The Monday mail: robo-calls, too much Hulk, Amendment 1 bias

Let's start today's mail with a complaint about getting too many political phone calls as the election nears:

These are coming in multiple times per day presently.  Maybe you could suggest in your column, that many folks do this: Keep a tally of recorded political calls you receive, and whoever calls the MOST is the who you WON'T vote for.  And maybe you could pass this along to the candidates' organizations via your column. I'm a single-issue voter on this point.  I hope there are many like me! -- Jerry Kissel

I tend to agree -- they really get annoying. And I am even less patient with the ones telling me to vote AGAINST someone!

I ceased subscribing daily to the St. Pete Times about a year ago (I still maintain a Sunday subscription because my wife likes the ads). I made that decision because I detected what I felt was a marked dumbing down of the paper, as if that TBT level writing was creeping into the Times, and I felt my intelligence a bit insulted. Then again what do I know? The Times is one of the few papers that actually shows circulation gains. Apparently tabloid (maybe that's a bit harsh) is what the people want. But it still is troubling to see the largest newspaper in the fourth most populous state covering the Hulk Hogan divorce as if it were People magazine and seemingly with more vigor than many of the pertinent and important issues you so carefully point out. -- RB

Dear RB: I agree with your opinion that the Hogan divorce story is being over-covered to the point of looking silly. I do not agree that you can therefore conclude the newspaper has forsaken democracy in favor of Britney Spears. We will ALWAYS over-cover some stories. Always have. Fortunately, there's an awful lot of Serious Content still in there too. Good grief! Look at the content and the scope of the news discussed in any single day's newspaper. To say, "Wait! There is a another story about Hulk Hogan -- the Times is ruined!'' seems a little extreme to me. But then, I am playing for the home team.

I just heard a rumor and was wondering if you knew if it was fact or fiction.  I heard that the Governor has a balcony that may have a good view of the proposed site of the next stadium.  Can you tell me what you know on this subject, I would not want to sully someone’s good name on rumor. -- Aquaserpent

Dear Aquaserpent: The governor is indeed a tenant at Bayfront Towers in downtown St. Petersburg. You can get at least a partial view of the existing Al Lang stadium from there, although I don't know if you'd really get a good play-by-play view. I also don't know if his particular place faces the stadium. But at any rate, I don't think he is supporting the stadium just because he could get a good view from his balcony.

I'm a big fan of yours, and of the St. Pete Times.  I'm also sorely disappointed by your coverage of the property tax plan. Today's column was an opportunity to fairly present the arguments for and against Amendment 1, and you failed.  First on presentation:  the "for" argument gets four bullet points and a quote declaring opponents druggies or idiots.  The "against" side is hidden below the fold with no bullets, no quotes, and fewer and less powerful arguments than it deserves. The biggest reason I'll be voting against the amendment isn't included: If it passes, we'll likely lose the current SOH protection as portability destroys the constitutionality of the entire provision.  Should I risk a benefit worth thousands of dollars per year for $240?  I'm not "on drugs, or a total idiot." -- Elaine Ziska

Dear Elaine Ziska: Thanks for the note. I honestly tried to lay out the major arguments for and against Amendment 1. I am sorry if you thought I was slanted to the "pro" side because I am not -- in fact, I SAID in the column I was leaning toward voting no, and said so in a previous column as well. You are right in your criticism that my column did NOT include the possible constitutionality problem, which is even another factor to throw onto the "no" side of the scale.

Comments

[guy]

Howard, All of a sudden I am getting nervous on Amendment #1.
If CC is backing McCain, Did he lose his mind before or after the TV Commercial for the Amendment?????????????

[Howard Troxler]

(Laughing) "Lose his mind" is a little harsh, isn't it? How about, "suddenly fell off the fence"?

In either case, I would say the answer is, "after."

[Shaun Dakin]

These calls are an epidemic and are invading the privacy of All American Voters.

Our members are taking a stand and saying enough is enough at the National Political Do Not Contact Registry at StopPoliticalCalls.org.

Here is a quote from a member this morning:

" Please stop calling to get my vote. I vote for who I feel is the most qualified person."

Regards,

Shaun Dakin
CEO and Founder
http://www.stoppoliticalcalls.org