MAXWELL

Orlando Sentinel - - OBITUARIES - [email protected]­lan­dosen­tinel.com

As Sun-Sentinel colum­nist Steve Bous­quet ex­plained last week­end, Huck­abee is go­ing af­ter a Florida lawyer who made some jokes about Huck­abee on Twit­ter.

The at­tor­ney was mock­ing Huck­abee’s in­volve­ment in a case to close off pub­lic ac­cess to beaches near Huck­abee’s coastal home. Among other things, the at­tor­ney called Huck­abee a “beach thief.”

This was ap­par­ently too much for the min­is­ter who calls oth­ers racist, loony, elit­ist fools.

So, clutch­ing his pearls, Huck­abee filed a com­plaint with the Florida Bar, ac­cus­ing at­tor­ney Dan Uhlfelder of “re-post­ing dis­parag­ing news­pa­per edi­to­ri­als and car­toons about me, ac­cus­ing me of be­ing ‘very sen­si­tive…’”

Huck­abee asked the Bar, which is an of­fi­cial arm of the state Supreme Court, “to curb and con­trol such child­ish peev­ish­ness.”

The com­plaint is ob­vi­ously hyp­o­crit­i­cal. (A trait the Bi­ble doesn’t think much of. See: Matthew 7:5; Gala­tians 6:3.)

It also back­fired … wildly. Af­ter Bous­quet posted his col­umn — and af­ter Pen­sacola News Jour­nal car­toon­ist Andy Mar­lette weighed in — more peo­ple wanted to hear what Uhlfelder had to say about Huck­abee. Like a lot more.

On Satur­day morn­ing, @DWUhlfelde­rLaw had about 400 Twit­ter fol­low­ers. By Satur­day af­ter­noon, he had 20,000. And by Wed­nes­day, he was up to 76,900. That means ap­prox­i­mately 19,000% more peo­ple are now hear­ing the thoughts Huck­abee wanted to si­lence. It’s hard to imag­ine the Bar will take Huck­abee’s com­plaint se­ri­ously — es­pe­cially since Huck­abee him­self has tweet­taunted those who get “trig­gered” by hu­mor­ous in­sults.

“If you lack sense of hu­mor, get ‘of­fended’ by slights you cre­ate, or just can’t bring your­self to tol­er­ate those you dis­agree with the(n) DO NOT watch my show 2nite!” he tweeted last year. “You will be trig­gered and will need a pony, pop­si­cle, and Play­dough (sic) to cope!”

Maybe some­body should get the gov­er­nor a pony.

Smells like Florida

This week’s Only-in­Florida head­lines:

“School bus evac­u­ated af­ter one stu­dent has on too much Axe body spray” … “A Keys politi­cian didn’t like his ri­val’s sign. So he and the city clerk stole it, cops say” … “Loaded semi-au­to­matic ri­fle in­side $10 baby gift bought at Florida thrift store”

That last one is pop­pin’ tags, Florida-style.

Fried ducks votes

Florida Democrats have a grand to­tal of one voice in statewide of­fice.

Un­for­tu­nately for them, that lone voice has been self-si­lenced lately.

Agri­cul­ture Com­mis­sioner Nikki Fried has had con­cerns about two is­sues re­cently brought be­fore the Florida Cabi­net. But in­stead of vot­ing against the mat­ters, Fried de­cided not to cast any vote at all.

Once, she just walked out of the meet­ing.

That seems like weak sauce. But it might also vi­o­late state law.

Two pub­lic-meet­ing ex­perts told the Tampa Bay Times that Florida statutes re­quire pub­lic of­fi­cials to cast votes on all is­sues un­less they de­clare a con­flict of in­ter­est, which Fried did not. Repub­li­can Party of Florida Chair­man Joe Gruters also chimed in, say­ing: “Vot­ers trusted her to be a state leader, not run away from tough de­ci­sions.”

Gruters is right. Re­gard­less of the le­gal­ity, Fried looks like she’s check­ing her re­spon­si­bil­ity and spine at the door. In semi-re­lated news, Fried also an­nounced this week that she’s now en­gaged.

So I pre­sume some­one in that re­la­tion­ship popped the ques­tion … and the other didn’t duck it. Con­grat­u­la­tions, com­mis­sioner.

Visit Florida non­sense

And fi­nally, I’ve read some pretty bone­headed news­pa­per pieces in my time.

Heck, I’ve penned some, too, ac­cord­ing to on­line com­menter MaxwellSux­421.

But I read a re­cent edi­to­rial from the Palm Beach Post that was so log­i­cally flawed, it ac­ci­den­tally re­futed the case it was try­ing to make. The piece was ti­tled: “State tourism in­dus­try still needs mar­ket­ing sup­port of Visit Florida.”

In it, the Post ar­gued that “End­ing Visit Florida’s mar­ket­ing sup­port makes about as much sense as Coca-Cola es­chew­ing mil­lions of dol­lars in ad­ver­tis­ing be­cause ‘Coke’ is al­ready the best-known soft-drink brand name in the world.”

Right … ex­cept for one lit­tle de­tail: Coke pays for its own bloody ad­ver­tis­ing! Not

tax­pay­ers.

Visit Florida re­lies pri­mar­ily on tax dol­lars.

Tourism should fund its own ads, just like most ev­ery other in­dus­try in Florida does.

To re­al­ize how ob­vi­ous that point is, con­sider the Post’s own flawed ex­am­ple. Imag­ine the soda in­dus­try ask­ing tax­pay­ers to pay for its TV ads.

The com­pany would be laughed out of the state. By me­dia. By politi­cians. And by and all the other in­dus­tries that weren’t get­ting the same sub­si­dies.

PILOTONLIN­E.COM FILE

For­mer gov­er­nor of Arkansas Mike Huck­abee in 2012.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.