The Chat Is Open
Okay, I'm sitting at my desk in the Times newsroom, armed with caffeine, carbs and an iPod to block out the background noise of the ongoing Media Conspiracy, eager to talk.
Click on the "Comments" link at the bottom of this post to submit your own question or comment. I'll make replies via comments as well. Just keep refreshing the comments page to get the latest.
So, is anybody there?

Welcome to TroxBlog, the web-home of columnist Howard Troxler, where he and readers discuss his column topics and current events. The goal here is to focus on the merits of issues, instead of personal attacks or knee-jerk partisanship.
If you need 60% to pass an amendment, shouldn't we change the law for a 60% vote to pass taxes, like the Pennies for Pinellas tax?
Posted by: | March 27, 2007 at 11:31 AM
Hi Howard. Glad to see you're finally into the Internet wave. I'm a fan of your writing and was wondering: what other Times blogs do you recommend for regular reading? I just enjoy good writing and entertainment.
Posted by: Sam in Safety Harbor | March 27, 2007 at 11:32 AM
I wasn't so crazy about the 60% rule for voters... for legislative bodies in some cases such as constitutional amendments, yes, but not for voters. The question is, when in our society should the majority NOT rule?
Taxes, to me, are the very essence of an everyday "legislative" decision to be made by a functioning majority of voters or elected officials.
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Well, I just opened the web site and saw that you were chatting live at 11:30, so I glanced at the clock and it was....11:30! So hi! Are you having fun? So what do you think of all the Steve Stanton hoopla? Do you think Largo comes off as the biggest little racist town in the south? I guess racist is the wrong term. Maybe narrow-minded?
Posted by: Marianna | March 27, 2007 at 11:35 AM
What do you think about the state house proposal to eliminate property tax on homestead properties but increase the state sales tax?
Posted by: | March 27, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Hey, Sam, are you trying to get me in trouble with my blogger-colleagues by recommending some over others? I will tell you that far and away, our most-read blog is The Buzz -- see the link on the right-hand side -- which is a constantly updated blog fed by all of our political writers, who do a great job.
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 11:36 AM
I keep reading in comments made to the Steve Stanton story that Stanton really was a jerk when it came to firing city employees -- especially the guy who stayed with his mom during a hurricane. Is it true that he hasn't been as compassionate on this job as he's wishing Largo would be now?
Posted by: Ken | March 27, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Do you think that public officials, people that represent 'your' town, should be held to a higher standard? Stanton may be a great person, but as a public official and a representative of the City of Largo, the city should have a say in who they say represent them?
Posted by: | March 27, 2007 at 11:38 AM
No offense, Howard, but the Buzz is boring. It reads like a press release service from Tallahssee. I prefer more well-crafted verse, like your columns.
Posted by: Sam again | March 27, 2007 at 11:38 AM
Marianna, to be honest, when Stanton first announced his gender change, I thought: "This is great, they like the guy too much to fire him, so it will be a real advancement.'' I never dreamed they would fire him so quickly, since he was so estabilshed as the city manager.
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 11:38 AM
I found today's article about the failure of UF's faculty to offer our former governor an honorary degree to be itself petty and narrow.
You have consistently noted the way our ex-governor and legislature slighted higher education and have even commented on how UF had slipped in national prominence during the Jeb years.
Do you really think, in view of this and accepting that the faculty is even more sensitive to this subject than a columnist, that the faculty should have "held their noses" and granted the honorarium anyway?
Isn't there a principle in play that your column failed to address?
Posted by: Lin | March 27, 2007 at 11:39 AM
Ken, I think that is a fair point -- there were several stories over the years in which Stanton was not sympathetic. Not long before all this, I wrote a column disagreeing with his harsh treatment of the police officer whose only offense was having whipped cream licked off her shoulder in a bar -- remember? So, yes, he is asking for more than he gave some people...
Sam: Re the Buzz: Yes, it more is more newsy than comment-y. I also like Stuck in the 80s and, as a media rat, also regularly read Eric Deggans' blog The Feed. I have a list of outside blogs on my RSS feed too...
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Well, I was thinking U Florida profs got it right. Now with your commentary I'm having second thoughts. Jeb did have some nutty ideas - 'saving' Terri and vouchers for some dubious schools with no financial controls or academic standards so they could be publicly supported 'Sunday' schools, but Jeb was an ok governator. More articulate than his older brother. Maybe you're right and UF should have 'honored' a degree on him.
Mike in Holiday,FL
Posted by: mike | March 27, 2007 at 11:43 AM
I agree with Lin. It was impolitic but there is something to be said for a little rebeliousness in a university faculty.
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 11:43 AM
Lin, thanks for the question about today's column. My basic thinking is, awarding an honorary degree to an ex-governor ought not be based on a screening of his policy.
Most of my e-mail and comments today are in precisely the opposition, saying, he does not deserve the degree BECAUSE of his higher-ed policy. And, you are right, I vigorously criticized his policy, especially abolishing the state university system to stock new boards of trustees with his political appointees.
I sense I am in the minority, but still think the UF faculty comes across as petty. Honorary degrees are not seals of political approval. As I pointed out, however, UF could have avoided the whole thing by having a "cooling off period" for honoring ex-politicians... Jeb's only been gone 3 months, after all; how can we remember him if he hasn't really gone away?
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 11:45 AM
What do you think about the state house proposal to eliminate property tax on homestead properties but increase the state sales tax?
Posted by: Robb in New York City | March 27, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Jeb Bush tried to destroy the University Unions statewide. He lost the fight. Hundreds of hours of faculty time were spent to get back to where they were prior to Jeb's actions.
Your use of "petty" minimizes the enormity of what he did to the state university faculties.
He has also installed cronies in high academic positions making the state university system less well-regarded nationally. Also, Florida taxpayers are the ones who are paying for Brogan and Delaney to get huge salaries now and into retirement. Jeb "used" the state well to pay off his personal pals. Because faculty are aware of the fact that every tax payer in the state will be contributing to Jeb's largesse to his friends into the next generation their denial of him an honorary university degree was not 'petty.' Isn't it time someone called Jeb's actions for what they were? Why do you insist on a feudal model? This is what Grover Norqist did for Reagan.(Reagan legacy project.)
http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/08/04/unions
Posted by: Grace | March 27, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Without intending to be flip, why is whether or not Jeb got the honorary degree important at all? Is it really meaningful to anyone other than him and, perhaps, his family?
Posted by: HCB | March 27, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Robb, on killing all property tax and replacing with sales tax, there's some interesting philosophical questions. Florida's sales tax as written is terribly regressive. Even if the loopholes were closed, which the Legislature opposes on the grounds it is a "tax increase,'' there still is the issue of whether it is wise and fair for society to transfer the entire burden of taxation from property to retail sales...
But what Florida has is totally screwed up and unfair. The "Save Our Homes" cap of 3 pct a year max in valuation increase has created a protected class of homeowners (including me) who do not pay a fair share of the tax burden, shifting it to non-homestead and business owners.
Basically the problem with taxes is no one wants to pay them and thinks somebody else should.
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 11:49 AM
Honorary degrees are mostly bull**** and political by definition. Why should the faculty be expected to fall in line with what's expected of it in Tallahassee? I'm surprised you take such an establishmentarian view of this. Who cares if some poobahs got their feathers ruffled by the profs. Maybe we need more of that these days.
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Bravo, Grace. You've shown Howard how the faculty's position against honoring Jeb is absolutely not petty.
If Howard wants to argue that these honoraria should be automatically granted to each and every ex-governor, well, have at it, but, as it is, Howard's kneejerk contrarianism serves to obscure a matter of principle which Howard himself has recognized as important to this state.
Posted by: Lin | March 27, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Grace, well-put point on Jeb. Bottom line is, if there is a "merit test" of Bush's record on higher-ed to decide whether he gets an honorary degree, despite being governor for 2 terms, then you agree with the UF faculty.. as I said, I certainly do not base my column this AM on defending his higher-ed track record!
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Dear 'Trox'
Property taxes & schools in Pinellas..in our view, one huge reason for out of control property taxes in Pinellas is the out of control binge of school building (largly on the southside) and massive school bussing programs...all dedicated to getting people to go to schools in areas where they REALLY don't want to go! 54MILLION to renovate Gibbs HS? Of course this is all in aid of manipulating the outcome of the end of 'choice' next year. My question is: as an observer of the local scene, do you really believe the school powers and social engineers that threw all that money down the Pinellas schools rathole will actually EVER REALLY allow people to go to the schools in their neighborhood and not in some convoluted way still force them to ride a bus for the sake of their idea of 'diversity'? We think they will never let it happen even though that's of course what's supposed to happen and it's what a vast majority want. What think you....?
Posted by: Mike | March 27, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Hmm, what's the antonym for kneejerk contrarianism... considered contrarianism? I'm just sayin', I don't think it's a policy-based litmus test. Re: whether this is a big deal at all: compared to Florida's insurance crisis, tax debate, etc.... no. Compared to a new state song, now...
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 11:54 AM
Mike, great post, and you are right about the central problem of getting people to go to school "where they don't want to go."
The whole idea behind "choice" was that each school would develop an "attractor" that would make parents and kids want to go there, instead of automatically wanting the CLOSEST school.
Trouble is, the attractor scheme was basically a sham. Parents, both black and white, still have a strong desire for the neighborhood school and only a few overwhelming considerations, such as magnet programs, IB, etc., can override that preference.
The schools WILL resegregate because that is what everybody wants. This will bring us full circle to the question asked in the 1950s ... is segregation inherently unequal and hence unconstitutional?
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Maybe it is a big deal, Howard. I would expect you to encourage college faculties and students to do more in the way of challenging the political status quo. Question authority, right? Isn't that the idea? Political correctness on campus is unhealthy. If they want to break some china up there and embarass Jeb in the process, good for them.
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 11:59 AM
HT,
Matt Silverman won a bet with his buddies. At a bar the other night, Matt bet his buddies that the St. Pete Times is so gullible, they will print anything he says, no matter how ludicrous it sounds. So in a business story interview, he lays one on the reporter that he's thinking of bringing Naimoli back into the public eye. Bingo! The Times printed it. Matt won $20.
Posted by: ACB Sec. 111 | March 27, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Hey, ACB, are you saying you're skeptical of the Master Plan to be in the playoffs? Seems to me we kept printing, "2007 or 2008,'' but there has been some "mission creep" and I think I saw the window extended the other day...
Good thing the starting pitching and bullpen have both matured so well, eh?
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM
It's a good idea. Bring back Naimoli. He can DH.
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM
How about "well-considered reasoning"?
Seems to me that the ultimate test here is whether the faculty consider Jeb to be a "friend of the University", and I think they sent their answer in vivid color.
Good on 'em.
Posted by: Lin | March 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM
McReader, I am sorry to sound like an establishment guy on this, since I think we should all be challening the gov'ts assertions on all kinds of things.
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Do you think Mel Sembler is working for Mitt Romney so he can get another embassy named after him?
Posted by: Joe from Philly | March 27, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Amen, Lin. And God bless 'em for having the courage to say so.
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Hey, Joe from Philly, I saw the Phillies play the other day. Chase Utley is the man.
Re: Sembler: I think Romney has to WIN before he gets to name embassies... so far Giuliani and McCain are the big horses, you agree? Latest Fla poll still has Romney in single digits, and I saw where one of his guys actually peeled off already the other day...
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Howard,
I've followed the Stanton case very closely. I'm quite upset by it, as I consider it discrimination of the highest order.
My question is.. is there any higher instance that can revoke the decision of the Largo Commission? The Governor?
Posted by: Matt | March 27, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Re Pinellas schools post-'choice'....
Do you seriously think that the school powers in Pinellas who have spent our tax money like water on these numerous new schools & programs dedicated to preserving/enforcing their social ideas re education..do you really believe they will REALLY ACTUALLY allow the schools to re-segregate? In our humble opinion, no way will that be allowed. The situation will be manipulated & tweaked to preserve their notions of 'diversity'...just by other means & names.
Posted by: Mike | March 27, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Matt, the short answer is no --no outside authority can tell the Largo City Commission who to hire/fire as city manager, and there probably shouldn't be one anyway...
I keep seeing talk of Stanton suing, but I don't know on what grounds. Transgendered status is not a protected category, in the way of race, sex, religion, etc.... and he always served "at the pleasure" of his bosses, meaning they could fire him for no reason at any time.
Do you think it SHOULD be a protected status in our law, though?
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Just for the record, many, many Pinellas residents consider the prospect that our schools will resegregate appalling.
This stuff happens across the country. Why can't the Board pick a successful model and copy it.
I offer Wake County, NC, as a prime example.
Posted by: Lin | March 27, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Mike: All I know is, the quotas have finished and supposedly it is wide open now. The board would have to cook up something, agreed?
The question is, is this a BAD thing? You point out all the new construction in recent years in the southern half of the county. Well, there are hundreds if not thousands of kids who have stared at those schools longingly as their buses hauled them to more distance places...
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:15 PM
Lin: I kept pointing out in columns, during the early steps of this process, that for the schools NOT to resegregate, the School Board had to be entirely, totally serious about the "attractor" concept.
But they weren't. And they knew they weren't. It was a fiction designed to enable the end of quotas. There is an interesting dynamic here, with older, '60s types like me, thinking of integration as Social Justice, and younger parents who just want a simple life and a nearby school -- parents of all races. Very interesting, to be at meetings where the civil-rights era folks and parents were on opposite sides...
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Well, couldn't you argue that Stanton really IS a victim of gender bias or sex discrimination?
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 12:18 PM
Howard,
Thank you for responding to my post. I know you get so many. I've heard he was a tough boss, but the commission expected him to be. They rewarded him for his work. The more important question is whether he was fired especially for his gender change. I think he was. Fear, in my opinion, fueled the decision. I actually don't think transgendered status should be a protected category. I think it should fall under the category of sex. Wherever a person is on the scale, male, female, transgendered, decisions should not be made on that.
Posted by: Matt | March 27, 2007 at 12:22 PM
Hey, McReader, interesting question and I am not sure of the case law. In other words, you "are what you are,'' and if you're a woman who used to be a man, you are protected against gender discrimination... I suppose the conservative rely would be that "you are as you were born,'' so the switch would not protect you.
My thinking has always been, on this as well as for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, that I don't CARE whether it's "how we are born'' or whether, as some social conservatives seem to believe, it's a matter of "choice'' -- so what? If I convert to Judaism tomorrow by choice, would that mean I could be discriminated against?
I DO believe, by the way, that this is a matter of nature and hard-wiring, and am just using the "conversion by choice" example as a hypothetical... flying fingers on keyboards being especially prone to saying something stupid, don't you know.
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:23 PM
I think Matt's got it right. You don't need to create a new category under the law. Sex discrimination is the issue here.
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Now, I have a question for anyone who wants to answer:
What should TroxBlog be, anyway? What is its "value added'' role, if it has any?
Just for reader reaction, comments? A repeat of the print column? Should it be chock-full of things that never appear in the print edition?
What separates it, if anything, from any other mere opinion blog? I have always thought the print column was useful as long as I kept trying to find things out, going places, researching topics, and not just spewing out "one man's opinion'' type stuff... most of the time anyway...
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:25 PM
... (grin) fully realizing that today's column probably does not meet that test!
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:27 PM
I agree with you, Howard. Exactly. And who the heck would choose to go through what Stanton is going through? If that isn't proof enough that this is a wiring issue, I don't know what is.
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Quit complaining about the money spent in the South county as you say. Virtually all the schools in the north are new. Boca Ciega, for instance, is over 50 years old and very outdated. If you are going to judge schools and give them grades then you must give them equal facilities.
Posted by: | March 27, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Howard,
In my opinion, a blog allows for additional information to expand on an article that appears in the newspaper. You are under tight limitations as to the number of words your editors allow. A blog can go further. I see that as the major point of having a blog. Yes, we want to know your personal views, but a blog may also allow for additional comments, by other individuals you may have spoken with as part of your story research.
Posted by: Matt | March 27, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Hi Howard,
I think you got it right today. Troxblog should be a place to follow up on columns and exchange ideas.
I have to admit, though, that I get a guilty pleasure from reading the hate mail you post.
I'm always entertained by people who try to pass off personal attacks as intelligent discourse.
Posted by: Tim from STL | March 27, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Many have critized Stanton for showing no compassion for his family. Many say he's selfish for putting his on desires ahead of his own.
Well, I suppose that could be said for anyone wanting a divorce then too?
Marriage is a commitment, yet we face various challenges along the way. Many couples grow apart. Others simply choose to end marriages because of other reasons. In Stanton's case, he wanted to become a woman.
I wish I'd stop hearing comments that are not well thought out.
Posted by: Matt | March 27, 2007 at 12:31 PM
I agree that the School Board has been both dishonest and inept on this subject. They are basically saying, "Gee, we'd like to have diversity, but the law (regarding the use of quotas, btw, not really "on point") and public sentiment dictate otherwise." - they call this "leadership"?
Still, they won't escape that easily with a lawsuit pending which essentially accuses them of neglecting black kids and the scrutiny that their policies will engender.
Putting aside sociological issues, the fact is that schools with disproportionate numbers of poor kids are schools destined for underperformance if not outright failure. This problem won't go away.
Posted by: Lin | March 27, 2007 at 12:31 PM
Hey, I'm not certainly complaining about the money being spent in the southern half of the county, and did not mean to give that impression! If anything I was complaining that kids on the southern half of the county weren't being allowed to ATTEND those schools!
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:32 PM
The Troxblog should be a site where the ordinary reader can post a comment without having an editor cut it because there is no room in the paper or it does not reflect the paper's position.
Do have a question about the paper's new motto "Briding the Bay"- Why did they dump the old motto of the paper- "The policy of this paper is merely to tell the truth." Did they dump the old motto when they bridged the bay?
Posted by: Bob | March 27, 2007 at 12:32 PM
The Troxblog should be a site where the ordinary reader can post a comment without having an editor cut it because there is no room in the paper or it does not reflect the paper's position.
Do have a question about the paper's new motto "Briding the Bay"- Why did they dump the old motto of the paper- "The policy of this paper is merely to tell the truth." Did they dump the old motto when they bridged the bay?
Posted by: Bob | March 27, 2007 at 12:32 PM
I vote for "chock-full of things that never appear in the print edition."
Democracy requires more sunshine, more analysis and more looking at the difficult generally low key things that affect our lives but won't sell papers but could be learned by a newspaper person in his/her investigations.
Tell us more about what motivates county commissioners in area counties. Who contributes?
Tell us more about the commissions that do the day-to-day work.
We need you to connect the dotes and it can't all be done in the paper.
Look what Talking Points Memo accomplished on the Attoney General firings! Lots of us went through the 3000 pages doc dump to help Muckraker. Wish there were similar actions local and state.
Posted by: Grace | March 27, 2007 at 12:34 PM
The new motto is sheer brilliance, right Howard?
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 12:36 PM
the value of the column is in its thought provocation. Sometimes it provokes anger, sometimes empathy, sometimes, "ah ha." Normally, it does not provoke "he's a dope" - your writing is thoughtful notwithstanding what some have written.
But the value is in the provocation. I think the blog could provide you a survey of topics with hot buttons but, other than that, it is simply a vent. Were it in a wide open chat room, it might provoke meaningful conversation but in this environment it is like an instant letters to the editor forum. A suggestion would be - if you intend to repeat the open discussion - limit the subject matter. draw it from the blog or your column but don't invite comment on whatever happens to be on someone's mind.
Posted by: hcb | March 27, 2007 at 12:38 PM
TROXBLOG:
If you have carte blanche on this blog, I'd like to see investigative reporting and commentary on issues that the editorial board is afraid to touch, or unwilling to touch because it may hamper "already established" friendships or business commitments, so to speak. I only got 5, just thought I'd peak at your new adventure.
Lorraine
Posted by: Lorraine Margeson | March 27, 2007 at 12:38 PM
You know, I didn't even realize they weren't printing that "merely to tell the truth" Poynter quote any more. Well, I am not overly sorry -- the claim that any publication is The Truth is too much in my opinion and it caused soooo much grief over the years. If I were king of the newspaper the motto probably would be, "We Are Doing The Best We Can, And Doing Better Than People Say, But No Doubt Falling Short In A Million Ways.'' Probably not catching enough for the marketing folks though.
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Re: the point of the Blog
I think today's exchange demonstrates the 'value-added' - we've explored some of the deeper issues behind the UF faculty's decision so that the claim of "pettiness" lodged by some can be dispelled.
Similarly, we have broached ways of approaching the tax problem.
Opinions are like... well, you know, but if the blog generates even a little enlightenment, understanding, or progress toward solving our problems, we would have to unite to see that Mr. Troxler becomes Editor-in-Chief of the Times, if not governor.
Posted by: Lin | March 27, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Hi,
What would you think about Florida switching to a system in which registered voters are not registered to a specific political party (like in Wisconsin where I live)? Here we can vote in any election for any party. (I read your column and paper online - I have relatives in St. Pete and miss things so sorry if you addressed this already).
Posted by: Lisa | March 27, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Hmmm. I don't know, Howard. Very catchy. I like it, anyway.
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 12:41 PM
I say we nominate Howard for an honorary degree from UF!
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 12:43 PM
One thing I am wrestling with, just a few weeks into this, is the degree to which the electronic product is "reactive,'' that is, putting up posts and comments reacting to already-reported events, as opposed to proactive finding-out of things. "Reactive" can be useful, but in the long term, what is the value added? I mean, is there a SHORTAGE of people with opinions these days?
Secondly, and this is fascinating to me, is that for the first time print people are conscious of "ratings." I can tell you, TroxBlog got pretty good hits first couple of weeks (Stanton, maybe?) but then has dropped off sharply.. still not bad for a new blog, but definitely way down. And I am AWARE of it, too - unlike the print edition column! Very interesting dynamic. To what extent does this drive content, change the subject matter, etc? Just hypothetical questions.
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Hello Mr. Troxler,
My husband and I have enjoyed your column immensely for many years. You are frequently the highlight of our morning "paper reading" ritual and often quoted...some quotations having become part of our family lore. I would like to know if you are a local guy or moved to " St. Petersburg, the city that's on it's way now," from parts unknown? You sure have your typing fingers on the situation here in St. Pete and FL. We seldom disagree, but always enjoy your view even when we agree to disagree. Just curious, have you been offered a column with more national exposure or perhaps in a visual type of format ie a commentary spot on some type of television news show? You have become St.Pete's Dave Berry/Garrison Keeler with the insight and wit that a national audience would love. Have you written any books? Would love to read them. Incidently, we really enjoy Troxblog and the option now to read 'todays' column online as well as look at previous gems. I hope the St. Petersburg Times treats you right because they must know what a literary treasure they have.
Posted by: Linda | March 27, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Lisa, that is a good issue as well. Florida has gone PARTLY down that path, allowing "open" primary elections when only one party has candidates on the ballot.
Originally, party primary elections were like "private club meetings.'' The "club" of Democrats got together, so did the Republicans, and held a meeting to choose their nominees. Used to be smoke-filled rooms, now done at a party primary ballot box.
But the parties have long since become quasi-public institutions, and have written themselves deeply into state law. Their 'private' club meetings are now held at taxpayer expense (in Florida, at least -- in some states they are paid for privately!)...
My party-active friends say this is still a "freedom of association'' issue under the First Amendment and they should not be required to "associate" with anyone they don't want. But in that case, take away all of their privilege and standing in state law and quit using my tax dollars to hold their club meetings!
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Joe Stalin said it the best - "Paper will put up with anything that is printed on it." The Times must subscribe to his line of thinking as they are not willing to acknowledge that there is truth and as the old saying goes - Truth Shall Make You Free" or Veritas Vos Liberabit"
Posted by: Bob | March 27, 2007 at 12:49 PM
One more thing:
I think troxblog could provide a great service by educating your readership on how the media work, particularly what goes into this particular print medium, what stays out, and how to influence the mix/emphasis.
The Times has undergone a large number of changes lately, and the opportunity for feedback still seems quite limited. I would think the paper would benefit from the exchange, but the readers certainly would.
Posted by: Lin | March 27, 2007 at 12:50 PM
C'mon, Bob. Seriously?
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 12:52 PM
Linda, thank you for the kind words (and no, she is not a relative, at least not to my knowledge).
I was born and schooled in central North Carolina and came to Florida 25 years ago, in 1982, as a reporter for the Tampa Tribune.
I was lucky to work for the Tribune at all levels -- in Pasco and Polk counties, in the downtown newsroom, covering local courts and issues. Then the Tribune sent me to Tallahassee as the bureau chief, where I got to know lots of people on the state level, as well as our Tampa Bay folks in a different setting. Then I was a daily political columnist for the Tribune, which was a real education in daily deadlines and being, more or less, a political gossip columnist.
The Times hired me away in 1991 as a general metro columnist in the B section, although I've always kept the focus mostly on public issues, political stuff... now and then sneaking in a column about the weather, Daylight Saving Time, or my cats, much to the displeasure of a few...
Again, thanks for the good words.
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Looking for the article about sending used cell phones to service men overseas
Posted by: RAY | March 27, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Looking for the article about sending used cell phones to service men overseas
Posted by: RAY | March 27, 2007 at 12:55 PM
Joe Stalin said it the best - "Paper will put up with anything that is printed on it." The Times must subscribe to his line of thinking as they are not willing to acknowledge that there is truth and as the old saying goes - Truth Shall Make You Free" or Veritas Vos Liberabit"
Posted by: Bob | March 27, 2007 at 12:55 PM
An exchange of ideas. that is what this is all about. You draw some interesting people out of the wood work, and I enjoy reading thier input as much a yours
Posted by: Karen | March 27, 2007 at 12:56 PM
When I read the SPT I read the front page, the editorials, your column. Then metro. Everything else I have already read online before my paper arrives at 6am. I read the NYT, Salon and the WaPo before I pick up the paper out the door. I pay for Times Select. The SPT is generally a day behind in hard news.
Your column is the real value added for me with the SPTimes because you analyze local and state issues. No one else does that as well.
I like FLApolitics, too.
Newspaper revenues are going down because newspapers are too conservative except for a few columns like yours.
I'm loyal to the paper paper idea but enough can be enough. I cancelled the Tribune even tho I live in Tampa as their support for George Bush was too lock step. We have choices now with online access. Huffington Post is a great way to begin the day...your blog will bring you into that world which is the news world that will be the future.
Thinking about how much MORE I spend now then 10 years ago on communication (online access, 3 computers over the decade, Blackberry). Your column has survived and your blog will be the breakout in Florida.
Posted by: Grace | March 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Hey, Lin, about the "how the media works" aspect, the trouble is that as a metro B-section columnist I usually don't have much insight into the daily workings of, say, the A section of the editorial page. Sometimes folks ask, "Why didn't the Times cover so-and-so?'' and I really don't know. As a reader, I can tell you there are plenty of days I see a story inside the A section and think, that seems like a MUCH bigger deal to me, or vice versa... but you would be surprised how often it's simply because the news broke late and we were able at least to get in a paragraph, etc. --
The fact is, we usually aren't nearly as smart and able to slant the news as folks credit us with -- if a headline has a particular word, it's because it had the right number of letters, and instead of picking and choosing unflattering photos of folks we don't like, I am always extremely grateful that we managed just to get the right person!
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Pinellas schools & property taxes...
My real point in raising this topic was in pointing out that one of the reasons for the absurdly high property taxes in Pinellas was the binge of school building & related spending...all in the last several years in an affort to fend off obvious consequences of the end of 'choice'. Perhaps if this school madness is allowed to play out, school spending will go down..at least with the 25 million? spent on busing each year. (no fewer than 16 huge busses go by our house in on e NE St Pete side street every school day!). School spending COULD go down, but we're not betting on it. More like more of the same but under a different name!
Posted by: Mike | March 27, 2007 at 01:01 PM
Grace, those are very interesting comments... I am hopeful that in the long run there will always be a market for people who want to know what the governor is doing, what the state is doing, what the mayor and school board and county, etc., are doing...
When I was a young reporter the glamor was Washington D.C. and presidential politics and everybody wanted to move in that direction. Yet I think it is the UNIQUE aspect of the info industry -- the stuff I mentioned above -- that the Yahoos and Googles of the world will not be able to unseat without a concerted effort... (shh, don't give 'em any ideas...)
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 01:01 PM
You're still young in my book, dude. You mentioned your ratings. Why do you think they went down?
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 01:09 PM
Hey, I see three copies of the Joe Stalin quote and hope y'all do not mind if I remove a couple...
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 01:09 PM
You see, Howard, your post at 12:58 is just the type of insider insight that readers want (and your modesty is charming).
Many people don't trust newspapers and media in general, and it's due, in large part, to the one-way nature of the relationship. This type of exchange is the antidote.
Besides, given your skills and obvious popularity, it's clear that you'll be on the A team soon (who is Dyckman's replacement; there seems to be a void there) else you'll find greener pastures (possibly using the internets (sic) as your vehicle).
Closing, from one Tar Heel to another: Wait 'til next year!
Posted by: Lin | March 27, 2007 at 01:13 PM
McReader: Either there was a brief novelty attached to the beginning of it, or there was something skewing the numbers anyway (e.g. Stanton), or else folks who sampled the daily content didn't find anything they liked. Believe me, I am thinking about it. Without a doubt I could whip up the numbers at least temporarily with gimmicks, sensational stuff, or even cheap sexual exploitation(!).. an interesting relationship between content and appeal... if it were called "Phblic Policy Journal'' we might be able to kill the thing altogether... whereas "Buck Naked Studs And Babes'' might at least get me tied into the search engines!
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 01:15 PM
Gee, I'm old enough to remember who Joe Stalin was too! He also said: "the death of one man is a tragedy; the death of millions is merely a statistic.." Apply THAT to the right wing agenda of today & to the current phony made-up 'war'....
Posted by: Mike | March 27, 2007 at 01:16 PM
Happy to know this is here. I check in whenever I see a new post from the RSS Feed. Thanks for the interesting work Howard.
Posted by: Lee | March 27, 2007 at 01:20 PM
Just a hunch but I'm guessing that wouldn't comport with Times policy. A lot of successful blogs are informative. I think you should go that route. Your column makes a nice platform to build on. Use the blog to extend some of the threads you don't have room for in print, then let us kick it (and you) around in comments.
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 01:23 PM
Ah, not quite two hours without an Iraq reference... almost made it. Not that I do not consider the war to be critically important (hey, did you know the U.S. is running war games in the Persian Gulf off the coast of Iran today?) but, as a lowly B-section guy, I feel more conversant with state and local issues...
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 01:23 PM
Howard, what do you think about Charlie Justice's bill to prohibit 527's?
Posted by: Alli | March 27, 2007 at 01:27 PM
We are coming close to the end of our time. I will keep the comments on this post open, in case anybody wants to add stuff later, but as for me, I think I will have lunch. :)
THANK YOU for the great questions and for being here. Thank you for the kind words, for the intelligent disagreement (certainly, you have me standing on shakier ground on the Bush-degree issue), for the comments & feedback.
Let's do it again in a month or so... until then, I appreciate your comments on any blog post, at the end of any column on the web site, or via e-mail at troxblog@tampabay.com.
Any last words, anyone?
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 01:30 PM
Thank you!
Posted by: McReader | March 27, 2007 at 01:31 PM
Ali: All for it. I've written at least two columns about it, plus updated the bill's status on the blog the other day...
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 01:32 PM
All right, I am officially Out To Lunch! Thanks to everyone again, and have a great Tuesday.
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 27, 2007 at 01:33 PM
I agree with HT's column this morning; whether the faculty despised Jeb's policies or not, the honorary degree slighting was pretty cheap. Not to mention the damage it does in UF's lobbying the legislature. What was gained? Why must liberals fall on their sword over such pettiness? We need to pick our fights.
Posted by: ppicasso | March 27, 2007 at 01:35 PM
Mr Troxler: I would be curious to know if you think "Light Rail" will ever be a reality in our area. Bill
Posted by: william McNally | March 27, 2007 at 03:04 PM
Howard, how about some info using your media contacts in regards to the false report of Iran firing upon a US warship? I'd like to know the source and if that source still has a job. If you noticed what happened to the crude oil price when that story broke, you know why I'm asking. Either way, this should be a chilling reminder to what's in store if Iran goes to war with anyone, a $5 spike in crude in a matter of minutes is unprecedented.
Posted by: Tony | March 28, 2007 at 12:10 AM
FIrst I would like to say that I do disagree with your opinion. You criticize the faculty for making it a political referendum but look what Jeb did to the university system. Made the directors answerable to the governor. He politicized the entire management of the system. And honestly, I do not think any of the Bushes deserve an honorary degree. It would be nice to actually see them earn something for a change
Posted by: schauer | March 28, 2007 at 11:32 AM
On a separate topic, I would like to know why the Times never publishes a letter criticizing Bill Young. I have only been in St. Pete 12 years now but even when he tried to explain why he never did anything about Walter Reed the paper did not call him on it. Is there some kind of "give Bill Young a Pass" card that I do not know about?
Posted by: schauer | March 28, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Schauer: That simply is not true. The Times has printed several letters criticizing Young on the Walter Reed issue, which is easily verifiable by searching the free online archive. Here are some letters that appeared in the newspaper on March 6:
Rep. Young faces online fury over Walter Reed scandal - March 2, story
Finally Rep. C.W. Bill Young is getting the press a man with his political clout deserves.
We don't hear much from Young because, like the administration he supports, he says he doesn't "do business through the press."
The St. Petersburg Times is complicit in not holding him accountable. Even the comment "the unlikely target is assailed for inaction" under the main headline is editorializing. Plus, your fawning article last May, Young: fed up, but not quick to quit by Bill Adair, (perhaps inadvertently) offered a tantalizing glimpse into the man who has represented his gerrymandered congressional district for 36 years.
In it he seems to be out of solutions for the carnage that is Bush's war, except more of the same. Being a kindly grandparent is certainly laudable, and visiting sick and wounded young people coming back from Iraq may be considered a patriotic endeavor. But is it more than hand-wringing? There are enough of us doing that already. Does it make a real difference? Do his actions protect other innocents from the carnage in the Middle East?
That article in May holds Rep. Young totally above the fray in Congress and not responsible for any of the current ethical problems. Can that be true?
But surely Young underestimated his power and influence. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee until three years ago, he was "potentially" one of the most powerful people in Congress and sat next to the powerful and famous (or infamous). It is hard to believe that one could wield this kind of clout and suddenly be gob-smacked by the actions of close colleagues he "trusted and admired."
Prior to the election, he offered this in his defense of his party's current problems: "Why don't I just walk away from this mess?"
My answer: Because you ought to have some insight and solutions after all these years of experience. And now, his reaction to the conditions at Walter Reed Army Hospital: He quit visiting because of the conditions ... .
Joyce Milne D'Auria, Palm Harbor
It's our business
Concerning Rep. C.W. Bill Young's comment, "I don't do my business through the press": First of all it's not "your business," it's "our business." Second, when it concerns "our" troops returning home from this war or previous wars, you fix the problems, period, any way you can, whatever it takes. Nobody deserves "our" care as swiftly as these brave men and woman.
And with all due respect to Rep. Young, our country's citizens are sick and tired of the political gridlock. We want things done, and as seen in the last election, if our elected officials don't get things done, we will elect someone who will. That is one thing we can do for our troops returning home from war.
Also, in an online posting, Young's son Patrick asked those who are criticizing his father: "What have any of you done for the veterans?" As Americans we pay for every single need they will have when they return home, in some cases for the rest of their lives. It is the job of our elected officials to make sure these things happen, period. This country will not just sit by and watch our veterans be treated with anything less than the respect and care they earned and deserve.
Robert Skerkavich, North Redington Beach
Rep. Young faces online fury over Walter Reed scandal March 2, story
A misguided loyalty
Well, well. Rep. C.W. Bill Young and his wife, Beverly, are upset that they are being criticized for not taking action on the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. They have been, for years, touting their commitment to our wounded troops, making sure that we all knew they both spent much time visiting and comforting those who fought this war and were wounded in the process.
But, now, news comes out that they saw the sorry condition of the hospital in which our brave soldiers were confined, but were somehow helpless to change anything.
Well, Rep. Young could have done a lot. As the powerful chairman of a powerful House committee, he could have had hearings and held people accountable. He could have changed the situation. So, why didn't he?
Remember when Barbara Bush said that loyalty was what the Bush family valued most? And for the last six years, the Republicans have been loyal no matter what.
A virtue? No, a pity. Now, this misguided loyalty has actually hurt our wounded troops because Rep. Young would not expose this administration's disregard for this nation's needs, including serving our most vulnerable citizens - wounded soldiers, Katrina victims, poor children with no health care ... the list goes on. I will be so happy when this country can send all of the Bush boys home.
Nancy D. Morgan, Lutz
Our wounded warriors
Cynical military
Last March the St. Petersburg Times published my letter about the lack of care for wounded veterans coming home to small towns nowhere near VA hospitals. I sent a copy of the published letter, including my suggestions that might alleviate the problems, to senators, members of the House of Representatives, VA officials, news programs, heads of committees, etc.
The few answers I received simply touted the VA system as wonderful (which it obviously is not) and dismissed the idea of a dialogue to find better ways to help. Apparently I was much too focused on the treatment of the wounded after they return home, as the Washington Post article on Walter Reed hospital amply proves.
Now I notice that there is criticism of Rep. C.W. Bill Young because he did not hold hearings on the shortcomings he saw. I agree with that criticism, but I must point out that there was an even more outrageous statement in the March 2 article on Page 1A. It states that Young "... even changed a law so that wounded soldiers would not have to pay for their hospital meals."
That statement exposes the military's unbelievable cynicism and the reality of their dismissive attitudes about "wounded warriors."
It is high time that people who have "Support Our Troops" stickers on cars and front lawns add their voices to those who are pressuring their legislators to change this appalling situation.
Adelle Milavsky, Tampa
Underfunded system
I concur with the reports of disgraceful treatment of veterans, by the Bay Pines medical system and the VA regional office.
I also want the public to know that the people who work at these facilities are hard working, caring people.
The problem is that Congress and the president appear to not care about veterans and underfund the VA.
I worked for the VA regional office for 31 years, and I can verify that the VA does not have proper funding to treat our heroes, the veterans of the United States.
Jeffrey W. Kenney, Seminole
Posted by: Howard Troxler | March 28, 2007 at 01:35 PM