ACC Crowd Booster

The Atlantic Coast Conference is justifiably concerned with last season’s disappointing attendance at the ACC’s football title game at Raymond James Stadium. It was the first of a two-year commitment for Tampa as host. The Dec. 6 game only drew 27,000. ACC officials are blaming a “perfect storm” of the economy and the short notice given to fans of the competing teams, Boston College and Virginia Tech. Plus the BC-VT match-up had little luster for locals.

 

So the league is announcing some changes. Last year’s game was a 1:00 p.m. matinee; this year ESPN will televise it in prime time (8:00 p.m.). The ACC also has compiled detailed data on potential ticker-buyers. And it promises to be more aggressive in its PR approach.

 

But what it really needs, something that no one can guarantee: the participation of Florida State. If Tampa is going to have a chance at re-hosting this event, it will need a return to glory by the ‘Noles this season.

Teammates?

One can only wonder what the real relationship is between Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton these days. Are they still on the same team of rivals?

 

Clinton’s portfolio is beyond daunting – and hardly limited to North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, China and Venezuela. Russia is a key component. A global player and proud, former peer with an authoritarian bent and economic travails. The U.S. and Russia disagree on a number of issues — from missile defense to the autonomy of erstwhile Soviet Union republics. But America and Russia need each other in a world that isn’t just economically interlinked, but one where civilizational warfare emanating from jihadi terrorists is still the ultimate threat.

 

More than most, Biden understands what the U.S. confronts geopolitically. But he persists in being the Administration’s MVP (Most Voluble Player). Clinton’s uber challenging job shouldn’t have to include cleaning up after Biden.

 

Exhibit A: While visiting Georgia and Ukraine, Biden minced no words in underscoring our commitments to them – and how we wouldn’t sell them out to Russia. OK. The Russians also know about what plays well for local consumption. Biden’s not the first one to toss red-meat rhetoric at a ravenous, live audience on their home turf.

 

But then, after the emotions of the moment had passed, he dispassionately insulted Russia in a Wall Street Journal interview. To say, among other affronts, that Russia “is clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable” and that it’s stuck with “a withering economy and a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years” helps no one. Including Hillary Clinton.

 

To be sure, Biden’s points, however belittling, have merit. But they’re counterproductive when uttered in public about a country whose cooperation we need on a range of issues, including the ultimate one.

Holocaust Affirmer

Ever notice how low the bar is set on certain, sensitive subjects, especially those with strong political/cultural overtones? Especially in the Muslim Middle East? Take, for instance, the recent headline-grabbing, (Western) compliment-yielding comments by King Mohammed VI of Morocco. He acknowledged the Holocaust in a speech.

 

Sure, the moderate King must tread softly amid his own Fundamentalists, let alone the greater Islamist cauldron. But getting acclaim for acknowledging history?  It speaks volumes.

Birth Of An Indignation

Couldn’t agree more with those who say “enough” about President Obama and his Hawaiian certificate of live birth. And “enough” of the fringe GOPsters who give “conspiracy nut” a bad name. It’s scurrilous sour grapes. Not even Barry Goldwater’s birth in (the territory of) Arizona grew legs like this. So, “enough” on the subject of Obama’s birth certificate.

 

Unless, of course, you want to make something of a mother with the first name of “Stanley.”

Lawsuit Takes New Approach To Cuba Travel

As someone who has traveled multiple times to Cuba, not all of which were above U.S. Treasury Department radar, I was more than interested in a recent federal lawsuit that challenges the ban on most Americans to travel to Cuba. Americans, mind you, who can travel to, say, Ahmadinejad’s Iran — but not the Castros’ Cuba. It’s been this way for so long, it has created its own sense of perverse normalcy borne of resignation and third-rail politics.

 

But make no mistake, legal recourse is not a novel approach. Over the years other suits have periodically challenged the travel ban. And U.S. courts have given them all the Cold War heave-ho.

 

The key technicality about the ban of most Americans (sans scarce licenses) traveling to Cuba is this: It’s not illegal for U.S. citizens to actually go there. But there’s a governmental Catch 22 on steroids awaiting the unwary. You see, it is illegal to actually spend money there — absent formal authorization from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control. Hardly a nominal nuisance.

 

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn and brought on behalf of New Yorker Zachary Sanders, challenges OFAC’s right to compel American travelers to answer questions about their expenditures while in Cuba. According to the lawsuit, volunteering such information would make an individual “vulnerable” to criminal prosecution. Indeed.

 

The suit, filed by the non-profit, legal advocacy group Center for Constitutional Rights, says the policy forces travelers to “incriminate themselves.” Sanders visited Cuba — via the Bahamas — for three weeks in 1998. He refused to offer details about his spending and was fined $1,000. That was later upped to $9,000 when his appeal was rejected.

 

The suit could conceivably become moot. A bill, the “Freedom To Travel To Cuba Act,” is now pending in Congress. The good news is that it currently has more than 150 signatories. The bad news: none of them are from the Florida delegation. In other words, if the state most impacted can’t sign on, why should everybody else fall in line? Unless that changes, it’s not likely that the passage of HR 874 is imminent.

 

But the times – notably politics and the longevity of the Castro Brothers – are obviously changing. Three months ago President Barack Obama lifted (Bush Administration) restrictions on travel and cash remittances by Cuban Americans to their home island.

 

But it was an incremental, minimal step – and disappointing to those who believe the U.S. travel ban to Cuba is both unlawful and immoral. This latest lawsuit is an attempt to accelerate the inevitable.

Crist Keeps Raking It In

Anybody else – during these turbulent economic times – find themselves taking frequent umbrage at stories that chronicle politicians’ fund-raising? It’s like rubbing salt into recessionary wounds – as well as reminding us that money is the root of all political success.

 

But especially those accounts that involve Gov. Charlie Crist. He has, obscenely enough, already raked in more than $4.3 million for his 2010 Republican Senate campaign.

 

That the governor is a pleasantly lightweight empty suit who gives political opportunism a bad name is now a given. Taxes and insurance rates never dropped like rocks. He never got out in front on actually trying to alter this state’s antiquated revenue-raising formula. He signed off on the growth laws-gutting, knavishly-named “Community Renewal Act.” He won’t promote trade with Cuba – and all the economic and jobs’ scenarios that can promise.

 

Crist did, however, get credit for taking federal stimulus money. That’s how low the accomplishment bar is. But the fed dollars will only serve as a stopgap as the state muddles through the next year and a half. And then, of course, it all becomes somebody else’s burgeoning problem. Nice career move, Charlie.

 

After one disappointingly lackluster term, Crist is out of here. To a place where he cannot make as much difference to Florida as he could have in Tallahassee. How’s that for chutzpah and irony?

 

But Crist has raised $4.3 million – in the first 50 days of his campaign. This is a testimonial either to “bundling” lobbyists who want to back an accessible winner, even a GOP-Lite one, or to those who genuinely are enamored of politicians with ideologies of raw expedience. Or to those who will pay any price to help get him out of Florida before the next crisis hits.

Making A Difference Award

In 1991 Hillsborough County Commissioners created the “Moral Courage Award.” It recognized those that stood up to government for the community good. It was well intentioned, but inevitably left wiggle room. Some recipients seemed morally courageous; others appeared to be more like gadflies. Still, it was about people trying to make a difference – against the odds – who were recognized. We all get that. 

 

What was never a good idea was to attach somebody’s name to it. Unless it was Nathan Hale, it would have disappointed — or infuriated — someone. When it was named for the polarizing, political activist Ralph Hughes last September, it dumbfounded anyone not a member of the libertarian-development community. It also blindsided everyone when the IRS filed a claim this year saying that Hughes and his business owed $69.3 million in unpaid taxes and interest when he died last year.  

 

It further fueled the furor. Already, some previous MCA recipients had returned their Hughes-tainted awards.   

 

Then into the fray stepped the Hughes family, who requested that his name be removed from the award. The Hughes name on the Moral Courage Award was not only inappropriate, but it had become hurtful to the family. Another unfortunate consequence of the political name game played last year.

 

The County Commission then voted — unanimously — to remove Hughes’ name from the Moral Courage Award. Commissioner Rose Ferlita struck the appropriate tone and rationale when she noted that it was about more than the name of Ralph Hughes. In fact, it was about no individual’s name being attached to the award at all. It was too limiting.

 

“Moral courage comes in many fashions, many degrees, many arenas,” stated Ferlita.

 

Amen.

And That’s The Way It Was With Cronkite

And that’s the way it no longer is.

 

There’s not much to add to the iconic obit and lavish tribute earned by Walter Cronkite. Except maybe this: We definitely won’t see his era again; we assuredly won’t see his likes again. Think Dan Rather, who wanted his predecessor’s job enough to pressure CBS into an earlier-than-planned, Cronkite-retirement scenario. And think Katie Couric, who still belongs on the “Today” show.

 

What molded Cronkite into “the most trusted man in America” was more than a unique baritone, admirable work ethic and propitious timing. Along with Howard K. Smith and David Brinkley, Cronkite earned his journalistic chops in print and in harm’s way. He covered D-Day from a B-17 as a United Press correspondent. That was his “J” school.

 

Then he caught the wave of television journalism and invented the news “anchor” position. He never allowed himself to settle for being an acclaimed news reader – no matter how famously avuncular, no matter how well compensated. He was also the managing editor of the CBS Evening News. He was well informed and cared about the news – from Vietnam to NASA – as much as its professional presentation.

 

Walter Cronkite was important, but never self-important. His “It’s not so, until Cronkite says it’s so” reputation belied a self-effacing sense of humor.

 

That’s no longer the way it is. Today’s TV newscasters are not so much journalists as electronic personalities and infotainers with camera-friendly looks and a glib gift for communicating. They compete in a 24-7, cable-complemented, digital-driven, all-personality-all-the-time marketplace.

 

 That’s the way it now is. Alas.

Muddleton High Until Further Notice

Once proud Middleton High muddles on.

 

MaryEllen Elia, the superintendent of Hillsborough County Public Schools, has been weighing in lately, pointing out that negative media are missing what’s good about the school. And that Middleton will be getting a new principal and, according to some involved alumni, a “fresh start.” Again.

 

But there’s still that embarrassing track record of six consecutive “D” grades from the state of Florida. There’s also the high-profile, high-pressure matter of trying to return Middleton to its former glory as a black community jewel during the racist crucible that was the Jim Crow era. And obviously throwing money at the new Middleton hasn’t helped.

 

In a recent op-ed piece in both local dailies, Elia said that “the school’s (2002) rebirth is a point of pride for our school district and community.”  That statement needs parsing and revising.

 

Frankly, enough of the nostalgia. THIS Middleton is not THAT Middleton. What Elia and the alums of the old Middleton, the one that closed under a federal desegregation order in 1971, should do is make the case in no uncertain terms that this incarnation has to earn the right to be called Middleton — and not Muddleton. Enough of those 75th anniversary references. That’s a farce. An academic imposter is not entitled to that lineage and continuity. This year was the 38th anniversary of those memorable first 37 years.

 

The point is to make “point of pride” relevant by going back to what made THAT Middleton successful. It’s no secret. It was the collective efforts of an entire community. Of neighbors, of merchants, of preachers, of teachers, of parents, of students. It was a time when teachers and parents were on the same side. When accountability was a “given” – not a directive. When doing well in school was a way out — not a way of “acting white.” When students didn’t think academic achievement was uncool, but droopy drawers the height of hip.

 

“Point of pride?” Look no further than the first African-American president, whose recent words to the NAACP should be mounted in every Middleton classroom. “…No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands, you cannot forget that…No excuses. No excuses…”

 

And that includes parents, who used to come in married pairs at one time. “We can’t tell our kids to do well in school and fail to support them when they get home,” said Obama. “You can’t just contract out parenting.”

 

In Middleton’s case, education notably moves on multiple levels. It’s about living up to a proud tradition forged under the duress and iniquity of segregation. It’s about taking advantage of opportunities, including an impressive East Tampa campus rich in resources, inherent in the post-Brown vs. Board era. And it’s about finally earning those points of pride.

Tiger Bay De-Clawed

For a month the Tiger Bay Club of Tampa had publicly advertised its July 14th luncheon agenda and guest-speaker list. The political-junkie gathering at Maestro’s restaurant at the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center would be hosting a follow-up to Mayor Pam Iorio’s June appearance. It would welcome City Council members Joseph Caetano, John Dingfelder, Charlie Miranda and Linda Saul-Sena.  

 

As a result of a surprise, last-minute decision, however, only Saul-Sena showed. Disappointed luncheon attendees were told that a city legal opinion had voided the original plan. Seems that such council-member proximity might be a violation of the Florida Sunshine Law (Section 286.011). Saul-Sena, the longest serving member of council, was chosen to represent the Sunshine quartet. She diplomatically referenced the legal call as “an abundance of caution.”

 

C’mon. How about a modicum of common sense? The Sunshine Law is all about preventing back-room deals – whether well orchestrated, thinly disguised or utterly (“Funny meeting you here, but don’t forget to hold the line on merit raises – see you Thursday night.”) ad hoc. Tiger Bay guarantees plenty of sunshine. Even the media was there. Indeed, I was.

 

An “abundance of caution”? Why not direct council members not to carpool and to sit at separate tables?