Mayor.
Unfortunately, we have very specific needs on the County Commission right now. Spending must be reigned in and the size
of the government must be scaled down, and that will mean cutting optional programs and maybe even laying off workers. And
in a recent vote on the Palm Bay
city budget, Geier left us a major clue as to how he would approach these issues if he were to be elected to the County
Commission. The budget included the elimination of several unfilled city jobs but also included layoffs of a handful of
city employees, a neccessary move with the city's property tax-base shrinking in the face of dropping home values. Geier
voted against the budget, telling Florida Today, "It's the wrong time to be laying off people. I said at the beginning of
this that if any jobs were lost inside this budget, I wasn't going to support the budget."
How many actual employees were being laid off? Seven, according to the article.
On the one hand, layoffs should never be undertaken lightly. I've said before that government is not a jobs program, but
government workers are people too, so their jobs shouldn't be pulled out from underneath them capriciously. But sometimes
it's just neccessary. Their paychecks are paid for by the citizens who pay taxes out of their own hard-earned paychecks,
and taxpayers are people too. So in an environment in which the taxpayers are finding it more and more difficult to
afford their tax bills, I really don't think laying off a grand total of seven city workers is all that unreasonable.
Ed Geier obviously disagrees. I can understand why, and I believe in his mind he thinks he's looking out for those city
workers who, unfortunately, now have to find other jobs in this economy. But Ed Geier is supposed to represent the
taxpayers as well.
Geier's answers in the on-the-air debate with Infantini on WMMB pretty much confirmed the way Geier feels on this
subject. Geier talked a lot about prioritizing spending and not increasing taxes. But whenever Bill Mick asked a specific
question about actually cutting spending, Geier made it clear that he doesn't think now is the time for budget cuts. Since
he didn't call for any new spending either, it sounds to me like Geier wants to hold the line on the budget and on taxes.
But in the current economic environment, that's impossible. Tax revenue is falling, because people's incomes are falling and
people's property values are falling. And if you rule out spending cuts, that leaves you with only one choice: raise the
tax rate to try to stabilize tax revenue so that you don't have to cut the budget. And Geier ruled out raising taxes. Which
means that his budget philosophy is the very definition of a paradox.
There may come a time when Ed Geier will be the perfect choice for the County Commission. I can envision certain
scenarios in which he could step in as a stabilizing presence, calm down internal squabbles, and help the county government
move forward. But that's not what we need at the moment. What we need right now is someone who understands the realities
of the current budget situation and who knows that the current economic climate requires us to either cut spending or
raise the tax rate, and who further understands which of those options is more potentially damaging. Ed Geier has not
convinced me that he is that person.
Trudie Infantini has.
|
|
Supervisor of Elections: Lori Scott, Frank Buckoski and Frank Grieco Jr.
|
| | |
Thursday, October 30th, 2008 at 8:15am
|
Next up is the race
for Supervisor of Elections. Three candidates are running to replace the previous Supervisor, Fred Galey, who leaves
huge shoes to fill after keeping Brevard's elections nearly glitch-free during his entire time in office. Republican Lori
Scott and Independent Frank Buckoski (who is running as no-party-affiliated) both joined Bill Mick at WMMB for individual
50 Minutes With
segments, and also a debate segment together. But the Democrat, Frank Grieco Jr., curiously chose not to appear, just as he
chose not to appear when he was invited to be on-the-air during the primary season. His loss.
Lori Scott (R)
Lori Scott's biggest strength is simultaneously her biggest weakness: her 16 years of serving on the staffs a long list of
state legislators up in Tallahassee. It means she knows the political system inside and out and is intimately familiar
with elections. But it also leaves her vulnerable to charges of political favoritism should anything break badly in a major
election in a way that seems to favor a Republican.
Fortunately, there is some comfort in that history. True, she's mostly worked alongside Republicans such as Bill Posey
and Mike Haridopolos, but once upon a time she also worked on the staff of Democrat Patsy Kurth. That's probably not
something a lifelong Republican like Lori Scott wants people to know, but it shows a bipartisan side to her that makes me
a bit less nervous about putting her in a job where partisan impartiality is critical.
In every interview she's had with Bill Mick, Lori Scott has demonstrated a solid grasp of the duties of the office and
the potential perils that need to be avoided. She pretty much agrees that Fred Galey had things right and that few changes
are needed. The few changes she has proposed make perfect sense, such as trimming back the budget. In particular, she
pointed out that the current budget plan for the Elections office calls for replacing all of the office equipment every 3
to 5 years, an extravagance that can safely be eliminated to save money. She also prudently plans to continue holding money
aside each year to save up for future equipment upgrades, such as replacing the troubled touch-screen voting machines that
are used for disabled voters in Brevard.
But most importantly, Scott has no plans whatsoever to replace the optical-scan ballots that Galey implemented. That's
key. Filling in a bubble next to a name is ridiculously easy, it's a paper ballot that's easy to count and easy to
re-count, and it already works. To be fair, the other candidates want to keep the optical-scan ballots as well, but hey,
it's an important thing to know.
Lori Scott has the knowledge, the temperment and the drive to make an excellent Supervisor of Elections. She has
earned my enthusiastic vote.
Frank Buckoski (I)
Did you know that Frank Buckoski (who is running as no-party-affiliated) is running as no-party-affiliated? You'll know
for sure after listening to him for any length of time, because he reminds you of his no-party-affiliated status at every
opportunity. His interviews with Bill Mick have been no exception. It's the very centerpiece of his campaign... the whole
reason he's running.
He wants you to vote for him BECAUSE he's no-party-affiliated.
Think about how silly that is.
Voting for somebody just because they're no-party-affiliated is no different than voting for somebody just because
they're a Republican, or a Democrat, or a Libertarian. All he's doing is asking you to trade in one form of partisanship
for another, as if no-party-affiliated was just another party label. And it's every bit as shallow as pulling a party
lever.
But anyway, Frank Buckoski (who is running as no-party-affiliated) has chosen to make this the center of his campaign,
so let's look into it, shall we? Buckoski (who is running as no-party-affiliated) thinks his non-partisanship is important
because it will keep him free from any corrupting partisan influences. His campaign is self-financed, so he doesn't owe
anyone any favors. And he won't have party bosses peeking over his shoulder telling him what to do or how to count the
votes. All good arguments, to be fair.
Except I can't recall a single instance of any accusations of partisanship against the previous Supervisor, Republican
Fred Galey. Galey was a big-time Republican. He had party bosses to talk to. He had partisan big-wigs contributing money
to his campaigns. And yet when it came to doing his job as the Supervisor of Elections, Fred Galey was above reproach, and
was respected immensely by Republicans and Democrats alike. If Galey was using his authority to further the goals of the
Republicans at the expense of the Democrats, wouldn't the Democrats have raised a fuss about it by now?
Basically, Frank Buckoski (who is running as no-party-affiliated) is railing against a partisan corruption problem that
simply does not exist. Bill Mick tried on several occasions to get Buckoski (who is running as no-party-affiliated) to
name any specific instances of partisan malfeasance on Galey's watch, and the best he could offer was that he'd heard
things from people but couldn't elaborate, and that anyone who is partisan MUST be corrupt, because lobbyists and party
big-wigs don't donate to campaigns unless they expect something in return. He stated it with such an astonishing air of
certainty, and yet couldn't offer up one shred of evidence to back it up.
But perhaps most telling is what happened during the 50-Minutes-With debate when he pushed Lori Scott a little
too far on the lobbyist contributions she's been accepting for her campaign. Scott finally retorted with the fact that
Buckoski (who is running as no-party-affiliated) only dropped his party affiliation 5 months ago. Before that, he'd spent
quite a long time registered as a Republican, and only dropped the party label when it came time to file the paperwork to
run for this office. He never denied it or disputed it, and he never offered up any legitimate reason why he would leave
the Republican party. And that makes me seriously question the sincerity of his campaign theme. He just kept hammering how
important it was to have a Supervisor of Elections office that is free from party influence. Never mind that we've
basically had that already under Fred Galey for quite some time now, and I see no reason to believe it won't continue under
Lori Scott.
Frank Buckoski (who is running as no-party-affiliated) sounds like a man on a mission, a mission which includes a major
shake-up of the Supervisor of Elections office. But that office doesn't need a major shake-up. That's why I can't
support him in this race.
Frank Grieco, Jr. (D)
Frank Grieco, Jr. was the only Democrat in this race, so he had no primary. I assumed that's why he never appeared on Bill
Mick Live during the primary season, but I was surprised to see him pass up the recent invitation for a 50 Minutes With
segment for Bill's website as well. Bill actually asked both Scott and Buckoski about it, but they both passed up the
opportunity to bad-mouth him for it, pointing out that Grieco is the only candidate with a job outside of the campaign.
(Buckoski is retired, and Scott resigned from her job to campaign full-time.) They both seemed to respect his priorities,
so I will too. And they confirmed he has made several appearances at various campaign forums, so it's not like he's
willfully ducking the voters.
But he's not doing the best job of reaching out to them either.
I can understand a candidate having limited campaign time due to job obligations, but such a candidate needs to
understand that they need to find some way, somehow, to get their message out there. And that's where a campaign website
comes in. A website is cheap to design, cheap to put up, and cheap to update. You can go as in-depth as you want, as long
as you can hold the reader's interest. A website can be a powerful tool for a time-strapped candidate, especially if
well-publicized.
But looking over Grieco's website, there's just not much there. A few vague issue statements, a few sentences, a sparse
resume, and a dark and badly-lit photo. That's it.
It's a little hard for me to vote for a candidate without knowing anything about him. Sorry, Frank.
|
|
Sheriff: Jack Parker vs. Gary Young
|
| | |
Tuesday, October 28th, 2008 at 10:30am
|
Holy cow, is the election a week away? I'd better get crackin' on these election
write-ups.
Alright, let's start with the Sheriff's race. Both candidates sat down with Bill Mick at WMMB earlier this month for individual
50 Minutes With
pre-recorded interviews for Bill's website, along with a pre-recorded debate. Then on Friday, they returned to the WMMB
studios for an on-air debate.
All of them are still available for download if you want to check them out for yourselves, like I already have.
Jack Parker (R)
The thing that stands out for me the most in this race is the
statistical cherry-picking going on. Both
candidates have often resorted to quibbling with each other over which statistical crime category gives the best picture of
how great/terrible a job the current sheriff, Jack Parker, has been doing. But they do seem to agree on a few things.
The crime rate is up in Brevard County since Parker took over in 2005. Among similarly-sized counties, Brevard's crime
rate has increased the fastest, and it also has increased faster than all of our neighboring counties. But the crime rate
has been on the rise in the entire state of Florida during that same time period. And while Brevard's increase in
crime has been the fastest among similarly-sized counties, the actual crime rate itself still remains the lowest
among similarly-sized counties, and still remains below the statewide average. Parker also claims that in the first six
months of 2008, the crime rate in Brevard has begun to drop again, though his opponent Gary Young disputes those figures
and says they haven't been validated by the federal government yet. For his part, Parker has admitted Young's basic
assertions about the higher crime rate in Brevard and accepts the blame for it, and he also hesitates to take credit for
the drop so far in 2008 until he knows more about the reasons behind it.
Young has also pointed out in his campaign that the Sheriff's budget has grown by $30 million since Parker took office,
a figure I haven't heard Parker dispute. But quite frankly, I'm not surprised, nor am I dismayed. Parker oversaw a
significant expansion of the jail up in Sharpes, including the construction of the new "tents", a remodeling of the
existing jail building, and a drastic and much-needed overhaul of the county's once-failing 911 response center. Those
things cost money, and an expanded jail will remain more expensive to maintain. Parker also streamlined the management
structure of the Sheriff's office, eliminating many supervisory positions and reassigning officers in order to get more
deputies out of the office and back on the streets, so he's taken steps to reign in the budget somewhat to keep it from
growing even faster.
Parker has also initiated or expanded some very intriguing programs and practices at the jail in an attempt to further
curtail expenses and instill more of a work-ethic in the prisoners held there, in the hopes of increasing their pride in
the community and keeping them from becoming repeat offenders. He used inmate labor during the construction of the jail
expansion, and continues to use inmate work crews for building maintenance, litter clean-up, and even sewing uniforms and
bedding for the rest of the prisoners. It remains to be seen whether these will have the desired effect of lowering the
crime rate in Brevard, but as more and more of the prisoners from these programs complete their sentences and are set free,
we'll find out for sure. In the meantime, I find programs like these to be very forward-thinking and certainly worth a try.
However, some of these same programs have been a bit overreaching and have helped to bloat the budget a bit, and Parker
should take more care on that front. For example, local blogger Sheree Shatsky
has been particularly critical of Parker
housing dogs from the Humane Society in one of the jail tents, which currently sits otherwise unused and unoccupied while
they wait to finish it for use in housing prisoners in the next expansion phase. The dogs are there as part of a program in
which prisoners work with the dogs, care for them, train them, and prepare them for adoption in new homes. Certainly a
noble idea... but is it the best use of taxpayer money? Not exactly. Just because a deed is good doesn't mean government
should be doing it using money taken from you and me, and it serves as a distraction from the main mission of the Sheriff's
office: preventing crime.
For the future, Parker wants to continue to add more deputies and continue expanding the jail, which he says still
remains overcrowded. He also plans to continue pushing for a cost-of-living pay increase for the deputies, which may be a
tall order in the current budget-cutting environment. These are basically extensions of the campaign promises he made in
2004, and he's made progress on all of those promises so far. I think it's safe to assume he'll continue to do so.
And that's why Sheriff Jack Parker will get my vote next Tuesday. While he's had some mis-steps and mistakes, I believe
Parker has the Sheriff's office moving in the right direction. I simply don't see the case for replacing him at this time,
no matter how well-qualified his opponent may be for the job. When things are going well, you don't replace the person in
charge without a damn good reason.
Gary Young (D)
Make no mistake about it, Gary Young is highly-qualified to serve as Brevard County's sheriff, and if he wins next
Tuesday I will only be slightly disappointed. Young brings an incredible law enforcement career to bear on this race, and
his lengthy experience within the Brevard County Sheriff's Department would serve him quite well.
But when you're the challenger in an election, you need to do more than just convince me that you'd do a good job. You
also have to convince me that the person currently holding the job needs to be replaced. And that's where Gary Young falls
short with me.
I've already mentioned the Brevard crime statistics that Young has been trumpeting, and they are troubling numbers and
trends. But Brevard hasn't exactly become an extension of the south side of Chicago in the past four years, and this is
still a pretty safe county to live in overall. That's why Young has to do so much statistical cherry-picking to make his
case, and it hurts the effectiveness of his argument. Young's criticism of Parker's budget is valid as well, though I've
already discussed that up above, and the excesses in Parker's budget, while also troubling, haven't exactly risen to
egregious levels. Young also relies greatly on anecdotes of individual incidents involving the sheriff's office under
Jack Parker while failing to make the case that these are more than just isolated incidents.
During the on-air debate on WMMB, a caller opened up a discussion on Parker's 2005 hiring of Armor Correctional Health to
provide medical care for prisoners in Brevard. Armor has been caught up in shady dealings elsewhere in Florida, including
a no-bid contract awarded by a sheriff in another county. The resulting back-and-forth ended up invoking the name of local
blogger Sheree Shatsky, who back on September 18th stumbled across an old
Sarasota newspaper story from 2007 which said that Armor had actually gone so far as to
pay Sheriff Parker as a lobbyist.
There's just one problem: shortly after running the original story, the newspaper in question retracted that claim,
something Sheree wasn't able to track down until
October 2nd. And with that, there isn't
really much left to say about Parker and Armor. I'll grant you that Armor is dirty, but that doesn't mean everyone who's
ever done business with them is automatically dirty as well. Unless someone can point out to me something more substantive
to show that Parker's dealings with Armor have been unethical, this story doesn't hold much water with me. But it is,
however, something to keep an eye on in the future. In the meantime, Sheree has of course
written a brief piece on that part
of the debate that you may want to read.
It's also worth nothing that Gary Young was one of the deputies who was demoted and reassigned during Jack Parker's
initial reorganization of the sheriff's office. Young responded by
filing a lawsuit which later failed. And
oddly enough, I actually talked about this lawsuit last year when I subbed in for Carole
Nelson on WMEL radio. I wasn't impressed with the lawsuit then, and I'm still not now. You can hear the audio of that
segment here. (It's around the 14-minute mark, and apologies for the bumper music... I
didn't pick it.)
I truly believe Gary Young would make a good sheriff. But we already have a good sheriff: Jack Parker. I simply don't
see the need to replace him at this time.
|
|
General election candidate interviews on Bill Mick Live
|
| | |
Sunday, October 19th, 2008 at 8:00pm
|
Starting on Monday morning, Bill Mick (heard every weekeday morning
6am-9am on NewsTalk 1240/1350 WMMB, of course) will have the first of his planned series of on-air candidate interviews
leading up to the general election on November 4th. Bill has
posted the
schedule on his website, and I also have it in a table down below for quick reference. And if you miss a live interview
you can always grab the podcast
later. Just don't wait, since the podcasts don't stay up forever.
But those are just the on-air interviews. In a neat twist, Bill has also been doing
recorded
off-the-air interviews with the candidates. No callers, no commercials, no interruptions, just 50 minutes with Bill.
He's been doing both solo interviews with each candidate and debate-style interviews with all the candidates for each race
in at the same time. I'm looking forward to hearing the ones for the races on my ballot.
Here's the schedule for the live on-the-air interviews:
Monday October 20th |
7:00am US House District 15: Frank Zilaitis (NPA) Bill Posey (R) Steven Blythe (D) Trevor Lowing (NPA) |
8:00am US House District 24: Tom Feeney (R) Suzanne Kosmas (D) Gaurav Bhola (NPA) |
Tuesday October 21st |
7:00am State Senate District 24: Thad Altman (R) Kendall Moore (D) |
8:00am (no candidates) |
Wednesday October 22nd |
7:00am (no candidates) |
8:00am State House District 29: Ralph Poppell (R) Wes McCarville (D) |
Thursday October 23rd |
7:00am State House District 30: Ritch Workman (R) Amy Tidd (D) |
8:00am State House District 32: Steve Crisafulli (R) Tony Sasso (D) |
Friday October 24th |
7:00am Sheriff: Jack Parker(R) Gary Young (D) |
8:00am Property Appraiser: Larry Hughes (D) Jim Ford (R) |
Monday October 27th |
7:00am County Commission District 1: Ilene Davis (Libertarian) J. Roger Shealy (R) Robin Fisher (D) |
8:00am County Commission District 3: Trudie Infantini (R) Ed Geier (D) |
Thursday October 30th |
7:00am US House District 15: Frank Zilaitis (NPA) Bill Posey (R) Steven Blythe (D) Trevor Lowing (NPA) |
8:00am (Might go for two hours.) |
Looks like there are some races that won't have any on-air interviews. Not sure why...
- State House District 31: John Tobia (R), Carol Drake Wheatley (NPA)
- Tax Collector: Laura Dils (D), Lisa Cullen (R)
- Supervisor of Elections: Lori Scott (R), Frank Grieco Jr. (D), Frank Buckoski (NPA)
- School Board District 4: Gary Shiffrin, Karen Henderson
- School Board District 5: Andrew Ziegler, Stuart Rowan
Bill's also not doing any of the city council races either. I'll be doing write-ups on the Palm Bay City Council races
later, but those are the only city council races I'll cover for any city. (Well, okay, I already skewered Pat
Poole in the Melbourne City Council race, but I'm not planning to go into that race any further.)
|
| | |
Friday, October 17th, 2008 at 5:00pm
|
Just a quick note to say that I saw a welcome sight earlier today: gas below the
$3.00/gallon mark. $2.99/gallon at the GasQwik at the corner of Babcock and Eber. That's an important psychological barrier,
and I expect other gas stations to quickly follow suit, even if it means losing some money on gas in the hopes of drawing
you inside to buy drinks and snacks.
Of course, Barack Obama will continue to ignore this and will still insist this is the worst economy since the Great
Depression. Unemployment at the height of the Depression? Around 24%. Unemployment now? Around 6%. You do the math. I'll
do some further research and get you some links to back this up later when I have more, but I've read both of those numbers
recently from mainstream media reports, so I'm running with them.
You could probably argue this is the worst economy since Jimmy Carter's administration... but then Jimmy Carter was a
Democrat. I wonder if that's why Obama doesn't use that as his benchmark.
|
|
Why I won't miss Dave Weldon
|
| | |
Monday, October 13th, 2008 at 10:00am
|
Lawrence Salberg over at
Brevard Outlook wrote an excellent piece on September 29th
summarizing Dave Weldon's tenure
in Congress and the frustration so many local conservatives have towards him. It's a great read, and it
immediately called to mind an interesting episode from out of my memory.
The year was 2001. I was still on-the-air on WMEL, doing a local political talk show on Saturday nights, and on this
particular Saturday night I had a hum-dinger of a topic. Due to "popular demand" (which was conveniently and coincidentally
led by a former high-ranking staffer for Weldon who had just quit a few months previous), Congressman Dave Weldon had just
announced he would forgo his pledge to serve only four terms in the House of Representatives and would run for a fifth term
in 2002. Many other Republicans around the country were breaking similar pledges, and the spirit of the 1994 Contract With
America seemed to be on life-support, if not already brain-dead. I was mad as hell. A promise is a promise, and that
promise was one of the reasons I had been supporting Weldon despite his milquetoast demeanor in Washington DC. And now he
was breaking that promise, forever crossing the boundary into the land of power-hungry Washington insiders.
So I talked about it on the air, and I ripped Weldon a new one, laying out the conservative case for why Weldon should
not be supported for a fifth term. Then I opened up the phone lines for calls.
In the audience that night were two new listeners, two little old ladies who thought they had me figured out after
listening for a grand total of ten minutes. They called in back-to-back to tear me a new one under the mistaken
belief that if I was criticizing a Republican, that must mean I was a Democrat. I was still a registered Republican
at the time (I'm now a registered Libertarian), and they were completely unprepared for the concept of a Republican who
didn't allow his principles to be overridden by blind partisan loyalty. I verbally sparred with the first one for several
minutes but couldn't get her to understand this, and she got me quite worked up. When I moved on to the second caller and
she started down the exact same line of attack, I actually hung up on her in anger.
In partisan politics, there are just some people who don't understand the concept of ideological purity. The Party is
everything, and if you don't support The Party, you are The Enemy. Those two callers on my show were perfect examples of
this way of thinking, and it is this way of thinking that allowed Dave Weldon to break his promise and run for a fifth
term without retaliation. And a sixth term. And a seventh term. The whole time, he's remained the same ol'
mild-mannered politician, unwilling to take strong stands on anything, dancing around pointed questions from constituents
(getting a straight answer from him on the FairTax was always an exercise in futility)
and doing everything he could just to hang on to his House seat and all the perks it entails. Meanwhile, other
well-qualified Republicans and conservatives have languished in the shadows, people like Bill Posey or Frank Zilaitis or
Mitch Needelman or Scott Ellis who would be perfectly capable of representing Brevard County in Congress and fighting for
the conservative ideals that so many of us hold dear.
But people kept voting for Weldon thanks to that magical R next to his name, never questioning if he was the best person
to represent not just the county, but to represent the party, to represent a wider set of ideals. Oh, they'd give
you reasons, chief among them that "we need Weldon's experience in Washington." But I defy you to name one
accomplishment from after 2002 that Weldon's experience made possible that, say, Mitch Needelman couldn't have done too.
As long as the blind partisans kept allowing Weldon to run for that fifth, sixth, seventh term, they prevented anyone
else from going for the Republican nomination. All the partisans wanted was to make sure someone with an R next to his
name won, and it didn't matter whether or not he was actually the best person for the job.
It might've been tolerable or maybe even forgivable if we at least had a fighter, someone willing to take a strong
stand for conservative ideals. Instead, Weldon kept going along to get along, staying out of big fights in a vain attempt
to appeal to everyone, to reach out to the other side of the political aisle and avoid offending them. Not that it did him
much good, considering the rhetoric that the Democrats and liberals in Brevard have continued to blast Weldon with over the
years. You'd think he was the unholy clone of Pat Buchanan from the way some people in this county talk about Weldon when
in fact he's one of the tamest, most-harmless members of Congress in either party. That attempt at a broader appeal
won him zero from the other side.
So, no, I'm not going to miss Dave Weldon in Congress. He seems to me to be a good enough guy, even if he has gotten too
attached to life in DC, and coming back home and stepping away from his power will do him a world of good. He has been a
significant help to NASA and the space program, and bringing the VA clinic to Viera was a surprising and positive
accomplishment early in his Congressional career. But his time in Congress was over six years ago, and he has accomplished
nothing of consequence since his broken term-limits promise. Hopefully his replacement, whether it be Frank Zilaitis or
Bill Posey, will understand that we want someone who will fight for conservative ideas in government, not just talk
about them.
|
|
The case against Pat Poole
|
| | |
Sunday, October 12th, 2008 at 11:15am
|
So, yeah. Pat Poole. Simply
typing that name makes my blood pressure rise. Gotta be careful here. Stay cool. Breathe in, breathe out.
A good, clean fight. September 12th. Stay civil.
So, yeah.
Pat Poole is running for her old seat on the Melbourne City Council. She retired from the council a few years ago after
years of cantakerous contrarianism, and I foolishly believed we were finally rid of her. But over the past year, she's
gotten increasingly vocal on the issues of development in Downtown Melbourne and especially over the proposed expansion of
the Daily Bread soup kitchen. She has a small but devoted group of followers that adore her for the stands she's taken,
and it seems to me that she's gotten a taste of the power she once held and is now hungry for more, culminating in her
decision to run for election to the City Council once more.
I went through my old radio show program notes from 2000 and also used my Google-Fu to give myself a refresher of some
of her inaner moments over the years, and a consistent picture emerged. Pat Poole seems to love picking fights with people
and almost thrives on having people royally pissed off at her. She's shown no signs of mellowing out, and I expect a return
to the City Council would mean more of the same.
Let's review, shall we? First there's this
old Florida Today article from September 7th, 2000 which brings out several items from Poole's past:
In October of 1996 while discussing possible plans for construction of a new brewery in predominantly-black south
Melbourne, Pat Poole told a Florida Today reporter, "I venture the people in south Melbourne will like the smell if there
is any." What, pray tell, was that supposed to mean, Pat?
In March of 2000 while discussing the possibility of renaming University Blvd. in south Melbourne after Martin
Luther King Jr., Poole told a Florida Today reporter she opposed the idea because, "The one thing it says to a lot of
people is it's a bad section to go to because it's usually in a section that's all black." First of all, the people of
south Melbourne who were pushing for the renaming at the time obviously weren't worried about any such stigma. For Poole to
cite that as her reason was pure folly, especially when that road and those citizens were right in the middle of her
council district. I know, I know, Chris Rock has done a couple of hilarious routines on the reputation of "the MLK" in
most big cities, but I've gotten the sense over time that Rock's brand of racial humor seems to be far more popular with
whites than with blacks, so I wouldn't suggest citing any Chris Rock jokes the next time you talk racial issues with a
black friend. Plus, Rock was telling a joke; Poole was serious. She actually used this as a serious reason to oppose the
street being renamed, a plan that had very strong support from the very people who lived in that neighborhood and near or
on that street. I can tell you right now, south Melbourne's reputation has far more to do with the violent crimes and drug
use that take place there than whatever the name of the main street is, and renaming the street wouldn't have made a damn
bit of difference either way. So why not just go with what the people there wanted?
In that same March 2000 Florida Today article, Poole went on to show her true colors on why she opposed naming a
street after Martin Luther King Jr. She told the reporter, "I wonder if he really accomplished things or if he just stirred
people up and caused a lot of riots." Sorry, Pat, but a little historical research would show you that King was one of the
tamer civil rights activists, especially compared to people like Malcolm X. And while I don't condone rioting in any
situation since it usually harms people who had nothing to do with whatever injustice is being protested, remember what
black Americans were going through at the time. In large stretches of the country, local and even state governments were
actively and aggressively trampling on their civil and Constitutional rights solely because their skin color was darker.
Their condition had stagnated, and a large chunk of white Americans were totally apathetic on the issue. The civil rights
movement had to be loud and in-your-face in order to shake off that apathy and get people's attention, and you don't
do that by being nice, quiet and well-behaved. You do it by being loud. Very loud. Unignorably loud. That's
what Martin Luther King Jr. did. He no doubt had his flaws, just like any man in this world, but on the whole I think this
nation is far better off for what King did, and I think this nation would be even better off if King's message had
been more fully heeded than it was. If you don't get that, Pat, that's just sad.
Moving on from that article... in October 2000, I attended a candidates' forum hosted by a local chapter of the NAACP,
and Pat Poole was one of the candidates who showed up. Most of the audience was black, and Poole had some flippant remarks
about how nobody in the room was going to be voting for her anyway. She had a sour attitude all the way through the forum
and clearly couldn't care less about whether a room full of people from her own council district liked her or not.
Her complete disdain for her own constituents was in full view, a shocking display of arrogance from the person who was
running to represent the very people she held in such disdain. And she knew she could get away with it, thanks to the fact
that Melbourne uses city-wide at-large voting in its City Council elections. She could piss off her own district and still
get elected thanks to votes from people in other districts, thus guaranteeing that her own district would have no true
representation on the City Council. Lovely, Pat.
At that same forum, Poole dodged a direct question about whether any Melbourne street should be renamed after Martin
Luther King Jr. Her reason? Commenting on upcoming Council business would create a "conflict of interest." Never mind that
she answered every other question posed to her about upcoming Council business on a variety of other issues. She was just
too cowardly to tell a room full of black people what she thought of Martin Luther King Jr.
And it's not just racial issues where Poole has shown this sort of attitude. In the aftermath of Hurricane Frances in
2004 when Poole was still on the City Council, large swaths of the city were without power for up to two weeks, and many
people resorted to running generators to run their refrigerators, lights, and air conditioning in their homes. At the time,
the Deputy Chief of the Melbourne Police Department got fed up with the noisy generator being run by his neighbor, so he
went next door late one night and threatened to have the neighbor arrested for violating city noise ordinances. The neighbor
went to the media, and soon Florida Today, WMEL and WMMB were all loudly trumpeting the idiocy of this abusive officer. Then-Mayor John
Buckley convened an emergency meeting of the City Council to vote on temporarily rescinding the city's noise ordinances so
that people could run their generators until their power came back on, and the measure passed 6-1. Who voted "nay," you
ask? None other than Pat Poole. In the minutes of
that meeting, Page 2 shows she opposed it basically because she's lived in a house without air conditioning since she
was 6 years old and has gotten along fine, completely ignoring that some people were running generators to save the food
in their refrigerator, to keep a business running, or to power medical equipment at home. Well, actually, she did address
people who had health issues, saying they should just go to a hurricane shelter instead of running a generator at home.
Yeah, swell, Pat. Tell people to abandon their home in the aftermath of a major natural disaster while looting is actively
taking place. Makes sense to me! She also criticized the media for stirring up the story of the threatened arrest, effectively
defending the Deputy Chief for his blatant abuse of his law enforcement authority in a personal dispute. That should show
you what she thinks of the citizens of Melbourne: you should all just shut up and roll over if a cop wants to throw you in
jail over something incredibly stupid. And how dare the media report on it!
More recently, Poole has led
the charge against expanding the Daily Bread soup kitchen in downtown Melbourne, and I actually agree with her on that
point, thought not quite with the same fervor she brings to the issue. She also managed to get herself
ejected from the
audience at a City Council meeting back in March of 2007 for going past her speaking time, but I've heard Mayor Harry Goode
is a bit of a stickler on enforcing the rules at Council meetings, plus I wasn't there to see what happened for myself, so
I'm not sure how useful that info is. But there you go.
Pat Poole is the wrong person for the Melbourne City Council. Her attitude towards the citizens of her own district
borders on contempt, and her attitude towards the citizens of the rest of the city isn't much better. She has a history of
being combative and cantankerous just because she can. She seems to go out of her way to piss people off, and while a
little dissension in government is a good thing, dissension solely for the sake of dissension is pointless. That's all Pat
Poole has to offer, and the city of Melbourne can do better than that.
|
|
Notre Dame football: bad luck charm
|
| | |
Saturday, October 11th, 2008 at 8:00am
|
Coming up later today will be my long-promised article on Pat
Poole. But first...
Oh hey, look, my first full update since my
vacation and it's about Notre Dame football. Shocking, I know.
If you were paying attention during the Notre Dame-Stanford game last weekend, you could pick out the precise
moment at which my vacation schedule actually allowed me to turn on the TV and start watching the game: the start of
the 4th quarter. That's when Notre Dame went into their ingenious three-and-out offense with a 28-7 lead and allowed
Stanford to score two quick touchdowns, making it 28-21 with way too much time still left in the 4th quarter. Thank
goodness for that stupid, stupid Stanford punt returner for catching Notre Dame's final punt at his own 2 yard line and
getting nailed right there, dooming Stanford's chances at completing the comeback.
But it pretty much confirmed my status as Notre Dame's official bad-luck charm. The instant I turned on the TV, they
forgot how to play football and did everything they could to hand the game to Stanford. Imagine if I'd turned on the TV
earlier! Further evidence... Notre Dame is 0-5 in games in which I am personally in the stands watching. In 2005, I was
watching the close finishes to Michigan State and USC in which the Irish lost, but I was unable to watch the close finish
against Stanford in which the Irish won. I also missed the entire 4th quarter of the '06 Michigan State game, in which
Notre Dame capped off a furious comeback with a miraculous victory. Oh, and during the disasterous '07 season, the only
game I couldn't watch was the UCLA game... which turned out to be Notre Dame's first victory of the year, and their only
win until mid-November.
Maybe I shouldn't turn on the TV for the Notre Dame-North Carolina game later today.
At any rate, if I'd posted before the Stanford game, I would've predicted a loss, because I genuinely fear the ability
of Stanford coach Jim Harbaugh to get his guys fired up for a big game. And hey, Stanford came pretty close, but in the
end the Irish held on for the win. Now we're 4-1, but the offense is one-sided, the rushing game is woefully anemic
and shows scant signs of improvement, the defense isn't particularly stout, and we haven't beaten anybody of any real
worth yet.
So, I'm sticking with my prediction of a final record of 8-4. That means we're gonna lose 3 more games. USC is a
gimme -- we ain't got the horses to keep up with them. Two more losses... I still say one will be to Pittsburgh, because
Dave Wannstadt ("the Wannstache") has that infuriating ability to steal a big game one week and then lose to
Southeast Rhode Island A&M Tech the following week, so he's fully capable of getting a sneaky trap win on the Irish. That
leaves one loss left, and North Carolina has looked pretty strong so far. Butch Davis has them playing well there in Chapel
Hill, and it's a road game against a ranked opponent.
So, you heard it here first. Notre Dame loses to North Carolina today, 24-13.
And as always, I hope I'm wrong. Hey, I was wrong about the Stanford game.
GO IRISH!!!
|
| | |
Tuesday, October 7th, 2008 at 11:15pm
|
Sorry it's been so quiet here lately. Things have been tumultuous at work, and then
things quieted down just in time for me to go out of town for a vacation for a few days. But now I'm back, I'm rested,
and I'm rearing to go.
Give me a day or two to catch up, and then I'll start filling this page with updates once again. It's good to be back,
in more ways than one.
|
|
Notre Dame football: Purdue comes to town
|
| | |
Saturday, September 27th, 2008 at 9:00am
|
First of all, apologies for the spotty updating this month. I feel like I've been
running down lately... I think I'm trying to do too much while not getting enough sleep, and it's catching up to me. Maybe
my life needs a reboot. But anyway...
I predicted a loss to Michigan State,
last week and it happened, though I was a little disappointed that it wasn't closer. And watching our ground game go
absolutely nowhere was rather distressing, though Clausen, Tate and Floyd all continued to show impressive growth for the
Irish passing game. If Charlie Weis can figure out a way to use the pass to set up the run, we could finally get our
offense on-track. I get the feeling we'll see a lot more passing early on in the Purdue game later today.
Ah, Purdue. Owner of the World's Largest Drum, not to mention an obnoxious student body. Purdue notched some upsets
over Notre Dame during the Bob Davie / Ty Willingham era, and that got 'em feelin' cocky. Weis took 'em to the woodshed in
'05 and '06, but then they got us during the disasterous '07 season, so they're feelin' mighty full of themselves... kinda
like Michigan State, actually. Except Michigan State has a cohesive team, a solid coach, and a phenom by the name of Javon
Ringer. Purdue doesn't.
Purdue will play us tougher than Michigan and San Diego State, and they'll keep it close, but they're not good enough
to beat us. Irish win, 28-20.
GO IRISH!!!
|
|
Kakistocracy: my new favorite word
|
| | |
Monday, September 22nd, 2008 at 9:00am
|
For the longest time, going back to my childhood days, my favorite word in the
English language has been defenestration, the act of
throwing someone through a window. It's a fun word to say. Go on, say it out loud. Defenestration. Fun, huh? When you use
it in front of someone who has never heard that word before, you can get some great reactions as they try to figure out
what it means. * And the definition... oh, the definition! The mere fact that there is a word for that in the
English language! That, ladies and gentlemen, is awesomeness defined. And as a bonus, knowing about the word defenestration
is almost like being a member of some secret society. Drop the word into a conversation and watch for that flash of
recognition to cross someone's face. Ah, another member of the brotherhood!
It's a tough word to top. But it's been topped.
In an e-mail to me over the weekend, Linda McKinney dropped in the
word kakistocracy. The word jumped off the screen and
crackled with negative meaning, and I just had to look it up. So I did: a government run by the worst,
least-qualified people. It's derived from the Greek word kakisto, meaning "worst," which makes a kakistocracy literally
"a government of the worst."
The fact that there is a word for that in the English language is awesomeness distilled.
Kakistocracy!
Apparently I'm late to the party, since Google turns up an awful lot of bloggers who have used that word before, but
hey, I'm not bitter. I feel priveleged just to be made aware of such a wonderful word at all, even if it did take this long.
Linda McKinney, you have my most profound thanks.
_____________________________
* Am I a prick for being amused by that? Probably. Do I care? Not at all. **
** Am I pretentious for asking my own questions and then answering them? You betcha. Do I care? Not really, no.
|
|
Submitted Without Comment
|
| | |
Monday, September 22nd, 2008 at 8:30am
|

(Well, if there are Jedi squirrels, of course there'd be Sith squirrels, right? And no, sorry,
I don't know who to credit this to either.)
|
| | |
Saturday, September 20th, 2008 at 11:15am
|
I saw one of her campaign signs two days ago and thought I must be seeing things. She mercifully retired years ago, didn't
she? Wasn't she forever gone from our lives? No need to worry.
Then I saw another one of her campaign signs this morning. Read it more carefully. Realized I was reading it correctly.
Got home and checked the Supervisor of Elections website.
There it is.
Pat Poole is running for the Melbourne City Council.
NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Melbourne, I am imploring you, BEGGING you, do NOT allow this embarrassment of a human being to return
to the City Council!
Man, now I've gotta go back deep into my archives and see what notes I have from her previous stint on the
Council. I wasn't planning on commenting on any of the Melbourne races since I live in Palm Bay, but this... this must be
responded to.
|
|
Notre Dame football: now the real challenge begins
|
| | |
Saturday, September 20th, 2008 at 10:55am
|
Last week I predicted a close
20-17 victory for Notre Dame over Michigan. Holy cow, did I blow that one. Notre Dame won 35-17, blowing Michigan out of
the water and taking full of advantage of Michigan's 6 turnovers. Looks like Notre Dame football is back, huh?
Except it's not. Not yet.
Michigan beat Notre Dame in every stat except for the one that matters most: the score. 14 of Notre Dame's points
were pretty much gift-wrapped by Michigan and handed over during the first 4 minutes of the game. That McGuffie kid
ran all over Notre Dame's defense, we showed an alarming tendency to give up big plays and long drives, and our rushing
game continued to sputter along with an average yardage per carry of 3-point-something yards... not bad, but not enough.
At least we showed the poise to take advantage of Michigan's mistakes and to make big plays when we absolutely had to
make them, but Michigan was threatening to get right back in it the whole game, held back almost chiefly by shooting
themselves in the foot repeatedly.
Many of my friends in the Irish Nation think we finally proved something against Michigan, that it was a statement win,
a turnaround game. It was none of those. It was a convincing win over a hated rival, and a major confidence boost to a
young squad, but it doesn't prove much.
The real test comes later today on the road against Michigan State and their punishing ground game. If Notre Dame can
beat the Spartans, I'll be thrilled. I'll agree then that Notre Dame has proven themselves as a legitimate threat to win
every game on their schedule and to reach a BCS bowl. But I don't think Notre Dame can win this one. We've come a long way
but we still have a long way to go.
Michigan State wins 28-17, but we'll keep it respectable.
But you know what? I hope I'm wrong. I'd LOVE to be wrong. And that's why I'll be shouting my lungs out when
I tune the TV to ESPN at 3:30pm today.
GO IRISH!!!
|
|
Ford vs. Hughes: The Battle of Who Could Care Less
|
| | |
Saturday, September 20th, 2008 at 10:45am
|
(Quite frankly, I'm surprised I've gone this long without quoting Ben Folds Five.)
The upcoming Property Appraiser race between the incumbent Jim Ford and the challenger Larry Hughes has to be one of
the more bizarre races we've had in Brevard County in a while. The latest twist this week was the announcement that the
blood test in Hughes's open DUI case came back showing no
alcohol in his blood. So the case is over, right? Nope. The prosecutor is still expecting results back from
another blood test for drugs. But with the trial set to begin on Monday, time's running out. And the judge is
clearly annoyed with the prosecutor for taking so long on the blood tests, because he denied the prosecutor's request for
a two-week delay in starting the trial. So, the case could very well end up getting dropped altogether on Monday. We'll see.
Regardless, with Ford and Hughes, we have two candidates who, to put it bluntly, both suck. I'm really not sure I care
who wins, because either way I won't be happy with the results. The only decision to make is to decide who sucks worse, and
then vote for the other guy.
Let's review Jim Ford's record, shall we?
Ford's former chief deputy at the Property Appraiser's office, Lance Larsen, was indicted on
multiple felony charges for
official misconduct back in August for manipulating appraisal values, costing Brevard County $61,000 in tax revenue.
Shortly after the state starting investigating Ford's office in 2007, Ford
demoted Larsen from the
chief deputy position, which looks an awful lot to me like Ford was trying to distance himself from Larsen ahead of time.
Reports from the state investigation show that Ford
was directly involved in one of the re-assessments that got Larsen in trouble, and that the person who got the break
on their tax bill was a business partner of a repeated political donor to Ford's campaigns.
Those same reports show that Ford was aware
of and involved with several of the other re-assessments that got Larsen nailed.
The father of Republican State Representative Thad Altman got
a questionable break on
his property tax assessment from Ford's office in 2006.
Appraiser's office employees who have cooperated with the state investigation into Ford's office, such as
Charlie Sitton, have often ended up losing their jobs in "layoffs."
Ford got a whopping 32.47% of the votes in his primary election back in August.
Great record, huh?
Of course, Larry Hughes doesn't look much
better...
Hughes was pulled over on I-95 in Indian River County back in June for doing 87 mph, and was
arrested for DUI after refusing to take a breath test,
though he of course maintains his innocence.
Because of the breath-test refusal, Hughes's driving license was automatically suspended per state law.
The day before Tropical Storm Fay in August, Hughes got popped for
driving on that suspended license
and plans to plead guilty to that charge next week. His excuse? He had to go shopping for hurricane supplies and had no
choice but to drive a mile to the nearby Winn-Dixie. Uh, Larry? How much would calling a taxi have cost you? Probably
way less than the $500 fine you'll probably have to pay.
Hughes has pushed for a bizarre plan to
greatly increase the property
appraisal value of marijuana grow-houses, even if it's a rental home and the pot is being grown by the renter without
the owner's knowledge. (By the way, that's exactly the situation Democratic Congressional candidate Steven Blythe found
himself in earlier this year when it turned out a renter was using one of Blythe's rental homes as a
grow house. Blythe and Hughes may want to have a chat on this one.)
In his interview with Bill Mick on WMMB before the primary, Hughes showed a general lack of knowledge of
the duties and scope of the Property Appraiser's office that he wants to run, including stating that it's impossible
for the Property Appraiser's office to physically visit every home in Brevard County once every five years. Never mind
that doing so is required by state law. And never mind that pretty much every other county in the state manages to comply
with that law, despite Hughes thinking that doing so is impossible.
And yet Hughes managed to win the Democratic primary over an opponent with 21 years of experience
working in that same office and a reputation as a whistle-blower, namely Charlie Sitton? I'd ask what the hell is wrong
with you Democrats, except that the Republicans voted to re-nominate Jim Ford in that same primary.
Makes me glad I'm a registered Libertarian. But anyway...
I guess in November I'll probably end up voting for Larry Hughes. His judgement is highly questionable, his experience
in running large government agencies is virtually nonexistent, and his grasp of the job he's running for is tenuous and
bordering on incompetent. But hey, at least he's never gotten in trouble for official misconduct in his job on the
school board. The closest he's come to that was when he sent a
campaign e-mail to the work inboxes of school board employees, which later turned out to be a protest move to highlight
how inconsistent the laws are on who is or isn't allowed to e-mail political campaign information using state resources.
That's it. His record in that regard is pretty much squeaky clean.
In contrast, Jim Ford knows full-well how to run the Property Appraiser's office. In fact, he knows how to run it
too well, given everything that's been happening on his watch that just happens to be benefiting people who are
close to him and have helped his campaigns in the past, all at our expense of course.
So yeah. I'll be voting for Larry Hughes in November. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.
|
| | |
Saturday, September 13th, 2008 at 8:30am
|
Okay, all that stuff I wrote
yesterday about unity and togetherness and remembering who the real Enemy is?
I forgot all about the Michigan Wolverines, those bastards. After teaching Notre Dame how to play football and
promptly finding out we're better at it, they tried to smother Notre Dame football in its infancy -- and failed. And now
we hate them.
(Oh, don't bother me with the fact that this was a century ago. This is college football fandom. Logic and rationality
will not be tolerated.)
This year, Michigan has a new coach, a brand new offensive system, new players at key positions all over the place, and
some rather unfortunate injuries. In short, they're in a rebuilding year. But Notre Dame ain't exactly in top form right
now either, though we're further along with the rebuilding process than Michigan is.
Last week, I predicted we'd beat San Diego State 28-10. We ended up winning 21-13 and looked pretty shaky for three
quarters before pouring it on in the 4th. But the running game showed signs of life, Jimmy Clausen shook off his early
miscues to lead two rock-solid touchdown drives, and Golden Tate emerged as the star of the wide-receiver corps.
Last week, I also predicted we would lose to Michigan. But after seeing how both teams have played so far this season,
I'm changing my mind. I'm still sticking with an 8-4 mark for the season, and I'm flipping the Stanford game to a loss
since I think they could pull one over on us. But for today's game, I think we'll see more of what we saw in the 4th
quarter of the San Diego State game. Notre Dame will score 3 touchdowns but botch another extra point, and will win
20-17.
GO IRISH!!!
|
| | |
Friday, September 12th, 2008 at 8:30am
|
Everywhere you turned yesterday, I'm sure you were told to remember September 11th.
I'm taking a different tack here. I'm going to ask you to remember September 12th.
On September 11th, 2001, terrible things happened. We as a nation were shocked and off-balance, reacting to changing
conditions on the fly, no time to think, just act and act NOW.
On September 12th, we woke up a new nation. The dust had settled. We'd had a night to sleep on it. We'd had time to
catch our breath, to think, to ponder, to consider what the previous day's events meant for the future direction of the
United States of America. We had a general plan to go find who did this and kick their ass, and September 12th was when we
started filling in the details for that plan.
It was our nation's finest day. For the first time in a long time, we were almost unanimously united behind one cause,
one identity. We were all Americans first and foremost, and everything else was a distant second. We were united
in a way that had once seemed impossible in the aftermath of the divisive 2000 presidential election. We had a goal. We had
a mission. We were united.
You don't need me to tell you how far we've gotten from that day.
For those of us who follow politics, it is so damn easy to cluster up with people who hold similar views
to our own, and to look upon anyone who doesn't share those views as The Enemy. We smear, we insult, we twist the truth.
I do it. You do it. We do it because we think these battles of political ideology are all-encompassing and overarchingly
important, and that we must do anything -- anything -- to win that ideological battle.
News flash for all of you, liberal or conservative, who have taken a side in the ideological battle that divides our
nation right now. To both sides, I say to you that the vast majority of those people on the opposite side of you are
not engaged in an insidious plot to destroy the country. They actually think their ideas will
help the country. You believe they're wrong, of course, and that's fine. I'm not asking you to give up on
the debate or to roll over and accept ideas you disagree with. But I am asking you to acknowledge the good motives of those
you disagree with, those who truly believe their ideas are what's best for this country, even though you disagree.
Yeah, okay, there's a few miscreants on the other side with baser, more selfish motives. Look around and you'll see a
few of those same miscreants on your own side as well. But they're a tiny minority, and they're dwarved by the sheer
hordes of people with purer motives, who just want a better nation to live in.
We forget what our true goal should be: to make the United States of America a better nation. We focus on the
short-sighted goal of winning the argument just for the sake of winning the argument, and we lose track of the actual
reason why we should be having that argument at all.
And in the process, we forget who the true Enemies are: those who have the explicit, stated and intentional goal of
bringing down the United States of America.
On September 12th, 2001, we knew who our true Enemies actually are: radical, fundamentalist Islamic
terrorists who hate everything about this nation and want it brought down, who twist our own freedoms against us to find
and exploit our weaknesses until they can strike at those weaknesses with devastating force.
Kinda puts that argument with your next-door neighbor about government-run health-care in perspective, doesn't it?
He isn't the enemy. On September 12th, 2001, you knew that.
It's time to remember that again.
Remember September 12th, 2001.
|
|
Figures don't lie: primary election follow-up
|
| | |
Monday, September 8th, 2008 at 10:30am
|
Did you know Volusia County had 106% voter-turnout
for the 8/26 primary election?
It's true! I read it on the Voter
Turnout page on the Florida Division of Elections website!
Well, okay, it's most likely a typo, since the chart shows only 35,984 registered voters in Volusia, compared to
300,000+ in Brevard. I'm pretty sure there's a digit missing from Volusia's number, and that in turn threw off the
turnout calculation. I've already e-mailed the webmaster to have it corrected, but it was still funny to see more votes
counted than actual registered voters. For a second there, I thought I was gonna break a major voter-fraud story, but alas,
it was not to be. :)
I also saw that Brevard County finalized it's election
reporting with the state on 8/29, and the only counties that turned in their results on earlier days were tiny little
rural counties with only a handful of votes to count. So, Brevard continues its streak of smoothly-run and quickly-counted
elections, truly a testament to the quality job done by the Brevard County Supervisor of Elections office. It's also a
great contrast to Miami-Dade County, which 12 days later still hasn't finished counting their absentee ballots yet.
(I also noticed Gilchrist County is missing entirely from the state's election website for the 8/26 primary.
Why did I notice that Gilchrist County is missing at all? Because I'm an insufferable nerd, that's why.)
UPDATE: 9/9 at 4:15pm - The webmaster for the state election website fixed the Volusia County
numbers yesterday. She also advised me that Gilchrist County only had local elections on 8/26, no state elections; hence
the omission.
But I still find it odd that it took 12 days for anyone to notice Volusia County had a reported election turnout of 106%,
and that it took some rookie blogger from Palm Bay to find it at all. I do this as a hobby for a few hours a week.
Reporters get paid for this. Nobody in the mainstream media looks for election anomalies
at all?!? Yikes.
|
| | |
Saturday, September 6th, 2008 at 9:15am
|
Between Tropical Storm Fay, Tropical Storm
Hanna, Hurricane Ike, the 8/26 primary, and the invasion of Buenos Aires by an army of voracious bug-like aliens, I've
once again fallen behind on a bevy of great local stories. And I'm just not gonna have time to do full write-ups on all of
them, but I don't want to let them slip into the ether unnoted either. So let me cue up "Janitor" by Toad the Wet Sprocket
here, and then I'll give ya some quick-hits.
Hang on, I've just been handed a note... hmm. Apparently, the alien invasion of Buenos Aires did not, in fact, recently
happen, but was instead a plot point from Robert Heinlein's sci-fi tour-de-force novel
Starship
Troopers, which of course was waaaaaaaay better than the awful, awful movie of the same name. Also apparently,
I need to get more sleep.
Irishmen, Aztecs and football. Oh my!
Not strictly-speaking local, but today marks the season opener for Notre Dame's 2008 football season. (My dad graduated
from there, so I grew up bleeding blue-and-gold.) I think my thoughts are best summed up by this
bootleg t-shirt that's been
making the rounds of the internet. "(Front) O
|
|