Pasco County News | Breaking News

A question of perpetual care

Posted Jan 24, 2011 by Tom Jackson

Updated Jan 24, 2011 at 05:34 PM

Alert reader Joseph Hamel asks, in the wake of Sunday’s column – “Finances redefine priorities” – a question that is simultaneously provocative, insightful and appropriate (as all good questions are).

I wonder if the hundred or so palm trees that have been planted in Zephyrhills are needs or wants.  Maybe we should ask Mr. Weatherford. I have no idea who or what funded these things.

An e-mail to the likely suspects produced this quick response from Zephyrhills City Manager Steve Spina:

The palm trees were a grant from the Florida Department of Transportation – enhancement/beautification grant.  The grant was for $80,000.  The city will have to maintain the trees and right of way where they are planted. 

I would probably say they are a “want” rather than a “need,” although trees, beautification, landscaping, etc. are all important aspects of public lands, rights of way, downtowns, etc.

While we agree with Spina that nothing says Florida beautification quite line a grove of palms, what happens to them after they’re planted got us thinking about the nature of government programs, especially how, after they are created, they tend toward self-perpetuation.  Consider the palms of Zephyrhills.  Taxpayer dollars purchased them and paid to have them installed.  Now even more taxpayer dollars will be spent on maintaining them.

Perhaps this is as it should be – public dollars being spent to maintain public dollars invested in a perishable product.

But the new government austerity referred to in Sunday’s column ought to encourage thinking that is slightly outside the proverbial box.

If I were directing public policy in Zephyrhills, however, I’d find out whether it made sense to invite private sector entities to adopt and tend some or all of the new palms.  We imagine a line of companies, not limited to landscapers, and civic clubs, vying for opportunities to strut their stuff.

In exchange for performing maintenance (in accordance with state and local mandates), the volunteers would post modest signs that declare (for purposes of advertising and assigning responsibility – the old carrot-and-stick approach) who’s looking after this particular patch of palms.

Everybody wins.  Thanks to alert reader Joseph Hamel for provoking this helpful thought experiment.

---

As Marco Rubio dials up the pressure, does Bill Nelson feel the squeeze?

Posted Jan 19, 2011 by Tom Jackson

Updated Jan 19, 2011 at 07:36 PM

In an event closely related to the post below, freshman Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Miami) fires a salvo across Majority Leader (until 2013) Harry Reid’s bow. Says Rubio:

“In voting to repeal ObamaCare, our colleagues in the House have taken an important step.  We need to repeal the federal health care law and replace it with common sense reforms that will lower health care costs and get more Americans insured.  ObamaCare creates uncertainty for job creators, threatens Medicare as Floridians know it and lays the foundation for government-run health care.

“Instead, we need to replace it with reforms that promote competition, empower patients with more high-quality health-care options, combat fraud and integrate the latest technologies to make the system more efficient and the patient better informed. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to repeal and replace ObamaCare, and hope the Democrat leadership will heed the American people’s call by allowing an up-or-down vote.”

Democratic leadership in the Senate may well resist, initially, but one wonders whether donks from tradititionally red states who face tough reelection battles (Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Ben Nelson in Nebraska, to cite two; our own Bill Nelson may also qualify) really want to face conservative-leaning voters having to (a) defend their support for ObamaCare while (b) resisting attempts to start anew?

As a matter of policy and politics, only a handful of Democratic senators need to go wobbly before Wednesday’s vote in the House turns out to have far more punch than the mere symbolism claimed by the White House and Senate majority leaders.

---

Bay area congressmen rebuke Obamacare

Posted Jan 19, 2011 by Tom Jackson

Updated Jan 19, 2011 at 07:15 PM

From the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Gus Bilirakis rebukes Obamacare, promises a viable, liberty-friendly alternative.

“The House is listening to the message that Americans sent Washington this past fall,” Bilirakis said. “America simply cannot afford a health care overhaul that costs jobs, spends over a trillion dollars and raises premiums. We will replace the overreaching health care law with sensible solutions that will lower costs, increase access to insurance, preserve the doctor-patient relationship and keep Americans in charge of their own health.”

Meanwhile, freshman Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Brooksville), who also is for Obamacare’s repeal, has declined his federally funded congressional health care plan.  According to his office, this is not without cost: Despite his status as a retired law enforcement officer (38 years in uniform), Nugent is paying $800 a month for medical insurance.

Nugent also plans to introduce legislation that would allow elected federal representatives to opt out of the pension plan and reject the federal (read: taxpayer) match of Congress’ defined-contribution retirement arrangement.  Those options are not available now.

---

Lies, darn lies and that recent AP poll

Posted Jan 18, 2011 by Tom Jackson

Updated Jan 18, 2011 at 01:09 AM

The Associate Press demonstrates, yet again, that all any poll really reflects is the opinion of the sample population.  To arrive at a preordained outcome, all you have to do is prearrange who’s in the poll, and who isn’t.

Blogging at the Weekly Standard, Jeffrey H. Anderson has the goods on this week’s AP/GfK poll that claims opposition to ObamaCare is eroding.  In short, there’s nothing to see here.  The poll was scarcely worth a headline, let alone the tortured prose that went to substantial lengths to claim Americans were becoming increasingly comfortable with Washington’s occupation of the U.S. health care system.

Instead, pollsters simply reaffirmed that Democrats don’t like the idea of repeal, a conclusion buried in the details: Pollsters significantly under-sampled Republicans and Republican leaners, despite recent events that suggest the GOP and its sympathizers are at least even with, if not slightly ahead of, Democrats in any random sample of adults.  Writes Anderson:

A widely reprinted AP story, based on a recent AP/GfK poll, is entitled, “Opposition to health care law eases.” Don’t believe it. What has eased isn’t the level of opposition to Obamacare, but rather the level of effort that AP/GfK has made to ensure that its polling sample is representative of American voters.

When the AP/GfK poll screened for likely voters a couple of weeks before the election, it estimated that 48 percent of voters leaned Republican and that 42 percent leaned Democratic (which the election showed to be about right). In its latest survey—the one that serves as the basis for the AP story—AP/GfK didn’t screen for likely voters and didn’t screen for registered voters. Instead, it merely surveyed 1,001 adults. The result?  The percentage of Democratic-leaning respondents stayed the same (42 percent), but the percentage of Republican-leaning respondents dropped by 12 points, to 36 percent.

As one would expect—with the same percentage of Democratic-leaning respondents having been surveyed both times—the level of support for Obamacare remained essentially unchanged: 41 percent supported it previously; 40 percent support it now. Just as unsurprisingly, when the percentage of Republican-leaning respondents dropped by 12 points, the level of opposition to Obamacare dropped by 11 points (from 52 to 41 percent).

Moreover, despite its gross under-representation of Republican-leaning respondents, the current AP/GfK poll still shows more people opposing Obamacare than supporting it, even greater opposition among those who feel strongly, overwhelming opposition to the individual mandate, and more support for repealing Obamacare in its entirety than for keeping Obamacare as it is. There’s no story here, even though AP wrote one.

In a less-widely-disseminated poll released Monday, Rasmussen Reports finds that opposition to ObamaCare remains substantial and steady.  By a 55-40 majority, likely voters favor repeal.  Wednesday, House of Representatives Republican leaders have scheduled a vote designed to begin carrying out the majority’s wishes.

 

 

---

Weekly Standard notes Gus Bilirakis’ rise ... sort of

Posted Jan 5, 2011 by Tom Jackson

Updated Jan 5, 2011 at 12:13 PM

In the course of noting the rise of stars within the tiny Republican freshman class of 2006, Weekly Standard Editor Fred Barnes lavishes praise on Minnesota lightning rod Michelle Bachmann—rightly so—but has only a bare mention for Palm Harbor’s Gus Bilirakis.

It seems, for Barnes’, Bilirakis chief accomplishment was the manner in which he was elected:

The others first elected in 2006 are Gus Bilarakis, 47, who succeeded his father in a Florida seat, beating a Democratic candidate hand-picked by Rahm Emanuel, then chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee(.)

That opponent would have been the late, lamented Phyllis Busansky of Carrollwood, who later was elected to elections supervisor for Hillsborough County. Plainly, the time and opportunity have arrived for our Gus—first time in the majority—to step up his game.

---

Journal to PolitiFact: Your pants are smoking

Posted Dec 23, 2010 by Tom Jackson

Updated Dec 23, 2010 at 11:27 AM

Much hay has been baled on behalf of the “Lie of the Year” as identified by PolitiFact, a widely quoted arm of the St. Petersburg Times.

Now along comes the Wall Street Journal editorial page, whose opinion is not to be trifled with, to suggest PolitiFact’s conclusion ain’t necessarily accurate. Bottom line: PolitiFact muddles fact and opinion (not for the first time) to arrive at a conclusion satisfactory to the left.

The so-called lie, you may recall, is that ObamaCare amounts to a government takeover of the American medical industry.  PolitiFact rejects this in the strongest possible terms, declaring that “(g)overnment takeover” means commandeering hospitals and turning doctors into public employees.  Well, that’s one way to look at it.

Having parsed the findings, however, the Journal declares PolitiFact’s selective reasoning to approach the dreaded “pants on fire” designation.

PolitiFact’s decree is part of a larger journalistic trend that seeks to recast all political debates as matters of lies, misinformation and “facts,” rather than differences of world view or principles. PolitiFact wants to define for everyone else what qualifies as a “fact,” though in political debates the facts are often legitimately in dispute. ...

In fact—if we may use that term without PolitiFact’s seal of approval—at the heart of ObamaCare is a vast expansion of federal control over how U.S. health care is financed, and thus delivered. The regulations that PolitiFact waves off are designed to convert insurers into government contractors in the business of fulfilling political demands, with enormous implications for the future of U.S. medicine. All citizens will be required to pay into this system, regardless of their individual needs or preferences. Sounds like a government takeover to us.

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan brilliantly noted, we all are entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. PolitiFact fails this standard by being dismissive of what fairly constitutes each.  The Journal continues:

PolitiFact ... has marketed itself to other news organizations on the pretense of impartiality. Like other “fact checking” enterprises, its animating conceit is that opinions are what ideologues have, when in reality PolitiFact’s curators also have political views and values that influence their judgments about facts and who is right in any debate.

In this case, they even claim that the government takeover slogan “played an important role in shaping public opinion about the health-care plan and was a significant factor in the Democrats’ shellacking in the November elections.” In other words, voters turned so strongly against Democrats because Republicans “lied,” and not because of, oh, anything the Democrats did while they were running Congress. Is that a “fact” or a political judgment? Just asking.

As long as the press corps is nominating “lies of the year,” ours goes to the formal legislative title of ObamaCare, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. For a bill that in reality will raise health costs and reduce patient choice, the name recalls Mary McCarthy’s famous line about every word being a lie, including “the” and “and.”

The Journal fails to note what came out in a Florida Panhandle courtroom last week in the lawsuit brought by 20 states in an attempt to have ObamaCare declared unconstitutional.  A government lawyer argued precisely what congressional Democrats and the president wouldn’t touch with the proverbial 39 1/2-foot pole:

The mandate requiring all Americans to acquire approved health insurance constitutes a “funding mechanism”—in other words, a tax—to make the program work.  We will grant PolitiFact the benefit of a shifting landscape; as the administration attempts to implement the crown jewel of its domestic agenda, the parts will be ever-moving.

Still, now that the government is arguing that it has the authority, through taxing powers granted in the Constitution, to force compliance, the issuing of a somewhat amended opinion would not be out of the question.

Otherwise, it’s time for PolitiFact to break out the fire extinguishers, because there’s a conflagration in its knickers.

 

---

‘Blinded by the constructs of modern society’

Posted Nov 29, 2010 by Tom Jackson

Updated Nov 29, 2010 at 05:43 PM

One (possibly) last time, we entertain a critic of our post from Sept. 17, “The slow death of decency standards.”  Disappointed with The Jax Files now is Dre’ Graham, the outstanding band director of the outstanding Marching Lions, who have turned into a thriving mini-Pride-of-the-Sunshine outfit under the guidance of this recent University of Florida alumnus.

Writes Band Director Graham:

As the director of the King High School Marching Lions organization, I am appalled and disappointed that you would take the time to find the negative side of something that has been such a positive light in the lives of so many young adults since its inception.  As a fellow alum of King High School, it saddens me even more that you would bring a negative light to an organization you were associated with; and when your wife did so much work to make the 50th anniversary the best it could be.  But I digress.

When you look at the Lionettes organization, what do you see?  It’s pretty easy to be blinded by the constructs of modern society and view the team through misconstrued eyes (which you have stated that this organization is conforming to).  These girls are not pregnant teens, drug addicts, or high-school dropouts.  We actually boast one of the highest grade point averages of all extra-curricular activities at King High School; but that is not your focus.  You do not care about the negative light this sheds on a group that has received consistent superiors at district performance evaluations, as well as, been viewed as a standout squad in every category at the annual MA (Marching Auxiliaries) competition.  This organization has also been a staple in the Temple Terrace community by leading in community service and student outreach programs.  However, again, this is not your focus. Y ou have chosen to focus, out of the 10 minute performance to which you witnessed, on the 20 seconds in which the girls performed their version of the “Wu-Tang.”  After reviewing the dance time and time again, this is the only section that I could imagine you would be addressing.

Let me assure you, Mr. Jackson, that before the girls perform any dance, their director scrupulously observes their dances for anything that could be seen as offensive or inappropriate.  During the “Wu-Tang,” in which you state that they are making pelvic thrusts, let me help to more clearly define that actual movement in which you observed; their knees were, in fact, bending while their back and shoulder moved backwards. [Not] being a professional dancer yourself, I see how you may have confused that with pelvic thrusts.

It is quite disheartening that in a society that constantly identifies and focuses on the negative aspects of our younger generation, you would use your vessel of communication to contribute to the relentless barrage of negativity this generation is facing.  May I request that you use your column to build our society and emphasize the positive characteristics of our community in an effort to make the future brighter; instead of contributing to the communal decay of our culture by your continuous focus on the negative aspects of our community and the next generation.

Thoroughly Disappointed ~

Dré Graham, M.M.E.

Band Director, King High School

KHS c/o ‘03

Let me say this about that: With all due respect to all the good works the Lionette do and have done in their half-century of existence, Band Director Graham makes my point.  “[Not] being a professional dancer yourself,” he writes, “I see how you may have confused that with pelvic thrusts.”

Indeed.  And just how many professional dancers are in the average audience for the halftime show at a high school football game?

If the number is anything south of 50 percent (allowing seatmates to explain to uninformed gawkers that what they think they’re seeing is not, in fact, what they’re seeing) then by Band Director Graham’s own standard, several hundred—possibly several thousand—provencial, parochial, prudish dolts, like me, are going to come away fixated on the 20 seconds (I’ll take his word for it) that high school girls in snug, stretchy uniforms performed pelvic thrusts.

It is our hope here at the The Jax Files that by making plain the likely interpretation of an audience poorly educated in the subtleties of modern dance—rest assured I was not the only witness in my section who remarked, “What was that?!!” when I returned to my seat—that we are not contributing to cultural decay.  Rather, by identifying the apparent fraying of the envelope and lobbying for containment and repair, we serve the ambition Band Director Graham endorses: Building a society that emphasizes positive characteristics on behalf of a brighter future.

Alas, we cannot get to that dazzling-smile future if we neglect the shadows of cavities in the here and now.

Nonetheless, we thank Band Director Graham for his elaboration and illumination.  His is a daunting task, and the young people in his charge will be pleased to know he has their back.  (They may find this difficult to believe, but so do I.)

---

Still basking in the riotous glow of Leslie Nielsen, master absurdist

Posted Nov 29, 2010 by Tom Jackson

Updated Nov 29, 2010 at 03:59 PM

Written a while back on the occasion of the publication of Leslie Nielsen’s utterly fabricated “unmemoriors,” I’d like to think this study of the master of self-parody holds up.

Published originally in BayLife on July 14, 1993, here’s how “Lyin Leslie: Veteran comedy actor Leslie Nielsen exposes himself to the naked light of truth, sort of” began:

“TAMPA — This just in. In a dramatic move destined to redefine Bay area culture, famed actor, Nobel Prize winner, humanitarian, space shuttle pilot and sports enthusiast Leslie Nielsen has announced plans to underwrite construction of a permanent home in downtown Tampa for the Lightning.

“Designed by Nielsen himself, the arena, to be called ‘The Arena,’ will double during the summer months as a theater for the performance and teaching of screwball comedy techniques to aspiring actors, as well as veteran dramatists longing for a career change.

” ‘It is my fervent belief,’ Nielsen said during a satellite linkup from Somalia, where he was host for a ‘Naked Gun’ revival for U.S. Marines, ‘that completion of this building will secure for Tampa serious, hard-hitting, championship hockey, as well as the next generation of wacky slapstick comics. ... And let’s hope they don’t confuse the two.’

“Completion of the 18,643-seat coliseum (‘I always thought the number eighteen thousand six hundred and forty three was funny, like banana peels and bald heads,’ Nielsen explained) is expected to require two years and $100 million.

” ‘Looks like I’ll have to keep making those “Naked Gun” sequels,’ Nielsen said. ‘At $50 million a movie, I’d need to shoot, ah, hmmm. Well, as Lt. Frank Drebin might say, “You figure it out.” ‘

“We know what you’re saying. Surely you jest. Could be. And stop calling us ‘Shirley.’ “

The riotous rest can be found here.

---

The fury of a father who thinks his dancer daughter was scorned

Posted Nov 24, 2010 by Tom Jackson

Updated Nov 24, 2010 at 02:05 PM

Reader Peter Contardo, father of a King High School Lionette whose picture was featured in the Sept. 17 posting “The slow death of decency standards” (and is here, again) takes issue with the opinion and characterizations contained within.  We publish his email in its entirety:

“I am writing to comment on your September 17th blog, ‘The slow death of decency standards,’  which is only now making the rounds of the Lionettes, but still deserves a response.

“Isn’t one of the basic principles of journalism to research your subject matter? It is very unfortunate that you didn’t follow this practice as your blog may have more accurately reflected what you saw on the field if you had done just a little homework.

“First, I must say that the statement that you ‘felt a little creepy’ shooting pictures of the Lionettes is quite disturbing, because I don’t think that a professional journalist should possess such feelings. But that’s something that you need to address with Mrs. Jackson or perhaps a therapist.  What I can tell you is that this ‘middle-aged man,’ who also happens to be the parent of the young woman you captured in that less than flattering photo, is quite proud and impressed by the ongoing dedication, technical skills, creativity and work ethic demonstrated by the Lionettes.  The number of hours and expertise required to achieve the level of precision and artistry the audience sees during one of their performances is equal to, if not higher than, most high school sports.

“Perhaps the Lionettes should invite you to one of their training sessions, where you could see the extreme level of athleticism that it takes to perform those elements of modern dance that you are unfamiliar with, and all the traditional auxiliary skills demanded by rifle and flag routines. And if you had done your homework you’d know that the Lionettes do incorporate techniques from the Rockettes as well as lyrical, hip hop, modern, pom, step and jazz during their competitive dance season.  (FYI—June Taylor eventually became the choreographer of the Miami Dolphins Cheerleaders, so even her dance routines evolved to reflect our cultural changes.)

“Oh, and you might want to delete the word ‘interactive’ from The Jax Files because your blog really isn’t.  That would require allowing comments and actually engaging your audience in a conversation, which is something you should have done before writing your article.  To that end, I’ve copied both Dré Graham, KHS band director, and Casey Graham, Lionettes director, who I’m sure, would have plenty to share with you about the significant contribution that these young women make to King High School and their community.  I invite you to speak with them.  You may just learn something about the Lionettes, and yourself.

“Or you could remain on the sidelines, behind your words, instead of experiencing what is positive with today’s youth … with all due respect.”

—Peter Contardo

The Jax Files replies:

Thank you for your thoughts.  It is interesting to read the insights of a father who has no problem with high school young women (including his daughter) incorporating liberal applications of pelvic thrusts into their routines.  I truly must be ancient, provincial and prudish.

As for why commenting was disabled on that blog entry, I cannot say.  I have never encouraged turning off comments, but the decision is not mine to make.  The conclusion to which you leap could have been avoided through a little research, perhaps by contacting the TBO webmaster.

Nonetheless, to help make the situation right—with your permission—I will publish your letter in its entirety on my blog site, as well as any others sent to me on the topic.  I stand by my vow of interactivity.

---

Revisiting early voting, revisited

Posted Nov 22, 2010 by Tom Jackson

Updated Nov 22, 2010 at 05:43 PM

Reader Joe Saunders, who splits time between Hudson and Monmouth, Maine, thinks little of our recent post on the problems with early voting, and less of the gubernatorial candidate who decried it on the pages of the Wall Street Journal.  Saunders’ take:

“Any independent or 3rd party candidate needs to come prepared to set forth a detailed plan right from the start of the campaign if he/she hopes to win.  Cutler was extremely vague early on in his campaign, as if he didn’t want to offend any potential voter.  He couldn’t or wouldn’t give detailed responses to where cuts needed to be made or what improvements he wanted to enact.  He gave vague responses that he would look for the best person possible to fill certain positions (really? We thought he was going to pick the worst!! Duh!).

“He didn’t hesitate to tell you that he hadn’t reviewed the state budget yet but expected you to just trust him (who hadn’t actually lived in the state for years) and vote for him.  Only in the last 3 weeks did he begin to offer details.
 
“Every one of the candidates knew going in that Maine, like the rest of the states, allows voting by absentee ballot.  You have to convince those people you are the best candidate early.  His delay caused his loss.  A leader is prepared to lead from the start; he wasn’t.

“The problem was not with absentee voters; it was he didn’t get in the game until too late.  Get used to the rules and play by them from the start or stay home.
I voted by absentee ballot—and didn’t vote for him.”

---

Revisiting Zephyrhills’ revitalization plan

Posted Nov 22, 2010 by Tom Jackson

Updated Nov 22, 2010 at 03:59 PM

Residents of the city of pure water are not entirely impressed with plans for the revitalization of Zephyrhills, which is what you would expect from any such massive attempt to alter the city center’s atmospherics (beginning with the relocation—if consultants have their way—of the Tires Plus auto care center). A couple of readers have written to outline their reservations in response to Sunday’s column on the topic.

This comes from John Fleming:

“Allow to me begin by saying that I recently became a customer of Tires Plus in Zhills, and was completely satisfied with the experience.  I need[ed] 4 new tires, and the entire transaction was handled perfectly from beginning to end.  I made an appointment and was promptly taken care of, and the job was done on time as promised.  The staff was extremely courteous, professional and friendly.

“This being said, I disagree with you[r] comments about Tires Plus being a negative impact on the revitalization of Zhills.  (To be precise, that wasn’t me; that was the opinion of the Urban Resource consultant.—Ed.)  You start off by mentioning Main Street U.S.A. in Disney World as being a model of what Zhills should be.  (To clarify: Main Street U.S.A. is not what Zephyrhills—or any small-to-medium-sized downtown should be; it’s simply what many consultants’ renderings resemble.—Ed.)  Did you forget that Main Street is in “Fantasy Land” and what the word “Fantasy” means?  (Another point of precision: Fantasyland lurks beyond the centerpiece castle; Main Street U.S.A. is its own entity, but Mr. Fleming’s description—it’s an idealized presentation of a idealized age: “The Good Old Days.”—is not one I shall dispute.—Ed.)  Of course you realize that Main Street comes as a cost, around $80 a day to walk down its immaculate street.

“I suggest to you that in [this] day and age, going back to the good old days, just might not be that easy to accomplish or really all that good.  Like it or not, most businesses today are chains, and most towns big and large have become a collection of chains of chains.  As one rides through this great country of ours, [it’s] hard to not notice all the familiar names clumped together.  Who among us, [who have] traveled the interstates ... hasn’t found comfort in finding a Cracker Barrel [r]estaurant for their meal?

“Like them or not, the chains, for the time being are here to stay, and rather [than] try to displace them, I think it would be better to live side-by-side with them, for no other reason, [than] the valuable service they provide the community.  Where in the good old days could you find a hardware store open late at night on weekends, to get the “emergency” part you needed?  Instead of trying to move Tires Plus, why not use a small portion of the money, that would take to buy it, and remodel the building to fit in with the rest of the architecture of the area?  This has been done in many communities throughout the country.  Many Sam’s Clubs, in order to open their doors in the community, had to submit a design that would fit in with the rest of the area.”

And then there is reader E. Smith of Dade City, who describes the work of the consultants and the town’s economic development council as, well, misdirected:

“The least of Zephyrhills’ worr[ies] is the Tires Plus business.  Just keep heading south a little more and you will see the worst mess of trailer parks and junk yards you ever laid eyes on.  Before the Development Council and Urban Resource people do anything further, they really oughta clean up that mess!”

Reader Smith presents a compelling observation, with the single possible exception of jurisdiction.  The troubling areas on Reader Smith’s development plan are beyond the city limits.  Also, those possibly unsightly neighborhoods and business locations (the eye of the beholder clause applies) are not key to making Zephyrhills a place for strolling, lingering, exploring and fueling the local economy nearly so much as improving the city center.

Otherwise, the argument is one of those rare slam dunks.

 

---

Making the case (yet again) against early voting

Posted Nov 17, 2010 by Tom Jackson

Updated Nov 17, 2010 at 01:16 PM

Eliot Cutler, heart-breakingly close runner-up in Maine’s gubernatorial election, amplifies a message upon which The Jax Files has been fixated for a good long time. Writing in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal, Cutler decries the rapidly diminishing status of Election Day.  We are in utter agreement.

Early voting practices “are eroding our political process,” Cutler says.  He is quick to add that he is not complaining out of a sense of sour grapes – even though the trends suggest he’d have won the governor’s mansion if traditional voting restraints (issuing absentee ballots only to those with legitimate hardship claims; eliminating early voting) had overturned the commonplace practice of “convenience voting.”

Says Cutler, Republican Paul LePage won fair and square, if only by a single percentage point.  He did not request a recount.

Cutler’s complaint is philosophical and therefore more important.

At a time when sea changes are roiling our democracy, political parties are in decline, and public confidence in the political system is plummeting, convenience voting is having all the wrong effects. …

[E]arly voting diminishes the already scant attention voters pay to the issues in an election campaign. Election Day has become merely the end point in a drawn-out voting period dominated in its early stages by news media preoccupation with questionable polls and predictions. …

Many voters are making decisions … when horse-race coverage dominates the news, attention to issues is limited, and key debates haven’t taken place.

Cutler points out, also, how early voting “reinforces the Democratic and Republican duopoly” even as a substantial minority of voters are looking for answers elsewhere.  But early voting plays into the hands of the major parties’ ability to mobilize their treasuries before no-party and independent candidates can get rolling.

These war chests allowed the parties to play to voters’ fears, Cutler says, “well before voters realized that three independent candidates offered them other choices.” While voters were in a panicky mood, the major parties dropped thousands of absentee mailers on their loyalists packaged in slick direct mail pieces.

Eager to be done with the process, as many as 25 percent of Maine voters exercised their franchise before Election Day – some, in Cutler’s experience, to their regret.

Finally, I am convinced that we lose something intangible but important when we make voting just another item on our fall to-do list. …

The act of voting together on Election Day has represented an important affirmation of democracy and citizenship since the earliest days of our nation. However inconvenient, standing in line to vote reminds us that our democracy is a shared enterprise and that, no matter our individual circumstances, every person in line has just one vote.

The Jax Files recommends reading the entire piece, here.

 

---

Congressman’s bone-headed complaint opens door

Posted Nov 17, 2010 by Tom Jackson

Updated Nov 17, 2010 at 01:37 AM

Incoming Congressman Andy Harris, the Republican anesthesiologist and Obamacare opponent from Maryland, lodges a complaint that reads like a compelling argument for ending our dependence on employer coverage. Any employer.

Harris is miffed that his taxpayer-subsidized medical care won’t kick in until February, 28 days after he’s sworn in on Jan. 3.  The details are laid out here.

The usual suspects are leaping on Harris hypocrisy.  That is their right.  A better response is to lay out the argument for a market-based solution that gets employers out of the practice of providing health coverage.  Here’s how.

Hike salaries by whatever they’re investing in medical premiums now. Give employees first-dollar tax deduction for health care premiums, to hold t…he act revenue-neutral.

Fold in a federal voucher plan (like Switzerland’s) that’s enough buy fundamental coverage for the un- and under-employed. (Fee-for-service Medicaid as we know it: gone. Savings: enormous.)

Get all governments out of the required-coverage game. Consumers decide the level of protection they desire (as with homeowners and car insurance). Unleash medical savings accounts, with enticing carryover privileges.

Adopt reasonable tort reform—loser pays?—to tamp down the high cost of defensive medicine practices; and let the market roar.

Portability takes care of itself (like auto insurance). And if fed and state governments are no longer mandating coverages, the unwieldy notion of buying across state lines likely becomes moot.

We’ll have to work out the details on high-risk pools, as some states already have, for pre-existing conditions (such as my rheumatoid arthritis). And provide a big hammer when insurers invent reasons to drop catastrophically ill clients (not as large an issue as advertised; still, when practiced at all, it’s abhorrent).

This framework could be drafted inside two, maybe three dozen pages, and provide close to universal coverage that, with savings from voucherizing Medicaid and Medicare, would wind up being a fraction of so-called Obamacare.

Thanks to Rep. Andy Harris, MD, for opening the door to making this argument.

---

Cinematic Harry: Better than the books?

Posted Nov 15, 2010 by Tom Jackson

Updated Nov 15, 2010 at 04:48 PM

In anticipation of Part I of the two-episode conclusion of the Harry Potter saga, E! online’s Joal Ryan describes a heresy, maybe: Harry Potter is better on the big screen than he is on the printed page.

I confess I’ve never read a line of the Potter series, so I am not one to judge.  But I have been in Potter movie audiences where readers have had little good to say about the director’s choices—too much nuance left out, or cut out.  This is all well and good, if, in the interest of completeness, you wanted each book to be carved into a half-dozen movies—which, I suppose, is exactly what J.K. Rowlings’ staunchest fans would argue for.

Me, I’d point out John Huston squeezed every crucial morsel of Genesis—from Creation to the story of Abraham—in to his epic “The Bible,” and still brought it in under three hours. So maybe Harry purists need to get over themselves.

Besides, isn’t the whole Potter odyssey just a recasting of the Arthur legend dragged across a scorched Middle-Earth battlefield and shot through a Star Wars worm hole?  I’m not saying the adventures of Harry and Co. aren’t fun.  But if Harry isn’t Arthur-#####-Luke Skywalker; Dumbledore isn’t Merlin inside Obi-Wan Kenobi wrapped in Gandalf the Grey; and the entire enterprise isn’t a desperate march in search of the lost Grail, then I recognize stark literary parallels where none exist, and somebody wasted a bunch of tuition treasure on my English minor.

---

Light rail crushed; let’s put BRT* to the test

Posted Nov 8, 2010 by Tom Jackson

Updated Nov 8, 2010 at 06:54 PM

*That would be bus rapid transit.  Last week, when voters in Hillsborough County heaved a boulder into the rail-heavy transportation tax pond, the ripples couldn’t help but wash over official Pasco’s plans. As Pasco Commissioner Jack Mariano put it, “Hillsborough is the key to the whole region.”

Now, as the Tribune’s Kevin Wiatrowski reports, opponents of hiking the local sales tax who turned their “No Tax for Tracks” campaign into a resounding success are turning their attention to Hillsborough’s neighbors. Wiatrowski quotes no-tax campaign founder John Hendricks: “We believe that light rail in and of itself is a bad idea.”

Having experienced a cost-effective alternative – bus rapid transit, or BRT, in London, and having read about BRT’s successes in New York City, Bogotá, Jakarta and elsewhere – I was already predisposed to agree.  Read for yourself here, here and here.

But a conversation over the summer with Hillsborough County Commissioner Mark Sharpe, a rail enthusiast, convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt. Sharpe is up to speed on BRT, but rejected this comparatively low cost option because of another of its characteristic flexibility – a quality many transit experts consider its best feature.

Rail, Sharpe argued, allows government to establish where growth will occur, and to insure its concentration along the route, and especially around the various stations, thus combating sprawl.  Because it’s flexible, BRT – described more fully in a moment – robs from government planners the ability to channel development along prescribed corridors. 

BRT, especially as practiced in the Bronx, behaves as a light rail system without rails. Ultra-modern double-long buses cruise lanes designated only for bus traffic. Riders board – front and rear – from kiosks where they purchased their fares. These three innovations – lane exclusivity, multiple boarding locations, prepaid fares – eliminate most of the common bottlenecks that otherwise impede bus efficiency and make it a disagreeable form of mass transit.

Consider now BRT’s ability to change routes depending on growth patterns. Connerton may not merit transit consideration anytime soon. But when the time comes, adding a kiosk and designating a couple of bus lanes – north- and south-bound – along U.S. 41 would come at a tiny fraction of the cost of extending light rail and construction a station.

Given the properly resounding rejection of Hillsborough’s sales-tax scheme even as commuters stress out on the Bay area’s overstressed roads, perhaps the time has come for members of TBARTA – Tampa Bay Area Regional Transit Authority – to agree on a demonstration project: Invest a few million dollars (Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority is sitting on an unspent $40 million) to establish a modest network of BRT routes.

Test terminus kiosks in a couple of the outlying bedroom communities. I nominate Wesley Chapel and Apollo Beach. Establish a modest handful of hubs: the University of South Florida, downtown Tampa, Tampa International Airport. Buy eight of the double-long buses operating in New York and enough paint to designate 40 miles of BRT lanes. Erect the kiosks; introduce the new buses with fanfare and fireworks; and let ’em roll.

---

 

TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online    ©2010 Media General Communications Holdings, LLC. A Media General company. Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us

TBO.com:Feedback | Advertise With Us | Email Alerts | SMS/Text Alerts | Make Us Your Home Page | Member Center | Contact Us | Site Map | Media General Operations Credit Terms and Conditions
WFLA: See news developing? Email or call our Tipline at 1-800-348-WFLA | 8 on Your Side | 8's Army | Links We Mentioned | EEO Public Filings | Children's Programming | FCC Form 388
The Tampa Tribune: Subscribe | Place an Ad | Electronic Edition | Photo Reprints | Public Research | Archive | Corrections

IYP and SEO vendors: SEO by eLocalListing | Advertiser profiles