Letters
Letters to the editor, Jan. 29
TBO.com
Published: January 29, 2012
County plays it safePublished: January 29, 2012
Hernando County commissioners recovered the fumble made by the planning and zoning commission when they granted a special exception use permit for gun dealer Paul Hargis.
The planning and zoning commission conditions were illegal restrictions placed on the business according to Florida statute 790.33 which prohibits local government officials from prohibiting and restricting the sale of firearms.
County commissioners, quarterbacked by County Attorney Garth Coller, lobbed a few passes to recently acquired end run specialist lawyer Bruce Snow. Snow ran with the "not coerced and voluntary compliance" slant for Hargis and basically scored the winning touchdown for his client, the wanna be gun dealer.
County commissioners' defense collapsed in interpreting the Florida statute and will avoid fines from the National Rifle Association league office in Tallahassee.
Commissioners had an option play but they chose not to invoke the "Exception" clause in Fl 790.33. They did not take the ball away from Coller and ran the "local ordinance" crowd-pleasing ahead attack.
Who won? Planning and zoning, county commissioners, gun dealer Paul Hargis and all other firearm dealers who can now open an unrestricted and unenforceable business from a home in any neighborhood in the state of Florida. All you have to do is mention "firearms."
Who lost? All neighborhoods! What should have been a "no brainer" turned into an unimaginable nightmare. Commissioner Dave Russell said it best, "I don't like this law – I don't like it one darn bit." Most reasonable people feel the same way.
Paul Allen
Spring Hill
TV media, please give us a break
For the media out there in gaga land: If you would ever want to give fair and balanced coverage, and I am referring to Fox news' hypocrisy, too, you would give as much time equally to all of the candidates, and quit favoring others by stating your opinion that one or another can't possibly win.
Allow voters to get all of the information each candidate espouses by giving them all the same equal amount of air-time. Let voters decide who is and who isn't going to win.
We know all the media is looking down the road for a winner who will give them drama, conflict and interviews worthy of raising their network ratings.
Just look at what they repeat over and over again copied from these "non-debates" and "gotcha ads" as news items. They repeat nothing but the conflicts between two contenders whining about whose work stole less or made the more honest dollar. Most out here do not even consider what they do as work. Where are the proposed solutions, the who, what, where, why, and how of implementing those solutions?
The media is a two edge sword. Some of what we get from the media helps us to learn the truth, not just what candidates want us to know, but we don't need all of the B.S. and half-truths, mostly unconfirmed, and without verifiable sources.
Read candidates and the media's records. Then pass it through your own brain and heart's sieve of believability. Judging each one's credibility from their past accomplishments, screw-ups and promises for the future.
Don't vote just because you think the goal is to get big numbers or because some opinionated "Talking Head" said so or for the media's ability to say one candidate can win and one can't. Just by saying so they are knowingly trying to influence the election. Vote for a specific candidate because you know the candidate's winning will make a positive difference. We Americans, Independents, Republicans and Democrats are not dumb. We recognize the truth and viability of proposals. We have the right to hear all of the candidate's proposals equally, and from there we can judge, on our own, who and what to trust and vote for.
Mike Farahay
Weeki Wachee
Commodities speculation
We all know that speculators use the bad news of the day to help them push prices that they pay when buying and selling the various commodities on their exchanges.
They leverage their money buying large quantities for very little up front money. They then watch the price go up due to the increased demand. When the price goes up an amount that will give them a slight profit on each barrel.
They then sell, causing the price rise to slow or began to go down. When it gets low enough they buy again, ride it up and sell again. This without ever seeing one barrel of the commodity they bought and sold. All it takes is someone who thinks the price will continue up enough for him to recoup his cost plus his desired level of profit.
As always there are winners and losers in this game. Yet, they don't have any sweat involved in this. They are just tapping keys on a keyboard, which might just be their Ipad or their cell phone.
I would offer a suggestion on a method to curb their forcing of increases in the cost of energy and food to the consumer. My suggestion is this: Pass regulations that say when you buy 100,000 barrels of crude, you must take physical possession of 100,000 barrels of crude.
It must be placed in your tanks or you must prove the track it took to the tanks of the refiner that you sold it to. If you buy a box car of pork bellies, you must take physical possession of a box car of Pork Bellies or again prove that you sold it to a butcher cutting it up into bacon. A time limit of say 30 to 45 days for it to get from the pump to your tanks before you could sell it again absent a contract with the refiner or in the case of pork bellies the bacon maker.
As it stands now they are buying and selling crude that has not even been pumped out of the ground. The buy is premised on the ability of a company or country to pump a million barrels a day out of their wells. Doesn't mean it has been pumped or will be pumped. It just means that they have the wells and a pump. With pork bellies it doesn't mean that there were enough pigs sold to supply the pork bellies. It just means there might be enough sows and boars somewhere in the country who could make bacon.
At the same time rules that force companies selling gasoline to us that they bought for a fixed price is sold to us at that price plus their fair profit margin. No raising of their prices while they still have a gallon of the lower cost gas in their tanks. They know how many gallons they bought at what price. If they sell that number of gallons and they then start selling gas bought at a higher cost price they then can increase their price. If the next lot was at a lower cost to them they must immediately lower their pump price. All of this information is available to them real time.
If you think this might be a good idea, a call to your representative and senator might be in order. Sitting at home complaining about it isn't going to solve the problem.
Gerald Lesmeisteer
Weeki Wachee