Marco Rubio gives the same stump speech over and over.
Paraphrased, it goes something like this. America is Exceptional. America is better than any other country in the world. We need elected leaders who believe in that Exceptionalism and will adopt policies to promote American Exceptionalism.
In Marco's world, this means Smaller Government (so long as he is in it) and Free Markets, unbridled by government regulations. No taxes, no oversight, no environmental protection, no social safety nets.
Marco certainly talks the talk. The only problem is that Marco doesn't really walk the walk.
During his tenure as Speaker of the House in Florida, Marco sheparded through and promoted (as the Number 1 "Hero" in the Legislature who made it possible) the now infamous $48 Million Dollar lavish "Taj Mahal Courthouse" for the First District Court of Appeal.
Of course, when he is asked about it, Marco denies any involvement. His finger prints are all over the appropriation of the $48 Million Dollar expenditure, but Marco says, blame everyone else in the process EXCEPT MARCO.
When the GOP released its so-called "audit" of the AmEx Card spending spree, there was (for political purposes of not embarrassing Marco and others) no looking back to the spending records during the years that Marco was the Speaker, or any looking back to the years prior to that when he was really spending the party's money to solidify his power. You see, audits are for everyone else EXCEPT MARCO.
When reports surfaced last week about Marco charging $4,000 or more on his GOP issued credit card for new kitchen floors in his Miami home, and Repubicans started rightfully asking why their donations ended up improving Marco's kitchen instead of promoting Republican party candidates, Marco calls those questions "just the same old types of personal political attacks" that are keeping our Country from being Exceptional. I guess the accounting rules only apply to the rest of us, EXCEPT MARCO.
When questions arose as to how it was that Marco's income shot up exponentially after he became elected to the Florida House and was designated as Speaker, and reports ensued about how he garnered side Community College teaching jobs and hospital consulting jobs from recipients of large legislative appropriations, Marco miraculously always gives the "credit" for those appropriations to other Legislators (just as he's now doing with the Taj Mahal Courthouse). Or, even more amazingly, Marco tries to blame those excessive spending bills on Charlie Crist for signing and not vetoing all those stupid, wasteful spending bills that Marco championed and approved as Speaker of the House. You see, if there is criticism of wasteful spending, the blame always belongs to everyone else, EXCEPT MARCO.
I think I understand this EXCEPTIONALISM concept a lot clearer now. When it comes to Marco, it's not really about EXCEPTIONALISM, it's about applying standards to everyone else differently, EXCEPT MARCO.
Marco is a "champion" for "smaller government" (except when Marco is in it and benefitting from it). He's against government-supplied health care (except when he and his family are the recipients). Do you get the picture of how this list of Exceptions grows and grows so long as it benefits Marco in the end?
But, this guy is slick, really slick. And, unfortunately, people are falling for it. Of course, I can understand why--we all want to think that we are Number One. I'm surprised Marco hasn't used the big "We're Number 1 foam finger" in Red White and Blue as his campaign's symbol.
But, simply thinking that we are Exceptional when report after report comparing our country's standing to others around the globe in quality of life issues--health care, mortality, education, jobs, technological advances, and others --all show us slipping, is deceptive. Thinking that we are Exceptional when we are slipping, asks us to ignore the real problems facing our country.
Saying we are "Exceptional" in this context is like saying that Brownie was "doing a heck of a job...." We know it's not true. We have real problems to solve and we need to get our heads out of the clouds (and our noses out of the air), and roll up our sleeves like the Greatest Generation did.
While Marco's TV commercials are Exceptional, and his carefully-crafted messaging is Exceptional, his job performance as Speaker of the House and his personal and public spending track records show that Marco Rubio is anything but Exceptional, unless you count Exceptionally Bad.
For those who believe that Marco Rubio's policies and performance will make YOU (as a member of the middle class) or our Country Exceptional, I've got just one word for you.
DELUSIONAL.
Don't vote for snake oil salesmen who tell you what you want to hear. That goes doubly for you, too, Charlie Crist.
Start questioning what Marco Rubio has done (both in his private life and his public life) and ask him why that is 180 degrees from what his slick fiscal conservative messaging says today. Leopards don't change their spots overnight.
Don't vote to Take Our Country Back(wards). Marco Rubio and Charlie Crist's ideas (and their past "leadership") are more of the same failed policies that got us into this mess.
When Marco (and Charlie) say otherwise, I take Exception to that.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Why I Can't Vote For Charlie Crist
Republicans are hoping that Democrats fall for that Charlie Crist trap.
Fear of Marco Rubio winning has clouded the thinking of some usually clear-thinking Democratic friends of mine. Heck, it's easy to fall prey to a smooth-talker like Charlie Crist. He's so "charming" when he's in full campaign mode. He always sounds so nice and well-spoken in his professional television ads. Charlie is like smooth jazz. Charlie Crist is "Mr. Smooth Jazz."
I admit to having felt this same fear earlier this summer. I can't stand the thought of our State being represented by Marco Rubio for the next 6 years (or the next 30 years). And so I, too, was ambivalent, for awhile, about whether I might vote for Charlie Crist because I wanted "anybody but Marco" to win, and I was having my thinking clouded by fear. No more. The smoke of the jazz lounge has cleared.
I have been watching Charlie Crist for a long time, and after listening to his smooth, jazzy delivery, and his latest "new releases" I've come to several realizations.
First, Charlie Crist cannot beat Marco Rubio. Charlie's popularity has peaked and is on the downward slide.
Charlie will not receive enough Democratic votes to win, and he does not have enough support from moderate Republicans and independents, either. If he's lucky, Charlie will end up garnering somewhere around 25% of the vote--and that's only if he keeps the support of the Democrats who have been thinking about voting for him. If those Democrats come to the realization that Charlie cannot win, they will abandon him, and if so, Charlie may only receive 15% of the vote.
While Charlie now likes to tout being "an Independent" (since April when he fell so far behind in the GOP race that he had no other personal option), he also recognizes that he has no Get Out The Vote (GOTV) organization behind him. He has no core constituency.
Winning elections requires mobilizing voters to get out and vote. Charlie will never win because he has NO GOTV organization. He not only has no GOTV organization of his own, he has the GOP's Get Out the Vote organization working as much against Crist as they are working against Kendrick Meek. That is a death knell for Charlie. Game over, Charlie.
Charlie is radioactive among most loyal Republicans, and they are energized to vote for Rubio and are exerting a strong amount of peer pressure among fellow Republicans to vote against Crist. He will garner very little GOP vote.
With Crist's star burning out, Democrats are realizing that in order to defeat Rubio, they must vote for Kendrick Meek. He is the only candidate that all Democrats can get behind. And, Democrats are realizing that if they ALL vote for Meek, he can win. Democrats know the importance of this race and are examining Meek's stances on the issues. Kendrick Meek is the only real Democrat in the race. Meek has the core support of the Democratic party and its Get Out The Vote effort. Those core Democrats are never going to vote for Charlie Crist, which is another major reason why Crist's ad-hoc candidacy is doomed.
Nearly a year ago, I wrote an article about Charlie Crist that I just "re-published." I wrote about how Charlie loves to run for office--how he's always running for something--how he loves to raise money to run for office--and how he's always looking ahead to the next office. I complained that it was too bad that Charlie didn't like to run the state of Florida, and I listed numerous examples of things that he had not done as Governor. I noted that he had really been a poor Governor up to that point, and I mentioned how disappointing it was that he had basically quit being Governor 2 years into his term to devote the majority of his time to running for U.S. Senate. I said a year ago that Charlie Crist's performance as Governor had not warranted a promotion to Senator.
That's why I cannot vote for Charlie Crist. He isn't worthy of my vote. I don't know who he is or what he stands for from one moment to the next.
I don't believe that Charlie will "become a Democrat" after the election as I have heard some Democrats say.
Charlie will not say which party he will caucus with in the Senate.
I know which party Kendrick Meek will caucus with in the Senate. I don't have to guess.
If you are a Democrat thinking of voting for Crist and he somehow miraculously wins and then chooses to caucus with the Republicans, how will you feel, then? (It would be like having Ben Nelson or Joe Liberman as your Senator--neither is a Democrat and neither has helped with any progressive issues. In fact, both have been obstructionists.) Kendrick Meek will not be an obstructionist on Democratic issues.
Charlie says he's going to caucus "with the People." Sorry, Charlie, the U.S. Senate doesn't work that way. Hand me a barf bag.
Many Democrats who are considering voting for Charlie have been seduced by his recent vetoes or his recent policy announcements. They think they know Charlie because of his vetoes in the last legislative session. I submit they are being played by Mr. Smooth Jazz.
If Charlie had been leading Rubio in the polls in May and June, he would have never vetoed Senate Bill 6 or the ultra sound bill (for fear of having the GOP leadership turn on him when he needed their support). Come on teachers, you are smarter than that!
Remember when Charlie ran for Governor just 4 short years ago and bragged about being "a Jeb Bush Republican?"
I will never hear those words--"I'm a Jeb Bush Republican" out of Kendrick Meek's mouth. Kendrick Meek led protests and sit-in's at the Capital over some of Jeb Bush's policies.
Remember in 2008 when Charlie endorsed John McCain (and was a finalist to be his running mate)? Remember when he was Chain Gang Charlie? He was as GOP as possible then. I don't think he's changed. I think he's acting. I think he's playing smooth jazz, because he thinks its what Democrats want to hear.
I prefer classic rock. I don't like re-mixes or bad cover songs.
And let's not forget Charlie's deplorable (and many say hypocritical) anti-civil rights record on Gay Lesbian Bi-Sexual and Transgender (GLBT) issues. Do you remember how Charlie was extremely vocal in the 2008 campaign asking Floridians to Vote "Yes" on Amendment 2 to ban gay marriage in Florida? And, throughout his term as Governor--until last week-- he has whole-heartedly supported the ban on gay adoptions, keeping Florida the only state in the nation that bans gay adoptions. Only recently has Charlie announced "new policy positions" on GLBT issues--solely for the purpose of trying to convert core Democrats to believe that he has "changed" now that he is an independent.
Was he for those New Positions when he was a Jeb Bush Republican? Will he be for them if he chooses to caucus with the Republicans? Will he be for them on November 3rd?
Charlie was once firmly aligned with and wanted very badly to be John McCain's Vice Presidential nominee of the Party who chanted "Drill Baby Drill" at their national convention. Now he says he isn't in favor of offshore drilling.
I could go on and on with things that are either inconsistent, hypocritical positions that Charlie has espoused, or I could cite other examples of bills that he hasn't vetoed that were equally as bad as the ones he chose to veto this year only when it was politically expedient for him to veto them.
The bottom line is that I cannot vote for Charlie Crist and I will not be part of the reason why Kendrick Meek can't win.
In fact, if all Democrats vote for Kendrick Meek, he will win. There are more registered Democrats in the state of Florida.
Don't fall into that trap.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
The Lying Has Got To Stop
Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) was a mistake. It is a failed policy. It must be changed. Now.
Let's take a look under the hood and see why this junker needs to be hauled away to the scrap yard.
Let's start with the lies.
Military service is supposed to be about honor and duty. What part of honor and duty excludes integrity? DADT promotes lying.
If you are one of the estimated 66,000 gay and lesbian members of our military (active duty and reserves), you must live a lie every day, and must check your integrity at the door of the recruitment office, and then continue your lies throughout your service.
What national security purpose does this serve or promote? Of course, there are no national security purposes served by DADT, and in fact, there are reported incidents where a soldier's sexual orientation was used as blackmail to compromise national security.
Those who disagree with my premise that DADT must be repealed often cite the "troop morale" excuse or the mythical "advances in the foxhole" fears as crutches for their homophobia.
Let's look at the real threats posed by keeping this policy in effect.
Denial. No, it's not a river in Egypt, it's the cornerstone of those who want to keep DADT in effect.
To say that this policy must be retained denies existence of the following facts:
1. Our coalition partners fighting with the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in their military. Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Israel and Spain are just some of the 25 Countries that allow gays to openly serve. So, as a country, our troops are willing to fight along side gay soldiers as coalition forces, but won't do so with those who have sworn their allegiance to defend the United States? How does that make sense?
2. We have already spent nearly $500 Million Dollars to discharge gay and lesbian soldiers and to train their replacements. We simply wasted this money. The military spends between $22,000 and $43,000 per person to replace those soldiers discharged under DADT. How does that make sense (or should I say "cents")?
3. Government Contractors whom we are paying at much higher cost to perform support services for the military, are hiring DADT discharged soldiers and employing them to perform the same services that they were performing while serving in the military--now, only at a much higher cost to the taxpayers. So, let me see if I understand--- the taxpayers paid to train them, then paid to discharge them, then paid to train their replacements and then paid a contractor to put the discharged soldier back in the theatre at a much higher cost.) This only makes sense to the Contractors.
4. We are not meeting our military recruitment goals annually, and yet we are eliminating qualified candidates from applying for service. Lifting the ban would allow many of the more than 12,000 trained soldiers who have already been discharged to re-enlist. It has been estimated that more than 36,000 applicants are ready to apply for enlistment as soon as the policy is repealed. So, rather than take more qualified applicants, the enlistment standards have been lowered, and we are taking felons now. Does this make sense?
5. We are less safe as a result of the discharge of mission-critical intelligence specialists and Arab linguists who have been discharged under DADT, especially during a time of war. Does this make sense?
6. The unnecessary discharge of trained capable soldiers under DADT has contributed to the necessity of implementing Stop Loss (which prevents soldiers and Marines from exiting the military at the end of their term of service) and has increased the number of multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan where some are on their 4th, 5th, 6th or 7th deployments. Does this make sense?
7. No one being fired upon in combat is thinking about sex, notwithstanding the frequent use of the "F" Word in a hailstorm of bullets. Gay and lesbian soldiers would be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Feared unwanted sexual advances would be punishable under current military law, just the same as the hundreds of heterosexual harassment and assault cases are currently handled in military tribunals.
8. Gays and lesbians aren't trying to recruit straight people to be their partners. Period.
We don't need any more delays. We don't need any slanted survey questions to be analyzed by the Pentagon to know that this is a failed policy which needs to be changed.
Come on Congress, get your spines out of the closet, so to speak, and repeal DADT. NOW.
We can't afford any more of this foolishness.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Put It On The Ballot NOW!
So it looks like we are finally going to have a Special Session of the Florida Legislature more than 90 days after the Gusher in the Gulf punched us in the gut.
And what do we hear from the President of the Senate (Mike Haridopolos) and the Speaker of the House (Dean Cannon)? "We don't need this. The law in Florida already bans drilling in State waters..."
Oh yea? Do you think we don't remember 2009 when the Florida House brought up and passed a bill to allow drilling right off the coast, in state waters, WITHOUT ANY DEBATE OR COMMITTEE HEARINGS?
Only common sense in the Florida Senate in 2009 saved us from this folly. And common sense in the Florida Senate is a fleeting thing (and often a rarity).
Before the BP Disaster struck, the incoming aforementioned leaders of the 2011 Legislature announced that 2011 would be the year that near shore drilling would be pushed through. The House was teed up and ready to go--they already sold us out once--and the incoming Senate President was a Drill Baby Drill proponent. They made no bones about their desire to move this to the top of their agenda and get it passed in 2011.
Only after the Gusher started lapping up on our beaches did Rep. Cannon and Sen. Haridopolos slightly moderate their views.
Now they are opposing the Special Session and are hiding behind the legal fiction that they can't change that law that now protects us. Their sound bite logic is that Floridians don't need a constitutional amendment because the law already prohibits what the Amendment would prohibit.
Of course, that is until the Legislature changes it!
That's why we need a Constitutional Amendment that can't be changed by the Legislature.
They also say that the Special Session will be too expensive. Actually, it's just the opposite--we can't afford to wait for the regular Legislative Session to address all the issues affecting the State because of this environmental disaster. Just ask the Panhandle Counties who are trying to deal with it now.
The voters of Florida need to weigh in and pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban near shore drilling, forever. We now know how devastating this is to jobs and the incomes of Floridians.
Yet, the reluctance of the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate to even respond to Charlie Crist's call for a Special Session tells you all you need to know.
This subject is NOT off their agenda.
Remember when the Legislature was beholden to the commercial fishing lobby and a grassroots effort was undertaken to ban gill netting in Florida waters? The results have been tremendous for our juvenile fish stocks which were needlessly killed in gill nets. Commercial fishermen adapted.
We've always lived without drilling near shore. Heck, we won't even have to adapt to any change--just try to ensure some protection for our environment to the extent that we as citizens can.
All of the reasons relied upon by the Florida House in passing their drilling bill in 2009 have been exposed as lies. It's now abundantly clear to everyone that the oil industry doesn't have new, safe technology. They have no contingency plans for clean ups. They are more interested in manipulating the facts to cover up their misdeeds than they are in paying claims and cleaning up the toxic mess.
So, why would we ever want to expand that right off our mangroves and beaches?
So, it's time to tell your Legislators that you want them to put this Amendment on the ballot in November for an up or down vote by Floridians.
Do we ever want drilling rigs within 10 miles of our shores?
And, oh yea, by the way, you can remind your Legislators that there are many more issues for our Legislature to start working on immediately, because it is clear that we are going to have an even more severe budget shortfall from the loss of sales tax revenues as a result of this disaster.
Make some noise. Pay attention to this Special Session. Take note of how all of our elected representatives vote during the Special session and act accordingly to get the right people elected in November who want to protect our natural resources and our jobs.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Breaking News: It's An Information Vacuum....
Can't you just see Jack Nicholson's face and hear him screaming..."You want the truth? You want the truth? ....You can't handle the truth!"
That's the way we have been dealt with from the first hours of the BP disaster. First by BP and then by our Federal Government. This tragedy has magnified the weakness of real journalism in America today. Journalism and news reporting in America today is as broken as the Deep Horizon.
Constricting news budgets, minimal reporting staffs, fewer newspapers and news magazines, and 24-hour cable "news" networks are a sad reflection of where we are today and what we now settle for insofar as news reporting is concerned.
The 24-hour news channels on cable TV are the worst. They never dive into depth on stories, even though they have unlimited time to do so.
Jon Stewart ran a spoof on this and showed all of the cable show hosts cutting off the questioning and using the phrase "We'll have to leave it there...." and then they move on to some other insignificant story just when they were getting to the interesting part of the interview or actually get to the point of the interview where they might actually ask follow-up questions.
Really? We have to leave it there? Time and time again?
Let the manipulation of the masses begin (or should I say, continue).
To prove my point, next time you see "Breaking News" scrolling across the bottom of a cable news show, just change the channel (to all of the other channels within 30 minutes) and you'll see them all covering the same story. It doesn't matter what it is--they all cover the same things and call them "Breaking News."
Meanwhile, there are so many things going on in the world that receive no coverage from the mainstream media in the U.S.
Instead, we get the same talking heads commenting about the same stories. Meanwhile, there are stories that are virtually ignored. How long has it been since you have seen any meaningful reporting from Iraq?
Ever notice how the advertising on TV affects the news coverage? Follow the money from advertisers and then look at the absence of critical reporting on issues pertaining to the advertisers. And this is supposed to be "breaking news?" More like broken news.
And when there are reporters sent to report on a story, we don't hear about how they are being denied access to facts or to the scene of the disaster, because of corporate or government controls.
Have you heard about the No Fly Zone that BP has been able to convince our government to allow? Have you heard that BP has prevented journalists from getting close to the scene of the spill or do fly-overs on planes? It's happening, but you won't hear about it unless you dig deeper for your news sources, because, well, "we'll have to leave it there..."
Why has NOAA known for weeks that the amount of oil being spilled was 100 times greater than what was being reported, yet they weren't allowed to release that information to refute BP's numbers? Please tell me why, Mr. President.
Keeping us in the dark doesn't help. Releasing the information weeks later only makes us wonder why the deception occurred in the first place.
We can handle the truth. We need the truth. I look forward to the day when I don't hear..."we'll have to leave it there" and actually start getting some good reporting. Reporting breeds accountability and more competency because it helps to expose those who need to find some other line of work.
Treat us like adults.
That's the way we have been dealt with from the first hours of the BP disaster. First by BP and then by our Federal Government. This tragedy has magnified the weakness of real journalism in America today. Journalism and news reporting in America today is as broken as the Deep Horizon.
Constricting news budgets, minimal reporting staffs, fewer newspapers and news magazines, and 24-hour cable "news" networks are a sad reflection of where we are today and what we now settle for insofar as news reporting is concerned.
The 24-hour news channels on cable TV are the worst. They never dive into depth on stories, even though they have unlimited time to do so.
Jon Stewart ran a spoof on this and showed all of the cable show hosts cutting off the questioning and using the phrase "We'll have to leave it there...." and then they move on to some other insignificant story just when they were getting to the interesting part of the interview or actually get to the point of the interview where they might actually ask follow-up questions.
Really? We have to leave it there? Time and time again?
Let the manipulation of the masses begin (or should I say, continue).
To prove my point, next time you see "Breaking News" scrolling across the bottom of a cable news show, just change the channel (to all of the other channels within 30 minutes) and you'll see them all covering the same story. It doesn't matter what it is--they all cover the same things and call them "Breaking News."
Meanwhile, there are so many things going on in the world that receive no coverage from the mainstream media in the U.S.
Instead, we get the same talking heads commenting about the same stories. Meanwhile, there are stories that are virtually ignored. How long has it been since you have seen any meaningful reporting from Iraq?
Ever notice how the advertising on TV affects the news coverage? Follow the money from advertisers and then look at the absence of critical reporting on issues pertaining to the advertisers. And this is supposed to be "breaking news?" More like broken news.
And when there are reporters sent to report on a story, we don't hear about how they are being denied access to facts or to the scene of the disaster, because of corporate or government controls.
Have you heard about the No Fly Zone that BP has been able to convince our government to allow? Have you heard that BP has prevented journalists from getting close to the scene of the spill or do fly-overs on planes? It's happening, but you won't hear about it unless you dig deeper for your news sources, because, well, "we'll have to leave it there..."
Why has NOAA known for weeks that the amount of oil being spilled was 100 times greater than what was being reported, yet they weren't allowed to release that information to refute BP's numbers? Please tell me why, Mr. President.
Keeping us in the dark doesn't help. Releasing the information weeks later only makes us wonder why the deception occurred in the first place.
We can handle the truth. We need the truth. I look forward to the day when I don't hear..."we'll have to leave it there" and actually start getting some good reporting. Reporting breeds accountability and more competency because it helps to expose those who need to find some other line of work.
Treat us like adults.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Who Knows How Much This Will Cost?
As BP continues to struggle to cap the leaking oil in the Gulf, one of the first things we learned is that they only have to pay $75 Million of consequential damages (losses affected people will have to their property and businesses) plus the cost of cleanup. This law, of course, was written and passed in 1990 after the Exxon Valdez spill.
After the oil hit the sea, Bill Nelson and others in Congress immediately said that we need to raise the limits of liability for consequential damages (loss of jobs for fishermen, for example) from oil spills from $75 Million to $10 Billion.
Both amounts are woefully inadequate.
Why limit it to $10 Billion when we don't even know the extent of the current disaster?
Maybe Big Oil will operate more safely if they don't have their liability limited.
Take a look at the chart on Page 3P of the May 9, 2010, St. Petersburg Times for a glimpse at the 2009 profits of the oil companies and you'll see that $10 Billion is a drop in one year's bucket of profits. (Exxon $45.2 Billion, BP $21.2 Billion, Shell $26.3 Billion, Chevron $23.9 Billion, Citgo $7.5 Billion....)
Who came up with the $10 Billion Dollar number that Bill Nelson is touting?
Until the Oil Companies can show they can cap the damn leak, we shouldn't even be talking about any caps on their liability. We don't have any idea yet what the extent of the damage from this one leak will be. Is this just another attempt to build in "too big to fail protections" in another form by capping damages?
Are the oil companies ever going to cap their prices that we pay at the pump? Then why should we allow them to act recklessly, without impunity?
Let Senator Nelson know that there should be no caps!
Sunday, May 2, 2010
A Love That Runs Deeper Than Those Damn Wells
Many people have wondered why my wife and I have been so angered by even the thought of offshore drilling off the coast of Florida. Even our kids have made comments about our many postings on Facebook, our frantic emails with emergency calls to action, and even our participation in Hands Across the Sand and the second protest demonstration a few weeks go at the Vinoy basin. Others may have thought the same, but were too polite to mention it.
So let me tell you why I feel so strongly about this issue.
You see, long before I met and fell in love with my wife, I fell in love with Florida's natural beauty. I was fortunate to be born here and had the opportunity to grow up along the west coast, first on the beaches of Pinellas County, and then north to Crystal River, which was a magical place in the early 1960's.
I have vivid memories of month-long stays every June on Indian Rocks Beach, playing with my siblings, cousins and friends from early morning to sunset. On full moons, we'd hunt for blue crabs along the shore line using a flashlight, a long-handled crab net, pulling a washtub behind us in which to throw our catch. We'd wear shoes to protect ourselves from stingrays buried in the sand.
It didn't matter that there was no TV at the cottage. We were never bored. Fishing, swimming, making sand castles, collecting shells, catching sand fleas and fiddler crabs for bait. The water and the sand were clean and beautiful. It was always sad to come back to Tampa after a month at the beach.
In 1960, my father and two of his friends invested in a vacation home in Crystal River that the three families shared. Our family would go to Crystal River nearly every third weekend and for several weeks during the summer when we were out of school. We had a couple of small boats that we would use to explore the incredible spring-fed river and the pristine Nature Coast and its crystal clear grass flats in the Gulf which serves as the nursery for most sea life in the Gulf.
It was there that I learned to water ski, scuba dive, discover a love of all sorts of water birds, get my mask knocked off by the tail of a Manatee when I got too close (before any regulations were in effect I might add), catch and clean scallops, and really develop a deep love for fishing and the outdoors.
Crystal River, circa 1960 had crystal clear water, no algae (from excessive fertilizer runoff, like exists today) or aquatic weed problems-- and very few residents. The nuclear power plant had not been constructed. Commercial fisherman (in their unique wooden boats with the outboard motor placed in a cut-through in the bow for running in shallow water) would set blue crab traps and gill net fish in the Gulf and in Salt River. Only a few people were diving in the springs. There was only one dive shop where you could get a scuba tank filled.
The river was wide, and water skiing was allowed nearly everywhere. There weren't any "No Wake" zones, Manatee Protection Areas, speed limits, or jet skis. There were no limits on the number of fish that you could catch and take home to eat, and no regulations on scallops, either.
The river is a seven mile trip to the Gulf of Mexico. At nearly the half-way mark, the river forks. Crystal River is the northern route to the Gulf and Salt River is the more southerly route. Salt River is laden with treacherous oyster bars and is a maze of mangrove islands and sawgrass islands that all look nearly the same. It is extremely easy to get lost or turned around in there. There was a time when I could navigate it well and knew exactly where to go to not destroy the lower end of the outboard motor. Now I don't know where all the oyster bed are, and I'm too reluctant to rely upon my decades' old knowledge out there.
Whether you choose Salt River or Crystal River, the scenery is like stepping back hundreds of years. Thankfully, these are places that man and his dredges and fill dirt have not yet found. For as far as your eyes can see, there are thousands of acres of marsh and sawgrass interspersed with upland areas populated with sabal palms. Every time I make the trip, I know that this part of Florida has remained the same since the Spanish explorers came. I like that. It is what makes me an environmentalist at heart. This is the Florida that stole my heart.
I've already alluded to some of the things that we had in the old days--before any regulations. There were no limits on harvesting fish. It was always "open season" for recreational fishermen and commercial boats. The only question was how big your ice chests were and how long you wanted to clean the fish.
I was always excited to get invited to go King Mackerel fishing with my father and his friends during the bi-annual kingfishing runs (that occur along the West coast when this migratory species makes its way along the coast in search of water in the 68-72 degree range). I vividly remember watching the sun rise while staring at the wake of a big "cabin cruiser" boat as we cruised out of Clearwater Pass early one morning. It was the annual kingfish run and it was going to be a good day. Not too rough. We had plenty of white bait and followed the diving birds to the large pods of bait offshore where there were no less than 100 boats forming circular patterns in the area where the fish had been found. Each of these boats were loaded with anglers and had multiple lines in the water. Everyone was catching lots of fish.
We proceeded to catch a normal day's catch of 200 fish, most of them in the 15 pound range, but several topping 25 pounds. It was the most amazing combination of adrenalin, testosterone and hops and barley that I had ever seen in my 9 years. There were times when all 5 anglers would have a fish on at the same time, dipping over and under each other to keep from crossing lines. As fish would be brought along side, they'd be gaffed and thrown into the cooler, being wary of their razor sharp teeth. The action was non-stop, all day long. When we came back to the dock, the men would clean the fish and I'd try to sell some to tourists or locals looking for fresh fish. Little thought was given to the pressure being put on the fish stocks. We always had fish left over after giving some to friends and neighbors. Our freezer would be packed with the rest.
Guess what, the commercial fisherman were even worse stewards of the resource than the recreational anglers. As a result, the king mackerel fishery nearly died completely by the mid 1970's. However, in 1976, the Federal Government passed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and for the first time set limits on the harvesting of these fish. Today, the fishery of king mackerel has been rejuvenated, but with modest bag limits to protect the fish from man's greed.
Today I open the paper and read the headline from the tragic oil spill: "GLOOM DEEPENS."
Yesterday, my son, said--we'll, I guess you and mom were right about that offshore drilling. I guess it isn't as safe as they claimed it was.
There is no consolation in being right. There is no "I told you so moment" that makes any of this good, in any way. The hundreds of hours that I've spent scalloping on the crystal clear grass flats off of Crystal River and Homosassa may soon be only a memory. The damage to the fragile mangrove island and sawgrass areas that I described above will be irreparable. I've feared that all along. It's why I've been obsessed, some might say.
We have an obligation to preserve this state and to pass it on to future generations in a better condition than we found it. Excessive development that began in the 1960's and has continued unabated ever since, has dug us a huge hole. As the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.
The absence of regulation or deregulation of things previously regulated is the issue with environmental protection. For those preaching for less government, this is one area where we have to say--you are wrong--we must insist upon more regulation. I've been there and done it. I've over fished. Now I don't--because it's regulated. It's even worse when the motivation for violating environmental laws is for greed and profit. Time and time again we see a blind eye turned toward regulation, because it will cost too much.
Well, in light of the current disaster, how are the economics looking this week?
That's why we've been speaking out against drilling and will continue to do so. It's about the beauty of this state and about the economics. We are too dependent upon the sales tax revenue from tourism and the jobs that our coasts provide (nearly 950,000 people's jobs in Florida relate to the coast in some way). Fishing is already being curtailed in the Panhandle. Jobs have been impacted and the oil hasn't hit Florida yet.
That's where regulation must come into play, in a big way. This week we learned that BP was not required to have a $500,000 shut off valve on its rig because deregulation of the industry in the US made that possible. In Norway, they make BP spend the money for the valve. We let greed rule and we get a spill of unmatched proportion. We also learned that the oil companies initially lied about whether or not the rig was even leaking, and hoped it could be another non-news event for them. We also learned that BP has had other spills that have not been reported in the news and that they have no competent plans for dealing with a spill of this type.
We didn't regulate fishing in the 1970's and nearly wiped out king mackerel. None of us on the boats would regulate ourselves. Sad, but true.
The citizens of Florida banned gill netting by a constitutional amendment (when the legislature refused to act), and fish stocks around the state are again healthy and growing.
Left alone to his own devices (especially for profit), man will not control himself. Look anywhere there has been no regulation or deregulation. Throw in greed and lots of money, and that's something that we just have to rein in. (Enron and later Wall Street taking us to the brink of financial disaster are other examples of what happens when deregulation and less governmental controls are the mantra.)
Not only do we need to clean up this spill, but we need to require rigid frequent inspections of the thousands of rigs already in the Gulf and ensure that they have working shut off valves. And, unlike the lax regulations of coal mines, we need to shut them down if they violate the laws.
And, mind you, this will be a very tall order, because, mechanical things and salt water don't work well together.
It's just a matter of time before anything on the Gulf fails. Anyone who has owned a boat operated in salt water will testify that performance of that boat is only temporary. We simply must have a much higher regulatory standard for polluting oil wells in the Gulf. It is no surprise that a valve under 5,000 feet of salt water failed to close. Surely we all know this.
So, why are the American people so gullible in believing the oil industry's sound bites that drilling technology is safe? Common sense tells us otherwise.
Today, I'm glad to slow down in Manatee areas because I still grin with amazement whenever one pops his or her head above the water to take a breath, especially the baby that doesn't have prop scars on its back like its mother.
I love the fact that I had to throw back nearly 30 fish last Friday because we had already caught our limit, and that many of the trout that we threw back into the waters of Charlotte Harbor were more breeders of than 20 inches long--a rarity when gill netting was still allowed.
It didn't bother me that we had to throw back the snook that we caught because the season on snook is closed. Record freezes killed a lot of fish this year and we need to help restore the stock before taking more.
I just hope and pray that the oil slick can be harnessed and recovered before it does irreparable damage to the Florida coast that I love so much.
I want to regulate all of this so that we pass this beautiful place on to future generations in a much better condition. It's the very least we can do.
The Iroquois Tribal leaders were much wiser than we are. They said that when making decisions, we should consider the affects of those decisions on the next seven generations.
"Drill Baby Drill," isn't exactly that type of tribal wisdom.
It's past time for green renewable energy. Windmills and solar panels won't pollute our grass flats or kill our fish.
Get angry and make this happen!
So let me tell you why I feel so strongly about this issue.
You see, long before I met and fell in love with my wife, I fell in love with Florida's natural beauty. I was fortunate to be born here and had the opportunity to grow up along the west coast, first on the beaches of Pinellas County, and then north to Crystal River, which was a magical place in the early 1960's.
I have vivid memories of month-long stays every June on Indian Rocks Beach, playing with my siblings, cousins and friends from early morning to sunset. On full moons, we'd hunt for blue crabs along the shore line using a flashlight, a long-handled crab net, pulling a washtub behind us in which to throw our catch. We'd wear shoes to protect ourselves from stingrays buried in the sand.
It didn't matter that there was no TV at the cottage. We were never bored. Fishing, swimming, making sand castles, collecting shells, catching sand fleas and fiddler crabs for bait. The water and the sand were clean and beautiful. It was always sad to come back to Tampa after a month at the beach.
In 1960, my father and two of his friends invested in a vacation home in Crystal River that the three families shared. Our family would go to Crystal River nearly every third weekend and for several weeks during the summer when we were out of school. We had a couple of small boats that we would use to explore the incredible spring-fed river and the pristine Nature Coast and its crystal clear grass flats in the Gulf which serves as the nursery for most sea life in the Gulf.
It was there that I learned to water ski, scuba dive, discover a love of all sorts of water birds, get my mask knocked off by the tail of a Manatee when I got too close (before any regulations were in effect I might add), catch and clean scallops, and really develop a deep love for fishing and the outdoors.
Crystal River, circa 1960 had crystal clear water, no algae (from excessive fertilizer runoff, like exists today) or aquatic weed problems-- and very few residents. The nuclear power plant had not been constructed. Commercial fisherman (in their unique wooden boats with the outboard motor placed in a cut-through in the bow for running in shallow water) would set blue crab traps and gill net fish in the Gulf and in Salt River. Only a few people were diving in the springs. There was only one dive shop where you could get a scuba tank filled.
The river was wide, and water skiing was allowed nearly everywhere. There weren't any "No Wake" zones, Manatee Protection Areas, speed limits, or jet skis. There were no limits on the number of fish that you could catch and take home to eat, and no regulations on scallops, either.
The river is a seven mile trip to the Gulf of Mexico. At nearly the half-way mark, the river forks. Crystal River is the northern route to the Gulf and Salt River is the more southerly route. Salt River is laden with treacherous oyster bars and is a maze of mangrove islands and sawgrass islands that all look nearly the same. It is extremely easy to get lost or turned around in there. There was a time when I could navigate it well and knew exactly where to go to not destroy the lower end of the outboard motor. Now I don't know where all the oyster bed are, and I'm too reluctant to rely upon my decades' old knowledge out there.
Whether you choose Salt River or Crystal River, the scenery is like stepping back hundreds of years. Thankfully, these are places that man and his dredges and fill dirt have not yet found. For as far as your eyes can see, there are thousands of acres of marsh and sawgrass interspersed with upland areas populated with sabal palms. Every time I make the trip, I know that this part of Florida has remained the same since the Spanish explorers came. I like that. It is what makes me an environmentalist at heart. This is the Florida that stole my heart.
I've already alluded to some of the things that we had in the old days--before any regulations. There were no limits on harvesting fish. It was always "open season" for recreational fishermen and commercial boats. The only question was how big your ice chests were and how long you wanted to clean the fish.
I was always excited to get invited to go King Mackerel fishing with my father and his friends during the bi-annual kingfishing runs (that occur along the West coast when this migratory species makes its way along the coast in search of water in the 68-72 degree range). I vividly remember watching the sun rise while staring at the wake of a big "cabin cruiser" boat as we cruised out of Clearwater Pass early one morning. It was the annual kingfish run and it was going to be a good day. Not too rough. We had plenty of white bait and followed the diving birds to the large pods of bait offshore where there were no less than 100 boats forming circular patterns in the area where the fish had been found. Each of these boats were loaded with anglers and had multiple lines in the water. Everyone was catching lots of fish.
We proceeded to catch a normal day's catch of 200 fish, most of them in the 15 pound range, but several topping 25 pounds. It was the most amazing combination of adrenalin, testosterone and hops and barley that I had ever seen in my 9 years. There were times when all 5 anglers would have a fish on at the same time, dipping over and under each other to keep from crossing lines. As fish would be brought along side, they'd be gaffed and thrown into the cooler, being wary of their razor sharp teeth. The action was non-stop, all day long. When we came back to the dock, the men would clean the fish and I'd try to sell some to tourists or locals looking for fresh fish. Little thought was given to the pressure being put on the fish stocks. We always had fish left over after giving some to friends and neighbors. Our freezer would be packed with the rest.
Guess what, the commercial fisherman were even worse stewards of the resource than the recreational anglers. As a result, the king mackerel fishery nearly died completely by the mid 1970's. However, in 1976, the Federal Government passed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and for the first time set limits on the harvesting of these fish. Today, the fishery of king mackerel has been rejuvenated, but with modest bag limits to protect the fish from man's greed.
Today I open the paper and read the headline from the tragic oil spill: "GLOOM DEEPENS."
Yesterday, my son, said--we'll, I guess you and mom were right about that offshore drilling. I guess it isn't as safe as they claimed it was.
There is no consolation in being right. There is no "I told you so moment" that makes any of this good, in any way. The hundreds of hours that I've spent scalloping on the crystal clear grass flats off of Crystal River and Homosassa may soon be only a memory. The damage to the fragile mangrove island and sawgrass areas that I described above will be irreparable. I've feared that all along. It's why I've been obsessed, some might say.
We have an obligation to preserve this state and to pass it on to future generations in a better condition than we found it. Excessive development that began in the 1960's and has continued unabated ever since, has dug us a huge hole. As the saying goes, when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.
The absence of regulation or deregulation of things previously regulated is the issue with environmental protection. For those preaching for less government, this is one area where we have to say--you are wrong--we must insist upon more regulation. I've been there and done it. I've over fished. Now I don't--because it's regulated. It's even worse when the motivation for violating environmental laws is for greed and profit. Time and time again we see a blind eye turned toward regulation, because it will cost too much.
Well, in light of the current disaster, how are the economics looking this week?
That's why we've been speaking out against drilling and will continue to do so. It's about the beauty of this state and about the economics. We are too dependent upon the sales tax revenue from tourism and the jobs that our coasts provide (nearly 950,000 people's jobs in Florida relate to the coast in some way). Fishing is already being curtailed in the Panhandle. Jobs have been impacted and the oil hasn't hit Florida yet.
That's where regulation must come into play, in a big way. This week we learned that BP was not required to have a $500,000 shut off valve on its rig because deregulation of the industry in the US made that possible. In Norway, they make BP spend the money for the valve. We let greed rule and we get a spill of unmatched proportion. We also learned that the oil companies initially lied about whether or not the rig was even leaking, and hoped it could be another non-news event for them. We also learned that BP has had other spills that have not been reported in the news and that they have no competent plans for dealing with a spill of this type.
We didn't regulate fishing in the 1970's and nearly wiped out king mackerel. None of us on the boats would regulate ourselves. Sad, but true.
The citizens of Florida banned gill netting by a constitutional amendment (when the legislature refused to act), and fish stocks around the state are again healthy and growing.
Left alone to his own devices (especially for profit), man will not control himself. Look anywhere there has been no regulation or deregulation. Throw in greed and lots of money, and that's something that we just have to rein in. (Enron and later Wall Street taking us to the brink of financial disaster are other examples of what happens when deregulation and less governmental controls are the mantra.)
Not only do we need to clean up this spill, but we need to require rigid frequent inspections of the thousands of rigs already in the Gulf and ensure that they have working shut off valves. And, unlike the lax regulations of coal mines, we need to shut them down if they violate the laws.
And, mind you, this will be a very tall order, because, mechanical things and salt water don't work well together.
It's just a matter of time before anything on the Gulf fails. Anyone who has owned a boat operated in salt water will testify that performance of that boat is only temporary. We simply must have a much higher regulatory standard for polluting oil wells in the Gulf. It is no surprise that a valve under 5,000 feet of salt water failed to close. Surely we all know this.
So, why are the American people so gullible in believing the oil industry's sound bites that drilling technology is safe? Common sense tells us otherwise.
Today, I'm glad to slow down in Manatee areas because I still grin with amazement whenever one pops his or her head above the water to take a breath, especially the baby that doesn't have prop scars on its back like its mother.
I love the fact that I had to throw back nearly 30 fish last Friday because we had already caught our limit, and that many of the trout that we threw back into the waters of Charlotte Harbor were more breeders of than 20 inches long--a rarity when gill netting was still allowed.
It didn't bother me that we had to throw back the snook that we caught because the season on snook is closed. Record freezes killed a lot of fish this year and we need to help restore the stock before taking more.
I just hope and pray that the oil slick can be harnessed and recovered before it does irreparable damage to the Florida coast that I love so much.
I want to regulate all of this so that we pass this beautiful place on to future generations in a much better condition. It's the very least we can do.
The Iroquois Tribal leaders were much wiser than we are. They said that when making decisions, we should consider the affects of those decisions on the next seven generations.
"Drill Baby Drill," isn't exactly that type of tribal wisdom.
It's past time for green renewable energy. Windmills and solar panels won't pollute our grass flats or kill our fish.
Get angry and make this happen!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)