Largo Commissioners Handing Citizens Tax Money Over to Private Corporations

As I wrote before, Florida is famous for it's Corporate Welfare. Once again, in a small story hidden in a local Tampa Bay area mullet wrapper, we are informed that:

Secretive Telemarketing Firm Seeking Tax Refunds

The (Largo) city commission has proposed a $90,000 tax refund over the next six years for an unidentified firm that has promised to create 300 new jobs in the city paying more than 115 percent of the average income of Pinellas County residents.

City Community Development Director Michael Staffopoulos said Pinellas County would match that sum, giving the new company $180,000 in refunds.

The city planner said the company is exempt from state public records laws to protect business secrets from their competition.

How do you like THAT sweetheart of a deal? And there's no way the local citizens can even find out the name of this company in order to keep them accountable. What sort of assurances are being made? And what happens if or when the company DOESN'T come through with their promise? No one is saying.

Typical.

Why is it that this company and the Largo commissioners can't keep their hands out of the citizen's pockets? And aren't the citizens entitled to know where their hard-earned tax dollars are going? Those 300 jobs will hardly benefit everyone, and it's likely that their impact will be almost unnoticeable.

Meanwhile, small businesses that are struggling to make it are picking up the tab for the large businesses that are able to successfully wrangle a deal out of our gullible governments.

Welcome to Florida: Home of the Corporate Welfare State.

Sunday

I am beat. I got back into town last night and am so happy to be back. I've been snoozing on and off all morning. I'll write more tomorrow.

However, I find today's article in the St. Pete Times on Paula White to be of great interest. From personal experience which I won't detail, I know that she is a fraud. However, I never thought that this belief would turn out to be widespread. I'm not up on the latest scandals, and am not very familiar with White, since I don't run in the charasmatic circles that follow this sort of a sensationalist preacher/speaker.

Shipwreck Laws Challenged by Spain

One of our local companies is taking on the government of Spain. I'm going to quote excerpts of the article but you can read the original story here.

A Tampa company and the Kingdom of Spain have been duking it out over treasures from a sunken shipwreck for weeks.

Thursday, Spain made a bold move. The country's government boarded and seized one of the company's ships off the coast of Gibraltar. The company insisted the vessel, called the "Ocean Alert," was in international waters, but Spain apparently believed otherwise.

The trouble started with the money -- tubs and tubs of gold and silver coins from the bottom of the ocean.

The Tampa-based company Odyssey Marine Exploration, Inc. found the booty back in May and scored the richest shipwreck-find ever -- $500 million worth of old money. The company said their submarine robot found the wreck in international waters. Days later, the Kingdom of Spain fought that claim and began filing lawsuits of its own, saying the treasure belonged to the E.U. country.

James Goold, the legal counsel for the Kingdom of Spain, explained in May, "if the ship were carrying property of the Kingdom of Spain that property would remain the property of Spain."

Since then, the debate has been raging.

Interesting, isn't it? Shipwreck / scavenging law has always boiled down to "finders, keepers / losers, weepers." And yet, Spain makes an interesting argument - it was theirs at one time, after all. Still, I doubt if their case will stand. After all, other government ships have gone down and been subsequently pilfered without a peep from their original owners.

If Spain wins this one, every shipwreck discovery will be challenged by survivors, heirs, and distant relatives until our heads swim from it all. Needless to say, all shipwreck discoveries would stop.

I'm also interested in seeing Spain prove that the scavengers had strayed into their waters. Obviously it's in Spain's best interest to try to bully the scavengers into stopping, but they certainly can't violate international law in order to do it or they're no better than Iran.

I'm going out of town for two days on business. I'll resume posting on Sunday, in all probability. Have a great weekend!

Trip to the Vet's

This morning my mom called to ask for my help in dragging her latest dog (affectionately nicknamed Dogzilla) to the veterinarian's. Dad had a doctor's appointment himself, and couldn't go. Mom was afraid that Dogzilla would overwhelm her, since she's a very muscular dog.

We speculate that Dogzilla is a cross between a scottie and a bulldog. She has the looks of a scottie, but is packed with solid muscle and bone, with wide, gaping jaws and sharp teeth. She's actually a very sweet dog by nature, but mom and dad are older and she is still young and plays hard. Additionally, she hates the vet with a passion.

When we got to the vet's, Dogzilla was intially fine. But when we went into the actual room, she grew nervous. And when the nurse decided to take her temperature, Dogzilla went into action. It took three of us to try to hold her down, she was howling as if she were being tortured... and the nurse hadn't even begun to insert the thermometer.

By the time it was over, Dogzilla was muzzled, the nurse decided to forget about the stool sample and temperature, and after tremendous struggle and plaintive howling, blood was drawn and two injections were given.

As we were getting ready to leave, my mom asked "If this is how bad it is at the vet's, how will we ever get her groomed?" I turned to the vet and asked that he provide some tranquilizers to get Dogzilla through such an ordeal. He agreed to write up a prescription right away, as he wiped the sweat off his brow. I told mom that I was taking Dogzilla outside while she paid the bill.

While we waited, I told myself to make sure mom didn't leave without those precious tranquilizers, since Dogzilla is due to be groomed this week. When mom finally walked up to us, I asked "Did you get the tranquilizers?"

"Yes," said mom. "And he gave me some for Dogzilla, too."

Pope Declares Catholicism is "IT"

The press is apparently shocked to hear that the Pope thinks that Catholicism is the only true church and no one else is entitled to call themselves much of anything. Well of course he does! How silly for this to even make news: It's the same stance the Popes have had since they broke off from mainstream Christianity to start their own sect in the first couple hundred years A.D.

Before we go further, let's do a quick synopsis of the history of early Christianity:

Many different Christian sects and beliefs developed between 30 - 300 A.D. But by 313 A.D. the Roman Catholic church was formed due to the new Roman Emperor Constantine, who declared that everyone HAD to become Christian.

Constantine then sent out an invitation to all Christian leaders to come forward and become a part of this vast network. The ones who stepped forward were absorbed into a new conglomerate: The Roman Catholic Church. Those who refused, continued to practice their Christian beliefs outside of this new organization. (Incidentally, the Greek Orthodox Church was a schism of the RC Church, which happened in the first couple hundred years of the initial incorporation).

The Roman Catholic Church became the dominant church, in part due to clever alignment with those in power and the willingness to torture and kill any who disagreed with their interpretation of the Bible.

Although they no longer torture or kill those who disagree, the Popes could hardly say that all religions are the same. That's like the head of Burger King saying "All fast food restaurants are the same. Heck, if there's a McDonald's closer to you, try what THEY have!" After all, the RC Church wants your money just as Burger King does. It's hardly good business to send anyone to the competition.

Some may ask: If the Pope is saying that no other religions can call themselves a "church", what does he mean? In the Bible, the church is defined as the Christian believers that are going to heaven. So, the Pope is saying "if you're not a Roman Catholic, you're going to hell." Give it to this latest Pope: At least he's staying consistent.

My Life / Your Life

Isn't it funny how easy it is to conceal all the problems that are going on in our own lives? I can focus on just a small portion of what interests me, write about it, and readers assume that all is well. I don't mention the hectic days, sleepless nights, and juggling of different tasks and responsibilities.

I know of a brilliant blogger who always writes strong, in-your-face commentaries. I was recently very surprised to see her reveal that she is going through some serious personal distress. It's appallingly easy it is to put up a front without our even intending to.

That's why I was shocked to get an email yesterday that was grossly unfair.

About a year ago, I had been asked to have breakfast with an older couple and give them advice on website design. My son had been invited, too. When we sat down and discussed their situation, we gave them some pointers and ideas.

During the meeting, they asked us to create the site for them. I hemmed and hawed, and pointed out that I had two businesses (I now have three) and that we would look it over and give them some recommendations but couldn't guarantee anything else.

After the meeting, we sent them a couple more emails with observations on their current site and the recommendation to find another design company. We realized if we tackled the chore, we'd be in over our heads: My son is with me only part of the time, and when we're together we want to be able to make time to play together (we get so little of that!). After all, he's very busy too, since he's prepping for college next year.

Time went by and we never heard from them again. We figured they were as busy as WE were, and after a while we forgot about them entirely. During that time, one of my best friends found out that she has bone cancer and has been given two years to live, another friend struggled with drug addiction, another friend went into deep depression and threatened suicide, another friend had a messy divorce, another friend found out her husband was molesting her daughter, my father had health problems, I got very involved in some charity work, and life churned on even busier than before.

Recently my son landed a fantastic job as a writer (he will be getting paid a significant amount for his articles) and I sent out an email to some family and friends to announce it.

The email I got back from the couple floored me. It was written by the wife, who was very bitter. Perhaps she was always that way, I wouldn't know: I'd only met her that one time. She accused us both of being selfish (since we wouldn't tackle the website, I assume) and whined about how my son never acknowleged a small gift they'd given him at the time (in actuality, he wrote them a thank you email). She was unnecessarily very vicious in her attack.

Needless to say, I was floored! She doesn't know us and didn't care enough to ask US what was going on - she preferred to make assumptions. Her husband had recently been through heart surgery, and she was merely lashing out at people that she thought (or hoped) were more privileged and thus deserving of a good whipping.

I can only give her sympathy to a certain point. I know many good men and women who face adversity in their lives and continue to plod on, treating others with respect and doing the right thing even when it's difficult. I am one of them. Apparently, she chooses a different path.

What was most striking to me was how little she knows me. And, how little we all know each other.

The L.A. Mayorial Sex Scandal

The Los Angeles Mayor is in hot water. Antonio Villaraigosa is breaking up with his wife, whom he has left for a sleezy reporter. Ironically, this reporter broke the story on Villaraigosa's breakup before it was revealed that she was the cause of it. She is now on paid leave.

This story has been going on for a couple of days and I've been watching it in interest, because while at one time the press would ignore such behavior, the story has been fueled by a prominent blogger there. Additionally, the classically liberal press is bemoaning the fact that such behavior is being covered.

As the L.A. Times writes, "Villaraigosa's personal connection with Salinas is a private issue that legitimately concerns only the two of them and their families. No one else has a moral or rhetorical right to an opinion on that aspect of their conduct. However, the fact that Salinas continued to report on the mayor while they were involved in this fashion is a public issue."

How nicely they segue an anti-moral stance to a quasi-moral one. Never the less, the problem remains: What gives the press the right to declare that personal misbehavior is off-limits when it comes to public figures?

Personal misbehavior most definately is telling. If someone is willing to treat their loved ones badly, how trustworthy are they? Additionally, people who tend to do wrong things behind closed doors are also people who can be more easily manipulated, either due to their weaker character or because they're vulnerable to blackmail.

To try to seperate serious personal missteps from the person who is making them is to make excuses for someone who doesn't deserve any.

Those of us who work hard on our character, our lives, our relationships, and our business obligations have every right to demand that others do the same. If there is no moral standard, then there is no measure any longer.

As my mother has always said, common sense is not so common. When will the American press begin to grow a backbone and get some common sense once more? Thank goodness for bloggers, who are keeping the press responsible to a certain extent.

The Fraudulent Ebay Scam

As some of you do, I sell occasionally on Ebay. I recently ran across what I believe to be a scam, and I thought I'd share it with you.

I sold a pair of brand-new, high dollar Maui Jim sunglasses in perfect condition. They were shipped off to the buyer in another state. A couple days later, I received an email from him. It was a very nasty one, obviously designed to put me "off kilter", probably with the hope that I would want to give in to his demands in order to pacify him.

In the email, the buyer claimed that I had send the glasses scratched, and he demanded to return them immediately and get full payment.

I knew that they'd been in perfect condition! So, what was going on here?!

I suddenly realized that the guy very likely already owned the same pair of Maui Jims, but that they were in poor condition. This was his way of exchanging them AND getting his money back, leaving me high and dry - without glasses OR money.

I escalated the claim immediately with PayPal, asking them to rule. It's been a couple of weeks, and PayPal continues to drag their feet. In the meantime, as is their custom, they've frozen my funds while the dispute continues.

This is an example of why it is impossible to have Ebay or PayPal get involved in seller-buyer disputes. If it can be proven that an item has actually arrived, it can not be up to Ebay or PayPal to rule if it is in acceptable condition. All they can do is insist that a transaction takes place.

I don't know how other auction sites handle such problems, but surely there are better solutions? What have YOUR experiences been?

Sick

I'm sorry, but I'm apparently sick with a mild case of the flu. I'll resume posting tomorrow. ;o)

Children Learn in the Home

A recent study has come to the conclusion that no matter how many programs the government throws at children extolling the virtues of healthy living and eating, there is no discernible change in the eating habits of our increasingly fat kids.

Why?

Because no matter how much the government, liberals, and our school system would like it to be otherwise; children are still more influenced by their parents and families than anything else.

Obviously, this is not always good. However, it also shows that education needs to begin with adults, and adults are the ones which must be held accountable for their childrens' behavior. This includes eating as well as disciplinary issues.

To some extent, we are all to blame. The American public has lowered its standards. We no longer care to compete with the Jones' next door. We aren't interested in what others think. Instead of having good old-fashioned shame to curb our behaviors, we are defensive: It's our right to "act the fool"!

And what fools there are!

We have kids who are undisciplined in the home, and subsequently ungovernable in the schools. We have kids who eat Twinkies for dinner and sugary cereal for breakfast, so is it any wonder that they eat crap at lunchtime, too?

In August of 2006, I reported on our local school system's Cupcake Controversy. Once it was declared that schools could no longer serve cakes or cupcakes more than 3 times a year, many parents were up in arms! Why? Because these are the same parents who are overweight and undernourished, and they inflict this abuse on their kids, too. Perhaps they see no wrong in this, but I believe that they do! And in order to justify such lax behavior, they are insistent on seeing it sanctioned in the schools, as well.

Perhaps it shocks you to hear that I believe that such parents know that they are being bad parents, but persist in such behavior anyway. But look into the depths of your own soul and ask yourself about the time that YOU did something wrong, knew it was wrong, and were willing to go to the mat to defend it so that you wouldn't have to directly face it yourself. If you're honest with yourself, you'll admit to such a time. I know that I've had to!

The truth is that there are parents who are behaving badly. They are not enforcing discipline in their homes. They have subrogated their duties to the schools and the community. Their kids grow up to be badly behaved and/or, in increasing amounts, obese as well.

How do we stop a parent from behaving badly? By forcing them to, whenever possible. That means fines if their children are playing hooky or behaving badly. But how do we tackle obesity?

We have become a nation that is so bent on being politically correct that we make more mistakes than ever before. The illegal immigrant problem could be solved by enforcing the laws, but those of us who cry for legal redress are accused of being racist.

We need to keep stronger tabs on the Muslim community: After all, the vast majority of all terrorist attacks come from middle eastern Muslim males. However, when we suggest the logical, we are accused of being prejudiced.

We suggest that parents be held accountable for kids' behaviors: Then we see the crying mom on television who insists that she could have won Mother of the Year and that she doesn't know why little Johnny brought the gun to school and killed three classmates. We don't hear the reporters question her truthfulness! No! Instead we hear them murmur something sympathetic, like "It is CERTAINLY not YOUR fault!" Perhaps investigative and probing journalism is merely a thing of the past.

But WE, as the American public, need to start asking questions again.

Yes, we've all heard that overweight kids need good self-esteem: A recent movie (Hairspray) actually promotes this. However, there are times and situations in which self-esteem should NOT be encouraged.

I know it's politically correct to pretend that fat is as equally acceptable as thin. But if Halle Barry or Nicole Kidman (who could use a sandwich, herself) suddenly put on 200 pounds, do you think they'd be landing all the movie roles that they're landing now? Fat is simply not attractive to most Americans. Nor is it HEALTHY.

I am not insensitive: I'm simply realistic. Many of my friends are fat. But their fat (like the majority of Americans) is due to poor eating habits, not glandular or health problems. So (although I love them dearly) I must be honest here: Their fat is due to poor self-control.

How do we teach our kids such self-control? Obviously, their parents aren't doing it.

Why?

Because their parents don't care.

And if WE truly care about these children, we may need to seek more drastic measures in the schools such as weighing them, giving them weight loss goals, and making physical education mandatory once more.

If we don't, who will?

Happy 4th of July!

The 4th of July is a holiday which celebrates our country's independence from the British rule. Although the war lasted a long time, we chose July 4th as a significant date, as this is the day that the Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Second Continental Congress.

One of the things that inflamed us then was taxation without representation. We felt it was terribly unfair that a distant government was able to impose taxes without our input into the matter.

Sound familiar?

If anyone is rolling in their graves right now, it's our founding fathers, and they're whirling dervishes.

Our country has grown woefully away from the message of the founding fathers, which was basically that government needed to be minimal and relatively weak. Over the years we've evolved into something monstrous and almost Orwellian. It's only a few more steps to Big Brother.

So America parties and celebrates, paying no attention to the man behind the curtain. We have gone from being passionately involved in politics to being distracted from it.

Voter turnout for Presidential elections continues to decline. The educated voter knows know that ultimately the electoral college is really the only force that decides upon our Presidents. After all, the possibility of faithless electors is always present! And the uneducated voter is more worried about voting on American Idol.

I no longer know if American is politically self-aware: We'll know more when the next Presidential election comes. But I'm hopeful that this 4th of July will still be one of many Independence Days, and that we won't forget where we've come from or where we should be headed.

Happy 4th of July!

Presidential Pardons

The President's power to pardon is a guaranteed right under the U.S. Constitution. Many of us wish it weren't so.

Even some of the founding fathers (including Alexander Hamilton) argued against giving the President the power to pardon because it so easily bypasses the justice system. On the other hand, as others argued during the framing of the Constitution, there may be miscarriages of justice, political favors which are in America's best interest, and perhaps certain lackeys or spies that would need to be protected by the President (this argument was made by James Iredell, a contemporary of Alexander Hamilton's).* Certainly Scooter Libby falls under the latter category with President Bush's latest pardon.

It is rare that I agree with President Bush, but I think that he owed this commutation (a watered down version of a pardon) to Scooter Libby. Interestingly, it seems that the vast majority of the editorials out there are in agreement with me.

For those of you whose memory may be a little fuzzy on the matter, let me refresh your memory:

Libby was accused of lying to investigators and obstructing the probe into a leak. There had been a newspaper article written, naming a woman who was married to a small-time ambassador. The point of the article was to discredit the ambassador as unimportant but filled with self-importance: A man who received favors and appointments at the behest of his well-connected wife who worked for the CIA.

When the article hit the newstands, the ambassador and his wife hit the fan. They saw their chance for their 15 minutes of fame, and immediately began to wail that the wife had been "outed" as a spy. When all the facts came out, this claim became ludicrous. The ambassador was fond of introducing his wife at cocktail parties as a CIA operative, and they had never made it a secret before. She was, in fact, merely something clerical: Just a small cog amidst the vast gears, wheels, and pulleys that make up the CIA machine.

Eventually no one got into trouble over "leaking" the already repeatedly "leaked" information. What Scooter Libby did next was the real problem: When the investigation began, Libby stood in the way.

I am in agreement with Timothy Noah of Slate, who writes:

"I don't take lightly the fact that Libby lied to federal prosecutors about his role in unmasking Valerie Plame as a covert CIA employee. The underlying offense probably wasn't illegal... but it was nonetheless disgraceful. Libby understood that, and that's why he committed perjury. His prosecution was appropriate because Bush administration officials need to know that they are not above the law. Libby's trial and conviction, I hope, got that message across to at least some of them.

But Judge Reggie Walton went overboard in sentencing Libby to 30 months. This was about twice as long as the prison term recommended by the court's probation office, and if Libby hadn't been a high-ranking government official, there's a decent chance he would have gotten off with probation, a stiff fine, and likely disbarment. Walton gave Libby 30 months and a $250,000 fine, then further twisted the knife by denying Libby's routine request to delay the sentence while his lawyers appealed it."

However, it would be wise to recollect Pres. Bush's former pardons. In December 2002, he pardoned numerous small-time criminals (one was accused of tampering with an odometer, another accused of a theft of copper wire, etc.). To justify such pardons, White House spokesman Ken Lesaius stated, "What each case has in common is that each pardon request was from someone who committed a relatively minor offense many years ago. Each has stayed out of any real trouble with the law since then and has gone on to live an exemplary life and become a positive force in their respective communities."

This could hardly be said of Scooter Libby, whose crime is fresh and prominent. On the other hand, Pres. Bush could have pardoned Libby immediately. Instead, he let Libby go through the subsequent trial and sentencing before he pardoned him.

Bush has made similar stands before, both as the Governor of Texas and as President. He seems to believe that a criminal needs to pay in some way, so rather than give Libby an instant pardon (as Ford did for Nixon), he forced him to go through the system first. On the other hand, this seems to be a bit hypocrital, since Libby was attempting to shield both Karl Rove and the Vice President.

But let us not forget the foul series of pardons that Bill Clinton handed out before he stepped down in 1999. These pardons included 16 terrorists from the Puerto Rican group FALN, who were "convicted for conspiracies to commit robbery, bomb-making, and sedition, as well as for firearms and explosives violations." He also pardoned many criminals who had done things far worse and much more evil than the criminals that Pres. Bush has pardoned. And, Clinton additionally pardoned his crony Susan McDougal. Ah yes, there is the parallel: Scooter Libby and Susan McDougal are two peas in a pod.

Ultimately, Pres. Bush has been far more honorable than Bill Clinton was in issuing pardons. However, the real problem is the concept of the Presidential pardon. Assuming that a President is a clean, upstanding, and virtuous politician, we have nothing to worry about.

But, lately we are all coming to believe that such a President is at best an endangered species. At worst, such a President may be extinct.

*There is a very informative article which was written by Daniel T. Kobil who was a Professor of Law at Capital University Law School in Columbus, Ohio, when he stood before Congress to testify on the Constitutionality of Presidential pardons in regards to Bill Clinton's highly controversial pardoning of terrorists, among others. To read his statements, go here.

Bush Putin

And now for something completely immature.

I took off this weekend on a shopping trip for my business. I roamed down the west coast of Florida, stopping in little towns on the way. Here's a headline I couldn't resist getting a picture of:

If Bush getting caught putin makes big news, imagine what size the headlines will be if he ever pulls a vomit session like his dad did!

Movies To See

I am in a lot of pain today - sometimes my neck just makes me so uncomfortable that it's hard to concentrate. So, I'm taking the day off writing, except to briefly mention a couple of movies I recommend you see this weekend:

Sicko

Whether you love or hate the producer, this film is tackling one of the biggest issues we have in America.

To my amazement, a recent film reviewer sounded surprised when he said that he has now discovered that all the socialized medicine bashing that we've been hearing for years may simply be propaganda. Gee... ya think?!

Although I'm a Republican, I can assure you that most of what you hear truly IS propaganda. You see, there are some things that money, and competitiveness, and Big Business should not be allowed to tinker with - and our health is one of those things. It's not in their best interest to get us the best care, because it doesn't weigh out financially. Now, how hard is that to understand?!

I wish it were otherwise. I wish we could believe that people are inherently good. But wisdom and experience tells us otherwise. The truth is that if your god is money, then it reigns over all decisions. In such a system, the individual means nothing and is easily caught and ground up in the gears of the machine.

Sadly, there are some things that the government needs to be involved in. Roads, parks, and other projects that won't be profitable to your average business organization are all examples of things that must be handled by the government. We need to add healthcare to the list.

Whether you agree or not, watch the movie first (as I intend to this weekend).

Live Free or Die Hard

I saw this movie on Wednesday. If you get a chance, go see it! It's classic "Die Hard" style, and Bruce Willis is still just as amazing as he once was. Although the latest Rocky sequel sucked, this movie proves that some sequels, if done properly, are every bit as good as the originals.

Defending Wrong for the Right

Although I dislike Sen. John Edwards and his wife for their politics, I must say that Elizabeth Edwards impressed me recently when she went after Ann Coulter.

Overall, there is much that I like about Ann Coulter. However, when a conservative goes astray, fellow conservatives are very wrong to not call them out. Examples abound! Look at Pres. Bush and the damage that befell the Republicans all because they couldn't do the courageous and correct thing and challenge him on some of his mistakes. If we on the right are so unprincipled that we cannot take a stand against wrong (no matter what side has committed that wrong) then we are saying that it's right.

Where did Coulter go wrong?

Coulter has much going for her, and she knows it. She's a relatively pretty woman who attempts to make the most of what she has and shamelessly uses her looks to market herself.

Looks give license: In other words, pretty people get away with more than most people do. So, as time has gone by, she has lost her message as she increasingly attempts to be "tough". In attempting to appear to be strong, she is increasingly weakening her message and appearing to be slightly mad. She has not been reigned in.

Recently Coulter offended many people (conservative and liberal alike) when speaking of John Edwards at different times. These remarks were extremist and beyond distasteful. As the Des Moines Register reported, "Among other things, Coulter has referred to John Edwards as a "faggot" and recently said she wished he had died in a terrorist attack." Even worse, she alluded to the recent death of Edward's teenage son, saying that John Edwards probably had a bumper sticker on his car saying, "Ask me about my dead son," with the obvious implication that he is milking his son's death for political gain.

So on Wednesday evening, Elizabeth Edwards herself called in to "Hardball", when Coulter was making an appearance on the show. Elizabeth confronted Coulter and (not surprisingly) was sneered at once more. And yet, Elizabeth apparently held her own.

As Elizabeth later said, someone must stand up to such bullying. Sadly, the conservatives are not stopping it.

Wednesday's Observations

Crazy Pat Robertson is endorsing Rudy Giuliani. Anyone with any modicum of common sense will rethink a vote for Giuliani if Pat is saying that he's a stand-up guy. Pat's endorsement is as helpful as an endorsement by Paris Hilton. Speaking of which...

Paris Hilton is out of jail after three grueling weeks, and despite her neighbors' desperate pleas for her to leave, she is settling in just fine. She's a changed woman now: Changing her Pradas for Ferragamos, her Guess for Versaces...

The Senate is at it again, once more entertaining the highly unpopular illegal immigrant amnesty bill. Unpopular, that is, with everyone BUT the senators. But, since when to our representatives actually represent us? THAT quaint old notion went out of fashion many years ago. The debutantes on the hill keep throwing their elaborate parties, but the American public is never invited: After all, we're only the hired help and we're just here to do the clean-up afterwards.

In an attempt to regulate free speech, Congress is threatening to slap fees on various internet radio stations. Although I rarely listen to these stations, I hate to see the government find one more way to suppress expression on the internet. Please go to Save Internet Radio and find out what you can do to help.

Christine Whitman's Fall From Grace

Christine Todd Whitman has always interested me. She was, at one time, the darling of the Republican party. When she was young, beautiful, and blond she became the Governor of New Jersey. She seemed to be the perfect package: Looks and brains. She engendered a lot of attention and many people were hopeful that she might be the one female to break the barrier and become the next President.

However, Christine increasingly began to show herself to be a neocon: A person as unrelated to the Reagan Revolution as Ted Kennedy is. While in office she attempted to keep partial birth abortions legal and went on a lark with a police officer to get her photograph in the paper (frisking a 16 year old black man who wasn't even arrested). This caused a firestorm of controversy and her successes in the environmental arena paled in comparison to these faux pas, in my opinion.

After serving as Governor, Whitman (who is distantly related to the Bush family by marriage) was appointed as the head of the EPA to serve under the Bush administration.

In early 2005, Whitman came out with a book titled "It's My Party, Too", in which she alleged that the Christian Fundamentalists were attempting to hijack the Republican Party (I agreed with her at the time). This book caused a firestorm and angered many fellow Republicans. Since then, I've come to believe that the only people that have hijacked the Republican party are the neocons who are the puppets of Big Business.

Now it has come out that Whitman made some very mistaken statements to the people as the head of the EPA during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In an attempt to manage the public terror afterwards, she lied in published statements, attesting that the air and water were safe (when there was no proof whatsoever). This was not solely Whitman's call: These statements were made under the direction of the Bush administration. She had also collaborated with "James L. Connaughton, a former lobbyist for the asbestos and electric power industries, to soften EPA statements about air and water quality, the EPA inspector general found."*

All I can think about is someone who is very close to me who almost went to "Ground Zero" to help out the search crews. Last minute he decided it wasn't feasible to go. However, the only reason he didn't go was the amount of travel time from Florida to New York City. After all, we had all been assured that the air and water were fine. I wonder, what if he had gone on misinformation contrived by the neocons? And legally: How responsible are they for the health problems that were gained because of needless exposure that was due to their lies? If not legally, they are certainly ethically responsible.

Christine Todd Whitman: How far you've fallen.

As the World Churns

North Korea says it will begin to disassemble it's nuclear war program now that America has kindly unfrozen the assets that it froze in the beginning due to...er... North Korea's nuclear war program. There has to be an irony in there somewhere. Wait! I've got it!...

Staff infections are rampant in hospitals and "As many as 1.2 million hospital patients are infected with dangerous, drug-resistant staph infections each year, almost 10 times more than previous estimates, based on findings from a major new study." We've all known about these infections and we all have heard stories. Now they're confirmed. Isn't it sad that we have to have studies to prove what we already know? And what will be done to change this? Nothing, I guarantee you. Now if we can do something about the crappy service and nasty attitudes that most of the hospital staff have...

It's now reported that there is such a thing as video game addiction. Aren't we taking this to extremes? This is a simple addictive personality issue and of course they may get addicted to video games, but they also might get addicted to reading, television, tree climbing, and chocolate cake. Enough with the labels: Treat the root of the problems!

I've discovered Z-Coil Shoes. Where have they been all my life? There is really no comparison to Nikes' spring-soled shoes. When I tried on the Nikes, there was no discernible difference between them and standard Nikes, and they only absorb about 15% of impact. However, Z-Coil shoes absorb 50% of impact and make it both easier to walk and exercise in them comfortably. Be prepared for a hefty price tag, however. They range from $190 - $240.

Federal Voting Law

An elderly woman in Seattle, intent on proving that the voting system is seriously flawed, put her phone bill in her dog's name, and then used the phone bill to register him to vote. Years later, authorities found out and now she's being charged with a crime.

Instead of charging Grandma, Gov. Christine Gregoire should pardon and thank her. However, that's not likely: Gov. Gregoire is known to be chummy with illegal aliens and their supporters. They got her voted into office the first time, by a narrow margin, and she may need to count on their vote once more. So, cleaning up voter fraud in Washington will always come in last as long as the current (Democratic) governor remains in power.

What we really need in place is a strict federal voting law that will make it impossible to cheat when it comes to voting. Entire elections can and have been swayed, but there's no way of knowing to what extent this problem has grown.

Some people advocate a National ID card, but that smacks too much of Big Brother. Americans still (thankfully) don't want to be controlled to that extent. However, a solution is needed before the Presidential elections which are quickly approaching.

Kids' Right to Skateboard?

First, let me say that I'm sorry I wasn't able to write anything yesterday. My day started off with a bang and it was nonstop. However, all is well and I am able to begin a new discussion today. Thanks for stopping by, as you always do. I'm glad that you are interested in my views, as I am interested in YOURS.

KIDS' RIGHT TO SKATEBOARD?

There isn't much talk about kids' rights. Why? Well, kids are still legally... kids. And they don't have any purchasing power. Sure, they will someday - but by then, most of them forget what it's like to be a kid! And, this is NOW.

Parents can intervene on their kids' behalf, but parents are usually busy and drained, and if a kid's rights are only slightly impacted Mom usually tells him to suck it up (when she'd be wailing if it had happened to her).

There aren't many champions for kids' rights, except for those basic rights to which we are all guaranteed. At one time children were often regarded more as "property" of the parents: After all, the parents ultimately bear the responsibility, call the shots, and rule the roost. Women were treated much the same way until the mid 1900s. However, as we began to realize that society needed to step in in certain situations (such as abuse), the concept of kids' rights developed.

And it gets sticky: Kids' rights can't usually trump parental rights, or there will be complete chaos. After all, kids don't always have the best judgement, and studies show the brain isn't fully developed until age 25.*

So unless someone is quirky or immature, they usually stay away from kids' rights issues.

Call me quirky.

There is a law in Tampa which says that no kid can skateboard in the downtown business district. If a kid is caught skateboarding he can be arrested, fined, and his skateboard will be taken away.

Arrested for merely riding a source of transportation in the wrong location with your property confiscated?! Imagine if this were a rule for adults who rode bicycles: How many adults would allow such a law to stand? Such draconian measures are strong, indeed!

This law is, in actuality, unconstitutional - but no one has challenged it. The City of Tampa has NO right to restict someone's choice of transportation.

I understand where the adults are coming from. They don't want kids to ollie down the steps of the courthouse, or ride the rails in the park: Such activities damage public property and/or add confusion and distractions that we can't afford to have. But if the goal is to protect public property and keep the peace, then they need to pass a law specifically banning those actions - not pass a law banning skateboards all together!

Look at it this way: City Council gets together and decides there are too many car accidents. Why, cars can careen off bridges, smash up buildings, and can even run into lightpoles and short out an entire neighborhood! WELL, we can't have THAT, can we? OK then, they decide: Let's ban all cars!

Yesterday kids in Tampa celebrated National Skateboarding Day. It was a peaceful protest as scores of them filed down the streets of downtown Tampa, carrying their skateboards. Some were (wrongly) defiant, and two were arrested for that. But overall they showed themselves to be well-behaved.

Will this be enough to make Tampa's City Council stand up and take notice? Let's hope so. They need to rethink this mistaken law.

*By age 25, the human brain has finally developed the portion that is responsible for decision-making.

In the News (or it SHOULD be)

There are some stories in the news (or that should be in the news) that I'm somewhat involved in, even if it's peripherally, so I am short of material today because I don't want to discuss them.

So, I've decided to talk a little about some things of interest:

The Dog

My parents got a two-year old stray dropped off at their house by a well-meaning neighbor. They are now dog owners once more.

The Duke Lacrosse Team

Justice has finally been done. I haven't said much about this, because it's being said everywhere else. Obviously this is a typical case of reverse discrimination. What is sad is how many people raced to condemn these guys before the facts were all in. In a move to curry favor and be politically correct, Duke University had suspended the men accused without any proof of guilt. They have now settled with them for a substantial sum of money. It will be interesting to see if anyone else who jumped onto the bandwagon early may be sued for defamation of character, etc.

HOWEVER, these guys weren't exactly role models. Many of them have created their own defamation of character, in my humble opinion. After all, these were guys that not only hired strippers to come to them but also made some comments that makes me want to wash their mouths out with lye. Perhaps this is a lesson learned and they'll start behaving less like trash and more like responsible adults.

"Sir" Salman Rushdie

Salman Rushdie is to be knighted, which is inflaming a number of militant fundamentalist muslims. What can be said here? Let's just hope that the Queen government* doesn't cave. If she does, she sets the precedent for caving to terrorists everywhere.

In an article today, we are told "Hard-liners in Tehran say the death sentence still applies, and one group, the Committee to Commemorate Martyrs of the Muslim World, put a $150,000 bounty on the author's head in response to the knighthood." How disappointing for Rushdie. I would think a million dollar bounty would be more flattering.

*I was informed that the Queen doesn't do the knighting. So if the Queen doesn't even do that, what does she do? The concept of royalty seems so ... antiquated and useless to this pragmatic American.

Car Shopping for Zen Buddhist

"This, my friends," announced the used car salesman, "is a real creampuff. I am telling you, it's an EXCELLENT car for your money."

Creampuff? Did he actually use the world CREAMPUFF? I couldn't believe my ears.

"You would be CRAZY if you didn't get THIS little dreamboat," he continued. "I can sell THIS car all day long!"

Zen Buddhist was obviously starry-eyed. Being both impressionable and naive, she was already leaning toward a car that would put her over her budget. My friend Rick, his daughter, and I were there with her, knowing that if we weren't there to intervene, she'd be signing a contract which would obligate her to payments that would result in her car being repo'd within a month.

Zen hadn't needed a car until her old beater had blown up on the highway one day when she was on her way to work. The last time she'd been in the market for a car was many years ago, and she simply had no real idea what it was going to take.

"I really like that car," she said dreamily, pointing to another one. I winced. You don't let on about the car you prefer until you're down to the last moment.

"Now THAT," he began enthusiastically, "THAT..."

I tuned him out, hoping that we'd be able to convince Zen that she had to think sensibly. She was on a tight budget with no trade-in, and could never afford $300 - $400 a month plus the insurance she'd need to cover such "creampuffs" which might explode in creamy glory on the highway anyway, leaving her both with payments and no car.

We'd already gone to a couple car lots. She was terribly disappointed to see what we thought were sensible cars when she'd set her heart on something much more glamorous and expensive. We repeatedly discussed her budget with her, but Zen's mind was set: She wanted a nicer car and would somehow save money to afford it. We had to change her mind. Fast.

Zen's car had blown up several towns away, despite her putting a vast amount of money into it's repairs. It was an American-made car (thus a low-quality one) and couldn't be expected to last even half the time a Japanese-import could. So, Zen was now determined to buy Japanese and wouldn't consider another American-made car under any circumstances.

Though we understood her reasoning (and even agreed with it) we tried to convince her that an older Toyota or Honda was the way to go. By older, we meant something manufactured in the 80s or 90s, purchased from an individual instead of a dealer, and something that could be paid for outright so that she wouldn't be locked into car payments.

For two days, Zen would not be deterred. She had the extra incentive of believing that she was going to be given $1000 from her employer toward the car, which would leave her with only the regular payments. Although I had encouraged her to ask for money from them, I was still surprised when she enthusiastically told me that they had agreed to actually GIVE her the money.

Yesterday, we met her stepfather out at the first car. He examined it briefly and then told us that it was a definate NO, so we moved on. She indulged me and agreed to look at an old Toyota for $1500, which everyone was hoping would work for her, but that car was a lemon. We also looked at the "creampuffs". At this point, Zen's stepfather turned to her and simply said "It's a good car, honey, but you can't afford it." Zen was crestfallen. Having to hear this from so many people was discouraging. This is when she became more practical.

"Zen, you really went through the paper and couldn't find any good cars?!" I asked again, for the fourteenth time.

"Well..." Zen said reluctantly, "I didn't really see anything that looked good."

"Will you humor me and go through it again and see if you can find something that falls within the parameters of what you can afford?" I asked.

She agreed to.

We had to take care of a couple of things, and when we got back, she got in the car and pointed reluctantly to a couple of good cars in the right categories for the right pricing. We set off once more, to see an old JI (Japanese Import) from the 80s.

We pulled up at a tiny little house in nearby city. Although it was a small house, it was clean and well-kept. So was the JI car in front of it.

The retiree living there came out from his house, keys in hand. We cranked up the car, looked at it inside and out (it was in pristine condition) and took it for a test drive. By now it was almost 5 o'clock and the banks were closed.

We negotiated the owner to a reasonable price and sealed the deal with a handshake, telling him we'd be by with the cash the following day. "Wait a minute!" he said, startled. "You mean I just got bargained down and you're not even giving me cash right now?" We agreed that that was exactly what had just happened. We waved goodbye to each other: We had agreed to pay him the following morning once the banks opened.

Zen got on the phone with her company to make sure she was still getting that $1000 that had been promised to her. As she talked on the phone with her boss, she grew pale. I was concerned: "What?!" I hissed. She shook her head, said goodbye, and then closed her cell phone and announced that her company had decided to only LOAN her the money.

"Whew! Good thing we settled on this car and not a more expensive one, then!" I said, sympathetically.

This morning we were occupied with getting the $1000 into her bank account and obtaining insurance, tax, tag, and title. When it was all over, Zen went back home to collapse.

Zen now has a good and practical car, and we are done car shopping. For now. That is, until THIS one blows up on the highway. I'm merely hoping that that will be at least 5 years from now.

AFK

As my son and his friends "say" to each other, I'm AFK (Away From Keyboard) right now. My friend Zen Buddhist needs a car, so we're off car shopping this morning. I'll write more this afternoon. Have a great morning!

HAPPY FATHER'S DAY!

A very happy Father's Day to all the GOOD dads out there, like mine.

The Goldmans Get the Rights to O.J.'s Book

Today it was reported that the family of victim Ron Goldman was awarded the rights to O.J. Simpson's cancelled book "If I Did It," which is possibly a true confessional of how O.J. got away with the murder of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman.

Interestingly, the company that owned rights to the book is Lorraine Brooke Associates which is run by Simpson's oldest daughter, Arnelle. Obviously Arnelle is quite angry about losing this little gem. But what makes it very interesting is that Arnelle was involved in the murders, too. One has to wonder: Was this O.J.'s confessional alone or did Arnelle play a large part in this? Does that explain her eager and continued involvement in O.J.'s book?

Daveawayfromhome pointed me to an equally interesting article here which alleges that O.J.'s older son, Jason, did it. Surely that would give his father plenty of material to write about (or perhaps Jason wrote it himself) and give both O.J. and Arnelle reason to lie and cover up the truth.

I believe that the truth may still be uncovered in our time. Publishing this book may help. It can fuel the discussion and investigation once more. Personally, I believe that O.J. did, in fact, commit the murders. However, I don't discount the possibility of an accomplice.

The Goldmans have been accused of being money-hungry. Well why not? They lost a beloved son to a monster. Now they simply want their dues which were promised to them many years ago in a court of law.

O.J. has been extremely tricky and so far he's been able to keep the Goldman's from collecting what is rightfully theirs. This is the first real blow that has been delivered to him. I hope those blows keep coming.

Reversing Faux Integration

Dr. Clayton Wilcox is directly responsible for this blog.

A couple of years ago, he started a blog in an attempt to encourage more parental and community participation. Many of us, including Michelle, UWL, and Senore Caiman/Herr Krok, and Always Questioning were participants in the forum. We grew frustrated because "Clayt", as he is known to those that are close to him, never maintained or monitored the blog and it was continual chaos. Eventually he closed down that blog, later opening another one.

It was, perhaps, an unfortunate introduction to Clayt, because the community instantly perceived him as a bumbling idiot, lacking the ability to control himself or others. Teachers grew to hate him quickly, rebelling against his idea to link pay increases to how well the children did in their FCAT scores.

Clayt is in the news again.

This time he's reversing faux integration. For once, I agree with him. As the St. Pete Times wrote, "Pinellas school superintendent Clayton Wilcox said busing has resulted in "faux integration," where black and white kids attend the same schools but generally separate at lunch tables and in classrooms."

This faux integration has been practiced since WE were young, and just as it was ineffective then, it remains ineffective now. Of course this is all predicated on the assumption that the Supreme Court "will no longer allow school districts to assign children to schools based on their race. A ruling on that is expected before the court recesses this month."

Interestingly, local studies have shown that people consistently want to locate their children in schools relatively close to their homes. Black people have said repeatedly that they'd rather not have their kids shipped off to a white school across the county, and white people also agree that location is a much higher priority to them than racial integration. Why force integration upon people who don't wish for it?

This goes against years of political correctness. We have been taught that forced integration will or may change the way the different races view each other. Time has shown us otherwise. We have been taught that it doesn't matter what people WANT, it's what they NEED. We have become officious busybodies, blithely prescribing bitter medicine to cure an illness that cannot be cured with that medicine.

Forced faux integration ignores the truths that we don't always want to hear or see. People are resistant to such integration because they don't like being forced to mix with others that they have little to nothing in common with.

However, this becomes a problem for people who want to arise above and beyond the restrictions that their own cultures impose upon them. As Thomas Sowell pointed out in "Black Rednecks, White Liberals", the black culture has repeatedly reinforced the idea that education and good behavior are "white" traits. How much more inbred will our black youths become if they're allowed to retreat to an all-black school?

These are questions not easily answered.

Our Trip to Egmont Key

(Note on Thursday Morning: I'm going to leave this up for another day since I wasn't able to post this until late in the day on Wednesday.)

This weekend we took the catamaran and headed for Egmont Key. Egmont Key is actually a misnomer, because it's an island (affectionaly known by us locals as Turtle Island). You can only get there by boat - so few people come, and even fewer have the time and ability to explore this island ghost town.

If you click on the link above you can read a little about this island's interesting history. Over time, it's been a modified prison for Seminole Indians en route to The Trail of Tears, a Civil War checkpoint and burial ground for the soldiers that died of Yellow Fever, an army installation in the late 1800s, and a town of 300+ people.

Now it's been abandoned for 100 years, with most of the buildings left to crumble to dust. The only inhabitants are tortoises and some surly tugboat operators that lease a portion of the island to live on and are (according to park rangers) highly territorial people who will and can legally run anyone off their portion of land. Since THEIR area is relatively uninteresting, it means nothing to anyone else. There's plenty of island left to explore.

At one tip of the island is a very old, operational lighthouse with a park ranger that lives below it. The rest of the island consists of paved and brick roads and abandoned buildings. The land tortoises are very friendly and are extremely fond of fresh apples, so we always try to remember a sack of apples to hand out to the natives.

Following are pictures (and a little narration when needed). These were taken with my cell phone, so they're not of the BEST quality, but it was a heckuva lot easier than taking my super expensive camera through the trauma of splashing sea water, sand, and (later) rain.

Below is part of the military installation, build around 1907:

This is inside one of the rooms. It's finished with stucco and has a fireplace. It was the officer's mess hall, basically:


Parts of the military installation have collapsed and rooms are partially buried:




Most of the island is now overgrown with palms and scrub brush and other weedy, hearty plants but it's still beautiful:




These stairs are very steep and creepy to climb since there are no railings. People climb up and down them, but it's risky to get near the edge. We saw some kids playing hide and seek here, until their father wisely called them back and scolded them. There are many dark, dank rooms that wind back inside which haven't seen the light of day in a century. It's no place for children to play in:



Here's one of the natives, eating an apple:



Here's what I believe to be a wild blueberry bush:


This is the only remaining part of a massive building built high on stilts. It was used as a military plotting tower. Strangely enough, I believe that neither Egmont Key OR Fort DeSoto (which is the mainland part of Egmont Key) were used in any battles. They were built in order to fight off any attacks, however. Perhaps we could say they were successful. ;o)



These are "sea grapes", bushes with edible fruit that grow freely in brackish areas in Florida:


I believe that this was a culvert. There was actually a relatively advanced plumbing system throughout the occupied island at one time:






There is only one building that had been kept renovated. It was really Central Command at one time, apparently. It has fresh clay tiles on the roof, the rooms are up to date and wired for electricity, but no one uses it:



At one time this island had a little railroad of it's own. The tracks still remain. Now, this island is not at all huge, so it's rather amazing that they'd go to the trouble of having a railroad, but when it came to lugging about heavy things, I'm sure it was more preferable than a simple horse-and-buggy arrangement:


Here's the lighthouse, which was built due to numerous shipwrecks off our coast. It is still operational:

Panhandling is a First Amendment Right?

Repeatedly it has been decided by the court system that begging is a First Amendment right (the right to free speech). Obviously this seems a bit ludicrous, but in order to make it more palatable, cities have fought back with anti-aggression laws: Beggars can't be physically aggressive or hound someone repeatedly for a hand-out. Some cities have also restricted begging to certain areas of the city and the courts have upheld this restriction.

Here in St. Petersburg (part of our Tampa Bay Area) we have panhandling out of control. They stand on street corners, asking for money that will promptly go to drugs or booze. Their hand-lettered cardboard signs are created to generate sympathy. They are almost NEVER true. The "WILL WORK FOR FOOD" signs have fallen out of favor because people have actually asked them to... er... work, which wasn't part of the plan. Sometimes they claim they're a veteran but they usually aren't.

I don't know how experiences are outside of the Bay Area, but over the years we've had some very nasty cases involving panhandlers. One asked a woman for money, and when she rolled down her car window to hand him a dollar, he stabbed her through the hand with a used needle. They never found the panhandler and the story was lost after the initial report, so I don't know if she contracted anything like AIDS or Hep C from it.

Another panhandler would stand on the street corner and was known as a regular beggar. At night, he would go to the local YMCA, shower and change into a business suit, and go home to his wife and his mansion which had been purchased from his begging proceeds (which were tax-free). His wife knew nothing of the scam until the police came knocking. I understand that this is not uncommon.

Of course there are those that are genuinely needy, but they are the ones that seek help from organizations that can give them meals and shelter. I understand that shelters are strapped for space and can't accomodate every beggar out there, but (as a city councilman in Clearwater privately told me) the cities don't necessarily want to expand their shelters for "if you build it, they will come".

In fact, studies repeatedly show that the kindest love is tough love. If you make it difficult for a beggar to exist in a city they sometimes move on to the next city of suckers, but sometimes they will give up and do the right thing; buckle down, give up the addictions, and become a working member of society once more.

Currently St. Petersburg is considering passing tougher panhandling laws. I say, it's about time!

Florida's Decline

According to an article today in the St. Pete Times, people are emigrating away from Florida. Quickly. Much of this is due to the increase in the cost of living here. As I wrote last month, our property taxes in the Tampa Bay Area are up to 100 times what they are elsewhere. Our parasitical governments feed on us as ticks feed on dogs.

Recently, when newly-elected Governor Crist announced that he wants to cause a major decrease in property taxes, local city governments went into hysterics, dramatically proclaiming that programs will have to be cut! Drastically!

Yup, that means we would no longer have the luxury of such marvellous programs as the face-recognition technology used by Tampa police during the 2001 Super Bowl and in the nearby entertainment district of Ybor City. That system is designed to recognize the facial characteristics of potential terrorists and criminals by matching people on the street with a database of 30,000 mug shots. But Tampa police scrapped the Ybor City program in 2004, citing its failure over two years to recognize anyone wanted by authorities.

It is common knowlege that if you don't spend it THIS year, it won't be in the budget NEXT year. In other words, if you're allocated $1 million to build new sidewalks, you'd better put in those sidewalks or you won't have that $1 million to play with again the next year so you'd better build sidewalks EVERYwhere. So, many of these governments spend wastefully because they always want the promise of that extra money in case of an emergency down the road. The city of Clearwater is notorious for having sidewalks built everywhere, even where they're not needed, for this very reason. Clearwater has sidewalks like the Winchester Mystery House has rooms.

We are so busy concentrating on Big Government that little governments go unnoticed and unchecked. Realtors are despairing because so many properties remain on the market, unsold. Residents are packing up and moving out in droves, school attendence is down, and yet construction continues unabated. Until these little governments are controlled by the people, this decline will continue until these governments either choose to reign in their spending or are forced to do so.

And Florida should be an example to all: If you allow growth to be encouraged, unchecked, with no regard to current residents or the environmental needs (we are now constantly in water shortages), the infrastructure WILL crumble. It's only a matter of when.

Paris Hilton: What Most People Aren't Asking Yet

Paris is back in jail, despite the best efforts of the Sheriff, her attorney, and her parents. By now we all now the scene, so I'll cut to the chase:

1. Why did Sheriff Baca release her? He claims it was due to overcrowding and a medical condition. Since she has a private cell to herself (that was unused) we know it's not that. Since inmates with medical conditions are checked into hospitals all the time (mental and physical) we know it's not THAT. Was he bribed, or was he merely hoping to curry favor with a wealthy heiress or Hollywood's elite? We DO know he accepted a $1000 campaign contribution from Paris' grandfather.

Also, Baca didn't communicate with Judge Sauer before this decision became public: Was this due to the hope that Sauer would simply let this go once a decision had been executed? Sheriff Baca is already being looked at concerning potential corruption: How dumb can he be?

2. Sheriff Baca defiantly claimed Paris' sentence was harsher than standard: And yet, Baca is not a judge. Obviously Judge Sauer sentenced her within state guidelines. It is up to a judge's discretion, entirely. Since Paris violated her probation TWICE by driving on a suspended license, it doesn't seem harsh enough! Baca is now being defensive and in doing so, is saying much more than he should say in order to justify his behavior. When is he going to be summoned up on contempt of court charges?

3. Paris apparently has mental problems: But how LONG has she had these supposed problems or is she simply a silly twit who was conveniently diagnosed recently, in the hopes that it might be in her favor and engender sympathy? In my humble opinion, she's a spoiled brat who is now shocked beyond belief that money can't buy everything.

4. What are the longstanding legal ramifications? Legal experts said Friday that the clash could have wide legal consequences."For decades, where [inmates] were housed and how they were housed was up to the Sheriff's Department," said Stan Goldman, a professor of criminal law and procedure at Loyola Law School. "Now that all may change, thanks to, of all people, Paris Hilton."

The judge had no other option than to do what he did, even if he was in sympathy with Paris. To do otherwise would be to set a dangerous precedent.

Judge Sauer showed good, practical, common sense in a world where there is little. Now that true justice has been served, Paris has the opportunity to spare us all from ever having to hear from her again. I only hope she doesn't commit suicide or we'll all be subjected to hearing even MORE about her.

I hate to add to the Paris publicity, and I am hardly a fan. I simply want to see justice done and, as we've seen repeatedly, it often is NOT done when it concerns someone with wealth, power, or influence (think of O.J. Simpson). Now that this is over, I am very hopeful that I'll never have to blog about Paris again. I am also increasingly hopeful that our legal system will no longer be influenced by those who have more than those who don't.

This N' That

PARIS HILTON

This has been done-to-death in all the talk shows and I simply want to say that of COURSE it's a question of disproportionate justice. More news has come to light today to indicate that she was allowed to walk due to celebrity status only (and perhaps a pay-off). Apparently, she cried a lot, wouldn't eat, and developed a rash... so they sent her home. This is easier than getting out of jail in Monopoly!

THE DEMOCRATS GET JESUS

Gimme that ole time religion, people! Every Democratic candidate has suddenly seen the light and they are desperately reaching for their Bibles in order to quote something. I would recommend they try Proverbs 16:19 which says "Better to be lowly in spirit and among the oppressed than to share plunder with the proud." Then I'd recommend the Republicans memorize that verse, too.

THE HOUSE OF SAUD

"Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the powerful former Saudi ambassador to the U.S. who has been one of the Bush administration's strongest allies in the Middle East, was publicly linked to a widening British corruption scandal Thursday with reports that a British aerospace company secretly transferred up to $2 billion into bank accounts at the Saudi Embassy in Washington," it is reported.

What?! NO!! Hold on, I'm finding this so hard to comprehend. Everyone KNOWS how honorable and upstanding the Sauds are, right? Right? Oh wait a minute, I was thinking of Paris Hilton.

Steve Stanton's Name Change

I wrote before about Steve Stanton. Until recently, he was the City Manager for the City of Largo in the Tampa Bay Area. Now, Largo is one of those "bedroom communities" - people live there, but little else goes on. It's basically a suburb of some of the larger cities it's sandwiched between. So Largo received it's rare shot at the spotlight when Steve announced he wanted to become Susan. He was promptly fired.

Since then, Steve made the choice to start walking about in drag, is taking female hormones, and has interviewed for the position of City Manager in Sarasota (no one is taking his chances seriously). To see Steve in drag, you can go here.

Today, Steve is going to apply for a legal name change to Susan. It is assumed that he will get it easily and quickly. And even though he has not changed his sex legally (he has not had his genitalia mutilated and reshaped into a semblance of female genitalia) and although he will never own a uterus (unless it's in a jar submersed in formaldehyde), he is now requesting that people address him in the feminine gender. Our local newspaper, the St. Pete Times, is complying.

How ridiculous! I realize that there ARE instances of people who have undergone sex change operations and re-apply for a legal acknowlegement of their new "sex". They are almost always granted it, I believe. However, in Steve's case, he doesn't even have the carpet to match the drapes! Until he truly changes his genitalia, why should anyone even THINK of calling him a "her"? *

Let's put this in perspective, shall we? I have a crystal ball and I can see 10 years into the future:

Richard Baier thinks he's a St. Bernard trapped in a man's body. His favorite movie is The Shaggy Dog. He has always resented his lot in life and secretly dressed in a dog costume at night, despite his wife's tearful protests and, finally, resigned acceptance.

As time went on, Richard grew to feel that he should make his real nature known to his colleagues. He started packing dogfood for lunch, thus shocking some of the less "educated" members of his team. He prepared literature to introduce them to the concept of DogMen (a.k.a Were Dogs) in order to gain further acceptance. At first, Richard started wearing shirts with the Virginia state logo significantly altered. Finally, he began wearing a coat, even in the warmth of the summers. He would talk with forced gaiety about dog day afternoons.

When news of his behavior leaked out, his superiors fired him, feeling that such behavior was not acceptable in a supervisor. He immediately fought back in righteous indignation, going to the press in full costume, giving interviews interspersed with an occasional bark or yap. He no longer was content with being addressed as Richard, Mr. Baier, or even Dick. He now insisted that everyone refer to him simply as "Rover". So, fawning members of the press referred to him as Rover, and reported ecstatically on his every move, including his interview for Vice President of Kibbles N' Bits.

In turn, Kibbles N' Bits (not wishing to appear discriminatory) allowed the entire dog-and-pony show, promising that Rover was a candidate in good standing who was being considered for the job (among many other fine applicants who were, coincidentally, sane).

Is this what we're coming to, next? It surely is, unless we get a good old-fashioned dose of common sense. Where will it all stop? It won't - unless we apply the brakes.

*(And personally, I would argue that no matter what sort of mutilation you subject your genitalia to, you can't change the fact that if you were male you were born without the same plumbing and you will die without it, too. In my humble opinion, Steve should always be referred to as a "he" even if he goes through with the sex change operation.)