Sunday column: Aiming at Adam & Steve, or a lot more?

I had a hard time writing this column -- not on the underlying gay-marriage issue, but on the question of whether the proposed Marriage Protection Amendment might threaten health benefits or other existing legal arrangements among consenting parties.

I really do not want the supporters of the amendment to think I am just parroting the opponents' arguments. I would LIKE to hope that the supporters are right, and that the phrase "substantial equivalent" means only civil unions, or something close to the full panoply of martial rights and legalities.

On the other hand, I can see how a court could have the room -- as the Michigan court did -- to strike down existing arrangements as being "equivalent" to recognizing marriage. Such a ruling might be WRONG, but it's still possible. So I am afraid the opponents might have a valid concern. But I hope not.

* * *

Floridians have to decide this November whether to put a ban on same-sex marriage in our state Constitution.

Maybe you're thinking: "Huh? Didn't we already ban this in Florida?"

Yep. You bet. Our Legislature passed a law.

But the backers say the ban ought to be in our Constitution too. So they got enough petition signatures to put it on the ballot.

There are two levels of debate here, the first being simply whether you like this idea.

But the second question is whether the Marriage Protection Amendment — by accident or design — also might outlaw all sorts of other things, such as domestic partner benefits or legal arrangements made among long-time companions.

Thursday's column on Wednesday: God goes 1-for-2 in specialty license tags

God went only 1-for-2 in the Florida Legislature this year.

He did get a new state license tag bearing the slogan, “In God We Trust.”

But the Legislature did not approve a more Christian-themed tag featuring a cross, stained glass, and the slogan, “I Believe.”

“In God We Trust” now joins the game of tennis, the preservation of lighthouses, and the declaration that this is “Horse Country” as the subjects of Florida’s 110th, 111th, 112th and 113th specialty license tags.

In a way, I wish the Legislature had gone right ahead and given the cross its own tag too, which might help us get this business cleared up in court once and for all.

Either that or it also should go ahead and create tags for Judaism, for Islam, for Buddhism, and even for atheists (I am thinking of the slogan, “I Do NOT Believe,” and the rest of the design a blank.)

Or maybe — and I am just talkin’ kooky here — maybe a government-created tag for the purpose of displaying a valid registration is not the place for expressions of religious or political beliefs.

(If only there were some other place on the back of a car for expressing beliefs...)

Florida's 'tax reform' commission

Happy Monday to everybody. Hey, I got burglarized over the weekend; what did YOU do for fun? Sheesh. Around midnight Friday I'm sitting on my back screened-in patio working on my laptop, when a guy rings the front doorbell claiming to be asking for directions. In the few seconds it takes me to get rid of the guy at the front door, his accomplice barges into my patio, snatches my computer and runs. Looks like a mini-gang working the neighborhood, since there were a couple other break-ins and a little vandalism too. The little $#$%s.

Anyway, my print column for tomorrow will be about the final work product of the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, which meets every 20 years to "reform" Florida's tax structure. I gotta tell you, this edition of the commission ended up being fairly puny and small-bore. We will be voting on seven proposals that the commission voted to put on the November ballot.

The one big structural tax change the commission proposes is a "tax swap" in which we would get rid of most of our school property taxes. To replace the money, the Legislature could raise the state sales tax and close existing tax loopholes. But this amendment doesn't say HOW to fill the gap and I think it has a lot of problems.

The other proposals range from rinky-dink to political axe-grinding. There's a special-interest tax break proposed for "working waterfront property." Large landholders could get a tax break for declaring their property to be conservation land. One idea would allow a local-option sales tax to support community colleges and another would grant a tax break to homeowners for hurricane improvements.

The most controversial two ideas would reverse Florida's long-standing separation between using tax dollars in support of religious institutions. One ballot measure repeals Florida's existing overall ban, and a second makes it clear that tax dollars can be used for school vouchers to give money to private schools, including religious schools.

This is small-time political axe-grinding, tax-break-seeking stuff. It was not the idea behind creating this 25-member commission every two decades to take a deep-thinking look at Florida's tax structure. As I've written before, this body, appointed by the House speaker, Senate president and governor, is acting more like a "second Legislature," with all its petty failures.

Column: Praise the nurse and pass the bedpan

I spent last week dealing with a family illness and hospitalization in North Carolina.

* * *

Take a perfectly healthy man or woman, strip away the clothes, slap on a plastic wristband and a flimsy gown, stick 'em in bed for weeks with tubes and bedpans and hospital food, with blood drawn daily and vital signs taken hourly, and he or she will come out the other side as weak as dishwater, blinking at the sunlight in pathetic confusion as somebody asks in a forced, cheerful blare, "Do you know what day it is?"

Here is what you do not see much of in hospitals: doctors. The doctors are legendary creatures, like leprechauns or unicorns. If you are a patient or relative, you soon learn to build the entire day around the utterly unpredictable appearance of a doctor. If you step out to the canteen, or the restroom, or to call the family with an update, you will get back to the room only to learn that You Just Missed Him, and you must wait until tomorrow.

Not that the doctor actually knows anything. He or she is likely to be a rent-a-doc whose job is to read the charts and inform the patient only when he or she has died. Otherwise, this doctor, known as the "hospitalist," simply waits until the patient gets better or worse, to be discharged in case of the former outcome, or transferred for the latter.

Obama's success due to race?

Simple question. I want to see if I'm as unbiased as I think I am. Where do you think Obama would be now if he was a white guy? Honestly now. -- Dwayne

Dear Dwayne: Do you really want my honest answer? Here it is. I never heard of the guy who used to be governor of Arkansas until people started talking him up in 1991 and I thought to myself: Arkansas? What the heck qualifies that guy to be president?
 
Then the guy from Texas, whose only experience was being a rich boy who lucked into being the state's governor, was the new coming star in 2000, and I thought, what business does this guy have being president?
 
So now we have a U.S. senator that nobody heard of before and everybody is fawning over the guy because, apparently, he gives a good speech. I do not know if he has any business being president either.
 
However, if the game is, the upstarts Clinton and Bush were legitimate when they came from nowhere, but Obama has gotten where he is because he is black -- I ain't playin'.

Too bad, too bad, too bad

Being a fan of Eliot Spitzer's tenure as New York's state attorney general, when he went after Wall Street and corporate misconduct, I am seriously grieved at the news the governor's been linked to a high-priced prostitution ring. The guy was one of my role models for public officials. I bet right now a lot of rich guys in tall buildings are clinking their glasses and laughing their tails off.

I am sure the U.S. media will handle the story with the sensitivity and grace for which we are so well known.

I almost wish, almost, almost, that this were not enough to ruin him. But of course that implies tolerance for infidelity, mistreatment of women, etc., all of which are unacceptable. I can't see how it will turn out in any other way than the end for him, unless there's some unprecedented burst of tolerance on the part of the public. Part of me still would be glad to see it.

But then, I also thought our former state Rep. Bob Allen, R-Merritt Island, should have stayed in office after he was convicted on charges coming from his arrest in a men's room, so maybe my views on these things are out of touch.

Red light letter. Red light letter. Red light letter. Red light letter. Red light letter. News media conspiracy letter.

Your article in today's St. Pete Times was interesting but more for the information that was omitted rather than the information it provided.... Unless the police start enforcing the law that all plates be in such shape and position that a camera can readily read them the drivers who want to run a red light will continue to do so. -- Bob Mumm

Dear Mr. Mumm: Good point!

I understand that the St Pete Times has a New World Order Agenda and you are a faithful servant there of, but you are full of crap. You are simply working to try to normalize and justify the shredding of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights... Maybe, the communist writers of the St Pete Times should reread the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights, especially that nasty old 2nd Amendment. I just read that only 10% of the people polled get their news from newspapers. Soon those people will be dead and so will the Times. -- Michael Flynn

Dear Mr. Flynn: You are barkin' at the wrong tree on one point -- I am a big Second Amendment guy and have said so in the paper over the years. As for your closing prediction: Not THAT soon, I hope.

Studies were from various state agencies and in general showed an increase in accidents, perhaps partly caused by reduction in  the on time of the yellow caution light. Article also cited case where software used  to identify car was in error resulting in false accusation of car  owner. Seems to me that if this occurs the state or the company that  supplies and operates the camera system should be required to fully  compensate the wrongly accused person for whatever time was required  to refute the false charge, paying at whatever the individual's normal  compensation rate might be. -- Chuck

Re: accidents: What I've seen so far is data showing a reduction in serious "T-bone" accidents but an increase in rear-end fender-benders. If true, this seems an acceptable tradeoff. Yellow-light manipulation would be entire unacceptable though, and I think the idea of forbidding the government from using cameras to raise general revenue would prevent it. As for software failures resulting in wrongly accused persons, the ID is done by human beings but mistakes are possible, yes indeed.

Actually, there's a fourth and perhaps most important question: Is there a motive on the part of the auto insurance lobby to drive up citations? The penalty for guilty drivers extends beyond the fine you describe. The guilty also are assessed points on their driver's licenses and typically increased auto insurance premiums for an extended period.  Your "rules" do not address this issue. Should they? -- Ben Langer

The proposed state law specifically forbids the use of these tickets against a driving record or for the computing of auto insurance rates. So far, anyway.

Point 1. You are not supposed to pull into the intersection UNTIL you can complete your turn. If you pull into the intersection and wait you are running the red light when it does change. (remember, going thru on the yellow is also a no no) point2. How is company supposed to arrive at a "just" flat fee if they don't know in advance how much the camera will be used? point3. The driver can contest the ticket
question. Can you show any place where these cameras are in use around the world where they have been mis-used? -- Steve Schick, Hudson

(1) That may be true, but they are not going to issue tickets to people who do it anyway. (2) The company knows almost PRECISELY how many tickets will be issued. Before it ever installs its equipment, it does a detailed study of the intersections proposed by the local government. It chooses which intersections will get cameras based on the actual traffic and violations that are occurring there. (3) Yes, absolutely. In multiple places, local governments have realized they could abuse the system and raise more money for themselves if they "cheated" by having unfairly short yellow lights, changing the timing of the lights, etc. -- some links to examples where this has happened are in the comments to my blog item yesterday.

It is very disturbing that the press totally suppressed the near riot at the high-school in Miami Dade. It was live on television Friday... I waited for the six o'clock news to see the cause and results. ~~~~ nothing Nine o'clock nothing. Eleven ~ nothing Saturday morning Times~~~  nothing. Now it seems to me that they could have played it down for obvious reasons, but to suppress it altogether is going in the wrong direction. Ben Franklin said, "When the people don't hear the truth, they live a lie" If it happens again no one will be prepared. It makes one wonder what else is going on??. -- Guy Nash, St. Petersburg

Is it possible, rather than deliberate suppression of the news, that a disturbance at a Miami high school just was not big news in the Tampa Bay area? At any rate, I also saw a follow-up item in the paper yesterday or the day before.

Red lights, redux

There are several interesting comments on the previous post about cameras at red lights. I think my Tuesday column will be on this topic. Today I've talked with folks from one of the biggest companies that do this, as well as law enforcement.

The system seems to work. Red-light running is certainly a big problem, especially here in Florida. And I am not bogged down by constitutional concerns over privacy, since driving a car on a public street (and the act of running red lights and creating a public menace) is a matter of public concern and compelling societal interest.

Basically I have three concerns:

* That the company has an incentive to make money by increasing the number of citations.

* That the government has an incentive to raise revenue by increasing the number of citations.

* That the government is hiring a private company to handle law enforcement, with even the mailed citations coming from the private address rather than the government.

In answer to some of the questions below -- the money raised typically is split between the government and the company. The contract can either be a flat-rate, X dollars per camera per month, or else X dollars per violation processed.

You CAN'T get out of it by saying, "Someone else was driving my car." If you lend your car to your kid or someone else and they blow a red light, you get the initial citation -- it's up to you to assert, in an affidavit, the identify of the person who deserves the ticket if it isn't you. This is fine by me, since it promotes the personal responsibility of owning a car in the first place. If you owned a gun, you wouldn't just lend it to anybody willy-nilly -- a car is an equally deadly, if not more deadly, weapon.

Red light cameras, drug privacy, baseball, good citizenship

See my colleague Mike Brassfield's story this morning about red-light cameras, which are coming to a few cities in the Tampa Bay area. Hillsborough County will consider such a program on Thursday. And this spring the Legislature will consider a law that allows their use everywhere. Ironically, the sponsor of this major expansion of government power is named Ron Reagan.

I have a deep-seated distrust of any law enforcement measure that (1) relies on a private company for enforcement and (2) creates a profit motive for both that company, and the government itself. I think any contract with a private company should NOT be based on per-ticket revenue, and that the government should not get the revenues from this program. That should suit the government just fine, since everybody is saying this is "not about the money," but about public safety.

Elsewhere on this beautiful Monday morning:

* I was surprised to see my friends over on the editorial page so easily accept the idea of computer databases of drug prescriptions this morning, in the name of cracking down on abuse. Once again, the argument is that because SOME people break the law, all OTHER people who live legally must submit to  government intrusion. The heck with that. Stay out of my medicine cabinet.

* This seemed like a pretty fair column by St. Petersburg Mayor Rick Baker. His basic point is, for him it's too early to decide the merits or demerits of a downtown waterfront baseball stadium. As he notes,  some folks are already against it no matter what, and some say they're for it no matter what. I can understand why some folks can be against it no matter what. But the second position seems odd to me, since I don't think anybody can possibly be unquestionably for it until we see some numbers. Note, by the way, Baker's indirect reference toward the end toward more recognition for St. Petersburg! Told ya he wants a name change for the baseball team...

*  Cheers to former governor and U.S. senator Bob Graham and best wishes to the new Bob Graham Center for Public Service at the University of Florida. One of the ideas is that Americans are largely ignorant of what it means to be a U.S. citizen, why our nation was created in the first place, and our rights and our responsibilities that go with that citizenship. Here's Graham's column from this morning's paper.

The mail: ONE man and ONE woman?

On my Tuesday column about the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage:

If marriage is a union between one man and one woman, does this eliminate divorce and make the subsequent second marriages illegal? -- Bill Duval

Dear Bill Duval: I think they just mean, "one at a time." But of course, this shows how hypocritical the thing is. Divorce and adultery are the true "threats" to the "institution of marriage." But when it is time to find perceived "sin," it's always easier to worry about somebody ELSE's than to condemn any fault in ourselves. For my authority, allow me to quote Matthew 7:3-5.

                                                          

The Rev. Wright and the homeless

Here's an e-mail sent out today by the Rev. Bruce Wright, a constant advocate for the homeless in St. Petersburg. As I said in my earlier post, I don't agree with all his characterizations or the whole "Nuremberg" business.

As I reflect and look at the very disturbing and troubling ordinances passed by the city of St. Pete., I am very concerned about the Future of this city, this state, and this country. All around this land similar ordinances are being passed that marginalize and discriminate against the homeless. These ordinances are indeed unjust and unconstitutional and a violation of the UN declaration of Human and Economic Human Rights. They are, in fact, eerily similar to the Nuremberg Laws that were enacted in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Which were not only applied to Jews, but also Gypsies, the homeless, the Mentally ill, the homosexual, and political dissidents.

Some would find this an overreaction, but please take the time to look closely at the ordinances and the Nuremberg Laws. The city and it's supporters have effectively created a Jim Crow/Apartheid like zone in the "Tourist" and business areas that exist in downtown, where the homeless can't sleep, have their belongings, exercise freedom of movement ,and freedom of speech. THe have deprived members of the homeless community of their civil and constitutional rights.

Some in the community, who support these laws, would say their rights have been violated, but I ask how? Have they been harassed, laws enacted against them, rained on, out in the cold, beaten, threatened, intimidated, murdered, and died of health causes. Have they had their property destroyed and homes destroyed (tent slashing)? What threat has the homeless posed, except being visible and vulnerable?

To make matters worse, supposed advocates and homeless service providers have taken no stance on this issue or worse yet have supported the ordinances. Shame on St. Vincent De Paul's blatant support of this ordinance! To do that goes against the very teaching's Jesus on the least of these and poverty, St. Vincent's values and teachings, and the Catholic teaching of justice for the poor.

Then we have, two of the alleged homeless leadership network member, who are city council members, Jamie Bennett and Jeff Dahner, support this ordinance. They should have at least taken the position of the St. Pete Task Force on Homelessness and the Pinellas County Coalition for the Homeless and abstained from voting. Then advocates proceed to get lectured by a member of City Council on why their efforts were wrong and damaging to the homeless. Since when is it wrong to stand up for people's rights, especially those with the least power and voice. The advocates were then told that they should be out their providing for the homeless' needs and basic services. What an insult! We have been providing shelter, counseling, food, transporation, and financial help for years. We have also done something many others haven't. We have given members of the homeless coummunity a voice, dignity, and become their friends. I count many them as friends. And, many involved in this struggle are currently or formerly homeless themselves. We have not forced or led the community by the nose, but have worked alongside this community and been led by this community. They are us!! Anyone of us could be homeless!

Lastly, we are told that the "homeless" have plenty of services and just want to be there. This is not true! Their are some wonderful services out there indeed, including the Street Outreach Team, Pinellas Hope, ASAP, CASA, Beacon House, The Refuge, Salvation Army and others. However, we have 5200 homeless in this county and only enough shelter beds for 10% to 15% of that number. We are told that the homeless are "bums" and don't want to work. While, in fact, 60% do work and the rest either have physical or mental disabilities. 25% of our Homeless are Vets!.

Unless we change this situation, we will certainly, I believe go the way of a facist type situation in our city, state, and country. Please consider this and get involved in the struggle for Human Rights for all. You can contact me at bgcwright@aol.com or call 727 278 1547. The Refuge's office address is 1818 29th Ave. North, St. Petersburg, Fl. 33713. You can check out these websites www.ppehrc.org, www.freewebs.com/forthehomelessbythehomeless, or www.stpeteforpeace.org/tentcity.html. Thank you, REv. Bruce Wright

(1) Higher ed (2) Homeless (3) Dogs (4) Ron Paul

(1) See this story in the paper this morning about the Board of Governors increasing tuition. I know that it's a hardship for those paying -- but you get what you pay for, and we are paying cheapskate rates. Florida ranks low in both tax support of its universities and its tuition levels. Florida has the worst student-instructor ratio in the nation.

The Board of Governors is right to try to do something, and the Legislature ought to be butt-kicked for not doing enough. The Senate president, Ken Pruitt, accused the Governors of trying to "destroy the prepaid college tuition program in Florida." In other words, we have to keep the universities cheap and crummy so we don't have to pay any more. Pfffffffffffttt.

(2) Look, I am a bleedin'-heart guy, but does that mean I have support piles of unsightly crap in front of St. Petersburg City Hall? Folks were yelling "fascist" and "cowards" at the City Council for passing an ordinance saying there's no sleeping or stashing stuff on public property downtown. Since at the same time the city is going to provide safe and free storage at St. Vincent de Paul, we're not exactly talking 1930s Germany here...

(3) Bleedin'-heart or no, I might support doing to this guy what he did to those dogs. Okay, so I couldn't actually go through with it. But I'd make him believe I was going to.

(4) So, I was impressed with Ron Paul's no-nonsense answer last night when asked about this "stimulus" package during the Republican debate. We're racking up debt one way or the other. More than once I've found myself nodding along with the guy, especially on questions of debt and fiscal discipline. [AP photo]

Thou shalt not commit (workplace) adultery

There's an interesting story in the paper today about the sheriff of Pinellas County, Jim Coats, disciplining two of his employees for an old-fashioned reason: adultery in the workplace. (With each other, that is, not with civilians.) He created the rule in 2005 but this was the first time he invoked it.

I can't get too worked up about this. Although Coats himself describes his policy in terms of "morality," there are practical, common-sense workplace reasons for having it -- especially in a "workplace" that involves life-and-death matters.

The wording of the sheriff's policy doesn't use the word "adultery," but simply the term "association" between married staffers, a term defined as living together, dating or having an, ahem, "intimate relationship." Again, seems to me this can be justified on the basis of not disrupting the workplace. Maybe I am flat wrong and I would be curious to hear what folks had to say about it.

Now, if Coats decided to start disciplining staffers for not keeping the Sabbath holy or honoring their parents, we'd have a different story...

Free liquor for the homeless?

Fred Weit of Cape Coral writes:

I am hoping you will have something to say about the squeaky clean politicians who are up in arms about the art dealer handing out some cheer to the homeless.  If the legal thives spent a little more time trying to find solutions to problems rather than creating new ones there would be less homelessness.  After serving my time in the United States Marine Corps (1963-1969) I was basically in the homeless category also.

Mr. Weit is talking about a fellow named Evander Preston, who handed out 100 bottles of bourbon to the homeless in St. Petersburg. Now the City Council is tripping over itself to change city ordinance to ban it. One council member (Bill Foster) called the gift "offensive" and another (Rene Flowers) suggested handing out soap instead.

At the risk of exhibiting common sense, I would turn my head and look away if this is a once-a-year thing. If the guy was passing out free booze on the corner regularly, we'd have a problem and maybe that would warrant the creation of more law.

But this is mostly just righteous posturing by the City Council, and it will be well received. The trouble with talking about the homeless in St. Pete is there is a lot of resentment built up. Downtown business owners and residents are quite rightly fed up with having to fight to get into their own doorways, hosing away human waste and so forth. That explains the lack of, shall we say, holiday spirit. So even a guy just trying to provide a fleeting kindness will be criticized.

As one of the commenters to the news story points out, next time he could just hand out cash and they can buy their own...

Free speech and 'civility' at UF

The University of Florida has backed down on its demand for an apology from students who promoted a movie about radical Islam with a poster saying: "Radical Islam wants you dead."

I think this is a good decision, because if the university really wanted to be in the business of ordering people to apologize to each other when someone is offended, then it would have its hands full.

But I am curious as to the standard -- do you think there are ANY circumstances in which the university would be right to demand an apology for student speech? Lots of universities in modern times have some sort of code about not being racist, sexist, offensive and so forth.

For example, here is a passage from a document titled "Student Rights and Responsibilities" on the university's web site:

Organizations or individuals that adversely upset the delicate balance of communal living will be subject to disciplinary action by the University. Only in an atmosphere of equality and respect can all members of the University community grow.

Oh, really? So if you "adversely upset the delicate balance of communal living" at UF, you can be subject to university discipline? How does that square, then, with UF's backing down in this case? If the affected group had been Hispanic, Chinese, or African-American, would things be different? If cable-TV news or the state attorney general had not taken notice?

My question is whether the university needs to strike a balance between "civility" in campus life and free speech -- or whether there ought to be no balance at all, and students should be able to speak of each other any way they please. In either case, let's just make sure that it applies the same way to everybody.

Column: Apples, oranges, creation, evolution

Hey, do you mind if we take a whack at this business about "intelligent design" vs. "evolution"? The debate flared up again in Florida last week.

Here's my fix.

They're not opposite things. They are entirely separate matters. Let's deal with them separately.

So if you say you want to "teach intelligent design" in the public schools, hey, that's fine by me, up to a point.

I would address it in a few paragraphs early on about the kinds of things that people believe. I would say that lots of people believe that our universe has a creator, and a purpose.

For further info, I would say, check out the religion of your choice, if you choose one. And if you don't, and don't believe that, that's fine too - this is a public school, and we are not taking sides here. [entire column]

I kinda think one's view might depend on whether gangs of guys dressed in sheets used to hang your great-grandparents from trees

Soft-headed fellow that I am, I think everybody's right.

The dummy hanging from a tree at a tavern near Crystal River is just a time-honored Halloween decoration. Nothing racist about it intended, unless it was meant as a slur against the Association of Creepy-Looking Bald-Headed Corpses. [Times photo | Ron Thompson]

But I can see how other folks see it differently. It takes a colossal ignorance of history not to grasp the menacing significance of bodies swaying from trees, especially in the South. The culture of lynching was evil and vicious and widespread and real. And it continued into the lifetimes of generations that are still alive today.

Here's a link, just for example, to a Yale University resource for teachers on lynching. Or you could just do a Google search on "lynching" and find all kinds of interesting and scary (scary real-life, not scary Halloween) information. In short, it is NOT a tenuous, made-up complaint that something looking to whine about something just cooked up out of the blue.

Me, in the interest of getting along, I would err on the side of bodies poppin' out of coffins, witches, goblins & your basic dismembered corpses, without hangin' any of them from a tree. Of course, the tavern owners are free to decorate any way they want, and if they want to keep Uncle Fester hanging, I defend their right to do it -- as well as the right of other people to criticize 'em for it.

Column: Casinos Are No Way To Balance The Budget

I figure on gettting a lot of disagreement over today's column. After all, if there are going to be casinos anyway, why not tax them? I'm sure not opposed to gambling, but I think counting on it to pay for government is a bad idea. Here's why.

There's exactly one good reason to legalize casino gambling:

People ought to be able to gamble if they want to. It's fun. Why not?

That's a fine, libertarian position.

All the other arguments for expanding gambling in Florida are bull.

Economic development?

Yeah, sure, I suppose casinos are "economic development." If you want to turn the state into a garish dump. I mean, more than we're already doing.

Job creation? Yeah, that's the new economy I want to see. Dealers and cocktail servers, bouncers and bartenders.

No offense to dealers, servers, bouncers and bartenders. It's just that when we're talking about the economic future of Florida, I would aim higher.

Most tempting of all, there's the "free money" claim. [rest of column]

Another Gambling Excuse...

There's only one good reason to legalize gambling: because you believe people should be able to gamble if they want to.

Make no mistake -- that's a fine, libertarian reason. I'm all for it.

But we can never just say it that way. Nope, We have to come up with excuses and justifications.

Take Gov. Charlie Crist. In another big reversal from Jeb Bush, Crist says that perhaps Florida should allow more gambling to help raise money for the state.

After all, the state is already negotiating with the Seminole Tribe on what kind of new gambling will be allowed. The feds have given the state a deadline for those talks.

Meanwhile, the state is facing a $1.1-billion budget shortfall...

"I want to be open-minded'' the governor says, "and I want us to be innovative." In other words, he thinks maybe the state should negotiate for a piece of the action.

In general, I don't believe that gambling money is as good a deal as it's made out to be.

I don't believe as much of it is "new" money as folks like to claim. A lot of it is money that tourists -- or Floridians -- would have spent on something else.

Secondly, an expanded gambling culture has many offsetting costs, hidden and otherwise. Those costs include associated crime, addiction, and emphasis on the wrong values.

Thirdly, history shows that gambling revenue tends to replace tax revenue, instead of adding to it. The Florida Lottery's claim that it "helps" education is a perfect example. After we got the Lottery, we just reduced the share of the rest of the state's revenues that went to schools.

There's no such thing as "free" money. But we sure like to think so. We would rather do almost anything than pay taxes.

So, sure, let's have Vegas-style gambling. Let's shoot craps and play roulette and blackjack. I'm all for it.

But spare us the justifications that it's for "economic development" or "good for education" or any of that stuff.

Some say that the speaker of the state House, Marco Rubio, is just sucking up to social conservatives by being opposed to expanded gambling. But I have to say, if he is willing to stay opposed even in the fact of a $1.1-billion budget shortfall, at least there's some consistency there.

Column: The Point System They OUGHT To Use For Immigrants

In Washington they're trying to fix immigration again. They want to let people in while pretending to kick them out. Or maybe it's the other way around; I'm not sure.

Part of the current plan is a "point system" for deciding who gets in, on a scale of 100.

You'd get points for a desirable profession, having a good education, speaking English, getting good test scores and having family ties.

It seems a little snooty to me, especially the education part - 20 points for a graduate degree, 16 for a bachelor's, only 6 for high school.

I bet there are plenty of 6-point high school graduates who would make better citizens than, say, all the 20-point MBAs who ran Enron.

So if Congress doesn't mind, I'd like to suggest extra points for any applicant who:

Can name all five rights in the First Amendment (30 points).

- Uses turn signals (10 points).

- Has no obnoxious ring tone (5 points).

- Tips 20 percent and is kind to servers (10 points).

- Has never appeared as a shouting panelist in a cable-TV debate (10 points).

- Somehow manages to be funny without having to insult entire races, religions or genders (15 points)... [rest of column here]

Howard's note: Add your own suggestions via the "Comments" link of this item.

Dukes: Sorry For What?

Troubled Tampa Bay Devil Rays player Elijah Dukes issued an apology of sorts on Tuesday, but it was only for causing "a distraction" and not for, uh, allegedly threatening the life of his wife and children. The difference seems more than minor.

There is no requirement that baseball players be public speakers, so let's accept the cleaned-up version of his apology that was issued by the team after Dukes' somewhat garbled remarks to reporters:

I would like to apologize to my family, teammates, the fans and the organization for the distraction that this situation has caused. I would like to thank them for standing by me and hope that my family and I can move on and put this behind us.

For sure, it's a start just to say he's sorry for something, a week after the St. Petersburg Times reported that he had (among other things) messaged his wife a photo of a gun and left a voice mail saying, "You dead, dawg... Your kids, too.''

But it would still be good to hear more from Dukes and the Rays organization than about how they want to "put this behind us." They should show that they grasp the seriousness of this and show that they are doing something about it.

A "distraction" is when pitcher Casey Fossum gives up five straight hits in the first inning. A threat to kill your family ranks a little higher. [Times photo | James Borchuck]

What The Rays -- And Dukes -- Should Do

Okay, an alleged direct threat from a man with an already troubled history that he is going to murder his wife and children ranks somewhere higher on the scale, you would think, than, say, showing up late for practice.

So this early tone coming from the Tampa Bay Devil Rays over these allegations against Elijah Dukes is not quite right -- gee whiz golly, we sure do take this seriously (from the senior management) and this is just "a private matter" (from too-easy-going field manager Joe Maddon).

Just to repeat here, the allegation is that the man threatened to kill his wife and children. But shucks, in the meantime, they're gonna put him back in the lineup?

Here what they -- and Dukes -- should do.

First, exhaust every effort to confirm whether it's true.

Second, if it's true, announce that they don't care what the player's union or the contract says -- they aren't going to put Dukes back on the field as matters stand until they get him help and he shows that he wants to help himself.

Third, if it's true, Dukes should go public, show that he understands that nothing justifies this no matter how bad (and how much of a troubled two-way street) the relationship is, announce he is taking a voluntary leave to Check Himself In Somewhere, donate his salary to charity in the meantime and beg for public tolerance with tears in his eyes. Maybe that saves him. Maybe (I am dreaming here) he even dedicates part of his life in the future to serving as a role model to others for what he has learned.

But the one thing this is not is a purely private matter that the team should just try to out-wait, unless it turns out the Rays are not trying to attract kids to their sport, not trying to bring fans to their stadium, not seeking public admiration for their players and not mindful of goodwill in general. If they're not trying for any of that stuff, then, sure, it's just a "private matter." But so should be their games.

Largo, City Of Regress, The Sequel

It turns out that simply firing longtime City Manager Steve Stanton in March for wanting to become a woman is not enough closure for Largo, the self-labeled "City of Progress."

Perhaps fearful that there might still be cooties in City Hall, the  City Commission has voted 5-1 to ask the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office to investigate who knew about Stanton's secret in advance.

After that they will dunk the accused parties in water; if they drown it will prove they are innocent. (No, wait, I am mixing up my investigations. Scratch that last part.)

Mayor Pat Gerard was the lone voice against asking for the investigation. The rest of the commissioners voting agreed with a citizen petition (signed by 28 residents) to investigate whether an inner circle of city leaders and officials who knew about Stanton's secret, including the mayor and the police and fire chiefs, violated the City Charter by covering up malfeasance, misconduct, and so forth.

No word yet on whether Sheriff Jim Coats will agree to conduct the investigation in between fighting violent crime, gangs, the drug trade and managing an overcrowded jail. As for Stanton, it has been hard to miss the rest of his story to date: Steve petitions to become Susan, gets plenty of press and photos, and at this moment is one of six finalists to become the new city manager of Sarasota.

Mean Deputy -- But Is It Right To Run?

Here's a slightly different take on the story of Melissa Langston, the woman now famous for being yanked from her car and arrested after fleeing from a Hillsborough sheriff's deputy -- because she was rushing to the hospital where her father was being treated for a heart attack.

Hillsborough sheriff's deputy Kevin Stabins did not check her story when he first stopped her, which seems to me would have been the decent thing to do, but instead just started writing her a ticket. Desperate and panicked, she drove away. When Stabins caught her again he seized her roughly and took her to jail. The deputy was suspended for the incident.

Now, here's my question: Under what circumstance is it all right to drive away from a law enforcement officer who has pulled you over? The answer I am thinking of is "none," even if the deputy is acting like a jerk or you don't think you've done anything wrong. Otherwise everybody gets to decide for themselves whether they have a good reason to drive off.

So here's my armchair second-guessing. At the first stop, if I am the deputy, I confirm her story, rush her to the hospital, and give her the ticket afterwards if she really deserved it. (If you think even that is harsh, consider the hypothetical of someone speeding to the hospital and hurting somebody else.) At the second stop, if I am the deputy, I let her see her father get stablized -- and then charge her for fleeing.

Update: Girls' Camp Recidivism

This from Tom Denham of Eckerd Youth Alternatives about my recent column and blog post on Camp E-Nini-Hassee north of Tampa Bay:

It takes awhile to get recidivism numbers, because they have to track the kids for one year after they leave camp.  The most recent data is from campers who were there in 2004-2005.  For that period, it had a recidivism rate of only 15%, which is considered extremely low.  Most other female camps had a rate of about 27%, and most boys’ facilities have about 44%.

Camp E-Nini-Hassee

My Sunday print column is about Camp E-Nini-Hassee, a girls' camp near Floral City. Most of the 63 girls there have been sent via the Department of Juvenile Justice for offenses ranging from simple assault and battery to car theft to drug crimes. They live and work in an outdoor camp environment, cooking their own meals, attending classes and setting goals for themselves. The theme of the column is that this kind of program seems more likely to help those who still have a chance to succeed than throwing them into a grim prison-like environment.

Here are some amateur photos I took during the visit. The girls, ages 12 to 18, sleep in wood-framed tents that they build themselves, brush their teeth in an open-air wash-test, and prepare their meals just outside a cook-tent. 

Right: A boardwalk leads to the sleeping-tents of the "Cliff Dwellers," one of the subgroups to which all campers are assigned. Each group becomes a permanent "family" that sleeps, eats and works together, and enages in group huddles to plan the day, make decisions and resolve disputes and problems.

Note the stuffed animal on the bed -- although the girls often arrive in camp angry and defiant, most come to feel safe and secure enough in the camp environment to open up "and just be girls,'' as one counselor puts it. Given a food budget, they plan their meals by consensus, and alternate cleanup duties in the camp.

Let's Talk About Guns

A few political-types in the past days, when asked about the Second Amendment, have ducked the question by saying it was too early to "politicize" the awful events at Virginia Tech University. On the contrary, this seems like a perfect time to talk about the role of guns in our society, what our laws say and what they ought to say. If you believe, as I do, that the Constitution includes a right for U.S. citizens to bear firearms, there is no shame in saying it; it does not make you pro-murder. But neither does this have to be an absolutist position -- all guns, everybody, everywhere, all the time.

Some of the comments coming in about Blacksburg are of the nature that if Virginia Tech didn't have a no-guns policy on campus, if any student or staffer or bystander had been carrying a concealed weapon, that the shooter would have been stopped. This buys into a Hollywood-and-network-TV view of gunplay -- the hero calmly produces his weapon and, 100 percent of the time, lays low the bad guy. The fact is that even police officers, with long hours of training and mental preparation, are hard-pressed to use their firearms accurately on the spot -- that's why they don't try to "wing" suspects the way everybody does on TV. It is amazing but true how often amateurs manage to MISS each other with handguns at relatively short distances.

If the accounts from Virginia are true, the shooter, Cho Seung-Hui, represents the worst case for gun stores --  a calm, clean-cut young college student with no warning signs. No way to tell at the time what he would be doing 36 days later. No criminal record that we know of yet. Nothing that a background check would reveal. He was not a U.S. citizen, but had a green card, yet that hardly seems the basis for denying a purchase. So if there is a Second Amendment basis for the right to buy and bear firearms, then there is no basis for denying it to this guy at that time -- right?

So, is there an Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms? Can that right be restricted by time, place and manner, like the other Bill of Rights provisions? Can we, should we, require licensing, training or other rules -- and what difference would that have made in Virginia? If there IS a Second Amendment right, is it time to think about amending the Constitution to change it? My answers are: yes, yes, yes, and probably none.

Beyond the gun issue, this case yet again raises the question of whether society can identify and deal with potential risks earlier. Few people who have committed such acts were seen as entirely "normal" by their peers, and some radiated strong hints of being dangerous. Just as we have become more aware and alert to risks of terrorism, we have to become more aware and active about risks in our own society. This is harder than ever, because the modern world is more disconnected than ever; we are more alone, and less likely to reach out to each other. Somebody else's problem is none of our business. Until it is.

What A Difference An 'S' Makes

My colleague Abhi Raghunathan this morning reports the story of a St. Petersburg mother who was killed in her own living room by a stray bullet. Tracey Walker, 40, mother of four, was the second innocent bystander in 11 days to be shot in the Harbordale neighborhood in the Midtown area of St. Petersburg. (Harbordale is bounded by 22nd and 30th Avenue S. on the north and south, and 4th and MLK Street S. on the east and west.) Her son had been hanging around outside with friends when somebody came up and started firing a handgun. The bullets missed the son and his friends but hit the house.

On March 24, a 15-year-old named Deandre Brown, also outside talking with friends at the time, was shot on South Highland Street, just four blocks away. Two young men have been arrested in that case -- police said they apparently were out for revenge after earlier fights at a neighborhood rec center. Brown, the victim, hadn't even been there.

Both of these deaths got good attention in the local media and the police certainly moved quickly, so I am not criticizing anybody. But this does raise a hypothetical question, namely, how much even stronger would our reaction be if innocent people were suddenly getting gunned down in their yards and living rooms in Hyde Park, Tampa Palms, the Old Northeast or Snell Isle? I suspect the answer would be something akin to universal panic, emergency summit meetings and near martial law.

I don't have the slightest idea of what would be better. Put the police on every corner, and put Midtown under a state of siege? I got a long letter the other day from a man with no criminal record whatsoever, who was stopped by St. Petersburg officers monitoring suspicious activity. My writer, a landscaper who hires day labor, was dropping off one of his workers. The worker went inside, brought a bundle of work clothes back out and handed it to my man through the car window.

A few blocks away, police stopped my writer and told him they thought he had been buying drugs. In fact, according to him, they told him they had him on videotape and were sure he had "rock" in his truck. He let them search, but he was terrified. Finding nothing, they let him go. When he told me his story, I was angry at first, but when I talked to people who know more about law enforcement than I do, they told me this was acceptable practice. In the light most favorable to police, after all, they saw the guy drive up, let a guy out who went inside, came back out and passed a bundle through the window... the harsh truth being that this IS an area where such an innocent-looking action might be more likely to be something less innocent.

Fact: The law-abiding residents of Midtown are every bit as entitled as anybody else to live in safety -- Americans are entitled not to have stray bullets flying into their living rooms. Fact: There is more danger of this happening in Midtown than other parts of the city. In the long run, interestingly enough, whether the speaker is Uhuru leader Omali Yeshitela or Mayor Rick Baker, we know the answers -- economic empowerment, education and opportunity. But in the intermediate run, what is the right balance? What is the right police strategy?

This Just In: I'm Goin' To You-Know-Where

Most of the e-mail and phone calls have been in agreement with today's column on the Stanton dismissal, although about a fourth or fifth of it disagrees. Here's a good one with the subject line, "Your Disgusting Article":

I would expect that reading your article you also wear panties, dresses and nylons along probably with a garter belt. If you have children, which I am sure you do not, but just in case (very sad) you do, I am sure you are teaching them before school how to dress like the opposite sex. Have a great day, as I realize reading your article you probably won't have a very enjoyable one when this life is over. -- Robert Greene

Thanks, Robert!

More Stanton

So, my column in tomorrow's newspaper is about the Steve Stanton firing. Sometimes I go out of the way to try to ignore Topic A in each day's news, on the theory that there's enough being said about it already, but sometimes it feels unavoidable.

I try to answer what I think are the three themes voiced by those who supported Stanton's firing:

(1) Being a transsexual is a sin.

(2) Being a transsexual is disgusting to society.

(3) Being a transsexual is too disruptive for a city manager in a leadership position.

Meanwhlie, check out the lively comments to the Stanton post below, as well as those at the bottom of today's news story. My two favorites:

The Largo City Council has been working with Susan for years. She just LOOKED like Steve. (from Alexandra)

Give him a 20% pay cut, and hire him back as a woman. (from Maggie)

And Largo Smote Its City Manager...

If Steve Stanton had announced last week that he was "merely" gay, instead of a man intending to become a woman named Susan, would he still have been fired as city manager last night by the Largo City Commission?

I am guessing not, but then, I didn't think Largo was going to fire him so quickly even for this. The guy was there for 14 years and was rock-solid in his job, with excellent evaluations.

The lesson is just how strongly mainstream society still feels about the transsexual issue -- strongly enough, in Stanton's case, to override every other factor.

Other points:

* It seems odd to accuse the guy of being "deceitful," as several speakers did, since he stood up in front of the whole world to announce his intentions.

* One quote from one preacher...

If Jesus was here tonight, I can guarantee you he'd want him terminated. Make no mistake about it.

.. does not make him a spokesman for the entire Christian religion. I could produce a whole page of quotes from the New Testament suggesting just the opposite, but decided it wouldn't settle anything.

* Stanton is in a tough line of work where getting fired is an occupational hazard for ANY reason -- or no reason at all. Lots of city managers get fired, and a lot get fired for reasons a lot more petty. In the end, the job consists of exactly one criterion: Keeping a majority of your bosses satisfied.

More later.

The Drug Industy Meets Its Match

I was fascinated by this morning's story about a cervical cancer vaccine by our staffer Shannon Colavecchio-Van Sickler. It shows that even the modern power of the drug industry, and all the lobbying in Tallahassee, still has its limits.

Here's the plot: Drug giant (Merck) invents vaccine to protect again a virus that causes cervical cancer. Drug company launches national lobbying effort to require vaccination for young girls, enlisting local politicians. Florida pols propose state law requiring vaccinations in middle school.

Here's the catch: The virus is sexually transmitted. So vaccinating against it runs into the same political problem as sex education and contraception. For some parents, it implies that we're condoning sexual activity. Now the company is backtracking, and so are the backers of the Florida bill.

I don't have a daughter in middle school, but if I did, I would get her this potentially life-saving vaccine no questions asked. But I am a little more shaky on whether to force everybody else's daughter to get it, whether the parents want it or not.

To me it comes down to whether there is a compelling state interest (1) in protecting an individual teenager's health regardless of her parents' wishes and (2) in protecting society at large from the spread of a virus, in the same way in the past we have required mandatory vaccinations against smallpox or polio.

Comments?