Gasbag's blog

I must take exception to several of the points made in Mr. Travis Hill’s column in the last issue of the St. Johns Sun (Nov. 8, 2008). The tone was condescending, some facts were incorrect and the message was insulting to the voters of this county and this state.  Mr. Hill began the column harmlessly enough, complimenting our county’s voters for a high turnout. But then the article turned sour. The issue was the “undervote”. Mr. Hill claims to “understand why some people decided to leave boxes unchecked”. His answer -- because the ballot initiatives “are confusing”. He then boasted of spending “a solid hour” doing internet research into the various issues. Really Mr. Hill, a whole entire hour? His argument then extended to the example of Amendment 1. Mr. Hill explained that passage of the amendment would nullify a discriminatory law. Actually, there is no statute in Florida that limits property rights of non-citizens. And there is a federal law that prohibits limiting citizenship rights according to ethnicity or nativity. I’m surprised that these facts didn’t come up in the course of Mr. Hill’s research. My intention is not to argue the points for or against Amendment 1 here, but just to remind Mr. Hill and others that there ARE arguments for AND against it. Mr. Hill seemed to be making the case that his exhaustive research led him to the “correct” answer and that any disagreement with his position must be attributable to the apathy and ignorance of others. He stated, “But the wording won the day and Amendment 1 lost. And I think we lost a little bit too. We owed it to ourselves to be more diligent in our research. We owed it to ourselves and our fellow citizens to be better than lazy.” How thoroughly patronizing and arrogant! He seems to be asserting that the wording of the amendment was too confusing for us lazy and indifferent folks to understand, which then led to undervotes, which then led to the failure of Amendment 1 to pass. Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you Mr. Hill, but Amendment 1 did not fail because of undervotes. It failed because of “NO” votes. Like you, I voted for Amendment 1. And like you, I was disappointed when it failed to pass. But unlike you, when the voting public disagrees with me, I don’t automatically assume it is because of ignorance, indolence, indifference or stupidity.

In last week’s St. John’s Sun (9/27/08), editor Travis Hill delivered his opinion supporting the abolition of valedictory honors in our local high schools. I disagree.

The editorial began by employing a clever journalistic device – an old story about an old saying. “Oh, Martha”, apparently, is what Mr. Hill utters when he encounters something ridiculous or absurd and feels the urge to curse. Reading his editorial inspired more than a few “Oh, Marthas” on my part.

Some weeks ago, a comment I made here in the online version of the St. Johns Sun was copied and printed in the paper version. In light of this past week’s cover story I thought I might rework some of my more recent thoughts regarding the Creekside mascot, add some more, retool my wording a bit, and resubmit here on the blog page in the hopes that, once again, my opinions might make it onto paper in the St. Johns Sun. Perhaps, if the editor chooses to publish my words there, a larger audience might be reached who may have an interest in the topic. Following for submission: 

Editor,

I am curious about how the name “Knights” was selected as the official mascot for the new Creekside High School. At least the selection of “Creekside” had the appearance of some public input. The public was alerted by the Saint Johns Sun that a name was to be selected, when it was going to be selected, and by whom. We were given some time and opportunity to register our opinions in this matter. But what about the mascot name? Why was this decided without the same solicitation of input? Whose idea was it and when was it voted on? Was it voted on at all, or did someone make an executive decision?