A slavery resolution brings back rhetoric from the good old days
by Jeff Woods
State Rep. Brenda Gilmore's resolution expressing regret for slavery and segregation seems innocuous enough. Who doesn't regret that? But it's causing trouble in the House, with black and white lawmakers trading accusations like it's Bull Connor's Birmingham.
The chairman of one committee, Curry Todd, insisted on berating Gilmore for talking to the media about her resolution and putting its opponents on the spot.
"You've done things that I am very disappointed in," Todd told the Nashville Democrat. "I was told by members of your caucus that this was not going to be a media circus."
"This is a grown woman. She can go out and have a press conference anywhere she wants to," Rep. Ulysses Jones shot back. "What Representative Gilmore is doing is she's recognizing a dark time in our history.... You're putting your heads in the sand like it didn't happen. It happened. It happened. No one is pointing the finger at anybody. It's acknowledgment."
Rep. Larry Miller put the finest point on the discussion: "I'm quite surprised and shocked by things that are being said by both sides. It's amazing to me that we would take a simple resolution and bring out true colors, if I can just say that. It's absolutely amazing, somewhat embarrassing. It's shocking, amazing, surprising—what other adjectives can I come up with?... I guess this is a good thing because now I'm beginning to know how people think in the deepness of their souls."
Conflict of Interest? Huh?
Rep. Phillip Johnson, R-Pegram, is looking out for No. 1 in Nashville. He's a home inspector, and this session he's pushing two bills to help his business.
One would establish a one-year statute of limitations for consumers to file lawsuits against inspectors to recover damages for doing a lousy job. The other requires all members of the state Home Inspection Advisory Committee, which advises officials on industry regulation, to be licensed home inspectors. Call it the Fox Guarding the Hen House Act.
The latter bill came up before the House last week, and Johnson stood proudly in the chamber as the sponsor. He neglected to declare a conflict of interest, as House rules dictate, and didn't really seem to care when Rep. Gary Moore, D-Joelton, pointed it out.
"Aren't you in the home inspecting business?" Moore asked.
"I am," Johnson said.
"I believe if I were you I'd have gotten somebody else to carry my piece of legislation for me.... It would appear anyway to be somewhat of a conflict of interest."
"Yeah," Johnson said, at which point the House passed his bill by a vote of 93-0. So much for those annoying ethical considerations.
Campaigning the Davy Crockett way
Like Shaq in the paint, Rep. Frank Niceley is a dominant force in our Kook Power Rankings, a weekly feature on the Scene's Pith in the Wind blog. But that doesn't mean he never comes up with a good idea. As Niceley himself might put it, even a blind pig finds an acorn occasionally.
We're talking about his bill calling for the 2010 Democratic and Republican gubernatorial nominees to debate in all 95 counties. It seems ridiculous at first thought, but that's only because we're so inured to stupidity in our politics. Actually, it's a great plan. Suddenly, voters personally could eyeball the candidates and decide for themselves who is the best. TV ads would lose importance and so would money. This would inject energy into our listless democracy. The candidates might have to learn something about the issues. They'd hate that.
"It'd be kinda like going back to the days of Davy Crockett when he was running against that peg-legged fella," Niceley explains. We're not really sure what that means, since Niceley lives in a hollow stump somewhere around Strawberry Plains. In fact, we have no idea what he's talking about most of the time. But we like this idea. Too bad it'll never happen.
Making Suzy pee in a cup
Our state lawmakers are true champions of the Second Amendment, but they're a little sketchy on the rest of the Bill of Rights. No one cares much for that pesky Fourth Amendment.
Take the bill to authorize school boards to force all students to undergo random drug tests to participate in extracurricular activities. If little Suzy wants to sing in the choir, she'll have to first prove she's not shooting heroin before being allowed to sing "I Believe I Can Fly."
The ACLU is against this bill, which almost guarantees its passage. Tennessee law already allows drug testing of students when there's a reasonable suspicion they may be under the influence. But deducing such things is apparently too much for some schools, so they're demanding universal peeing to take the guesswork out of it.
Comments (1)
Showing 1-1 of 1
"Our state lawmakers are true champions of the Second Amendment, but they're a little sketchy on the rest of the Bill of Rights. No one cares much for that pesky Fourth Amendment." - Bwahahhaa...no one is forcing them to accept government handouts. It's 100% voluntary, so therefore the drug test is also voluntary. Your yellow journalism doesn't change the facts. This isn't a 4th amendment issue and anyone that believes it as such is a constitutional hack...but we already knew that about Mr. Woods so no surprises here. Show me the part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees free taxpayer sponsored food programs without any reasonable preconditions. Idiot.
like
dislike
